WAR 07-29-2017-to-08-04-2017___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(279) 07-08-2017-to-07-14-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...14-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(280) 07-15-2017-to-07-23-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...23-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(281) 07-22-2017-to-07-28-2017___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...7-28-2017___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----------

28 July: NK just test-launched CONUS-capable ICBM
Started by Mark D‎, Yesterday 08:27 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...K-just-test-launched-CONUS-capable-ICBM/page4

Europe: Politics, Trade, NATO July 2017
Started by Plain Jane‎, 07-04-2017 07:30 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?520043-Europe-Politics-Trade-NATO-July-2017/page4

ZUMWALT: What Iran Replacing China as North Korea’s Global Best Friend Means to US
Started by Millwright‎, Today 05:50 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...orth-Korea%92s-Global-Best-Friend-Means-to-US

Hamburg, Germany: Muzzie with a knife kills one man, injures 6 others in supermarket
Started by mzkitty‎, Yesterday 01:12 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...kills-one-man-injures-6-others-in-supermarket

Mexican Self-Defense Groups Spread amid Worsening Cartel Violence
Started by Millwright‎, Yesterday 09:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Groups-Spread-amid-Worsening-Cartel-Violence

China deploys a fleet of sophisticated submarine drones in the South China Sea
Started by michaelteever‎, Today 07:04 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...cated-submarine-drones-in-the-South-China-Sea

China's Base in the Horn of African Has a Huge Underground Bunker
Started by China Connection‎, Today 02:06 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Horn-of-African-Has-a-Huge-Underground-Bunker

Narco-Terror: Mexican Cartel Begins Using IEDs
Started by Millwright‎, 07-23-2017 09:44 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?521102-Narco-Terror-Mexican-Cartel-Begins-Using-IEDs

Top U.S. General Hints at Military Action Against North Korea in a ‘Few More Months’
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 03:15 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...gainst-North-Korea-in-a-%91Few-More-Months%92

U.S. says Iran rocket test breaches U.N. resolution
Started by Housecarl‎, Yesterday 03:01 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ays-Iran-rocket-test-breaches-U.N.-resolution

U.S. orders family members of Caracas embassy staff to leave Venezuela
Started by Millwright‎, 07-27-2017 07:56 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-of-Caracas-embassy-staff-to-leave-Venezuela

and... http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rs-of-Caracas-embassy-to-get-out-of-Venezuela

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - Donetsk now claims all of Ukraine - Post #18742
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-now-claims-all-of-Ukraine-Post-18742/page470

----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ve_baltic_exercise_emals_success__111926.html

Weekly Recon – Russia's Massive Baltic Exercise, EMALS Success ...

By Blake Baiers
July 29, 2017

Good Saturday morning and welcome to Weekly Recon. On this day in 1775, the legal origin of the Army

U.S. Army
Chaplains Corps is found in a resolution of the Continental Congress, adopted July 29, 1775, which made provision for the pay of chaplains. The Office of the Chief of Chaplains was created later by the National Defense Act of 1920. Furthermore, the Office of Judge Advocate of the Army may be deemed to have been created on July 29, 1775, and has generally paralleled the origin and development of the American system of military justice. The Judge Advocate General’s Department, by that name, was established in 1884. Its present designation as a corps was enacted in 1948.

Land Warfare

The Pentagon is on high alert ahead of Russia’s massive military exercise, ZAPAD 17, Sandra Erwin reported at RealClearDefense this week. Set to begin in mid-September in Belarus, the U.S. and its allies will be keeping close tabs on the exercises, where Russia is expected to showcase new weapons, technologies, and tactics. Described as “a window into Russia’s military mind,” The month of September will be tense, however, as the nations bordering Belarus are concerned that ZAPAD may be a Russian “Trojan Horse” operation.


The final stage of the Zapad-2013 Russian-Belarusian strategic military exercises. Kremlin

Aside from the rising tensions in Eastern Europe, the U.S. Army is preparing for the battlefield of the future. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) studied emerging technologies and tactics and strategies, and compiled its findings in a recently released report: “The Operational Environment and the Changing Character of Future Warfare.” The battlefield of the future will be a high-intensity environment full of new technologies, hybrid threats, and a heightened prospect of near-peer conflict, which the paper hypothesizes is likely by 2035. The report came out in tandem with the Army’s ‘Mad Scientist’ conference, which held an essay contest on operating in the 2050 battle space. Mathison Hall won the contest with his entry “Patrolling in the Infosphere.”

Air Superiority

The ongoing national pilot shortage extends well beyond the U.S. Military. Airlines are also struggling to fill cockpits with qualified pilots, reports CNN Money. As demand for air travel continues to rise, airlines will need an additional 637,000 pilots over the next two decades. Airlines have earned the reputation as talent poachers sucking the military dry of its experienced pilots. Although the military and airlines have established means of cooperation to address pilot shortages, they will remain staunch competitors in a very small talent pool as both work to address their relative readiness crises.

Blue Water Dominance

The USS Gerald R. Ford has joined the fleet, but it still won’t be able to launch heavily loaded planes. The electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) was found early on to have issues launching planes with heavy loads, such as F/A-18s with external fuel tanks. The problem has been identified, and a software fix has been developed, but that fix will not be installed until after the ship’s shakedown period. The EMALS hiccup is a sign of how the Ford was designed to mark several major technological leaps at once, a path that USNI News reported that CNO Admiral John Richardson plans to avoid in the development of future ships. However, the Navy successfully tested the EMALS system yesterday, but it remains to be seen how long before the system is declared fully operational.



As the U.S. Navy launches their version of the next-generation carrier, the UK has launched their newest carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, planning to join the U.S. in Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea. News of this development first broke in June but garnered heightened attention this week when, during a speech, UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson committed both Queen Elizabeth-class flattops to FONOPs beginning in 2021. Johnson later obfuscated the UK’s intentions, however, saying during a Q&A session, “We have not yet quite decided to do [FONOPs] … but they are coming.”

Space Wars

On Thursday, Iran claims to have successfully launched one of its Simorgh (“Phoenix”) rockets into space. The rocket was allegedly delivering an intelligence satellite. If true, this would mark a major military advancement in the realm of intelligence gathering, communications, and geo-location. Perhaps even more worrisome, many suspect that the test could be part of Iran’s efforts towards producing an indigenous ICBM. Coming on the heels of renewed sanctions against Iran by the U.S. for Iran’s continued pursuit of advanced ballistic missiles, Iran vows to put their full power toward ballistic missile technology.



The Fifth Domain

It just got even more expensive to buy NSA source code and other sensitive documents off the dark web. Notorious hacking group ShadowBrokers, which allegedly sold leaked or stolen source code for highly sensitive NSA cyber weapons, launched a monthly subscription service last month, which came with a steep fee. Starting out at $27k a month (in Bitcoin, of course), then raised to $61k, the fee was upped again this week to $92.5k.

SEND RCD YOUR INPUT: Please send your tips, suggestions, and feedback to editors@realcleardefense.com. Make sure to follow us on Twitter at @RCDefenseand follow Blake Baiers @BlakeBaiers

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://observer.com/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-trump-arms-race/

OPINION

Obama’s Iran Deal Didn’t Halt Aggression—It Ignited an Arms Race

Regime uses sanctions relief to beef up weaponry, leading their neighbors to do the same

By Austin Bay • 07/27/17 10:15am

On July 25, the latest battle in the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution’s long war on America occurred in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.

When a speedboat manned by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) personnel approached American vessels operating in open water, the U.S. Navy patrol craft USS Thunderbolt issued a series of warnings, all translating as “stay away, keep safe distance.” The Revolutionary Guards kept coming, as they often do, probing until the USN reacts.

A fanatic’s boat weaving among American warships could disrupt the U.S. formation and cause a collision. Tehran propagandists would tout that as a victory at sea. Worse, an Iranian boat might be a water-borne bomb capable of sinking a big ship. The deadly October 2000 terror attack on the USS Cole is very much on the minds of Navy sailors when Iran’s small boats appear. A suicidal zealot in an explosive-packed Boghammer could zig-zag through a USN defensive screen, particularly if the zealot’s boat is one of several in a “swarm.”

So Thunderbolt went to General Quarters—immediate combat readiness on the warship, its crew members at battle stations with ammo on hand.

Still ignoring the peaceful warnings, the Revolutionary Guards patrol boat closed in on the Thunderbolt and got within one nautical mile of the AEGIS cruiser USS Vella Gulf—yes, a USN capital warship carrying anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) capable of intercepting North Korean and Iranian intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs).

Thunderbolt fired multiple warning shots in front of the Iranian craft. According to a U.S. Fifth Fleet press statement, at that point “…the Iranian vessel halted its unsafe approach…”

Iranian boats conduct these probes on a recurring basis. In January 2017, the guided missile destroyer USS Mahan fired warning shots when a swarm of IRGC “attack boats” approached at high-speed. That incident occurred in the Persian Gulf’s southern exit, the Strait of Hormuz. Some 20 percent of the world’s daily supply of oil passes through Hormuz on super tankers.

Tehran regards speedboat bluff as a form of asymmetric military and political warfare waged against The Great Satan America and its allies. If a Great Satan warship suffers damage, so much the better. Should Revolutionary Guardsmen kidnap an American or British sailor, what a propaganda coup.

The hostages will attract global headlines—they always do. Freeing the hostages may garner Iran a political concession or two. All the better if Western hostages cower in the face of Iranian Islamic revolutionary courage. Model the bravado of the 1979 Tehran embassy take-over, when Khomeini’s War Against The American Great Satan began!

The ayatollahs will continue to pursue their brand of gunboat diplomacy against The Great and Lesser Satans until they obtain The Great Equalizers: nuclear weapons and ICBMs that can target the world’s multitude of Satans in Washington, Tel Aviv, Paris, London, Ankara, Riyadh and, yes, Moscow. The polytheists in New Delhi better watch out as well.

Iran’s Satan list is incomplete. For over three decades, the dictatorial regime spawned by the Ayatollah Khomeini—though no global power in the traditional sense of economic, political or military might—has been globe-girdling in terms of inciting and exacerbating controversy, revolution and armed conflict. This flows from the Ayatollah Khomeini’s claim Iran would lead a global Islamist revolution.

The violent troublemaking continues. By one count, in 1996 the regime was involved in at least 17 international conflicts, most of them in the Middle East or Central Asia, but its malign tentacles touched even South America. Today Tehran’s tentacles engage well over two dozen conflicts, and likely more since several conflicts in Africa and Asia are wars within wars within wars. It’s no matter, creating violent trouble is Tehran’s business. That’s the regime’s past and present.

* * *

None of this is a surprise for those who see the world through honest and open eyes. In a speech in April 2016, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis (at the time he was merely a retired general) said the U.S. should recognize Iran not as a nation-state but “a revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem…”

He added, “The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. For all of ISIS and AQI’s –AQ –al-Qaida’s mention everywhere right now, they’re (Iran) an immediate threat. They’re serious.”

Indeed, the ayatollahs are serious and enduring. They seriously want to pursue global revolution, they seriously want a nuclear bomb to promote and protect that revolution, and they seriously want the money and time to build their nuclear arsenal.

Yet former President Barack Obama claimed the ayatollah regime could be trusted to observe the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that would assure not quite peace for our time but maybe possibly let’s hope delay Iran’s nuclear weapons program for 10 years—and maybe in the interim create a middle class and maybe moderate Tehran’s behavior and maybe possibly until November 2016 distract American media from Obama’s grand foreign policy failures in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Korea and the South China Sea.

* * *

At a speech in Youngstown, Ohio delivered the same day Thunderbolt fired warning shots at the Revolutionary Guard, President Donald Trump fired a verbal warning shot at Tehran and the JCPOA: “If that deal doesn’t conform to what it’s supposed to conform to, it’s going to be big, big problems for them. That I can tell you. Believe me,” Trump said. “You would have thought they would have said, ‘Thank you United States. We really love you very much.’ Instead, they’ve become emboldened. That won’t take place much longer.”

Trump knows the Iran deal is no deal for America and its allies. In September 2015, speaking at a Tea Party rally, candidate Trump declared, “Never ever ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.”

Trump was right in 2015, Mattis was right in 2016, and Trump was right on July 25.

Tim Stafford at The National Interest summarized several JCPOA flaws that no competent American negotiator would have permitted:

“The agreement resulted in Iran receiving significant sanctions relief in exchange for accepting a range of restrictions on its nuclear program. Were these restrictions permanent, Iranian willingness to adhere to them might be sufficient. However, many of the key restrictions expire in a number of years—six in the case of ballistic-missile development, eight in the case of Iran’s overall enrichment capability and 13 in the case of a prohibition on enriching uranium to weapons-grade level. Accordingly, the benchmark for success must be set higher. The JCPOA can only be said to be working if progress is being made on the broader goal of discouraging Tehran from returning to enrichment when the restrictions on its program cease to be mandatory.”

In other words, Obama’s very bad deal allows Iran to retain uranium enrichment capabilities that can start enriching on the unfurling of an ayatollah’s robe.

Stafford notes that Iran is improving its defenses protecting its nuclear sites. Improving air defenses has been a long term Iranian goal and sanctions relief has certainly accelerated that program. Tehran made a significant upgrade in 2016 when it deployed Russian S-300 surface to air missiles around its Fordow underground nuclear fuel enrichment facility.

Obviously, the JCPOA did not slow Iran’s military build-up. In September 2016, Fred Fleitz with Fox News noted that and specifically referenced Fordow:

“So, if the Obama administration’s claims are true—that the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran halted the threat from Iran’s nuclear program—why is Iran increasing its defenses of this sensitive nuclear site? There are two reasons. First, the nuclear agreement is a fraud. Second, Tehran is preparing to gut it… If Iran has truly agreed not to enrich uranium at Fordow for 15 years, there obviously was no reason to deploy advanced anti-aircraft missiles at this site now unless it was planning on violating the JCPOA in the near future.”

Fleitz also decried the JCPOA’s weak verification provisions. I have as well.

Iran can temporarily deny inspectors access to key military facilities. Denial begins a two-week negotiating period, i.e. time to remove illegal equipment. The negotiating period could be extended. Temporary denial can continue for months.

Scan the agreement and from its alphabet soup of bureacratese and appeasement emerges a sense that the concoction is more symbolic sentiment than policy, crafted by a president steeped in symbolic sentimentalism who willingly ignores over three decades of concrete and verifiable Iranian misdeeds.

Obama said his JCPOA would halt an arms race in the Middle East. The opposite has occurred. The JCPOA has ignited a larger arms race, with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies enlarging their arsenals. They fear an Iranian bomb. They also see Iran using its sanctions relief to buy new weapons. Effectively, the JCPOA is undermining U.S. allied nations in the Middle East while giving the ayatollahs implicit consent to do what they were doing anyway: acquire nuclear weapons.

So what should the Trump administration do? In 90 days, when JCPOA compliance must once again go through the certification ritual, Washington should tell Tehran that the very bad deal is simply too flawed to work. Look at those missiles around Fordow. Bad. Look at the dangerous game of speedboat bluff. Terrible. Not good.

Reagan’s arms negotiations with Moscow were never totally detached from Russia’s behavior in other areas. Deeds mattered. The JCPOA’s biggest fundamental flaw is that it ignores the big picture. It tries to separate Iran’s violent policies and behavior from its nuclear weapons program, even though that program is central to the Iran’s revolutionary goals.

If Tehran’s ayatollah dictators want the JCPOA to continue, then their regime must demonstrably change its behavior. Here are four demands the Trump Administration should make in exchange for continuing the JCPOA and improving its verifiability. Tehran must immediately end its proxy war in Yemen. In a New York minute it must stop destabilizing Bahrain. It must terminate its program to develop intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles—and we get to inspect to missile development facilities. Finally, Iranian forces must stop interfering with U.S. Navy operations. Yes, ayatollahs, no more speedboat bluff. Halt your unsafe approach.

Will the robes and Revolutionary Guards agree to this new deal? I’ll respond with another rhetorical question: Would a competent American negotiator genuinely concerned with obtaining peace and improving security have agreed to Obama’s JCPOA?

The answer to both questions is “No.”

America, however, will once again be on record opposing the ayatollahs’ quest for nuclear weapons, and for Revolutionary Guards, speedboat bluff would become a riskier endeavor.

Austin Bay is a contributing editor at StrategyPage.com and adjunct professor at the University of Texas in Austin. His most recent book is a biography of Kemal Ataturk (Macmillan 2011). Bay is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-condemns-new-sanctions-full-power-missile-program/28646487.html

IRAN

Iran Condemns Sanctions, Says It Will Pursue Missile Program 'With Full Power'

July 29, 2017 10:03 GMT
RFE/RL

Iran has condemned new sanctions passed by the U.S. Congress over its missile program and vowed to continue it.

"We will continue with full power our missile program," Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi was quoted as telling state-controlled television on July 29.

"We condemn the hostile and unacceptable action," he said of the sanctions.

Ghasemi said Tehran considers consider the action by the United States as “hostile, reprehensible, and unacceptable,” adding that “it’s ultimately an effort to weaken the nuclear deal.”

Under the 2015 nuclear agreement with the United States and other world powers, Iran has significantly limited its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

INFOGRAPHIC: Iran And Its Missiles (click to view)

Iran maintains that the missiles that it tests don't violate its nuclear agreement with world powers because they are for defensive purposes.

"The military and missile fields...are our domestic policies and others have no right to intervene or comment on them,” Ghasemi said.

"We reserve the right to reciprocate and make an adequate response to the U.S. actions," he added.

The sanctions bill, which also targets Russia and North Korea, was passed by the U.S. Senate late last week, after being approved by the House of Representatives.

The new legislation would impose mandatory penalties on people involved in Iran's ballistic-missile program and anyone who does business with them. The measure would designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and enforce an arms embargo against Iran.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said that President Donald Trump will sign the bill into law.

Separately on July 28, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on six subsidiaries of an Iranian company that it said was "central" to Tehran's ballistic-missile program.

Treasury said the new U.S. sanctions announced were in response to Iran’s “continued provocative actions,” such as the July 27 rocket launch.

“The U.S. government will continue to aggressively counter Iran’s ballistic-missile-related activity, whether it be a provocative space launch, its development of threatening ballistic-missile systems, or likely support to Yemeni Huthi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on July 28.

Mnuchin said the sanctions “underscore the United States’ deep concerns with Iran’s continued development and testing of ballistic missiles and other provocative behavior.”

Also on July 28, Britain, France, and Germany joined the U.S. in condemning Iran's launch of a satellite-carrying rocket and warned that it runs counter to a UN resolution carrying out the 2015 nuclear deal.

In a joint statement, they urged Iran to stop developing missiles and rockets that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads and have "a destabilizing impact on the region."

