WAR 08-27-2016-to-09-02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-india-sign-military-logistics-agreement-091059530.html

U.S., India sign military logistics agreement

August 30, 2016

By Yeganeh Torbati and Idrees Ali

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and India signed an agreement on Monday governing the use of each other's land, air and naval bases for repair and resupply, a step toward building defense ties as they seek to counter the growing maritime assertiveness of China.

The agreement, a relatively mundane one concerning day-to-day military logistics, is nonetheless a milestone in the U.S.-India defense relationship because of the outsized political importance it had taken on in India, where it had touched on domestic sensitivities, experts said.

The signing of the agreement will "make the logistics of joint operations so much easier and so much more efficient," U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a news briefing with Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.

The agreement will allow the Indian and U.S. navies to have an easier time supporting each other in joint operations and exercises and when providing humanitarian assistance, Parrikar said.

Washington's desire for deeper security cooperation with India had been complicated without the signing of the logistics agreement as well as two other pacts that would allow for secure communications and the exchange of nautical and other data. The agreements are considered routine between the United States and its other defense partners.

But India has had concerns such an agreement would commit it to hosting U.S. troops at its bases, or draw it into a military alliance with the United States and undermine its traditional autonomy. Carter and Parrikar reached an agreement "in principle" in April, but had yet to finalize the details.

Carter has made closer military ties with India a priority, and established a special unit within the Pentagon last year to promote cooperation with that country. Parrikar's visit to Washington this week marks the sixth interaction between the two top defense officials.

The signing of the logistics agreement indicates the priority the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi places on a closer defense relationship with the United States, said Benjamin Schwartz, until last year the India country director at the Pentagon.

"For years, there has been tremendous misinformation put out into the Indian press about these agreements," said Schwartz, now with the U.S.-India Business Council, which promotes trade ties between the two countries.

"What the signing of this shows is that the Modi government is willing to take and suffer the short-term political criticism of signing these things for the longer-term benefit of building the defense relationship with the United States."

Both Carter and Parrikar went to pains on Monday to make clear that the logistics agreement did not allow for basing of U.S. troops in India.

"It's not a basing agreement of any kind," Carter said.

The debate over the logistics agreement had served as a vehicle for the distrust some of India's political class has towards the United States, said Shane Mason, a research associate at the Stimson Center. The United States had previously imposed sanctions on India related to its 1998 nuclear test, although the sanctions were eased later.

"From the U.S. perspective this was kind of a low hanging fruit," Mason said. "We have logistic support agreements with many, many other countries and in most cases it's a relatively uncontroversial thing."

The U.S. military has made clear it wants to do more with India, especially in countering China, which U.S. officials say is risking stoking conflict through its claims in the South China Sea, a vital trade waterway.

Without naming China, both Carter and Parrikar mentioned the importance of the free flow of trade to both countries.

"India and the United States have a shared interest in freedom of navigation and overflight and unimpeded commerce as part of rule-based order in (the) Indo-Pacific," Parrikar said.

China hoped cooperation between India and the United States would be "constructive and positive" for the region's peace and stability and development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters at a regular briefing on Tuesday.

"So, we look favorably on this sort of normal relationship between India and the United States," Hua said.

(Additional reporting by Ruthy Munoz and Phil Stewart in Washington, and Michael Martina in Beijing; Editing by Peter Cooney and Alistair Bell)

 

[Possible Impact]

I guess they are in full production now

Joseph Dempsey ‏@JosephHDempsey 4h
#China H-6K bomber w/ CJ-20 Strategic Land Attack Cruise Missile
in official public debut at Changchun AFB Open Day

^^^ ChangJian-20 (CJ-20), or “Long Sword 20”
(This is the Air-launched version of the CJ-10)

 

[Be Well]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-india-s...091059530.html

U.S., India sign military logistics agreement

Hopefully against muzzards, too...

HC - how much do you think China actually wants war with other countries, particularly US and/or India? Or does China just want to keep on encroaching more territory and have no one bother it?

 

[Possible Impact]

Hopefully against muzzards, too...

HC - how much do you think China actually wants war with other countries, particularly US and/or India? Or does China just want to keep on encroaching more territory and have no one bother it?

Mercantilism is an apt word to describe their Foreign Policy.

They are all over Africa, doing deals, and improving infrastructure
to more easily extract material from further inland.
(railroads, ports, highways & bridges, etc...)

The Chinese owned computer/electronics shops I've seen in East African towns
look exactly like the ones in Houston or Dallas.
(only difference was the currency on the price-tags...)