With reporting by AFP and AP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinas-weaponisation-trade/

China’s weaponisation of trade

28 Jul 2017 | Brahma Chellaney

China denies mixing business with politics, yet it has long used trade to punish countries that refuse to toe its line. China’s recent heavy-handed economic sanctioning of South Korea, in response to that country’s decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, was just the latest example of the Chinese authorities’ use of trade as a political weapon.

China’s government has encouraged and then exploited states’ economic reliance on it to compel their support for its foreign-policy objectives. Its economic punishments range from restricting imports or informally boycotting goods from a targeted country to halting strategic exports (such as rare-earth minerals) and encouraging domestic protests against specific foreign businesses. Other tools include suspending tourist travel and blocking fishing access. All are used carefully to avoid disruption that could harm China’s own business interests.

Mongolia became a classic case of such geo-economic coercion, after it hosted the Dalai Lama last November. With China accounting for 90% of Mongolian exports, the Chinese authorities set out to teach Mongolia a lesson. After imposing punitive fees on its commodity exports, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi voiced ‘hope that Mongolia has taken this lesson to heart’ and that it would ‘scrupulously abide by its promise’ not to invite the Tibetan spiritual leader again.

A more famous case was China’s trade reprisals against Norway, after the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. As a result, Norwegian salmon exports to China collapsed.

In 2010, China exploited its monopoly on the global production of vital rare-earth minerals to inflict commercial pain on Japan and the West through an unannounced export embargo. In 2012, after China’s sovereignty dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (which the Japanese first controlled in 1895) flared anew, China once again used trade as a strategic weapon, costing Japan billions of dollars.

Likewise, in April 2012, following an incident near the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, China bullied the Philippines not only by dispatching surveillance vessels, but also by issuing an advisory against travel there and imposing sudden curbs on banana imports (which bankrupted many Philippine growers). With international attention focused on its trade actions, China then quietly seized the shoal.

China’s recent trade reprisals against South Korea for deploying the THAAD system should be viewed against this background. China’s reprisals were not launched against the US, which deployed the system to defend against North Korea’s emerging missile threat and has the heft to hit back hard. Nor was this the first time: in 2000, when South Korea increased tariffs on garlic to protect its farmers from a flood of imports, China responded by banning imports of South Korean cellphones and polyethylene. The sweeping retaliation against unrelated products was intended not only to promote domestic industries, but also to ensure that South Korea lost far more than China did.

China will not use the trade cudgel when it has more to lose, as illustrated by the current Sino-Indian troop standoff at the border where Tibet, Bhutan, and the Indian state of Sikkim meet. Chinese leaders value the lopsided trade relationship with India—exports are more than five times higher than imports—as a strategic weapon to undercut its rival’s manufacturing base while reaping handsome profits. So, instead of halting border trade, which could invite Indian economic reprisals, China has cut off Indian pilgrims’ historical access to sacred sites in Tibet.

Where it has trade leverage, China is not shy about exercising it. A 2010 study found that countries whose leaders met the Dalai Lama suffered a rapid decline of 8.1–16.9% in exports to China, with the result that now almost all countries, with the conspicuous exception of India and the US, shun official contact with the Tibetan leader.

The harsh reality is that China is turning into a trade tyrant that rides roughshod over international rules. Its violations include maintaining nontariff barriers to keep out foreign competition; subsidising exports; tilting the domestic market in favor of Chinese companies; pirating intellectual property; using antitrust laws to extort concessions; and underwriting acquisitions of foreign firms to bring home their technologies.

China regards even bilateral pacts as no more than tools to enable it to achieve its objectives. From China’s perspective, no treaty has binding force once it has served its immediate purpose, as officials recently demonstrated by trashing the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that paved the way for Hong Kong’s handover in 1997.

Ironically, China has developed its trade muscle with help from the US, which played a key role in China’s economic rise by shunning sanctions and integrating it into global institutions. President Donald Trump’s election was supposed to end China’s free ride on trade. Yet, far from taking any action against a country that he has long assailed as a trade cheater, Trump is helping make China great again, including by withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and shrinking US influence in the Asia–Pacific region.

The TPP, which Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe is seeking to revive, but without US participation, can help rein in China’s unremitting mercantilist behavior by creating a market-friendly, rule-based economic community. But if the TPP is to be truly effective in offsetting the trade sword wielded by a powerful, highly centralised authoritarian regime, it needs to be expanded to include India and South Korea.

China’s weaponisation of trade has gone unchallenged so far. Only a concerted international strategy, with a revived TPP an essential component, stands a chance of compelling China’s leaders to play by the rules.

AUTHOR
Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of nine books, including Asian Juggernaut, Water: Asia’s New Battleground and Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis. This article is presented in partnership with Project Syndicate © 2017. Image courtesy of Pixabay user Thomas_G.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ught-on-the-ground-and-spec-ops-wont-save-us/

Army Times
Your Army

Milley: Future wars will be long, they'll be fought on the ground, and spec ops won't save us

By: Meghann Myers  
2 days ago

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley wants the American public to stop fooling itself when it comes to war, so he’s drawn up five ”myths” he says we need to let go of, pronto.

Milley shared his thesis with an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, and his take on it has evolved since he first started speaking about four slightly different myths of warfare back in 2015. The myths:

1. Wars will be short

“There are wars that have been short in the past, but they’re pretty rare,” he said. Most of the time, wars take longer than people think they will at the beginning of those wars.”


Leaders tend to gloss over conflicts, he said, describing them as a ”little dust-up,“ assuring everyone that victory will be quick.

“Beware of that one,” he said. “Wars have a logic of their own sometimes, and they move in directions that are highly unexpected.”

2. You can win wars from afar

Dropping bombs has become an increasingly popular way for the U.S. military to fight enemies overseas, but in Milley’s view, few wars are decisively ended until troops come face-to-face.

“Look, wars are about politics. That’s what they’re about,” he said. ”They’re about imposing your political will, and they’re about people. And I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that human beings can survive horrific things from afar.”

He used his father’s experience as a Marine during World War II, storming Iwo Jima after 66 days of relentless bombing from the U.S. Army and naval air forces. His father, he said, was told that all of the Japanese soldiers on that island would have surely been killed.

“There’s no eight square miles of Earth that has ever received as much ordnance as the island of Iwo Jima. Almost all the Japanese survived,” he said. ”Life wasn’t good, they were drinking their own urine, they never saw the sunlight, they were deep buried under ground, and they weren’t happy campers – I got it. But they survived. They were ideologically committed to their cause, and they survived enough to kill 7,000 Marines when they hit the beach.“

It’s a similar situation in the fight against ISIS now. U.S. and coalition forces were able to take back Mosul, but years of air campaigns couldn’t put a dent in the extremist group’s progress until boots got on the ground.

“It took the infantry and the armor and the special operations commanders to go into that city, house by house, block by block, room by room, to clear that city,” he said. ”What I’m telling you is there’s a myth out there that you can win from afar. To impose your political will on the enemy typically requires you, at the end of the day, to close with and destroy that enemy up close with ground forces.”

3. Special Forces can do it all

Special Operations Command has grown exponentially in both reach and prestige during the Global War on Terror, but it is not a magic bullet, Milley said.

“I’m a proud Green Beret, love Special Forces,” he said. ”Special Forces are designated Special Forces, with that name, for a reason. They are special. They do certain special activities, typically of a strategic nature.”

They have the best warriors in the world with the best training, he said, but they are not designed to be plugged into a conflict to pull out a decisive victory.

“The one thing they are not designed to do is win a war,” he said. ”They can do raids, they can train other countries – there’s lots of other things they can do. Winning a war by themselves is not one of their tasks.”

Winning wars will take conventional troops to finish what Special Forces might have started.

“There’s a myth that you can just throw Special Forces at it and it works – it’s magic dust,” he said. ”It’s great, but winning wars is not in their job jar, by themselves.“

4. Armies are easy to create

Following years of drawing down troop numbers, the Army this year received the go-ahead from Congress to grow its total force back to over one million. Reaching that number is doable, Milley said, but you can’t just dial up an effective force at the drop of a hat.

“There’s a myth that you can just bring kids into the military, march them around a field a little bit, six to eight weeks of training and – boom – you’ve got an army,” he said. “Wrong answer. It takes a considerable amout of time to build armies, navies, air forces and marine corps, especially in today’s environment with complex weapons systems.“

For that reason, to fulfill current needs and anticipate future conflicts, Milley and his officials are continuing to ask Congress for funds to grow the Army.

“Based on the tasks that are required, I believe we need a larger Army,” he said. ”My teammates on the choice staff also think the same thing of the Navy, Air Force and Marines.”

5. Armies fight wars

“We don’t. Armies don’t fight wars,” he said. “Navies, air forces – they don’t fight wars. Nations fight wars.”

In other words, Milley explained, to fight and win wars on behalf of the U.S. takes a buy-in at every level, from service member, civilian and government official alike.

“It takes the full commitment of the entire nation to fight wars,” he said. ”We can do a raid real quick – that’s one thing. But war is a different thing, and it takes a nation to fight and win a war.”

Comments 2

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/flashp...tate-militants-and-supporters-remain-in-iraq/

Military Times
Flashpoints

Officials say 7,000 Islamic State militants and supporters remain in Iraq

By: Qassim Abdul-Zahra, The Associated Press  
1 day ago

BAGHDAD — High-ranking Iraqi security officials say up to 7,000 Islamic State group affiliates remain in Iraq after the fall of Mosul, where the group’s leader declared the self-styled caliphate three years ago.

Three intelligence and defense officials also told The Associated Press there are an estimated 4,000 militants and 3,000 supporters who were employed by the group and received salaries.

In Syria, there are up to another 7,000 ISIS militants and 5,000 supporters, they say.

The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.

On July 10, Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declared the liberation of Mosul, after nine months of highly destructive warfare. ISIS swept into Mosul in summer 2014 when it conquered much of northern and western Iraq. The extremists declared a caliphate and governed according to a harsh and violent interpretation of Islamic law. The militants rounded up their opponents and killed them en masse, often documenting the massacres with video and photos.

[After Mosul victory, Iraq mulls future of Shiite militias]

Two days after the declaration of Mosul liberation, Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and Syria, cautioned that the battle in Iraq is not over. He said he believes Iraqi troops still need time to oust remaining ISIS fighters from Mosul. Once that is done, he said, they will probably take a break to regroup before launching their fight against the ISIS in Tal Afar and other remaining insurgent strongholds in western Iraq. ISIS still controls territories in parts of Ninawa and Anbar governorates, in Hawija in Kirkuk governorate and in pockets elsewhere.

Last week, Nick Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, warned that the world still faces threats from ISIS militants despite their territorial losses. He said the Islamic State group controls less territory, but officials still worry that a small number of skilled fighters could move out of the region and launch attacks in the West or in their homelands.

In Syria’s Raqqa, IS’s self-proclaimed capital, U.S.-backed Syrian forces encircled the city, breaching the fortified defenses and moving closer to the heart of the city. Officials are predicting a long, tough battle, estimating that more than 2,000 militants are holed up with their families and tens of thousands of civilians in the city’s center.

Last summer, the Pentagon claimed the military campaigns in Iraq and Syria had taken 45,000 enemy combatants off the battlefield and reduced the total number of Islamic State fighters to about 15,000. In March, Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of the U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq and Syria, said U.S. intelligence estimates put the number of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria combined at 12,000 to 15,000. That was down from an estimate of 19,000 to 25,000 in February 2016 and 20,000 to 31,000 in 2014.

Amid reports that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed, Iraqi intelligence officials told The Associated Press that he is still alive.

[US parts ways with Syrian partner force involved in ISIS fight]

“We will be reviving ISIS if we killed Baghdadi now,” one of the top officials said, adding that the strategy is to get rid of possible successors first. “We want to cripple the group in order to end it. We don’t want to give them a window for a comeback.”

There have been conflicting reports of al-Baghdadi’s death, including a claim by Moscow in late May that there was a “high probability” he was killed in a Russian airstrike in the southern outskirts of Raqqa.

Townsend earlier said he doesn’t know if he is dead or alive.

“I suppose it probably doesn’t really matter. If no one knows if he’s alive or dead, someone is guiding ISIS, the organization,” Townsend said. “And what we have seen with all these paramount leaders is you take them out, and someone else steps up.”

Comments 1

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...t-plot-in-Australia-to-bring-down-an-airplane

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/arrested-sydney-raids-stop-terror-attack-48924340

Police disrupt plot in Australia to 'bring down an airplane'

By ROD MCGUIRK, ASSOCIATED PRESS CANBERRA, Australia — Jul 29, 2017, 6:36 PM ET

Police disrupted a terrorist plot to bring down an airplane and arrested four men on Saturday in raids on homes in several Sydney suburbs, the prime minister said on Sunday.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said security had been increased at Sydney Airport since Thursday because of the plot. The increased security measures had been extended to all major international and domestic terminals around Australia overnight.

"I can report last night that there has been a major joint counterterrorism operation to disrupt a terrorist plot to bring down an airplane," Turnbull told reporters. "The operation is continuing."

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colivn said details were scant on the specifics of the attack, the location and timing.

"In recent days, law enforcement has been become aware of information that suggested some people in Sydney were planning to commit a terrorist attack using an improvised devise," Colvin said.

"We are investigating information indicating the aviation industry was potentially a target of that attack," he added.

Turnbull advised travelers in Australia to arrive at Australian airports earlier than usual — two hours before departure — to allow for extra security screening and to minimize carry-on baggage.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said the plot was the 13th significant threat disrupted by police since Australia's terrorist threat level was elevated in 2014. Five plots have been executed.

"The primary threat to Australia still remains lone actors, but the events overnight remind us that there is still the ability for people to have sophisticated plots and sophisticated attacks still remain a real threat," Keenan said." In light of this information, it's very important that everyone in Australia remains vigilant."

The operation was carried out by the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales state police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the country's main domestic spy agency. The investigation could continue for days, Colvin said.

Seven Network television reported that 40 riot squad officers wearing gas masks stormed an inner-Sydney house before an explosives team found a suspicious device.

A woman led from a raid by police with her head covered told Nine Network Television: "I love Australia."

None of the four suspects arrested in five raids had been charged, police said.

 

[Housecarl]

At some point this is going to result in the "incident" the IRGC has been looking for...However IMHO I don't think it will play out in the manner they think it will....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u...ares-latest-encounter-iranian-vessels-n787746

NEWS
JUL 29 2017, 1:57 PM ET

U.S. Navy Fires Warning Flares After Iran’s Ships Come at ‘High Rate of Speed’

by COURTNEY KUBE and PHIL MCCAUSLAND

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy and Iran are disputing whether an encounter Friday in the Persian Gulf between their naval vessels was safe or — as Iran's state news agency described it — an "unprofessional" confrontation.

The U.S. Navy said Saturday that a naval helicopter noticed a group of Islamic Revolutionary Guard ships heading toward the USS Nimitz's strike group "at a high rate of speed." A carrier strike group typically consists of five to seven ships that deploy together. In this case, the aircraft carrier Nimitz was the lead ship.

"U.S. naval forces attempted to establish communications, with no response from the Iranian vessels," the U.S. Navy said in a statement. "Shortly thereafter, at a safe distance, the U.S. helicopter deployed flares, after which the Iranian vessels halted their approach."

After the two parties communicated, the Iranian ships conducted a gun exercise.

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said Saturday that the interaction was "safe and professional."

But the Iran state-sponsored IRNA news agency claimed that the U.S. ships acted as the provocateur as they came close to an Iranian oil offshore platform. They said that sending the chopper toward the Iranian ships was "unprofessional" and was ignored by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

A U.S. defense official told NBC News that three Iranian boats were involved and at least one of them had sped toward the USS Princeton, which was part of the Nimitz's carrier strike group.

The official added that the Iranian boats only stopped after the U.S. naval helicopter fired its flares. The Iranian ships then started firing rounds into the water, away from the U.S. ships.

The Iranian's decision to fire into the water is perfectly legal, the defense official added.

This is the second incident this week in which a U.S. ship has had a run-in with an Iranian vessel. A U.S. Navy patrol boat on Tuesday fired two warning shots toward an Iranian craft that U.S. sailors say came too close for comfort.

Courtney Kube reported from Washington, and Phil McCausland reported from New York

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?521548-How-Mexican-Cartels-Prey-on-Chicago-s-Chaos

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-mexican-cartels-prey-on-chicagos-chaos

CARTEL WATCH

How Mexican Cartels Prey on Chicago's Chaos

As Mexico’s cartels manage to get more and more heroin into the U.S. each year, Chicago’s gangs are scrambling to be the ones to distribute it.

JEREMY KRYT
07.29.17 8:00 AM ET

CHICAGO–It’s summertime on the South Side of Chicago, and the sirens never seem to stop. In neighborhoods with names like Little Village, Back of the Yards, and Dolton, squad cars and ambulances scream day and night past shuttered storefronts and boarded-up houses.

Welcome to the one of the most violent cities in America.

There were 764 homicides here in 2016, according to a recent study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. That’s a jump of more than 50 percent from the previous year, with most of them occurring in poor “ghetto” communities on the South and West Sides.

All that killing is fueled, at least in part, by the city’s booming drug trade.

Native poet Carl Sandburg once dubbed his home town “Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler.” Add one of the country’s busiest airports and a cluster of major highway arteries to all those railroads and you get what DEA agent Mark Giuffre, of the Chicago Field Division, calls a “logistical hub” for narcotics trafficking.

“The cartels supply the narcotics to the violent Chicago street gangs,” Giuffre tells The Daily Beast. “Illicit drug smuggling [and] transportation groups are selling their services to any cartel willing to pay for them.”

Shipments of heroin, cocaine, and crystal meth pass through the Second City on their way to neighboring states like Wisconsin and Indiana.

One popular drug-running route is I-290, which connects to Milwaukee and points west, and is known locally as the Heroin Highway.

“Much of what comes here doesn’t stay here,” says Giuffre, whose full title is Assistant Special Agent in Charge. He refers to the Toddlin’ Town as a “lucrative market” and “transshipment point” for illicit substances to reach whole swaths of the Midwest and Eastern U.S.

Wholesale vs Retail Slaughter

Most of the drug routes originate on the Southwest border with Mexico, in places like Tijuana and El Paso. The most common method for shipping dope north is overland by road, often in tractor-trailers, busses, or personal cars equipped with hidden compartments.

Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) operating cells in the U.S. typically refrain from acts of overt mayhem, so as not to call attention to their presence. Giuffre describes these cells as disciplined networks made up of the friends and family members of cartel operatives back home.

“They don’t distribute a single kilo without specific instructions,” he says.

The once-dominant Sinaloa Cartel has been weakened in Chicago, due to the capture and extradition of former boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. That power shift has allowed other groups like The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), Los Rojos, and Guerreros Unidos to move into the Chi-town marketplace.