China, colonialist or neo-mercantilist?

There are too many misconceptions about China’s involvement in Africa.

Charlie Pistorius* | 23 June 2010 22:15
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/china-colonialist-or-neomercantilist/

JOHANNESBURG – Whether the Bafana team or Screaming Eagles
of Nigeria are fondly remembered or not, they’ve done more for the
continent than they ever may know. Their mere participation in the World
Cup and South Africa’s hosting of this awesome event has unwittingly
spurred debate, encouraged opinion, and woke the fervent African spirit.

The World Cup in the very least vuvuzelaed mass opinions out of hiding
and turned all and sunder into rampant wise-men on the future
development state of Africa.

The event has done wonders to raise local awareness of current affairs
and engage the ordinary African voice.

Walk around the shops or fan-parks and strike up a conversation with
your friendly neighbour, and you’re positively bound to be dancing around
the tune “this time for Africa” – which it is, this is Africa’s time.

Ironically within moments the conversation turns to ardent debate and
finds an economic beat, which in spectacular fashion (like an own goal)
strikes a cynical note towards those “colonising” Chinese.

Unfortunately there are too many misconceptions about China’s
involvement in Africa, one of the most often quoted ones is that China’s
contributions are veiled in colonial quests: “these Chinese, they’re everywhere,
build everything, do things differently and take Africa’s jobs”.

All valid concerns, but on each point Africa is benefiting exactly because
China has engaged in economic pursuits everywhere, injecting every gain
and positive feedback of foreign direct investment: productivity of assets
by opening up export markets and stimulating domestic competition
and investment, encouraging capital accumulation and job opportunities,
better management and organisational practices, and in all being
a growth-enhancing stimulus to the host nation because of spillovers
and knowledge transfers that come with a diverse economic partnership.

Of course the Chinese participation in Africa is not wrapped up in a warm
and cozy blanket, in the short term some local industries and Africans
will find less reward than others.

Although achieving sustained development goals are never easy,
especially if industrialisation comes with merciless costs, eventually
it does however promise a brighter future.

The question therefore is whether China’s role in Africa
is neo-colonialist or mercantilist?

—
The Chinese preach from their own development and transition lessons:
“black cat, white cat, as long as it catches mice it’s a good cat”, as uttered
by Deng Xiaoping, the heroic post-Maoist “open-door” reformer.

Without tainted colonial shadows in Africa, the Chinese offer an
open-minded “master-student” relationship with non-judgemental
expectations, rather than a paternalistic “master-beggar” one so often
accompanying Western involvement. The Chinese economic and social
Diaspora throughout Africa is in truth far more about realising actual
and mutual rewards.

For better or worse, China cannot be deemed a neo-colonialist.

Four reasons support this argument.

First, China’s official foreign policy framework revolves around
non-interference in internal domestic affairs of partner-nations.
To date this fact is hard to dispute, and considered on its own is
enough to unbrand China as a colonialist.

The Chinese simply do not believe in embargoes and sanctions,
to them it is akin to military invasion of another sovereign
– pragmatically it doesn’t solve problems, and only leaves people
with more suffering.

Second, China is itself a developing nation. Not that this fact alone
excludes China as an imperialist invader, but consider that even
though China has managed extraordinary economic triumphs over
the past decades in its ivory citadels from Shenzhen to Shanghai,
it lives today with immense poverty and deep inequalities.

The development state of China therefore makes it less of an
altruist (akin to high-income earners) and more prone to seeking
foreign cooperation to stimulate its own domestic prospects,
as much as that of its partner-nation (albeit with different aspirations).

China’s engagement has given it a double-whammy of industrial profit;
they negotiate stunning resource deals with Africa – nourishing
China’s populous economy – while large sums are invested in Africa’s
infrastructure, with projects in turn being granted to Chinese contractors
(mostly without open-bidding), whom are increasingly employing more
Africans.

China’s state multinationals therefore pay their own firms to be Africa’s
builder.

Mutual benefit comes to Africa in the shape of much-needed basic
necessities – roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and railways, agribusiness,
power creation and energy distribution, ICT networks, employment
opportunities and training programmes that all told, greatly benefits
Africa’s people.

As minor examples, consider Nigeria, which is one of Africa’s largest
recipients of Chinese involvement; up to 2009, China’s official cumulative
investments – in energy sectors, infrastructure, agriculture and mining
– in all totaled $7.24bn worth of benefits.

On another front, the China-Africa Action Plan (2010-2012) pledged
to train 20 000 Africans in a variety of sectors, and to raise the number
of scholarships for Africans to study in China up to 5 500.

The third and perhaps most compelling point against the colonial
argument is mercantilism.

China’s commercial engagement with the rest of the world is largely
scripted from mercantile theory: export boosting policies that are meant
to stimulate a balance of payment in China’s favour, ie, manipulating their
currency to keep it artificially devalued in support of cheap capital exports
(think US treasuries) and a mechanism of forced high savings, which in
effect promotes policies that subsidises Chinese manufacturers at the
expense of their own households and (some argue) manufacturing jobs
in the consumption-crazed US-and-eurozone – a process that leaves
China’s state-coffers endowed in huge surplus reserves.

The participation is not one-sided, for one, bilateral trade with Africa
reached a record setting $108bn in 2008, with exports and imports split
roughly half-half.

This foreign corporatism acts to align state and business endeavours,
and can in fact be viewed as neo-mercantilism.

Lastly, the Chinese are not leaving Africa. Journalist, bloggers and world
radio broadcasts widely report the same message: from Chinatowns
in Nigeria to the Congo to Kenya and Angola, Chinese migrants have
profusely entered society, set up livelihoods and assembled together
under the banner of a single community. Whether confronting contractors,
hard-labourers, native Africans, ministerial officials or industry kingpins,
all say the same, there is no exit strategy, the Chinese are here to stay.

—

Simply put, the aid, foreign direct investments and soft-loans are
all measures meant to foster the development of Africa, with a trade
approach that is discretionary towards the users of capital – China’s
state-aligned multinationals – acting to enhance economic prosperity
for themselves and benefit Africa by utilising its rich resources and
converting it into tangible infrastructural improvements.

In all, China’s role in Africa is a mirror of its own relationship on
the recipient side when Japan engaged in infrastructure-for-aid deals
with it. In Africa today China has simply swapped places and now plays
the part of the development banker.

The mere fact that China’s footprint in Africa is within a new set
of non-Western bounds, supporting an impressive display of “aid”
arrangements and on-the-ground-get-the-job-done infrastructure
expansion, leaves the status quo for Africans a lot more ayoba!

​

 

[Housecarl]

Detailing Russian Surface to Air Missile Coverage

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/08/30/detailing-russian-surface-to-air-missile-coverage-in-europe/


Hot Topics August 30, 2016 | Detailing Russian Surface to Air Missile Coverage
August 29, 2016 | US, India Tout Defense Ties But No Talk of Drone Sale
August 26, 2016 | In Show of Stealth, F-22s Tailed Su-24s in Syria: Report
August 25, 2016 | US Won’t Use ‘Terminator’ That Makes Lethal Decisions: Four-Star
August 25, 2016 | WATCH: Iranian Speed Boats Harass US Destroyer
.

Detailing Russian Surface to Air Missile Coverage

Posted By: Brendan McGarry August 30, 2016
comments 34

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, has released an informational graphic highlighting Russia’s increasing surface-to-air missile coverage in Europe.

The graphic released Monday details the Russian military’s deployment of S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems not only within Russia and Kaliningrad, the Russian city in a territory between Poland and Lithuania, but also Crimea and areas encircling the Ukraine, even Latakia, Syria.

The S-300 has a range of up to 200 kilometers (125 miles); the S-400 up to 400 kilometers (250 miles). Both systems are designed to target any number of U.S. and NATO aircraft, from bombers to fighters to spy planes.

Notably absent from the picture is any reference to the S-500, which a reader of this blog has argued was already deployed around Moscow but which an expert contacted by this correspondent has said remains in development.

http://www.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Russian-A2AD-AUGUST-2016-01.png

Even so, “Russia has altered the security balance in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East by establishing large anti-access/area-denial (A2AD) exclusion zones,” the institute’s Kathleen Weinberger wrote in a summary accompanying the graphic.

“Advanced air defense systems create A2AD ‘bubbles’ that prevent Russia’s opponents from establishing air supremacy in strategically significant theaters,” it states. “Russia can use these systems to impede the ability of the U.S. to defend its NATO allies by disrupting the ability of US air forces to access conflict zones in the event of a crisis.”

The graphic provides further evidence of similar warnings of evolving Russian SAM technology from U.S. military officials.

During a conference last year in Washington, D.C., Air Force Gen. Frank Gorenc, the service’s European commander, said, “I don’t think it’s controversial to say that they’ve closed the gap in capability – not just in Europe, everywhere.”