In Mexico, the competition to replace the Sinaloa Cartel has led to a feeding frenzy among rival DTOs, sending the country’s murder rate soaring to the highest level since the country’s Drug War began in 2006.

Last year also marked a two-decade high for homicides in Chicago, but Giuffre says it’s “not cartel warfare” in the Windy City.

Instead it’s the rival street gangs in Chicago supplied by the DTOs that are engaged in deadly turf battles.

“It’s all about territorial beefs between gangs,” says Adam Isacson, a security expert with the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), in a phone interview with The Daily Beast.

Some of the factional gang killings occur during “fighting for territory for local drug sales” on corners and city blocks, while others are rooted in “simple hatred,” he says.

The cartels might be slaughtering each other over shipping corridors in Mexico, but on the U.S. side of the border, the “guys doing wholesale are less violent than the guys doing retail,” Isacson says.

Sturm and Gang

The DEA estimates there to be about 100,000 active members of crime groups in Chicago, which it lists as “the street gang capital of America.” Some of the most powerful groups are the Gangster Disciples, the Vice Lords, and the Latin Kings. But within these umbrella organizations there can be schisms and rivalries. In all there are some 700 factions, and many of them use coded handshakes, colors, or patterns of dress to i.d. each other—or spot outsiders in their neighborhoods.

Handguns are the most common weapon for gangsters, because they’re cheap and easy to hide under loose clothing. But they’ve also been known to set up ambushes using assault rifles capable of piercing police body armor. Assaults on funerals and memorial services for fallen members of rival outfits are a favorite trick, as the perceived enemies are then gathered in large numbers, often unarmed and in the open.

Many of the gangs operate out of so-called “trap houses,” which are foreclosed or abandoned homes where they hold meetings and repackage or distribute narcotics. Other trap houses are occupied for more innocent purposes, such as shelter or sleeping (poverty and homelessness are common among gang members).

Guadalupe Cruz, a social worker and teacher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says that for many young people, gang involvement is “generational” due to young people having “parents [who] were also involved in the street life.”

The culture is so ingrained that it becomes a “social norm to wear certain colors, or not to cross certain streets,” Cruz explains, in an interview with The Daily Beast.
“They’re exposed to violence so this is what they know,” says Cruz, who runs an after-school mentorship program in Little Village, about a mile from the Heroin Highway.

“When someone is shot and on the floor dying, they don’t react,” Cruz says. “There’s no reaction that something is wrong, or that it shouldn’t be like this.”

Fighting Back

One person who does know it shouldn’t be like this is Chicago-based martial artist Darrel Taylor. On a stifling hot night in late July, Coach Taylor takes a few minutes away from training aspiring fighters at a gym on the South Side to speak with The Daily Beast.

“As a black man in America you don’t have too many positive role models,” says Taylor, 32. “I try to be the best coach I can. If they come to me with any life problems, I help them out to the best of my abilities.”

Taylor instructs his charges in multiple forms, and tonight’s focus is boxing. The Sweet Science and other martial arts teach discipline and a solid work ethic, as well as “problem solving on the go,” he says.

The gym where Taylor trains tonight sits across from what was once a K-Mart and is now just another empty shell. Inside the club a half-dozen fighters wait in line to “work the pads” with their coach. Most of them will use gloves and other gear he’s brought for them.

“Combat sports helps them to develop mental toughness, so they’re ready when life throws them a curveball. If you can do this you can survive the life.” Taylor encourages his pupils to “stay in school with a purpose,” although he acknowledges that many of them see professional fighting as a way to escape poverty, “of making it out.”

Taylor also credits his martial arts background for having kept him on the straight and narrow.

“Most of my friends growing up were involved in that [gangster] life,” he says, raising his voice over the steady thumping of fighters on the heavy bags. “I always told them, ‘I can’t do that—I’ve got practice.’”

Addiction Affliction

Despite the efforts of volunteers like Cruz and Taylor, Chicago was last year’s U.S. leader for homicides committed. Unfortunately, that’s not its only dubious distinction.

“Chicago is number one in the nation for heroin overdose related emergency room visits, and number one in the nation for people seeking publically funded treatment for heroin dependency,” according to DEA Agent Giuffre.

He attributes that in part to an increase in street-level purity by about 30 percent in recent years, as well as the cartels’ penchant for cutting their smack with the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which can cause even seasoned junkies to O.D.

Giuffre, who has more than thirty years of narcotics law enforcement experience, accuses the cartels of “profiting off the misery of addiction.”

And when it comes to heroin, their profits are going up. The Chicago DEA Field Office’s seizures over the last three years have climbed by 300 percent—yet street prices of the drug have continued to fall.

A single-serving size bag of heroin—often called a “blow”—in Chicago sells for about $10.

A “jab” is 10 blows and usually goes for about $100 (normally a person ordering a gram-sized jab will get two or three extra blows in their bag.)

A kilogram of arm candy, meanwhile, runs for anywhere between $48,000 to $55,000, as the price can shift down for bulk purchases.

“It looks like from the DEA numbers that Mexican heroin production has tripled since 2013, which would explain why supplies in Chicago have increased similarly,” says WOLA’s Isacson.

The surge in poppy cultivation in Mexican states like Guerrero has been caused in part by the cartels’ shift away from marijuana, after legalization and decriminalization in the U.S. caused the price of weed to plummet. A steep rise in American demand for heroin has also contributed, as government crackdowns on prescribed opioids forces users to swap pills for the needle.

And the newly empowered Jalisco New Generation Cartel also “specializes in [heroin] and they’ve been eating Sinaloa’s lunch,” says Isacson, referring to the downfall of Chapo Guzmán’s old syndicate.

“Seizures have been increasing at the border, but they haven’t tripled. So a lot more is getting through too.” Tunnels, cleverly disguised consumer goods, and even food packages are all tricks in the cartels arsenal for eluding customs inspectors.

“It’s just so easy to conceal,” Isacson says.

City on Fire

Special Agent Giuffre’s team remains focused on “command and control of the cartels” using “a variety of efforts focused on cartel cell leaders.” His office is responsible for scores of successful indictments, including those against the infamous El Chapo and more than 70 of his co-conspirators.

The Chicago Police Department’s track record, on the other hand, isn’t so sterling.
Isacson, of WOLA, says “Chicago policing efforts” are also to blame for the deteriorating security situation.

“The relationship with the community is bad,” he says, and begins to tick off a list of complaints that include slow response times, charges of police killings and torture of suspects, even allegations that a “police death squad” was at work in the city. (The Chicago police department did not respond to interview requests for this story.)

Those factors also combine with “poor outreach to the south and west sides of Chicago which are both black and Latino,” Isacson says. “It’s a city with a lot of gangs, but a lot of cities have a lot of gangs. Other cities have meetings with communities . . . I don’t know why they’re so resistant to change.”

UIC teacher Guadalupe Cruz, who also works for the NGO Cure Violence in Honduras and Mexico, says the habit of neglecting certain communities goes beyond just local law enforcement. And that this collective indifference to marginalized neighborhoods is directly tied to the recent spike in homicides.

Many young men turn to hustling drugs on the street for the simple reason that “there are no jobs, but they still have to feed their kids,” Cruz says.

“Of course violence is going to go up when they don’t have anything else to do.”

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 13m13 minutes ago

Vandenberg AFB @30thSpaceWing to test launch Minuteman III ICBM early Wednesday. http://www.ksby.com/story/36000088/vandenberg-afb-to-test-launch-icbm-early-wednesday# …


posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.ksby.com/story/36000088/vandenberg-afb-to-test-launch-icbm-early-wednesday#


Vandenberg AFB to test launch ICBM early Wednesday
Posted: Jul 28, 2017 11:40 PM CST
Updated: Jul 28, 2017 11:40 PM CST
By Matt Van Slyke
Connect

In this photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, an unarmed Minuteman 3 missile launches on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (Joe Davila/U.S. Air Force via AP)
In this photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, an unarmed Minuteman 3 missile launches on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (Joe Davila/U.S. Air Force via AP)

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile is set to launch Wednesday, August 2, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, the 30th Space Wing announced Friday.

The plan is to launch the missile from north Vandenberg Air Force Base. The launch window is 12:01 a.m. - 6:01 a.m.

Air Force Global Strike Command says these test launches serve to "validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system."

"Team V is postured to work with Air Force Global Strike Command to test launch the Minuteman III missile," said Hough. "Our long history in partnering with the men and women of the 576th Flight Test Squadron shows that the Western Range stands ready and able to create a safe launch environment."

The launch announcement came as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country's second flight test of an intercontinental ballistic missile demonstrated his country can hit the U.S. mainland.

 

[mzkitty]

Oh-oh......


The Hill‏Verified account @thehill 7m7 minutes ago

#BREAKING: Trump "disappointed" in China for not doing more on North Korea
http://hill.cm/Vn9b7aH


Donna Martinez, EdD‏ @dmartin336 8m8 minutes ago

#BREAKING: : Americans disappointed in Trump being clueless on what to do
#BREAKING: Trump "disappointed" in... http://fb.me/8qh6W3ib5


China Xinhua News‏Verified account @XHNews 9m9 minutes ago

#BREAKING: President #XiJinping will inspect troops in China's 1st-ever Army Day parade in N China's Inner Mongolia starting 9 a.m.#PLA90

 

[Lilbitsnana]

There was one more tweet after the image of his tweet you posted. He has said all this before, one wonders when/if he will actually take it farther than tweeting.


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 51m51 minutes ago

I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet...



Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 44m44 minutes ago

...they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!

 

[Housecarl]

Donna Martinez, EdD‏ @dmartin336 8m8 minutes ago

#BREAKING: : Americans disappointed in Trump being clueless on what to do
#BREAKING: Trump "disappointed" in... http://fb.me/8qh6W3ib5

This crap roast has been in the oven for how many adminstrations?

Though we hear understand the table stakes, IMHO the majority of the public don't, whether it be the man on the street or a lot of the MSM "personalities". And though appeasement or war aren't the only two options, defaulting to the first will eventually lead to the other...

 

[mzkitty]

trumpathon‏ @trumpathon 11m11 minutes ago

Breaking News: China Shows Off New Weapons in Huge Military Parade. #China #Breaking http://trumpathon.com/breaking-news...apons-in-huge-military-parade-china-breaking/ …

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Noon in Korea‏ @NoonInKorea 16m16 minutes ago

Unidentified NK submarine seen engaged in unusual activity in West (Yellow) Sea: SK fears possible SLBM provocation



The Intel Crab‏ @IntelCrab 10m10 minutes ago

#SouthKorea continues to monitor an unidentified submarine in the #YellowSea.

there is a newsfeed linked but it is in Korean or some other language.

http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004322026

rough translation (google)

http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004322026

2017.07.30 20:08 수정 2017.07.30 21:50
출처 : SBS 뉴스
원본 링크 : http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004322026&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND
<Anchor

While preparing for a North Korean missile provocation countermeasures, a suspicious submarine was caught in the West Sea this time. It is said that it is different from North Korea's existing submarines. So it is possible that the SLBM, a new submarine capable of shooting submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

First news, reporter Kim Su-young.

<Reporter>

North Korea is believed to be continuing its unidentified submarine operations in the West Sea.

The submarine is stationed at the naval base in Hwanghae Province and repeatedly maneuvered, a government official said.

It was first captured at the end of last year, and when the ROK Navy engaged in joint training in the West Sea this April, I was able to stay near the NLL northern limit line.

The western sea was shallow, and submarines of less than 500 tons were smaller than submarines.

Although the terrain is complex and not precisely identified, the new submarine is said to have a different form from what North Korea has in the past.

The military is paying attention to the possibility that North Korea has either upgraded its Shinpo class submarine to launch a submarine launched ballistic missile SLBM or built a new mid-range submarine.

[Moon Geun-sik / Former Navy Submarine Commander: It can be judged that this is a phenomenon that North Korea is rushing to retrofit and develop the 1800-ton Romeo class submarine to launch SLBM.]

Recently, in the East Sea, Romeo-class submarines have operated more than a full-time, and Sino-class submarines are also catching trends related to missile launches.

As the movement of the new submarine was confirmed in the West Sea, the military authorities are watching the trend of additional missile launches.

(Image Editing: Oh Young Taek)
Source: SBS News
Original link: http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004322026&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND

 

[Lilbitsnana]

I thought I saw this somewhere, but can't find it. Maybe I saw the tweet and figured someone would eventually post the article.


posted for fair use and discussion

http://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article164177042.html

South Korea considers a nuclear arsenal to counter the North

By Stuart Leavenworth

sleavenworth@mcclatchydc.com

July 28, 2017 1:07 PM
SEOUL, South Korea

No longer sure they can rely on the United States, an increasing number of South Korean lawmakers say their country should develop its own nuclear arsenal to deter an attack by Kim Jong Un, their belligerent neighbor to the north.

North Korea’s rapid missile advances, including successful tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in July and again on Friday, are reviving calls for South Korea to assert its “nuclear sovereignty.” South Koreans are wary of President Donald Trump’s isolationist rhetoric and his calls for Asian allies to shoulder more of the defense burdens borne by the U.S. military.

“Trump’s ‘America-first’ policy has triggered this kind of public sentiment,” said Moon Chung In, a top national security adviser to South Korean President Moon Jae In. Trump also has wavered on his commitment to defending South Korea, he said, including suggesting during the campaign that South Korea and Japan should develop their own nuclear arsenals.

While President Moon, a liberal who took office in May, does not support calls for South Korea to join the nuclear club, polls show that a majority of South Koreans surveyed favor the idea. Support bumps higher whenever North Korea conducts a nuclear or missile test and members of South Korea’s two major conservative parties are pressing Moon to at least explore the nuclear option of developing nuclear weapons.

“They want to strike a better balance of power between South and North Korea, and I also support that position,” said Yoon Young Seok, an elected member of South Korea’s National Assembly who belongs to the conservative Liberty Korea Party. Yoon said that half of his party’s 107 lawmakers support South Korea arming itself with nuclear weapons.

Up until the early 1970s, South Korea was actively pursuing development of nuclear warheads. But because of pressure from the United States, it abandoned those efforts in 1975, when it signed the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since then, it has relied on the deterrence capacity of the United States, which has a stockpile of roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons.

Trump’s ‘America-first’ policy has triggered this kind of public sentiment

Moon Chung In, national security adviser to South Korean President Moon Jae In

Now, North Korea’s advances in nuclear weaponry and missiles are changing South Korea’s strategic calculus. Kim Jong Un’s July 4 launch of an ICBM “was the most surprising and outstanding in the history of the North Korea missile development,” said Kim Jong Dae, a South Korean lawmaker and member of its National Defense Committee. North Korea fired a missile on Friday that traveled even farther — 2,300 miles in height — before landing in Japanese territorial waters.

U.S. analysts say North Korea could have the capability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead that, when placed atop a missile, could threaten the continental United States within a year or two. If that capability is affirmed, many South Koreans fear that U.S. leaders may grow reluctant to defend South Korea in a conventional war with North Korea, fearing it could lead to a full-blown nuclear exchange.
Examining North Korea’s missiles

At a recent military parade, North Korea displayed several missiles at a time of heightened tensions with the United States. Here's a closer look at what some of them are designed to do.
The New York Times

“If North Korea develops an ICBM and deploys nuclear weapons, will the United States deploy military forces at the right time in case of a contingency?” said Yoon. “If North Korea’s nuclear missiles can hit the mainland, will the United States protect South Korea during an attack? There are suspicions and concerns about these questions.”

Since 1953, South Korea and the United States have been bound by a mutual defense treaty to aid each other in the event of war. On the campaign trail, however, Trump said he’d like to see South Korea and Japan develop their own nuclear weapons to deter a North Korean attack. He also said he’d be open to withdrawing U.S. forces from Japan and South Korea if the two nations did not shoulder more of the costs of keeping troops in the region.

Trump’s latter comment caused a stir in South Korea, partly because North Korea quickly applauded it and also South Korea is hardly a slacker when it comes to national defense. The country spends more than $34 billion yearly on its military, requires compulsory military service and fields more than 620,000 active troops. By comparison, the United States — with more than six times the population — is defended by 1.28 million active duty military.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Since Trump took office, his national security team has worked to rebuild trust with South Korea, arguably the most crucial U.S. ally in Asia. When Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited Seoul in February, he told his counterparts he was there “to make clear the administration’s full commitment to the United Nations mission in defense of your democracy.”

Even so, several of Trump’s actions have left South Korean leaders uneasy. Upon taking office, Trump pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal aimed at undermining China’s rising influence in the region. Trump also has accused South Korea of “horrible” trade policies, and at one point suggested that South Korea pay $1 billion for a missile defense system known as THAAD that is being deployed, in part, to protect U.S. troops and military assets in the region.

Daniel Pinkston, a U.S. Air Force veteran and security expert at Troy University in Seoul, said that Trump’s collective actions have sent a negative signal to friends and adversaries. Past presidents, said Pinkston, have bolstered the U.S.-South Korea alliance through trade and support of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Trump has taken a different stance.

“Lack of support for these shared values has a lot of people alarmed in the region, from Australia to Japan to South Korea,” said Pinkston. Uncertainty about the U.S. commitment is emboldening South Koreans who want to pursue the nuclear option, a move that Pinkston calls “reckless and dangerous.”

South Korea is home to more than 20 nuclear power plants, and if it decided to pursue a nuclear weapons program, it would have both the expertise and material to do so.

Still, it would be no simple task for South Korea to “go nuclear.”

Building nuclear weapons would jeopardize South Korea’s alliance with the United States, and also force Seoul to withdraw from a U.S. nuclear agreement that bans it from independently enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium. In turn, it would expose South Korea to international sanctions, similar to those imposed on North Korea after its first nuclear test, in 2006.

It is also unlikely that Beijing would sit idly by while South Korea deployed nuclear weapons nearby. China would likely ramp up its own arsenal, especially if Japan followed Seoul’s lead and launched its own nuclear weapons program.

There are strategic reasons for South Korea not to go down this road, said Pinkston. Even with its technological know-how, South Korea would need several years to develop a reliable nuclear arsenal, leaving it exposed during that time.

“North Korea would have an incentive to strike first,” said Pinkston. “South Korea would be in a very vulnerable position.”

Currently, South Korea’s pro-nuclear contingent of lawmakers does not have the votes to pursue a nuclear weapons program. But that could change in subsequent elections, depending on what happens in Washington, Pyongyang and Seoul.

“There are an increasing number of lawmakers who are studying armament, or what we call nuclear sovereignty,” said lawmaker Kim Jong Dae, a member of the Justice Party, which is generally aligned with President Moon’s Democratic Party.

“This will definitely emerge as a mainstream political issue,” he added, if North Korea demonstrates it possesses the capability to launch a missile strike against major U.S. cities.

In the meantime, President Moon’s foreign policy staff is keeping a close eye on the White House, including which advisers are ascending or descending. Trump’s decision to remove hardline nationalist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council in April was “a good sign,” said Moon Chung In, the South Korean president’s national security consultant.

Seoul’s new leadership is holding out hope that Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster will hold sway over policy toward the Korean peninsula. Said Moon, the adviser: “If Trump listens to Mattis and McMaster, there won’t be any kind of disaster.”




posted for fair use and discussion

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707301056001845-seoul-wants-its-own-nukes/


South Korean Military Mulling Nuclear Arsenal of Its Own
© AP Photo/ South Korea Defense Ministry
Military & Intelligence
02:59 30.07.2017(updated 10:03 30.07.2017) Get short URL
151518220

Seoul is now claiming that it needs its own nukes as a safeguard to warlike moves by Pyongyang.

South Korea has been seen to be making moves to increase the size and range of its ballistic missiles in the wake of increased weapons testing by North Korea.
THAAD in Alaska
© Missile Defense Agency
Additional THAAD Missile Launchers to Be Deployed at US Base in South Korea - President Moon

Washington, Seoul's staunchest ally, has tacitly agreed through the intercession of US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that negotiations can begin for South Korea to extend the reach and power of its missile systems as a means to prepare for war with Pyongyang, according to The Hill.

According to a 2012 bilateral missile treaty between Washington and Seoul, however, South Korea must first gain permission from the US before it can increase its arsenal, cited by the New York Times.

In a move to increase the likelihood of Washington cooperating with Seoul's desires — and contrary to election campaign indications — South Korean President Moon Jae-In will increase the US implementation of the high-tech Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system currently installed on South Korean territory.

Seoul's national security adviser contacted McMaster on Saturday recommending that Washington and Seoul begin talks that will allow South Korea to increase its missile arsenal, according to the New York Times.

McMaster has agreed, according to reports, to new talks to permit larger payloads on South Korean missiles.

But some in Seoul believe that the US anti-missile THAAD system is not enough and are arguing for nukes of their own, cited by The Hill.

Following Fridays launch of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) — which puts the US mainland within reach of Pyongyang nukes — US President Donald Trump stated that the US "will take all necessary steps" to protect itself and its allies in the region.

After the North Korean missile launch — the 14th such test in 2017 alone — the US and South Korea again ratcheted up threats, claiming that "military options" are on the table against North Korea, according to the Independent.

The previous successful Pyongyang ICBM test, however, was shown to lack re-entry technology, and Pentagon officials later admitted that the missile had no guidance system, indicating that the threat of imminent doom at the hands of Pyongyang were premature.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Strat 2 Intel‏ @Strat2Intel 22m22 minutes ago

Strat 2 Intel Retweeted Yonhap News Agency

Perhaps the last piece of the puzzle.

Strat 2 Intel added,

Yonhap News Agency @YonhapNews
Assembly defense committee chief views N.K. as having secured key ICBM tech http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/07/31/0200000000AEN20170731003900315.html …

posted for fair use and discussion
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/07/31/0200000000AEN20170731003900315.html

Assembly defense committee chief views N.K. as having secured key ICBM tech

2017/07/31 10:17



SEOUL, July 31 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's parliamentary defense committee chief said Monday that North Korea should be seen as having secured atmospheric reentry technology, a key element to complete its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program.

During a radio interview, Kim Young-woo also pointed out that if Pyongyang launched what it claims to have been an ICBM on a standard trajectory, it could put the United States' eastern cities such as New York and Washington D.C. within striking range.

His remarks came after the North fired off another long-range missile on Friday night, which analysts say could have a range of 10,000 kilometers and bring about a major change in the security landscape in Northeast Asia.

"If you look at the flash of light (emanating from the missile), which was filmed over Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan, it looked very clear rather than being scattered," said the lawmaker of the conservative opposition Bareun Party.

This photo, taken on July 30, 2017, shows Kim Young-woo of the minor opposition Bareun Party who chairs the parliament's defense committee, speaking during a press conference at the National Assembly in Seoul. (Yonhap)

Kim apparently meant that the shape of the light indicated that the missile's warhead withstood the extremely high temperatures caused when it reentered the Earth's atmosphere to hit its intended target.

The North's latest provocation followed its July 4 launch of the same Hwasong-14 missile. Seoul and Washington have recognized it as having an intercontinental "range," but remained unsure whether the North has mastered the reentry technology.

The defense committee chief also said that the fact that the missile fell some 170 km away from Hokkaido implied that Pyongyang is now capable of accurately manipulating its long-range missile's trajectory.

"The fact that the North went ahead with the launch even at the risk (of accidentally hitting Japan) shows it is capable of controlling the trajectory," Kim said.

Kim, in addition, said that the North's second ICBM test is a clear manifestation of its desire to discuss its nuclear issue, as well as other topics surrounding the Korean Peninsula, with the U.S., not the South.

Pyongyang's latest provocation was seen as a stinging blow to South Korea's President Moon Jae-in who has been pursuing cross-border dialogue and rapprochement.

sshluck@yna.co.kr

(END)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/8/1/the-china-threat-what-the-us-should-do-about-it

The China Threat & What the U.S. Should Do About It

Strategy Bridge August 1, 2017
Bradley A. Thayer and John M. Friend

China has risen. It is now a great power well on its way to becoming a superpower. China’s ambitions and quest for greater resources and expanding diplomatic, economic, and military capabilities will result in Beijing’s growing voice in all facets of international politics. While there are debates about how powerful China will become, and how soon, there is no ambiguity that it is expanding its power and influence. Despite its many other obligations, the major task for the Trump administration will be to respond effectively to China’s challenge to U.S. power.

Indeed, contemporary international politics is defined by an increasingly bold and aggressive China that seeks territorial revisions and evinces the willingness to resort to threats, coercive diplomacy, and military action to achieve these goals. In 2010, Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi best captured this reality when he observed at an ASEAN meeting, “China is a big country, and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” This is a classic great power politics argument first made by Thucydides 2,400 years ago in the Melian Dialogue—the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

Such a maladroit remark greatly assisted a change of perspective regarding Beijing’s intentions. This was followed by explicit and demanding territorial claims in the South and East China Seas, which include the Nine-Dash Line claim to about 90 percent of the South China Sea, and the declaration of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over much of the East China Sea. These stark claims continue to unfold, most recently against the Philippines, in the years after Yang’s frank and telling remark.

In addition to these bellicose steps, Beijing is likely to use its expanding wealth to create institutional structures, as with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road Initiative, that advances its interests and offers an alternative to Western institutions. Furthermore, like any rising great power in history, its ambitions are likely to expand to target the declining dominant power’s alliance network. Historically strong U.S. alliance relationships with the Philippines Thailand, and even Australia, for example, no longer can be assumed in the future due to increasing Chinese power and the resultant willingness of states to accommodate China. It should be alarming to Washington how easily China’s influence has grown in the Philippines under Duterte.

“...OBSERVE CALMLY; SECURE OUR POSITION; COPE WITH AFFAIRS CALMLY; HIDE OUR CAPACITIES AND BIDE OUR TIME; BE GOOD AT MAINTAINING A LOW PROFILE; AND NEVER CLAIM LEADERSHIP.”

Long gone are the early 1990s when Deng Xiaoping provided his “24-Character Strategy” for China: “observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.” This strategy is abbreviated in Chinese to taoguang yanghui, which is usually translated as “hide our strength and bide our time,” but literally means “hide light, nurture obscurity.” Deng’s approach, and later the “peaceful rise” and “harmonious world” rhetoric of his successors, served to mask the successful expansion of its power in the 1990s and 2000s.

But with the continued tremendous expansion of China’s economy coupled with the weaknesses of Western economies revealed by the financial crisis and sluggish growth of the Obama years, China’s new premier Xi Jinping has clearly—and quite naturally for an expanding great power—replaced Deng’s strategy with one that seeks the expansion of Chinese interests and presence worldwide. Xi has stated that China should advance its “diplomacy as a great power,” and has coupled China’s resurgence as a great power to the “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation: a China that has awakened in every sense—in culture, media, philosophy, and nationalist identity—from two centuries of slumber.

In consequence, greater security competition between the U.S. and China is likely as China’s increasing power conflicts with the interests of the United States and its major allies. The U.S. will have to adapt its foreign policy and defensive strategy to an environment where China is an increasingly demanding actor, is far more vocal in expressing its demands, and will have greater power to coerce if they are not met.

THE CHINA THREAT

China is a peer competitive challenger to the United States, but the scope of its challenge is very different than the Soviet one. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China has many interests in common with the U.S., from stability on the Korean peninsula to growth in the global economy. Nevertheless, despite points of mutual interest, China’s rise brings it into increasing conflict with the United States.

China is a threat to the United States because of its power and intent. The growth of its diplomatic, economic, and military power is disquieting but well documented. Its intent is equally worrying but less well noted. China’s intentions are multifaceted, of course, but its grand strategy is coalescing around the need to challenge the U.S. because it stands in its way of China’s rise to dominance in the Asia-Pacific. This strategy is driven by strong nationalism that seeks to see China return to the glories and privileged position it occupied before the First Opium War. This perspective should be thought of as Han-supremacy, which is the ultra-nationalist belief that the Han are the greatest people, the creators of the most advanced civilization, and to whom minorities within China and other states should be deferential. Han-supremacy contains a biological and cultural component. For Han-supremacists, consonant with beliefs that can only be described as social Darwinist, the Han are of a common descent and racially distinct and superior than other peoples. Moreover, Han culture is superior to other cultures. Anchored in millennia, Han culture is viewed as the epitome of civilized life, promoting the traditional values of industriousness, discipline, patriotism, love of the Han and their history.

But the Han-supremacists also have a chip on their shoulder: Westerners and the Japanese humiliated and victimized the Chinese when it they were weak. Han-supremacy identifies pernicious foreign influences as the cause of China’s downfall in the past and the obstacle to regaining its historical position of power in international relations. The “foreigners” in this account are not just Westerners but also ethnic minorities within China.

While there is debate in China on the issue of how China sees itself, its rightful place in the world today and in the years to come. What is worrisome for the future of stability in international politics is the outpouring of Han-supremacy within elite and mass opinion accompanying China’s rapid growth. Equally disturbing is the ineffectiveness of any effort to counter this ultra-nationalism. Historically, such ethnocentric sentiment is to be expected and occurred with the rise of other great powers from Britain to Japan, a muscular nationalism touting with a jingoistic tune the greatness of the Han. Of course, that is cold comfort for the U.S. as the previous examples of contributed to the World Wars of the last century.

FOR ITS ADHERENTS...IT IS RIGHT AND PROPER THAT CHINA DOMINATES INTERNATIONAL POLITICS BECAUSE CHINA IS THE MOST ADVANCED, CULTURALLY SOPHISTICATED, AND HUMANE CIVILIZATION IN HISTORY.

For its adherents, the U.S. is a malevolent force seeking to prevent the natural order of international politics—Chinese hegemony—from returning. Lenin’s essential question for any political struggle, “Who, Whom?” (“who will rule whom?”), is the heart of the matter. But for China, the question is absurd. It is right and proper that China dominates international politics because China is the most advanced, culturally sophisticated, and humane civilization in history.

On the other side of hill, the U.S. is worried that it is losing power to an overconfident and increasingly emboldened China, which seems to have no check on its ambition. China has expanded its military capabilities, expanded its intelligence collection efforts and diplomatic presence throughout the world, and demonstrated its willingness to change the status quo, as with its territorial disputes on its border with India or in the East and South China Seas. This means that intense security competition between the Chinese and American peer competitors increasingly looks like a New Cold War. And while a New Cold War with China will be different from the last one, the intensity of the ideological competition will not be.[1]

Although Americans may not perceive it, China and the U.S. are already locked in an ideological struggle. The parameters of which are broadly captured by competing visions over the future: the Washington Consensus versus the Beijing Consensus. The Washington Consensus dates to 1989 and was originally a platform for economic development that has broadened to include a political component. For the Washington Consensus, countries should promote individual liberty and free market economic growth. In contrast, the essence of the Beijing Consensus is rapid wealth with authoritarianism rather than Western liberalism as the political ideology.

If not confronted, the Beijing Consensus gives China an important ideological advantage for authoritarian regimes in Asia and Africa: wealth without jeopardizing political control or concerns over liberalization or human rights.

As important as this struggle is for the future of international politics, the deeper ideological struggle stems from the vociferous nationalism of Han-supremacy.

Presently, the principal concern for stability in international politics is that the Chinese worldview is heavily informed by Han-supremacy. China’s rise brings with it a supremacist worldview that wants to buy off the states it can (which is a lot), and pick a fight with those it cannot. For decades, it was careful not to, but now it challenges the United States and its allies with a strong desire to change the status quo and, ultimately, the liberal principles upon which it rests. These actions are making intense security competition and conflict with the United States and its major allies in the Asia-Pacific increasingly probable.

What is especially worrying is China’s radically different ideology. This includes the deeply rooted racialized worldview of Han-supremacy that informs China’s domestic and foreign policies, as well as the manner in which the government treats the non-Han. This is particularly the case for the minority groups in the country that directly or indirectly challenge Han-supremacy, notably the Uyghur in Xinjiang. In essence, how the Chinese see the world is heavily informed by Han-supremacy, and even race-based and eugenicist beliefs, as the scholarship of Frank Dikötter reveals.

Second, if, in fact, China supplants the U.S., the rest of the world is going to have to adapt to China’s ideology, and the norms and principles it advances. This means all of the stakeholders in the present international liberal order, developed largely by Great Britain and the United States after World War II, are likely to find it more difficult to advance fundamental Western conceptions of free trade, individual liberty and human rights, and the importance of developing cultures of anti-discrimination in support of the rights of women and minorities. In many cases, the opposite of what the West values will be the new rules of road in international politics. Western cultural, economic, and political elites have yet to consider fully what will be lost if China were to become the world’s dominant state and just how different the world would be.

Third, China’s Han-supremacism provides empirical evidence of how Beijing will treat other international actors as China becomes increasingly more powerful. Naturally enough, one of the major insights we have into Chinese future behavior is what it did in the past, when it was the hegemon of Asia—the known world as far as China was concerned. The problem here is China sees itself as the center of the universe, all others are inferior, with varying degrees of inferiority. Such a neo-imperialist perspective is not an attractive model for winning allies and influence, and it also underscores why those who have a vested interest in the present order need to consider the implications of China’s dominance.

The difficulties for China caused by Han-supremacy present a tremendous opportunity for the United States. But the facts do not speak for themselves. They must have an advocate with the power and resources of the U.S. and its allies to identify the opportunity and capitalize upon it.

THE U.S. RESPONSE: THE ROLE OF IDEAS

Whether the United States can maintain its position as the preeminent force for free and open societies in the face of a rising challenge from China is likely to be a defining element of international politics in the 21st Century, and is of immediate U.S. national security policy interest.

This struggle is material—economic and military power matter—but will also and ineluctably be ideological. Certainly, its course will pose, and its outcome answer, an ideologically dispositive question: Will egalitarianism remain the dominant ideal in international politics, or will it cede leadership back to authoritarianism? The United States may by some measures lose economic primacy to China, yet retain as a strategic advantage what it most wants to protect: its free and open society.

The mutual support of material power and ideology is not new to the United States. It operated during the American Civil War and proved decisive in the Cold War. It constitutes a valuable strategic asymmetry and is a prodigious advantage for the United States.

Three ideological measures will support the ability of the U.S. to maintain its position in international politics in the face of the peer competitor challenge from China.

First, the United States and China are engaged in increasingly intense security competition, a condition Washington has not faced since the end of the Cold War. China’s economic growth and increasing military power rightfully receive considerable attention, but this competition also includes other aspects of power: alliances, resources, geography, population, technology, scientific progress, education, and ideological prowess.

While the United States needs to compete in all areas, it is essential to recognize that ideology is foundational, undergirding as it does the very reasons the United States should engage in the struggle with China. In essence, ideology explains why we fight.

A FUTURE FREE AND OPEN CANNOT BE GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES ALONE, BUT IT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED AT ALL WITHOUT UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP.

The core ideology of the United States is a composite of political liberty, free-market capitalism, rule of law, and societal openness—as exemplified by the right openly to dissent. In contrast, China’s principles are dangerously incoherent: authoritarian politics, free-market cronyism, and suppression of rights, most particularly political, religious, and civil rights. A future free and open cannot be guaranteed by the United States alone, but it cannot be achieved at all without United States leadership. Were today’s China to supplant the U.S. politically, the international order would look very different, perhaps for a very long time.

Second, the United States has largely been absent from the fight. It has failed to match Beijing’s growing ideological power, captured by the Beijing Consensus, the essence of which is wealth through capitalism without democracy. Washington’s failure has been strategic, certainly, but also and more disturbingly, there has been incoherence and ineffectiveness in its ability to define the threat.

Ideological prowess must not be rhetorical. It must be seen. It must be shown. It must be persuasive. How it will be done will be informed by successful campaigns from the past, in World Wars I and II, and the Cold War, and will take many forms: protecting freedoms; honoring alliances; welcoming and assimilating new citizens; reminding states of the value of U.S. power and the international order it created. China, the Middle Kingdom reasserting its suzerainty, has shown less ability to compete on these terms. But that is changing.

CHINA SEEKS RESOURCES, AND THEREFORE, PARTNERS, NO LONGER WITH MAOISM TO PEDDLE BUT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT TO DANGLE. THE UNITED STATES CANNOT MATCH CHINA’S ABILITY TO INVEST, BUT SHOULD MORE THAN MATCH ITS ABILITY TO INSPIRE.

Third, as U.S. power declines relative to China’s, Washington will have to depend more on ideology than material power, and will have to depend more on its allies and other cooperative states, in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This situation plays to the United States’ ideological strength and is a great advantage for Washington. China seeks resources, and therefore, partners, no longer with Maoism to peddle but with infrastructure and foreign direct investment to dangle. The United States cannot match China’s ability to invest, but should more than match its ability to inspire.

While the interests of allies are varied, U.S. ideology serves as cement for alignment against China, particularly for states in Africa, Asia and even Europe, where pure self-interest might dictate alignment with China or neutrality. The ideology of the United States allows it to maintain relations with Asia-Pacific and European states based on common interests and political principles. Equally important, as a free and open society, it allows the United States to offer a better alliance partnership with African states than China, whose presence in Africa is all too often defined by the exploitation of people and the environment.

U.S. IDEOLOGY AND ITS WARS

In all of its wars, the United States has faced an ideological challenge. Meeting them has proved formative conceptually and pivotal strategically. The Revolutionary War was prototypical, and that ideological conflict defined the essence of the political principles of the United States. Its outcome established political liberty, free-market economics, rule of law, and societal openness as exemplified by the right of dissent.

America’s principles have expanded with those borders, formal and informal. Throughout his presidency, Jefferson declared that the United States was “an empire for liberty,” describing it as “a chosen country,” and a “rising nation” that was already advancing to a bright and prosperous destiny.

The ideas Jefferson expressed were commonplace in his day, and were already motivating the exploration and—by means both seemly and ignoble—the acquisition of territory once held by Native Americans and by European empires and their former subjects. The growth of material power and territorial wealth made ideology grow, too, feeding on its own success. As it was fundamentally Lockean, America’s ideology was quite robust, but it was also demanding: individual liberty, due process, market freedom, orderly immigration and assimilation. As the credited successes mounted, “Americanism” forced open its own traditions, “We the People” coming to admit most everyone formerly subordinated or unfairly excluded or simply overlooked.

That ideology served as the structure into which flowed the tremendous material growth of the United States through individual liberty, free market beliefs, the rule of law, and receptivity to European immigration and assimilation. In turn, the growth of the material power of the United States ensured that its ideology remained dominant, despite the ideological challenges from fascism, socialism, or communism.

A mix of material and ideological motivations came to characterise American behaviour throughout the modern era. This mix compelled the United States to intervene in World War I. Woodrow Wilson’s ideological motivation was to eliminate German militarism, a threat to Germany itself, to the rest of Europe, and the United States.

With Germany’s defeat, the threat of militarism was gone, the balance of power restored, and the United States returned to its shores. The direction of the United States, torn between two contending visions of American foreign policy was still unresolved. As preeminent diplomatic historian Michael Hunt argued in his classic work Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, the first of these foresaw that engagement in world politics, far from imperiling liberty, would invigorate it at home while creating conditions favorable to its spread overseas. The second vision foresaw the reverse. American security was best advanced by minimizing U.S. commitments because restraint was essential for maintaining liberty at home. The second, and more proximal, vision proved more compelling, and the United States after World War I contentedly retrenched far from any European battlefield.

The rise of fascist Italy, imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany once again brought ideological and material threats to the fore, and the Roosevelt administration responded with vigor in 1940. Before its formal entry into the war, the United States supported the British after the fall of France, providing Lend Lease first to it and later also to the Soviet Union. The U.S. also aided the Chinese Nationalists directly through the American Volunteer Group (the Flying Tigers), and indirectly by pressuring Japan diplomatically and economically.

THE COLD (IDEOLOGICAL) WAR

With the defeat of the Axis powers, the new and more potent threat of the Soviet Union emerged. President Harry Truman rapidly recognized that national security, required more than defending territory because the Soviet Union did not have to attack the United States to undermine its security. In the struggle with the Soviets, national security required a defense of the ideological domain: American ideology, values, and free cultural, political, and economic institutions.

To combat Soviet material power, the United States strengthened its economy, military and alliance relationships. To combat Soviet ideational power, the Truman administration turned to America’s ideology. As in its previous wars, the role of ideology in this struggle critically reinforced the material aspect.

First, ideology provided the ultimate reason for the struggle: freedom was legitimate and superior to totalitarianism, and had to be defended against the formidable threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Second, it was the force that unified Americans and like-minded people around the world. American ideology explained to Americans, American allies, and friendly states throughout the world, the political principles of the United States in contrast to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and why Soviet ideology should be resisted. Although easy to forget, when Soviet or Warsaw Pact spies chose to work for the CIA, SIS, or other Western services, they most often did so for ideological reasons, and it cost many of them their lives.

Third, ideology was used as a weapon to undermine the legitimacy of communism in the minds of the Soviet peoples, Soviet allies, and with neutral states, just as the Soviets attempted to undermine the West.

In this contest, the ideological weapons were a combination of cultural, political, and social forces: a novel like Dr. Zhivago, the Moon landings, the Fischer-Spassky chess championship match of 1972, popular and official radio like Voice of America, educational systems, academics, musicians, writers, American theater, television, and Hollywood films, and the genius of Fulbright scholarships. In addition, traditional ideological components were important as well such as major speeches like President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 “Evil Empire” speech. Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky was imprisoned in Permanent Labor Camp 35 at that time and recalled his reaction to Reagan’s speech after his death in 2004:

It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally, a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union. It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it. For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin's “Great October Bolshevik Revolution” and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution—Reagan’s Revolution.[2]

President Ronald Reagan-"Evil Empire" Speech
https://youtu.be/do0x-Egc6oA

THE POST COLD WAR: THE ATROPHY OF IDEOLOGY

As might be expected with demise of the ideological adversary at the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy interest in ideology waned. The United States Information Agency, created in 1953 by Eisenhower to aid the ideological war with the Soviet Union, was shuttered. There seemed to be no need for it as the world might have been at the “End of History,” as Francis Fukuyama posited, ideological struggles were past as the world embraced the ideology of the United States.

Of course, the relative tranquility of the 1990s was illusory for the United States due to the growing al Qaeda threat that revealed itself in full measure on 9/11. With that attack, the United States rediscovered ideological conflict and the need to combat it. However, due to the nature of terrorism, and the limitations of their own movements, neither ISIS nor al Qaeda’s ideologies were fundamental threats to the United States.

The second threat was from China, and it has only grown in power since the strategic Halcyon Days of the 1990s. The major problem for the United States is that it was slow to recognize the challenge posed by China for three reasons. First, as a result of Deng’s “24-Character” strategy’s calculated decision to hide the growth of its capabilities while touting economic investment and infrastructure construction as the vehicles for expanding interests worldwide. Second, the strategic focus of the U.S. was centered on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the global presence of al Qaeda and associated movements, and ISIS. Third, in the community of Sinologists, the dominant view since the end of the Cold War to the present is that China’s rise would be peaceful. As a consequence, a Pollyannaish view of China’s expanding power remains influential in the U.S. government, business, and media circles.

The unfortunate consequence for Washington has been the weakening of its ability to design, execute, and maintain effective responses in an ideological contest against a peer competitor. Indeed, even after the Obama administration’s touted “pivot to Asia,” there was not a consideration of the role of U.S. ideology in the struggle with China.

U.S. IDEOLOGY AS A STRATEGIC ASYMMETRY

Stalin once queried, “How many divisions has the Pope?” as a way to belittle Pius XII’s influence in contrast to the might of the Red Army. That was easy to do from his position at the end of World War II. Yet religion in Poland, East Germany, the Soviet Union itself, and among the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, all contributed in their own ways to the demise of his empire. Religion, like U.S. ideology, was a strategic asymmetry in the struggle against the Soviet Union. A strategic asymmetry is the identification of areas of comparative advantage in a competitive relationship. Advantages may be economic, military, political, ideological or social which produce greater capability, capacity, or efficiency sufficient to change or maintain a balance of power between peer competitors.

THE IDEOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES IS THE SPINE THAT UNDERGIRDS U.S. POWER...

In the present contest with China, U.S. ideology may play an analogous role. In order to win the competition with China, which entails the continuation of the U.S.’s primacy, the ideology of the United States must be used in this struggle, as it was in the Cold War and in the World Wars. The ideology of the United States is the spine that undergirds U.S. power and is superior because first, it allows more people to live a life free to think and decide as they wish; second, while it has flaws, it can correct them as the Civil Rights movement demonstrated; and third, Washington’s ideology makes it a valuable ally. Its free and open political principles make the U.S. a more valuable and dependable ally. In contrast to China, U.S. decision-making is transparent to allies, it is a dynamic and inclusive society open to immigration, and has a long history of protecting the interests of allies, and treating them as equal partners.

Yet, in the face of the direct challenge from China, the U.S. has been caught flatfooted. The United States has been complacent and overconfident about its place in the world. In addition, Americans are often reluctant to talk about ideology, and, even in policy circles, to understand its ability to inspire and its importance in peer competition. That is a both a misfortunate because of its inherent value—a value that must be voiced by Washington and its allies—and a strategic mistake of the first order.

The positive news is that China’s Han-supremacy opens three major ideological advantages for the United States.

First, it provides the United States with the ability to explain the ultimate reason for the struggle: freedom is legitimate and superior to authoritarianism, but freedom must be defended. Our ideology unifies the American people and like-minded people around the world and explains why China should be resisted. In essence, ideology once again explains why we fight. The United States must contrast its dynamic, innovative, free, and open society, one that is welcoming of immigrants and able to correct its flaws, with the increasingly wealthy, but ethnocentric, racist, and closed society of the Chinese. The West went through a Civil Rights Movement to create cultures of anti-racism throughout their societies. In China, the idea of a Civil Rights Movement that would aid minorities and undermine Han-supremacy is unthinkable—and that stark recognition essentially captures the profound differences between the two societies. Equally importantly, U.S. ideology may serve to undermine the legitimacy of authoritarian rule in the minds of the Chinese peoples.

Second, as a free and open society, it allows the United States to offer a better alliance partnership with African states than China, whose presence in Africa is all too often defined by the exploitation of the local populations and the environment. As Guy Scott, former agricultural minister, member of the Zambian parliament, and former head of the Patriotic Front party, said to The Guardian in 2007: “People are saying, ‘We’ve had bad people before. The whites were bad, the Indians were worse, but the Chinese are the worst of all.’”

Third, as U.S. material power declines relative to China’s, Washington will have to depend more on ideology than material power, and will have to depend more on its allies and other cooperative states, in Europe, Asia, and Africa. While the interests of allies are varied, U.S. ideology serves as cement for alignment against China, particularly for states in Africa and Asia, where pure self-interest might dictate alignment with China or neutrality. The ideology of the United States allows it to maintain relations with European states based on common interests and political principles. As the West stood together against the Soviets, so a common ideology allows it to stand united against the challenge from China.

If the United States continues to neglect the ideological component in its statecraft it will be increasingly hard pressed to maintain its position as the dominant state in international politics. Should the United States lose its dominant position then China will fill the vacuum. China’s rise means that what China believes, and how it conceives of the world and its place in it, is supremely important to understand. Therefore, the key strategic question is: “How does China see the world?” The answer is deeply unsettling and unpalatable, and dangerous for stability. China sees the world with it as its core, and all others are in a subordinate position. The U.S. must define and execute a strategy that prevents this outcome. Its ideology is one of its greatest weapons.
Bradley A. Thayer is a Visiting Fellow, Magdalen College, University of Oxford.

John M. Friend is an Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Saint Benedict and St. John’s University.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/mindanao-new-hub-islamic-state/

Mindanao: a new hub for Islamic State?

1 Aug 2017 | Peter Chalk

In May 2017, a band of militants connected to the Maute group (MG) attacked and laid siege to the city of Marawi in the southern Philippines after security forces attempted to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, the leader of one of two factions of the Abu Sayyaf group (ASG). The assault and subsequent occupation, which took several weeks to end, has once again raised national, regional and international concern that Mindanao and its surrounding islands are rapidly emerging as a beachhead of religious violence.

A particular fear is that the so-called Islamic State (IS) will seek to ‘hijack’ this wider region in order to establish a new province or wilayah from which to launch attacks across the country and throughout Southeast Asia. However, it’s too early to conclude that the southern Philippines is devolving into a centre for transnational jihadist fanaticism or, indeed, that IS is even looking to operate from that part of the country.

Islamist extremism in the southern Philippines revolves around three principal clusters. The first is the ASG, which is primarily based in Basilan and Sulu and which for the past few years has been actively trying to find a new religious identity to define its struggle in Mindanao. In 2014, a dozen ASG cadres uploaded a video on YouTube in which they read out an Arabic statement that pledged ‘loyalty and obedience’ to IS—a bayat that Hapilon reiterated in 2016.

Second is the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF)—a splinter group of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front led by Ismael Abu Bakar (aka ‘Bonmgos’). It has expressed affinity for the ideological tenets of IS and in 2014 affirmed that, if requested, it would provide local support to the logistical demands of al-Baghdadi’s movement.

The third cluster is MG, which is based on the outskirts of Butig in Lanao del Sur. The organisation has close ties with the Hapilon faction of the ASG as well as BIFF and has vowed to support a combined jihadist struggle in the southern Philippines under the banner of Ansar Al-Khilafah Philippines (AKP). It swore allegiance to al-Baghdadi in 2015 and in 2017 declared Hapilon as IS’s overall emir in Southeast Asia.

Despite the attention that has been given to these groups as potentially spearheading a new transnational Islamist front in Mindanao, the reality is that they’re all relatively small and lack the capacity to operate beyond purely localised theaters. While the raid against Marawi was audacious and captured national and international headlines, it needs to be remembered that the city lies just north of Butig, which is well within the operational orbit of the group. The assault on Marawi is perhaps more a reflection of the incompetency of the Philippine security forces to execute a professional ‘takedown’ operation and then manage a crisis situation (something that has occurred several times in the past) than a proven example of MG’s capacity to capture and hold territory.

The three extremist groups also suffer from internal schisms that have degraded their organisational and ideological unity. The ASG is now split between two rival factions: one led by Hapilon and based in Basilan, the other under the command of Radullan Sahiron in Sulu. While Hapilon is clearly interested in solidifying ASG’s jihadist bona fides and linking the group with external Islamist movements such as IS, Sahiron is much more internally oriented, largely lacks religious conviction, and is opposed to working with foreigners in Mindanao (as he sees them merely serving as a magnet for US drone strikes). In the opinion of most regional commentators, the Sahiron cohort effectively acts as an autonomous kidnap-for-ransom syndicate that is currently preoccupied with hijacking ships in the Sulu and Celebes Sea.

BIFF is similarly divided, with the nominal emir of the group, Abu Bakar, facing a concerted challenge to his leadership from Sheik Mohidin Animbang, the former vice chairman for military affairs and chief of staff. Animbang is stronger in terms of numbers (300 compared to 100) and weapons (many of which are stolen or manufactured ‘in-house’), is more interested in pursuing the cause of Bangsamoro Moro Muslim independence, and has not exhibited any great interest in establishing operational ties with IS. It’s highly questionable whether BIFF, at least in its current configuration, could serve as a viable vehicle for furthering attacks across Mindanao, much less to the rest of the Philippines and more broadly throughout Southeast Asia.

Splits have also surfaced in MG. According to military authorities, rifts first became apparent in the latter stages of the assault on Marawi and primarily revolved around money and issues of logistical support. Those same sources believe that the execution of several cadres who had fallen out with the leadership has since set in train an internal purge that has compounded tensions and driven growing numbers to leave the group.

It’s not apparent to what extent al-Baghdadi is prepared to actively support jihadist groups in the southern Philippines. He has yet to fully endorse MG’s declaration of Hapilon as emir in Southeast Asia and he appears to have been deliberately vague about establishing a wilayah in Mindanao. That would seem to reflect a tacit recognition within the IS leadership that Islamist movements such as the ASG and MG lack the infrastructure, territorial depth and organisational control required for creating a formal regional governorate to further the central designs of a caliphate based in the Middle East (unlike Islamist movements in Nigeria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia).

The real danger in Mindanao is not that it will morph into an operational IS beachhead, but rather that it could serve as an important halfway house for returning Malaysians and Indonesians who fought in Syria under the banner of Katibah Nusuntara (KN). With IS’s core under heightened pressure from coalition forces, these Islamist volunteers will no doubt increasingly look at departing the Middle East for Southeast Asia.

Given porous borders, numerous ungoverned spaces, rampant corruption and a thriving black market in illicit weapons transfers, the southern Philippines could act as a useful logistical hub for KN militants seeking to hone their combat skills before re-entering their countries of origin. President Duterte’s emphasis on the war against drugs has compounded that possibility—not least by depriving the police, military and intelligence agencies of the necessary resources to monitor and track the movement of people entering the Philippines by irregular channels.

AUTHOR
Peter Chalk is a subject matter expert on maritime security with the Center for Civil Military Relations at the Naval Postgraduate School in the United States. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...ked-forces-sdf-raqqa-islamic-state-syria.html

Pentagon says US-backed forces have almost surrounded Raqqa

US-backed Syrian rebels have cleared nearly half of the Islamic State’s (IS) stronghold of Raqqa and are close to surrounding the city, Pentagon officials said today.

Author Jack Detsch
Posted July 31, 2017

Soldiers from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mix of Arab and Kurdish combatants, retook nearly 4 square miles around the embattled Syrian city over the weekend. That force, which receives small arms, vehicles and training from the United States, fought through improvised explosive devices (IEDs), booby traps and car bombs that ring the Old City, where a small pocket of IS fighters remain.

SDF contingents fighting through eastern and western sections of the city are just 300 feet from linking up, a move that could fully sever IS’ last remaining artery into Raqqa, preventing militants from escaping or rejoining the fight.

“What you’re talking about now is the complete encirclement of the Old City,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said of the imminent linkage. “It just further tightens the gauntlet.”

But Pentagon officials refused to give an estimate of when the encirclement may be complete. SDF troops moving to encircle the Old City from the west established defensive positions over the weekend that could help close the gap but still face significant obstacles, including IEDs and booby traps left by IS fighters.

Col. Ryan Dillon, a spokesman for the US-led coalition fighting in Iraq and Syria, said last week that SDF fighters had cleared 45% of Raqqa. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has said Syrian rebels have reclaimed half of the ancient city.

The Pentagon attributes the disparity in public estimates to highly variable population density throughout the city. Raqqa became IS’ hub of operations during the height of the self-declared caliphate.

“Though they may have half of the acreage reclaimed, what’s remaining is very dense, so there’s very difficult fighting ahead,” Davis said.

As the SDF works to close the remaining gap on the northern side of the Old City, another group of fighters is pushing toward the IS stronghold from the south.

US troops based at al-Tanf on the Iraq-Syria border south of the area of the fighting have primarily been providing training, equipment and other support to Syrian rebel fighters aiming to defeat IS and cut off Raqqa. Yet as the Arab and Kurdish coalition continues to make gains in Raqqa, there are lingering doubts about their future efforts, especially if the US-led coalition makes a push to retake Syrian cities south along the Euphrates, such as Mayadin and Deir ez-Zor, where IS fighters have fled.

The Pentagon announced last week that it had cut ties with Shohada al-Qartyan after it got enmeshed in the wider civil war against Bashar al-Assad’s forces. This marks the first time the United States has cut off a former member of the US-equipped, vetted Syrian opposition battling IS.

Meanwhile, as the fight in Raqqa heads into its third month, Defense Secretary James Mattis heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to speak to a closed session of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Pentagon officials say he will push for an expanded Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq and Syria after lawmakers have increasingly complained that the military is still relying on 2001 legislation.

“We still have the legal authority we need to do what we’re doing, so that’s not really the question. We don’t require it legally,” Pentagon spokesman Davis insisted today. “But it is in our view a signal of our national intent, and in that regard, it demonstrates that and it gives us more assurance that what we’re doing is, in fact, a reflection of the national will.”


JACK DETSCH
Pentagon Correspondent
Jack Detsch is Al-Monitor’s Pentagon correspondent. Based in Washington, Detsch examines US-Middle East relations through the lens of the Defense Department. Detsch previously covered cybersecurity for Passcode, the Christian Science Monitor’s project on security and privacy in the Digital Age. Detsch also served as editorial assistant at The Diplomat Magazine and worked for NPR-affiliated stations in San Francisco. On Twitter: @JackDetsch_ALM, Email: jdetsch@al-monitor.com.



Subscribe to Newsletter
Subscribe
Translate with Google


Powered by Google Translate

RELATED ARTICLES
Military setbacks don't ensure Islamic State's demise Metin Gurcan
Turkey eager for role in rebuilding war-torn Mosul Fehim Tastekin
Turkey wanted thousands of US troops for Raqqa offensive Amberin Zaman

RELATED ARTICLES
U.S.
The motives behind Turkey's decision to reveal US military intel
Pinar Tremblay IRAN
Will Netanyahu enforce Syrian red line against Iran?
Week in Review EGYPT
Terrorists in Sinai up their game
Amr Mostafa SYRIA
Military setbacks don't ensure Islamic State's demise
Metin Gurcan

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-now-filled-with-advanced-multi-role-fighters

Russia's Air Base In Syria Is Now Filled With Advanced Multi-Role Fighters

New satellite imagery shows a major force structure shift at Russia's air base in Syria away from older attack aircraft to multi-role fighters.

BY TYLER ROGOWAY
AUGUST 1, 2017

New satellite images show a big change in force structure at Russia's Hmeymin airbase in Syria. The photos show no less than 20 of Russia''s most capable fighters—a mix of Su-27/30/34/35s at the base. This is a substantial leap in advanced fighter aircraft capacity compared to what has historically been forward deployed to the outpost.

In the past, older attack aircraft, namely Su-24 Fencers and Su-25s Frogfoots, were the most numerous types of fixed-wing combat aircraft at the installation. In fact, as little as four fighter aircraft have been deployed to the base at one time, with their primary duties being air defense. But that number had grown over time, with a few temporary exceptions, but not to this degree.

The latest imagery, which is dated 15 July, 2017, depicts a rebalance of aerial assets of sorts, with a greater emphasis of fighters than attack jets. The photos show 11 Su-24 Fencers, and just three Su-25s. Both types are used exclusively for delivering air-to-ground munitions and are less advanced technologically than their Flanker derivative fighter counterparts. As far as fighters go, there are three Su-27SM3s—we originally noted the upgraded air-to-air fighter's presence a month ago during a visit to the base by Bashar al Assad—and six of Russia's most advanced multi-role fighter aircraft, the Su-35S. There are also six Su-34 Fullback fighter-bombers, as well as four Su-30SM multi-role fighters shown in the satellite photos.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGFf02hXoAU-24F.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGFfza4XYAAV3xX.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGFfy0MXoAQm6UB.jpg

Samir @obretix
latest sat image (15 Jul 2017) shows 33 jets at the Russian Air Base in Latakia: 11 Su-24, 3 Su-25, 3+6 Su-27/35, 4 Su-30 and 6 Su-34
12:08 PM - Jul 31, 2017
5 5 Replies 268 268 Retweets 202 202 likes

https://twitter.com/obretix/status/...-now-filled-with-advanced-multi-role-fighters

The change in force mix away from Russia's more rudimentary attack aircraft to its most capable fighters, many of which have muti-role abilities—at least when it comes to slinging dumb bombs and firing rockets—is likely the result of multiple factors. First off, the shooting down of a Syrian Su-22 Fitter attack jet by a Navy Super Hornet last June almost certainly factored in to Russia's in-country air combat capabilities master plan. Jets like the Su-30, Su-35 and Su-34 can attack ground targets and defend themselves from aerial threats without the need for dedicated air cover.

Just the fact that the Su-27 Flanker and its many derivatives remain very capable in the within visual range air combat arena is also a deterrent in itself as the crowded airspace over the embattled country and tight rules of engagement makes that realm of air-to-air combat the most probable one to occur, even if such an engagement remains a very unlikely prospect in reality. Also, Moscow has ordered more air defense capability to defend its interests in Syria every time some sort of kinetic act against it or the Assad regime occurs.

This has come in the form of advanced surface-to-air missiles systems—the S-300 near Tartus and the S-400 at Hmeymin air base—as well as more fighter aircraft capable of fielding combat air patrols being sent to the country. These types of air defense upgrades occurred following the shoot-down of a Russian Su-24 by a Turkish F-16s as well as following America's Tomahawk missile attacks on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria. It makes sense that Russia did the same thing when the US downed the Syrian Su-22, hence the arrival of the Su-27SM3s, and the greater fighter contingent overall.

Secondly, Russia's recapitalization of their air combat fleet has progressed steadily in the nearly two years since the country deployed air power to Syria. All types of new Flankers, including the Su-35S, have continued to roll off production lines, and many existing Su-27s have undergone upgrades through modernization programs. Simply put, there are more modern multi-role airframes of this sort now available than there were two years ago, and their capabilities are better tested and operationally refined.

Samir‏ @obretix Jul 31
More
latest sat image (15 Jul 2017) shows 33 jets at the Russian Air Base in Latakia: 11 Su-24, 3 Su-25, 3+6 Su-27/35, 4 Su-30 and 6 Su-34


5 replies 268 retweets 202 likes
Reply 5 Retweet 268 Like 202

Samir‏
@obretix
Follow
More
a few more planes at the base and two new taxiways joining the two runways (the southern one still under construction)

12:10 PM - 31 Jul 2017
35 Retweets 27 Likes Демин МихаилLandoEazyMindJano AllogeneousSeverelySupersonicAltaïr Ibn-La'AhadAlberto BellottoAzorРоманов.Р
1 reply 35 retweets 27 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 35 Like 27
New conversation
Wael Al Hussaini‏ @WaelHussaini Jul 31
More
Replying to @obretix
A new Civil run way will be constructed soon.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like 4
Samir‏ @obretix Jul 31
More
this is from the southern connection between the two existing runways which might increase capacity already https://www.facebook.com/Jableh.News.Network/posts/1933597573632013 …
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like

https://twitter.com/obretix/status/...-now-filled-with-advanced-multi-role-fighters

In addition to the tactical aircraft, the satellite caught other fixed wing aircraft and improvements that are ongoing to the expanding base. A single A-50 Mainstay airborne early warning and control aircraft is seen on the ramp. A IL-20 "Coot" spy plane can also be seen near the A-50—both aircraft are known to have been operating over Syria for some time now. A pair what looks like An-24 "Cokes" are also on the base's southern apron. These aircraft are likely used as intra-theater transports and for liaison duties between the Syrian government and the Russian military.

Above all else, the fairly drastic reformation of Russia's aerial combat capabilities in Syria is another reminder how much the conflict has modernized—and become more internationally volatile—since Russia arrived in September of 2015, not to mention since the civil war broke out in 2011. It also underlines how Russia sees the US led coalition—as a real threat to its aims and ambitions in Syria and the region as a whole.

The fact of the matter is that those fighters jets won't be going anywhere soon. Just as we predicted years ago, part of the deal the Kremlin worked out for saving Assad from immanent defeat was a long-term military presence in the country, which is strategically placed in the Middle East and also on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean. This included the Kremlin being awarded an expanded and indefinite hold on their port facilities in Tartus, as well as Russia getting its own airbase south of Latakia, which was originally referred to by Moscow as "temporary" in nature.

Just days ago, Russia made their long term grasp on their "temporary" air base in Syria official, signing a whopping 49 year "lease" for it with the Assad regime. A similar deal was made for an expanded Russian naval base in Tartus months ago. And this is principally why Russia hasn't wanted Assad, or at least someone or some organization with Assad's same grand affection towards Moscow, losing control of Syria. It would mean Russia's key strategic bases in that country—including their only warm water port on the Mediterranean—would go with him.

Now there is more capable aerial firepower deployed to Russia's air base south of Latakia than ever to make sure that doesn't happen.

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chi...il&utm_term=0_ad288f5e57-17684340f6-241651781

Are China and India on the Road to War?

July 31, 2017 They’ve overcome the elements to fight for this inhospitable region before, but this time is different.

By Allison Fedirka

In mid-June, a remote area called the Dolam plateau in the Himalayas where the boundaries of China, India and Bhutan meet made headlines when Indian and Chinese troops began a standoff over a road construction project. China conducted a live-fire exercise in the area, and there have been false reports of deaths. Diplomatic efforts are underway to de-escalate the situation, but still the risk of war has been on everyone’s mind.

The terrain and weather in the area, located in a region called Doklam, are anathema to war. And yet, almost exactly 55 years ago, China and India fought briefly over this and other contested border areas. So what is the strategic value of this seemingly obscure plateau? And would India and China really go to war again over it?

Worth Fighting For

Put two major powers next to each other, even on the world’s largest continent with buffer states between them, and they’re bound to bump heads from time to time. China and India have most often fought over Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh state, which borders China in an isolated patch of Indian territory east of what’s known as the Siliguri Corridor. The corridor is a narrow strip of land – just 17 miles (27 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point – that connects the rest of India to its northeastern states wedged between Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chi...il&utm_term=0_ad288f5e57-17684340f6-241651781

After the 1962 war between India and China – a war also over border disputes, specifically Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir – a border known as the McMahon Line was drawn between China and Arunachal Pradesh. China withdrew its troops from the area, but it didn’t recognize India’s sovereignty over the territory. India eventually annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim, which expanded the buffer it had to defend the Siliguri Corridor, and assumed the role of protecting Bhutan.

On the surface, the origins of this latest standoff seem innocuous. It began with China’s construction of a road on the outskirts of China’s western territory. The road leads toward the Chumbi Valley, which lies in the tri-border area between China, India and Bhutan. This small area dips between the other two countries.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chi...il&utm_term=0_ad288f5e57-17684340f6-241651781

As construction progressed, China tried to extend work into the Dolam plateau, which is claimed by Bhutan. India recognizes Bhutan’s claim; China does not. India and China each have over a billion people; Bhutan is smaller than the Dominican Republic and has a population of less than a million. Since it can’t stand up to its massive neighbors, Bhutan depends on India for defense. Rather than allow the road construction to continue, India sent troops to barricade the project. China sent a small number of its own troops in response, and the standoff commenced.

What makes this obscure plateau so important is its relationship to the surrounding landscape. The Dolam plateau overlooks the Chumbi Valley and would be arguably the most strategic staging area from which to defend – or attack – the Siliguri Corridor. To maintain its territorial integrity, India must control the corridor and meet any challenge to that control. For this reason, the government in New Delhi cannot tolerate the slightest Chinese presence, nor can it allow China access to Dolam – not even in the form of a road.

If China were to gain control of the Siliguri Corridor, it could cut India off from its northeastern states and stake its own claim to the territory. And this isn’t just some trivial collection of states: They host the upper half of the Brahmaputra River, which flows through Bangladesh and drains into the Indian Ocean. Whoever controls this river controls the freshwater supply and flow to Bangladesh. Assuming dominance over the Brahmaputra River would put China just a few steps from accessing the Indian Ocean via Bangladesh – by coercion, if necessary. Access to the Indian Ocean is a Chinese imperative because it would enable Beijing to bypass the many maritime chokepoints in the South China Sea and would make it much harder for the U.S. Navy to hem China in.

This is all hypothetical, of course, and won’t happen anytime soon. But conceptually it follows China’s strategy for Myanmar, where Beijing is attempting to secure access to the Indian Ocean through a series of soft power maneuvers. Like Myanmar, Bangladesh is much smaller than China. The situations aren’t perfectly analogous, however, because to influence Bangladesh, China must first conquer territory under the control of a near peer – India.

Nevertheless, this explains how China’s interest and actions in Doklam fit into its larger geopolitical imperative of reaching the Indian Ocean. Imperatives, by their nature, are always present. They don’t disappear just because a country can’t fulfill them in the present. Gaining geopolitical power requires understanding both the short and the long game.

Potential for War

The decision to wage war is never taken lightly. Aside from the moral components, a great deal of thought must go into analyzing the strategic value of the war, the logistics, and the cost and benefit. In other words, saying there is a potential for war because a few hundred troops are in a standoff is an oversimplification of what war would actually entail.

Military Situation

The first step is to understand the tactical dimensions of the situation. Reports on this standoff are imprecise – information about Indian troops has been circulated more freely than about Chinese troops in the area. At the construction site on the plateau there are believed to be about 300-400 soldiers from each side. Under normal circumstances, India maintains about 120-150 troops in the area. Estimates from early July of troop numbers in the general vicinity of Doklam were 3,000 for both sides, putting real troop levels at a little over 6,000.

Nearby in Sikkim state (the Indian state bordering Bhutan and China), India has a few thousand more troops. The 63rd Brigade in eastern Sikkim and the 112th Brigade in the north consist of about 3,000 men each. Reports also say that two battalions from the 164th Brigade have been activated and moved closer to the Chinese border. Whether these troops are counted in the estimates of Indian troop numbers stationed in the Doklam area is unclear. India also boasts three infantry mountain warfare divisions consisting of about 10,000 troops each that are on high operational readiness. Information on what types of weaponry the Indian soldiers around Doklam have is minimal.

Troop numbers on the Chinese side are much more ambiguous. The only publicized figure has been the 3,000-troop estimate. In late July, the Chinese defense minister said there were plans to strengthen the People’s Liberation Army’s deployment and increase exercises along the border, but he offered no specifics on troop numbers or timelines. What little we do know concerns the weaponry that China has in the area and comes as a result of a one-day live-fire exercise the PLA held in Tibet in mid-July. These drills included anti-tank grenades, missiles, small artillery (howitzers) and, according to rumors, a new Chinese-designed light tank. There have been no reports of aircraft or heavy artillery or vehicles in Doklam on either side.

Environment

Warfare in an area such as Doklam would ultimately require ground troops in order to capture and hold territory. Supply chain logistics and the ability to sustain troop levels then become critical not only for sustaining the fighting but also to maintain control over territory once the fighting ends. Whether this can be done depends heavily on terrain, logistics and weather. In a place like Doklam, the environmental factors make it extremely difficult and costly to wage any type of war.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chi...il&utm_term=0_ad288f5e57-17684340f6-241651781

Reaching altitudes as high as 14,000 feet, the region is surrounded by mountains. Even the lowest points of the valley are at an altitude of nearly 10,000 feet. This puts tremendous physical stress on soldiers. Any troops deploying would need 8-9 days to make their way up to the full elevation and get acclimated. Fatigue and other ailments related to the altitude would be much more likely than they would on a low-level plain.

The climate is generally inhospitable. During the summer, the temperatures peak in the 50s and 60s Fahrenheit (10-15 Celsius). Now is also the rainy season. During the winter, temperatures can easily drop below zero. There are few fixed facilities and accommodations for either military. On the Indian side, established facilities can hold only 150-200 people. Additional troops would need to use makeshift facilities and tents for shelter from the elements. Maintaining the health of troops in such intense conditions is challenging, and the risk is high of health problems that could reduce a soldier’s ability to fight.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chi...il&utm_term=0_ad288f5e57-17684340f6-241651781

Finally, there is the question of logistics. There are few roads in the area that lead to Doklam. Most of the roads are unpaved, and those that are paved are small or have few lanes. Anecdotes from people who have worked in the area suggest that in many cases it is easier to move through the region on foot – especially in the areas with small dirt roads – rather than deal with the complications of vehicular travel. During the rainy season, the integrity of the dirt roads cannot be guaranteed. Massive mud deposits or flooding can severely impede travel. Under these conditions, it would be a logistical nightmare to run supplies and maintain troops fighting in Doklam.

Bigger Problems

This standoff is not about to lead China and India to war in Doklam. Though both sides have strategic interests in the region, the costs of warfare would outweigh the potential gains. Regardless of which side won, the simple participation in such a war would be very costly in terms of finances, supplies, logistics and troops.
Any territory gained would be strategically valuable, but neither country is in a position to capitalize on it. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is still trying to centralize government control and sustain the economy. A military conflict could compromise the progress he has made so far.

China has its own list of challenges that need to be resolved. Its impressive growth numbers paper over the gaping holes in its economy. Moreover, relations with the U.S. are tense, and there’s still the potential for military conflict on the Korean Peninsula. These issues are far more immediate and important than Doklam.
The area matters greatly to both countries, but not enough to outweigh the other issues they’re facing, and not enough to justify the costs of war.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/...exercise-zapad-west.html?mwrsm=Email&referer=

Russia’s Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT
JULY 31, 2017
WASHINGTON — Russia is preparing to send as many as 100,000 troops to the eastern edge of NATO territory at the end of the summer, one of the biggest steps yet in the military buildup undertaken by President Vladimir V. Putin and an exercise in intimidation that recalls the most ominous days of the Cold War.

The troops are conducting military maneuvers known as Zapad, Russian for “west,” in Belarus, the Baltic Sea, western Russia and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. The drills will feature a reconstituted armored force named for a storied Soviet military unit, the First Guards Tank Army. Its establishment represents the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union that so much offensive power has been concentrated in a single command.

The military exercise, planned for many months, is not a reaction to sweeping new economic sanctions on Russia that Congress passed last week. So far, Russia has retaliated against the sanctions by forcing the expulsion of several hundred employees in American diplomatic posts in the country.

But the move is part of a larger effort by Mr. Putin to shore up Russia’s military prowess, and comes against the backdrop of an increasingly assertive Russia. Beyond Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election in support of the Trump campaign, which has seized attention in the United States, its military has in recent years deployed forces to Syria, seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine, rattled the Baltic States with snap exercises and buzzed NATO planes and ships.

Punishing sanctions by the United States and European allies that have isolated Russia further have done nothing to stop Mr. Putin’s saber-rattling, as illustrated by the long-scheduled Zapad exercise.

Even more worrying, top American military officers say, is that the maneuvers could be used as a pretext to increase Russia’s military presence in Belarus, a central European nation that borders three critical NATO allies: Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

“The great concern is they’re not going to leave, and that’s not paranoia,” Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of the United States Special Operations Command, told a national security conference in Aspen, Colo., in July.

Peter B. Zwack, a retired one-star Army general who was the American defense attaché in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, said: “First and foremost, the messaging is, ‘We’re watching you; we’re strong; we’ve learned a lot; don’t mess with Russia.’”

Western military officials caution that the United States and Russia are not on the brink of war. But they expressed concern that the heightened Russian military activity could lead to unintended confrontations.

For this installment of the Zapad maneuvers, a Cold War relic revived in 1999 and held again in 2009 and 2013, Russia has requisitioned enough rail cars to carry 4,000 loads of tanks and other heavy equipment to and from Belarus.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphi...99d97ba8bbb1d7459/00dc-russiamilitary-460.png
(For image text please see source... HC)

The Russians already have about 1,000 air defense troops and communications personnel stationed in Belarus, and logistical teams are surveying training sites there. By mid- August, advance elements of the thousands of Russian Army, airborne and air defense troops that are to participate in the exercise are expected to arrive. The rest of the force is expected to reach Belarus by early September ahead of the Zapad exercises, scheduled for Sept. 14 to 20.

The United States is taking precautions, including sending 600 American paratroopers to NATO’s three Baltic members for the duration of the Zapad exercise and delaying the rotation of a United States-led battle group in Poland.

“Look, we’ll be ready; we’ll be prepared,” said Lt. Gen. Frederick B. Hodges, the head of United States Army forces in Europe. “But we’re not going to be up on the parapets waiting for something to happen.”

In 2014, Russia’s stealthy forays into eastern Ukraine and its rapid capture of Crimea were seen as skillful exercises in “hybrid warfare,” a combination of cyberwarfare, a powerful disinformation campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops and local proxy forces.

But there is nothing subtle about the tank-heavy unit at the heart of the coming Zapad exercise.

The First Guards Tank Army, made up mainly of forces transferred from other units, including elite motorized and tank divisions near Moscow, has an extensive pedigree. The unit battled the Germans during World War II on the Eastern Front and eventually in Berlin before becoming part of the Soviet force that occupied Germany. In 1968, it participated in the invasion of Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring.

After the end of the Cold War, the unit was withdrawn to Smolensk, near the border with Belarus, before being disbanded in 1998. But it was reconstituted by Mr. Putin to give the Russian military more offensive punch and present a visible demonstration of Russian power.

“That name was chosen for a reason,” said Philip M. Breedlove, a retired four-star Air Force general who served as NATO commander. “It sends a very clear message to the Baltics and Poland.”

In addition, the Russians have fielded a new motorized division near Smolensk, close to the border with Belarus, which could be used in conjunction with the tank unit. In combination with the highly mobile tank army, that force has about 800 tanks, more than 300 artillery pieces and a dozen Iskander tactical missile launchers.

That is more tanks than NATO has in active units deployed in the Baltic States, Poland and Germany put together, not including armor in storage that would be used by reinforcements sent from the United States, noted Phillip A. Karber, the president of the Potomac Foundation, who has studied Russian military operations in and around Ukraine.

“There is only one reason you would create a Guards Tank Army, and that is as an offensive striking force,” General Hodges said. “This is not something for homeland security. That does not mean that they are automatically going to do it, but in terms of intimidation it is a means of putting pressure on allies.”

Mr. Karber cautioned against exaggerating the First Guards Tank Army’s capability, noting that not all of its units were fully manned and that some of the most modern tanks earmarked for it have not arrived.

But if fully deployed into Belarus, he said, it will be a powerful offensive formation and a way for the Russian military to rapidly project power westward, which is all the more important for Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Russian forces lost Belarus and Ukraine as buffers.

“Just the presence of the First Guards Tank Army near the Polish border would put NATO on the horns of a dilemma,” Mr. Karber said. “Does NATO reinforce the Baltics or defend eastern Poland? NATO does not have enough forces to do both in a short period of time. It adds to the political pressure Russia can bring to bear to keep the Baltic nations and Poland in line.”

The Russians have also announced that the First Guards Tank Army will be the first formation to receive the T-14 Armata tank, a new infantry fighting vehicle, as well as advanced air defense and electronic warfare equipment.

A more immediate concern, however, is whether Russia will use the Zapad exercise to keep Belarus in line. Belarus has long worked closely with Moscow, and its air defense units are integrated with Russia’s to the east. But with friction between the nation’s autocratic president, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, and Mr. Putin have come reports that Belarus is reluctant to host more Russian forces permanently.

As part of the maneuvers, units of the First Guards Tank Army are expected to establish a forward command post in western Belarus, and to hold exercises in training areas near Brest, on the Polish border, and Grodno, near Poland and Lithuania.

Russian officials have told NATO that the maneuvers will be far smaller than Western officials are anticipating and will involve fewer than 13,000 troops. But NATO officials say the exercise is intended to test Russia’s contingency plans for a major conflict with the alliance and will also involve Russian civilian agencies.

“We have every reason to believe that it may be substantially more troops participating than the official reported numbers,” Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general, said in July.

Adding to the concern, the Russians have yet to agree that international observers can monitor the Zapad exercise. American officials have long said that monitoring is important, given the difficulty of Western intelligence in determining whether Russian military activity is merely an exercise or a preparation for an armed intervention.

The United States, in contrast, allowed Russian, Chinese and even North Korean observers to monitor a recent Army exercise, called Saber Guardian, in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.

At least two battalions of First Guards units, or some 3,000 armored troops, are expected to participate in the Belarus maneuvers. The total number of Russian troops, security personnel and civilian officials in the broader exercise is expected to range from 60,000 to as many as 100,000.

The question NATO officials are asking is whether all of the troops and equipment in Belarus will leave.

Said General Hodges, “I am very interested in what goes in and what comes out.”

Correction: August 2, 2017
An article on Tuesday about large Russian military exercises near the eastern edge of NATO territory described one area, Kaliningrad, incorrectly. It is an exclave of Russia, not an enclave.

Michael R. Gordon reported from Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington and Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, Romania.

529 COMMENTS

RELATED COVERAGE

Russia Showcases Global Ambitions With Military Parades, One in Syria JUL 30, 2017


-----

ETA: graphic posted by Northern Watch in Zapad 2017 thread here...http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?504641-Zapad-2017-Cometh&p=6547902#post6547902

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-china-standoff-mind-the-power-gap-4777926/

Mind the power gap

The question is not about Chinese intentions. India must track surge in China’s economic, military capacities

Written by C. Raja Mohan | Published:August 2, 2017 12:05 am

RELATED NEWS
China reiterates its case on Doklam, asks Indian soldiers to leave the area

Barahoti a disputed area, no clear demarcation which part belongs to China or India: Uttarakhand CM

Sikkim border standoff: Chinese transgression into Indian territory twice in July

As India settles into an extended military standoff with China in the Himalayas, it can’t afford to take its eyes off Beijing’s maritime forays in the Indian Ocean. Over the weekend in Sri Lanka, Colombo, after much internal wrangling, handed over the Hambantota port, sitting astride the sea lines of communication of the Indian Ocean, to a Chinese consortium.

Similarly in Myanmar, despite many political anxieties about economic over-dependence on Beijing, the government is reportedly close to a deal with a Chinese company for the commercial development of the Kyaukpyu island on its Bay of Bengal coast. Once Yangon signs on the dotted line, the Chinese company will start building a deep seaport, special economic zone and an industrial park. The Bay of Bengal is unlikely to be the same after that.

On the face of it, comparing the two port contracts in Lanka and Myanmar with the raw struggle for land in Bhutan seems inappropriate. While contests over territory are indeed far more serious, they tend to be contained by the costs of the military conflict and the potential loss of face for the two Asian giants from even a small military setback. In contrast, the port contracts lay the foundation for China’s long-term economic influence in India’s immediate neighbourhood.

Chinese companies are promising that the two deep sea ports will integrate Lanka and Myanmar into the global trade and production networks. The 80 per cent plus stake for the Chinese companies in the two contracts and the nature of the long-term lease — 99 years for Hambantota and 50 to 75 years for Kyaukpyu are facts that speak for themselves.

That these two contracts have been won against popular protests in both countries suggests how difficult it has become for the ruling elites in our neighbourhood to fend off Chinese demands for a big slice of their economic pie on very favourable terms. China’s political influence, so visibly demonstrated in the negotiations with Colombo and Yangon, must only be expected to rise with time.

India no longer has the luxury of contesting Chinese strategic incursions into the Subcontinent one piece at a time. While India’s army is settling down for a long haul in the Doklam plateau, its diplomats in Colombo were working overtime to get Colombo to appreciate and address India’s concerns on Hambantota. While some of India’s concerns have been addressed in Colombo, Delhi has not been a part of Myanmar’s discourse on Kyaukpyu. It should have been.

After all, India is building a small port at Sittwe not far from Kyaukpyu and is aware of the island’s significance. Kyaukpyu is all set to become the energy gateway for petroleum imports into western China through a twin oil and gas pipeline system running from the Bay of Bengal. But Delhi did not have the bandwidth to compete with China on the Kyaukpyu project worth $10 billion. Nor did other international players provide an alternative to China in Kyaukpyu.

If China keeps its word in turning Kyaukpyu into a commercial hub like Singapore and Hong Kong, Indian decision-makers are likely to spend a lot of time thinking about the island in the coming years. Especially since Beijing is bound to devote considerable naval and military energies to securing its expanded commercial interests in Kyaukpyu.

China’s multiple advances tend to reinforce the popular proposition in Delhi that China is embarked upon the “strategic encirclement” of India. But the idea is misleading. The constriction of India’s strategic space is a second-order consequence resulting from China’s rise. Beijing does not have to deliberately contain India. Beijing’s exercise of its growing comprehensive national power — economic and military — will inevitably have that effect. Put simply, the question is not about Chinese intentions, but the massive surge in its capabilities.

Four other factors add to India’s problem. China, under Xi Jinping, has brought abundant political will to match the expanded national power resources. Xi thinks the era of China deferring to other nations’ sensitivities is now over. According to Xi, it is now others’ turn to adapt to Beijing’s rise as the foremost power in Asia.

Second is the widening strategic gap between China and India. Although India has done well since 1991 and has emerged as one of the largest economies in the world, the gap with China will remain enduring for the foreseeable future. China’s current GDP is five times larger than that of India and its defence spending is four times as big. Even if India grows faster than China in the coming years, the huge gap with China will remain unbridged.

Third, India had severely underestimated the implications of China’s rise for India. Facile talk of the world being large enough for China and India masked the prospect that the changing power balance in Beijing’s favour could alter the dynamic on India’s long and disputed frontier with China. India also lulled itself into the belief that it had created sufficiently strong mechanisms to limit conflict on the border. Peace and tranquility on the Sino-Indian border were the consequence of a different set of circumstances — when China was integrating itself with the world. They may not survive the assertive phase in China’s foreign policy.

Fourth, India had taken its regional primacy for granted all these decades. China had never accepted the proposition that the Subcontinent is India’s exclusive sphere of influence. It now has the will and resources to challenge that premise on a routine basis. That leaves India scrambling to restore its economic and strategic centrality in the region.

To be sure, Delhi is now far more conscious of the existential challenges that the power gap with Beijing generates. This awareness, however, is yet to be matched by a sense of urgency across the government. Consider the following: China has been transforming the southern tip of Sri Lanka and the western seaboard of Myanmar over the last few years. But Delhi can’t seem to bestir itself into doing something with its forgotten national asset in the Bay of Bengal — the Andaman and Nicobar Island chain.

The longer Delhi takes to act vigorously on its frontier region development, military modernisation and regional economic integration, the greater will be its degree of difficulty in coping with China’s rise and future Doklams, Hambantotas, and Kyaukpyus.

The writer is director, Carnegie India, Delhi, and contributing editor on foreign affairs for ‘The Indian Express’

 

[northern watch]

China Carries Out Flight Test of Anti-Satellite Missile
DN-3 missile highlights growing space warfare capabilities

BY: Bill Gertz
August 2, 2017 5:00 am
Free Beacon

China recently carried out a flight test of a new anti-satellite missile that highlights the growing threat of Beijing's space warfare capabilities.

The flight test of the Dong Neng-3 direct ascent missile was tracked by U.S. intelligence agencies on July 23 from China's Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in Inner Mongolia, in northwestern China, said U.S. defense officials familiar with reports of the launch.

The officials said the launch was not successful and the DN-3 appeared to malfunction in the upper atmosphere after the launch at night.

The launch took place after Chinese authorities posted a notice to airlines to avoid flying near the flight path of the missile. The missile's flight was captured in photographs and video by several Chinese internet users near the Jiuquan facility.

Despite the failure, China's space warfare program is said to be advancing rapidly as an asymmetric warfare weapon that will allow a less capable Chinese military to defeat the U.S. military in a future conflict.

The Pentagon's annual report on the Chinese military states that in December the Chinese created a new Strategic Support Force that will unify space, cyber, and electronic warfare capabilities.

"The PLA continues to strengthen its military space capabilities despite its public stance against the militarization of space, " the report said.

Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command and a space warfare expert, said both China and Russia are advancing space-war fighting capabilities.

"China right now is ahead of Russia because they've been on a consistent path for a longer time," Hyten said in an interview in Omaha last week.

Hyten said the U.S. military currently has a "very robust space capability."

"And the threats that we face are actually very small," he said.

However, the significant U.S. advantage in space is eroding and satellites are becoming more vulnerable to attack.

"We have very old space capabilities too, very effective space capabilities, but they are very old and not built for a contested environment," he said.

The space warfare threat is "a much nearer-term issue for the commander after me, and for the commander after that person, it will be more significant because the gap is narrowing quickly and we have got to move quickly to respond to it," Hyten said.

In addition to several direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles, China is developing ground-based lasers that can blind or damage orbiting satellites, as well as small robot satellites that can maneuver, grab, and destroy orbiting satellites.

Asked how to deal with China's space warfare threats, Hyten said: "It's not very complicated. You treat it as a war-fighting domain. And when you do that, the answers are not that complicated. You have to have increased maneuver capabilities on our satellites. We have to have defensive capabilities to defend ourselves. These are just war fighting problems."

Hyten said space defense requires moving much faster than current acquisitions processes in the Pentagon and military have allowed, something that is hindering the overall modernization of U.S. nuclear forces.

"So it goes back to the same question we talked about on the nuclear modernization piece: Can we go fast enough as a nation to stay ahead of our adversaries. We have to go fast," he said.

In opening remarks to a Stratcom conference on deterrence, Hyten said the military is ready to respond to attacks in space.

"We'll provide strategic deterrence [in space]," he said. "If deterrence fails, we’ll provide a decisive response."

Adversaries are planning to use an array of strategic weapons, whether nuclear or conventional forces, or space and cyber forces.

"Mass disruption to our power grid, to our financial institutions with cyber-attacks or space attacks are now constant concerns," Hyten said. "And our potential adversaries study this as well, learning from us. Demonstrating an advanced understanding of how to leverage nuclear, space, cyber, anti-access/area denial, electronic warfare, the information spectrum to exploit our vulnerabilities."
The U.S. military does not have a deployed anti-satellite missile. However, in 2008 the military used a modified SM-3 anti-missile interceptor to shoot down a falling intelligence satellite as it reentered the atmosphere. The operation, code-named Burnt Frost, showed that the Pentagon could rapidly retool for anti-satellite warfare. The operation came a year after China's major anti-satellite test on the weather satellites.

The Air Force also developed the ASM-135 during the 1980s. The anti-satellite missile was launched from an F-15 jet.

Congress banned anti-satellite missile tests against targets in space in 1985.
Michael J. Listner, a space expert, said the latest DN-3 test shows China is developing space weaponry while pursuing soft power initiatives aimed at banning such arms.

"It's unclear when such a system will become operational, but the question remains once its ASAT reaches operational capability whether current strategies to ‘deter' the use of ASATs will be effective, to include the idea of resilience to discourage interference," said Listner, head of the company Space Law and Policy Solutions.

"It is clear like the situation in the South China Sea that China's intentions for outer space should be gauged by their actions, including the continued development of ASATs, and not their propaganda."

Rick Fisher, senior fellow in Asian military affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the Chinese military is seeking to "exercise denial and then dominance in low earth orbit (LEO) and then to extend control into the Earth-Moon system."

"Since the early 1990s China has developed four, possibly five, attack-capable space-combat systems," he said. "China may be the only country developing such variety of space weapons to include: ground-based and air-launched counter-space weapons; unmanned space combat and Earth-attack platforms; and dual-use manned platforms."

Harsh Vasani, a scholar at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at Manipal University in India, says China's ASAT program is closely linked to its anti-missile defense systems.

The difference between an ASAT missile and anti-missile interceptor is different software and control algorithms used by each missile to detect, track, and home in on either an orbiting satellite or a missile warhead.

"China has been making impressive headway in its ICBM program and in theory, these ICBMs can target U.S. intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites," Vasani stated in the Diplomat in January.

"A brief survey of recent tests by Beijing confirms that China is rapidly improving its counter space program and making advances in its anti-satellite systems," he noted.

China destroyed a weather satellite in space in 2007, causing tens of thousands of pieces of orbiting debris and sparking international condemnation.
Since 2007, China's ASAT missile tests have been against notional targets and in several cases were disguised as anti-missile interceptor tests, according to U.S. officials.

China tested a DN-2 in 2013 that traveled 18,600 miles in space where U.S. intelligence satellites are located.

The DN-3 was tested in October 2015, and again in December 2016. That DN-3 test was masked as an anti-missile interceptor test.

"The Chinese believe that the greatest threat to them comes from the United States," Vasani said.

"To counter the United States' conventional strength and gain strategic parity, Chinese strategists believe, Beijing will need to strike at the U.S. Achilles heel----Washington's over-reliance on satellites for [command, control, communications, computer, intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance]. Beijing plans to exploit the vulnerable space infrastructure of the United States in the case of a war."


http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ail&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-e4cdc9b9d7-45641005

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Steve Herman‏Verified account @W7VOA 28m28 minutes ago

#Russia embassy in Damascus reportedly being targeted by mortar fire. #Syria


The Intel Crab Retweeted
Sputnik‏Verified account @SputnikInt 45m45 minutes ago

BREAKING: Russian Embassy in #Damascus comes under mortar fire by terrorists https://sptnkne.ws/fc76 #SyriaCrisis


posted for fair use and discussion

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/...syria-russian-embassy-mortar-fire-terrorists/


Russian Embassy in Damascus Comes Under Mortar Fire by Terrorists
© Sputnik/ Mikhail Alaeddin
Middle East
16:56 02.08.2017(updated 17:41 02.08.2017) Get short URL
2850114

Russia's Embassy in Syria's capital of Damascus came under mortar fire by terrorists on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry revealed.

There have been no casualties in the attack, the ministry said, noting that the building sustained a certain level of damage.

Two mortar rounds fell on the territory of the Russian embassy with two more hitting close to the mission's perimeter, according to the statement released by the ministry.

"We strongly condemn terrorist attacks on Russian diplomatic mission in Damascus," the statement read. "We'd like to reiterate once again that Russia has drawn attention on multiple occasions to barbaric nature of the bombardments, which terrorists regularly carry out against the residential quarters in Damascus and other populated Syrian cities. Every day, civilians, women and children become the victims of these attacks."

Russia hopes that the Western countries in the United Nations Security Council will comment on the attack, the statement said.

Hmeymim airbase in Syria
© Sputnik/ Ramil Sitdikov
Russian MoD Denies Media Reports About Number of Russian Servicemen Killed in Syria
This is not the first attack on the diplomatic mission. On July 16, Russia's Embassy in Damascus came under mortar fire.

Later, Moscow expressed regret that some UN Security Council members refused to qualify attacks on the Russian embassy in Damascus as terrorist acts.

"We regret to say that some members of the Security Council have again refused to consider the Russian draft under a far-fetched pretext of the lack of evidence on the terrorist nature of the attacks," the statement said on Tuesday. "It was proposed to delete all important provisions of the draft. In these circumstances, the Russian delegation found it pointless to continue work on this document."

Moscow has been conducting a counter-terrorist campaign in Syria since September 30, 2015, at President Bashar Assad's request.

The civil war in Syria has been lasting for around six years with government troops fighting against numerous opposition factions and terror organizations such as al-Nusra Front and Daesh, outlawed in Russia.

 

[northern watch]

The Intel Crab Retweeted

Lucas Tomlinson‏Verified account @LucasFoxNews · 2h2 hours ago

NEWS: China fired 20 missiles at mock-up targets of US THAAD battery & USAF F-22 fighter jets Saturday, day after North Korea ICBM test

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-western-powers-warn-iran-rocket-test-142252574.html

News

At U.N., Western powers warn Iran rocket test a 'threatening step'

Reuters
By Michelle Nichols, Reuters • August 2, 2017

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States, Britain, France and Germany warned the United Nations on Wednesday that Iran had taken "a threatening and provocative step" by testing a rocket capable of delivering satellites into orbit and asked the U.N. chief to investigate.

In a report submitted to the U.N. Security Council's Iran sanctions committee and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the four countries described the July 27 launch as inconsistent with a 2015 U.N. Security Council resolution.

They asked Guterres to report "fully and thoroughly on Iran's ballistic missile and space launch activity" to the 15-member Security Council.

Most U.N. sanctions were lifted 18 months ago under a deal Iran made with key world powers to curb its nuclear program. But Iran is still subject to an arms embargo and other restrictions, which are not technically part of the nuclear agreement.

Guterres reports every six months to the Security Council on the implementation of the remaining sanctions and restrictions.

"The technologies necessary for the conception, the fabrication and the launch of space launch vehicles are closely related to those of ballistic missiles, in particular to those of an intercontinental ballistic missile," the four powers wrote in their report, seen by Reuters.

"This launch therefore represents a threatening and provocative step by Iran," they wrote. "Iran's longstanding program to develop ballistic missiles continues to be inconsistent with (the U.N. resolution) and has a destabilizing effect in the region."

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley submitted the report on behalf of the four countries.

Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, denied on Friday that Tehran had missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads.

The four countries also planned to raise the issue of the launch during the next Security Council meeting on the implementation of the resolution so the Council can discuss possible responses. It was not clear when that meeting would be held.

However any Security Council action would likely be difficult. Under the U.N. resolution, Iran is "called upon" to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years. Some states argue that the language of the resolution does not make it obligatory.

"We call on Iran to immediately cease all activities related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology," the United States, Germany, Britain and France wrote.

The United States imposed sanctions on six subsidiaries of a company key to Iran's ballistic missile program, a day after Iran launched the rocket last week.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Frances Kerry)

6 reactions

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/embassy-attack-fuels-fears-isis-bringing-iraq-war-082457657.html

News

Embassy, mosque attacks fuel fears ISIS bringing Iraq war to Afghanistan

Reuters
By Hamid Shalizi, Reuters • August 2, 2017

KABUL (Reuters) - Attacks on the Iraqi embassy and a Shi'ite mosque in Afghanistan have reinforced fears that Islamic State militants are seeking to bring the group's Middle East conflict to Central Asia, though evidence of fighters relocating from Iraq and Syria remains elusive.

Islamic State said it carried out Monday's attack against the embassy in Kabul, which began with a suicide bomber blowing himself up at the compound's main gate, allowing gunmen to enter the building and battle security forces.

The group also claimed responsibility for an attack Tuesday that killed at least 29 and wounded more than 63 at a Shi'ite mosque in Herat, an area in western Afghanistan that had previously escaped Islamic State's sectarian attacks.

The choice of target in the Iraqi embassy attack, three weeks after the fall of Mosul to Iraqi troops, appeared to back up repeated warnings from Afghan security officials that, as Islamic State fighters were pushed out of Syria and Iraq, they risked showing up in Afghanistan.

"This year we're seeing more new weapons in the hands of the insurgents and an increase in numbers of foreign fighters," said Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman Gen. Dawlat Waziri. "They are used in front lines because they are war veterans."

One senior security official put the number of foreigners fighting for both Islamic State and the Taliban in Afghanistan at roughly 7,000, most operating across the border from their home countries of Pakistan, Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, but also including others from countries such as India.

While such foreign fighters have long been present in Afghanistan, there has been growing concern that militants from Arab countries, who have left the fighting in Syria as pressure on Islamic State there has grown, have also been arriving in Afghanistan through Iran.

"We are not talking about a simple militant fighter, we are talking about battle-hardened, educated and professional fighters in the thousands," another security official said.

"They are more dangerous because they can and will easily recruit fighters and foot soldiers here."

The United States, which first came to Afghanistan in 2001 after Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington, is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, in part to ensure the country does not become a haven for foreign militant groups.

But while Afghan and U.S. officials have long warned of the risk that foreign fighters from Syria could move over to Afghanistan, there has been considerable scepticism over how many have actually done so.

In April, during a visit to Kabul by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, said that, while ISIS had an "aspiration" to bring in fighters from Syria, "we haven't seen it happen".

"NEW TACTICS, WEAPONS"

U.S. commanders say that, in partnership with Afghan security forces, they have severely reduced Islamic State's strength over the past year with a combination of drone strikes and Special Forces operations.

But according to Afghan intelligence documents reviewed by Reuters, security officials believe Islamic State is present in nine provinces, from Nangarhar and Kunar in the east to Jawzjan, Faryab and Badakhshan in the north and Ghor in the central west.

"In recent operations, we have inflicted heavy losses on them but their focus is to recruit fighters from this area," said Juma Gul Hemat, police chief of Kunar, an eastern province where Islamic State fighters pushed out of their base in neighboring Nangarhar have increasingly sought refuge.

"They are not only from Pakistan or former Taliban, there are fighters from other countries and other small groups have pledged their allegiance to them," he said.

Afghan officials say newly arrived foreign fighters have been heavily involved in fighting in Nangarhar province, Islamic State's main stronghold in Afghanistan, where they have repeatedly clashed with the Taliban.

Security officials say they are still investigating Monday's embassy attack and it is too early to say whether there was any foreign influence or involvement.

Islamic State put out a statement identifying two of the attackers as Abu Julaybib Al-Kharasani and Abu Talha Al-Balkhi, Arabic names that nonetheless suggest Afghan origins. Khorasan is an old name for the Central Asian region that includes Afghanistan, while Balkh is a province in northern Afghanistan.

What little contact is possible with fighters loyal to Islamic State in Afghanistan suggests that the movement itself is keen to encourage the idea that foreign militants are joining its ranks.

"We have our brothers in hundreds from different countries," said an Islamic State commander in Achin district of Nangarhar.

"Most of them have families and homes that were destroyed by the atrocity and brutality of the infidel forces in Arab countries, especially by the Americans," he said. "They can greatly help us in terms of teaching our fighters new tactics, with weapons and other resources."

(Editing by Alex Richardson)

9 reactions

 

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

The Intel Crab Retweeted

Lucas Tomlinson‏Verified account @LucasFoxNews · 2h2 hours ago

NEWS: China fired 20 missiles at mock-up targets of US THAAD battery & USAF F-22 fighter jets Saturday, day after North Korea ICBM test

'China fired 20 missiles at mock-up targets of ..USAF F-22 fighter jets'
Is this a joke??
Firing missiles at 'mock-up' F-22 targets just does not cut it.
Maybe a photo op for the brass.
SS

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-flee-saudi-town-security-forces-clash-gunmen-160730151.html

World

Hundreds flee Saudi town as security forces clash with gunmen

•August 1, 2017

DUBAI (Reuters) - Hundreds of people have fled a town in eastern Saudi Arabia where government forces are fighting Shi'ite Muslim gunmen, activists and Saudi media reported on Tuesday.

Fighting has intensified in recent days in Awamiya where authorities have been trying since May to tear down the old quarter to prevent militants using the narrow streets to evade capture.

Local activists said Saudi forces have facilitated the departure of people fleeing the clashes that have killed at least seven people, including two police officers. Dozens of families have been given temporary accommodation in a nearby town.

Appeals for shelter for displaced families have appeared on social media and several people responded by opening their homes, while others offered to pay for temporary housing outside Awamiya.

The government of Eastern Province has received requests from residents and farmers around Awamiya to help them flee clashes between security forces and what it calls armed terrorists, al-Hayat newspaper reported.

"Contracts have been signed for a number of furnished apartments in the city of Dammam to shelter those interested in leaving neighborhoods near al-Musawara," al-Hayat quoted Falah al-Khalidi, governor of Qatif province, as saying.

Local activists accuse security forces of driving hundreds of residents out of Awamiya by firing randomly towards homes and cars as they confront armed men in the area, charges Saudi Arabia denies. They said several houses and shops have been burned or damaged by the fighting.

Residents also say life has become unbearable due to frequent power and water cuts as temperatures soar over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), according to Mirat al-Jazeera, a news website that often reflects Shi'ite views.

Authorities have urged displaced residents to report to the governorate headquarters to apply for "temporary residence" or to get compensation for houses they had abandoned, state TV reported.

The area, in oil-producing Qatif province, where many of the country's Shi'ite minority live, has seen unrest and occasional armed attacks on security forces since the 2011 "Arab Spring" protests.

Residents complain of unfair treatment by the Sunni-led government, something Riyadh denies.

(Reporting by Sami Aboudi; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

3 reactions

 

[Lilbitsnana]

NorthKoreaRealTime‏ @BuckTurgidson79 28m28 minutes ago

A Dozen Jets, 200 US Airmen Head to South Korea for Rotations: https://sputniknews.com/military/201708021056127729-wisconsin-based-troops-deploy-seoul/ … via @SputnikInt

 

[Lilbitsnana]

NorthKoreaRealTime‏ @BuckTurgidson79 28m28 minutes ago

H.R. McMaster: Kim Jong Un should not be sleeping easily at night http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2630452 via @dcexaminer



posted for fair use

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...t-be-sleeping-easily-at-night/article/2630452

H.R. McMaster: Kim Jong Un should not be sleeping easily at night
by Al Weaver | Aug 2, 2017, 4:22 PM

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warned North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un should not be sleeping easily at night and said the evolving situation with the North Koreans constitutes a "grave threat" to the U.S.

McMaster made the remark in an interview Wednesday and emphasized that Kim has become increasingly isolated on the world stage.

"No, I think he should not be," McMaster said after MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt asked if Kim should be "sleeping easily at night."

"Because he has the whole world against him, right? He's isolated. He's isolated on this. Since 1953 the Korean peninsula has been in a state of armistice. The war never formally ended and there's been no aggression, no aggression from the United States, South Korea, any of our allies."

The national security adviser also said he isn't sure whether things would change in North Korea if the young dictator were taken out of power and argued his behavior means the future of the regime is "almost impossible to predict."

"Well, I'm not sure about that," McMaster said. "I don't think anyone has a very clear picture of the inner workings of that regime."

"What is clear is that it is an authoritarian dictatorship that has existed since the end of World War II. It is now in its third generation. And there is a difference in this third autocratic ruler in that he's as brutal as the previous two had been. But he's doing some things differently, he's killing members of his own family," he continued. "And so, what this means for the future of that regime I think is almost impossible to predict."

He also would not confirm a Reuters report that North Korea has tested intercontinental ballistic missiles that could reach anywhere in the U.S.

"I'm not going to confirm it," McMaster said. "But as I mentioned, really, whether it could reach San Francisco or Pittsburgh or Washington. How much does that matter, right? It's a grave threat."

 

[Lilbitsnana]

posted for fair use and discussion

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-august-peace-opportunity-trump-2017-8


The North Korea crisis will get more dangerous in August — it's also Trump's best chance for peace

Alex Lockie

6h 9,969

South Korean soldiers take part in an anti-terror drill in Seoul August 18, 2014. South Korean and U.S. forces began on Monday the Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG) drill, an annual joint exercise to test their defence ability against North Korea. The drill will last until August 29, according to local media. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji South Korean soldiers take part in an anti-terror drill in Seoul. Thomson Reuters

While North Korea defies international sanctions by testing ballistic missiles powerful enough to range US cities thousands of miles away, the US's annual joint military exercises with South Korea look set to further stoke the burgeoning crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

"The situation is bad now, and it's going to get worse in August ... it's going to get much more dangerous in August," Joel Wit, a senior fellow at US-Korea Institute who previously worked on North Korea policy at the State Department, said on a call with reporters organized by 38 North, a website for informed analysis of the Korean defense situation.

August is when the American and South Korean militaries hold Ulchi-Freedom Guardian, one of the world's largest annual military exercises and the target of harsh rebukes from North Korea.

"That could create even more tension," Wit said. "I think we need to be to be very careful about aggravating the situation."

"But there's a bargain here," Wit added, "a quid pro quo here." North Korea has previously offered to suspend its nuclear development if the US and South Korea suspend their annual war games. In the past, the US has rejected this offer because the drills are legal and North Korea's nuclear development is not.

But with North Korea pushing closer to a nuclear-capable missile designed to accurately reach major US cities, Witt said it may be time to revisit that position.

kim jong un north korea icbm test missile North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guiding the second test-fire of the Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile in an undated picture provided by the KCNA news agency on Saturday. KCNA via Reuters

"It's really the best point in time for a US president to do it," Witt said of peace talks with North Korea.

"Trump is insulated from any Republican criticism, which has stopped Democrats before," Witt said. "He thinks outside of the box. He might be the right person to do it."

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Reuters World‏Verified account @ReutersWorld 47m47 minutes ago

BREAKING: U.S. State Department says Americans who wish to travel to North Korea must obtain a special passport validation

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/344918-nato-suffers-casualties-after-taliban-attack-in-afghanistan

Two Americans killed in Taliban attack in Afghanistan

BY ELLEN MITCHELL - 08/02/17 10:13 AM EDT 54 Comments

Two American troops were killed on Wednesday in southern Afghanistan.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis confirmed that "two U.S. servicemembers were killed in action in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when their convoy came under attack."

The Taliban took responsibility for the afternoon attack on the NATO convoy, claiming the bombing killed 15 soldiers and destroyed two armored tanks, The Associated Press reported.

Qari Yusuf Ahmadi, an insurgent spokesman in southern Afghanistan, said the attack involved a small, explosives-filled pickup truck.

Earlier Wednesday, the NATO-led mission Resolute Support also confirmed that "a NATO convoy was attacked this afternoon in Kandahar."

"The attack did cause casualties,” the statement said, adding that the mission was “working to gather additional information as quickly as possible."

Kandahar province was the Taliban leadership’s headquarters during their five-year rule, which ended in 2001 with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

There are roughly 13,500 combined U.S. and NATO troops now in Afghanistan.

About 8,400 of the troops are American, and the Trump administration is deciding whether to send 3,000 to 5,000 more.

This story was last updated at 12:59 p.m.

 

[almost ready]

Mustafa al Sadr received by the Saudis.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGLzp2DWAAAU-Vq.jpg

Thomas Wictor believes this is an important development, and has devoted a thread to it.

https://twitter.com/ThomasWictor/status/892543130884464640

Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1
Replying to @ThomasWictor

(2) Moqtada al-Sadr went to Saudi Arabia by invitation yesterday. He met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salma

3) This is how some Iraqis are viewing this historic development.
(in arabic script in a photo, Can't decipher)
2 replies 21 retweets 52 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(4) The VERY SAME IRAQIS are praising their government for foiling a planned attack in Iraq.
1 reply 22 retweets 55 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(5) The Islamic state was within hours of carrying out a series of nationwide car-bomb attacks and suicide bomber attacks on Shia.
2 replies 28 retweets 63 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(6) The Iraqis used air strikes to kill the assembled terrorists in Syria and Iraq.
1 reply 21 retweets 57 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(7) Guess who told the Iraqis about this attack?

Saudi moles in the Islamic State.
1 reply 26 retweets 79 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(8) If Moqtada al-Sadr can throw away his suspicions, then the average Iraqi can do the same thing.
4 replies 22 retweets 67 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(9) The people praising the Iraqi government for foiling a sectarian attack are themselves promoting sectarianism.
3 replies 23 retweets 55 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(10) Maybe the average Iraqi is unaware of what Americans endured in the Pacific during World War II.
1 reply 34 retweets 75 likes
Thomas Wictor‏ @ThomasWictor Aug 1

(11) The Japanese murdered prisoners. The Japanese TORTURED prisoners.

Not Abu Ghraib "torture."

(more on Japan WWII at link)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

SaadAbedine‏Verified account @SaadAbedine 3h3 hours ago

#Iran says new US sanctions violate nuclear deal, vows "proportional reaction", Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi



AFP news agency‏Verified account @AFP 51m51 minutes ago

#BREAKING Iran says nuclear deal violated by new US sanctions


kambiz mahmoudpour‏ @boghche 46m46 minutes ago

#Iran Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson split on Iran nuclear accord compliance - http://go.shr.lc/2wn60rp - @washtimes #FreeIran #1988Massacre



AFP news agency‏Verified account @AFP 58m58 minutes ago

#BREAKING Japan PM Abe names new defence, foreign ministers in cabinet revamp

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Replying to @NoonInKorea

Per Kyoto Wires, though chances aren't high, US St Dept may introduce motion to try to revoke NK's membership in ARF

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Alistair Coleman‏ @alistaircoleman 1m1 minute ago

North Korea just called America "stinky". Your move, @DPRK_News

Jonathan Cheng‏Verified account @JChengWSJ 55m55 minutes ago

KCNA: "If the U.S. is stupid enough to shove its stinky face on this land again…, the DPRK will teach the U.S. some manners."

David Vitali‏ @PanzerAbt101 1m1 minute ago

Ron Paul: #Trump ‘racing towards disastrous war’ with #Iran or #NorthKorea https://www.rt.com/usa/398371-ron-paul-trump-war/ …



Purple S. Romero‏ @purpleromeropo 1m1 minute ago

Bolivar: We do not have expulsion procedures in the ARF. If DPRK wants to exit, there are no hard and fast rules