“Some of the array that’s in Kaliningrad extends into Poland today, that’s a fact,” he said. “Up to this point, we have talked anti-access, area-denial with respect to the Pacific problem, but what I’m telling you is this is not just a Pacific problem, it is as significant in Europe as it is anywhere else on the planet.”

 

[Possible Impact]

^^^ Notably absent from the Institute for the Study of War's picture
is any reference to the Russian Navy's SAM capabilities.
(Can link with AS-50 AWACS to coordinate “distributed lethality”,
filling in any holes in coverage.)

Also don't forget, Russia now has Buyan corvettes,
rivertine capable craft with SAM & cruise missile launch capabilities!

The 'Redut', Naval 50R6 Vityaz missile system, is rolling out 2h2016,
but haven't seen any good intel on final specs...


ANALYSIS | S-350E "Hero" / C-350E "Vityaz" Anti-Aircraft Missile System
http://www.indrastra.com/2015/10/ANALYSIS-S-350E-Hero-C-350E-Vityaz-275.html

9M96E Surface to Air Missiles

 

[Housecarl]

^^^ Notably absent from the Institute for the Study of War's picture
is any reference to the Russian Navy's SAM capabilities.
(Can link with AS-50 AWACS to coordinate “distributed lethality”,
filling in any holes in coverage.)

Also don't forget, Russia now has Buyan corvettes,
rivertine capable craft with SAM & cruise missile launch capabilities!

The 'Redut', Naval 50R6 Vityaz missile system, is rolling out 2h2016,
but haven't seen any good intel on final specs...


ANALYSIS | S-350E "Hero" / C-350E "Vityaz" Anti-Aircraft Missile System
http://www.indrastra.com/2015/10/ANALYSIS-S-350E-Hero-C-350E-Vityaz-275.html

9M96E Surface to Air Missiles

Yup.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...fighting-isis.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

1. IN BATTLE
6 hours ago

Three Americans Die Fighting ISIS

The U.S. government says it is trying to repatriate the bodies of three American civilians killed while fighting ISIS in Syria.

According to one local Kurdish report, the men were killed over the weekend and identified as Levi Shirley, William Savage, and Jordan MacTaggart. The Washington Post reported Shirley’s death in July, while Denver 7 reported MacTaggart’s earlier this month. Kurdish fighters mourning the men carried signs with the purported photos.

The Americans, whom officials have yet to positively identify, were near the northern Syrian city of Manbij, home to a key ISIS supply route to Turkey, helping the Kurds wrest the city out of the terror group’s hands when they killed.

Earlier this month, Manbij fell out of ISIS control, a major loss for the extremists.

“We have been working to help facilitate the return of the reported remains of private U.S. citizens killed in Syria. We remain in close contact with local authorities and stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We have no additional information to offer at this time,” John Kirby, U.S. State Department spokesman, said in a statement to The Daily Beast.

The bodies are in Irbil and U.S. officials are seeking to identify and transport them to the United States.

U.S. officials said they do not have estimates of how many such fighters are in the war zone.

Foreign fighters have suited up for battle for and against ISIS in the region. U.S. forces have supported various Kurdish missions across Syria, making the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG, arguably the most effective on-the-ground fighting force there.

—Nancy A. Youssef

Stay On Topic

Death of the ISIS Attack Dog
Michael Weiss

Inside the Secret Files of ISIS
Michael Weiss

ISIS Kids Execute Prisoners on Tape
Shane Harris

 

[Housecarl]

Merde.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...um=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-e7e2473554-460

Iran Satellite Launch Prompts Fear of Long Range Ballistic Missile Attack

Iran to launch ‘friendship’ satellite

BY: Adam Kredo
August 31, 2016 4:59 am

Iranian officials announced on Tuesday that the country is preparing to launch three new satellites into space, renewing concerns from defense experts about Iran’s ongoing research into long-range ballistic missile technology that could help it fire a nuclear weapon at Western nations.

Mohsen Bahrami, the director of Iran’s space agency— which has long been suspected of providing cover for weapons research—announced that Iran would launch its newest satellite, dubbed “Friendship,” later this year.

“The Dousti (Friendship) satellite (built) by (experts at) Sharif University of Technology is the first satellite which will be launched in the second half of this (Iranian) year,” which began on March 20, Bahrami was quoted as saying by the country’s state-controlled press.

Defense experts and former U.S. officials told the Washington Free Beacon that the test is likely cover for Iran to pursue illicit intercontinental ballistic missile technology, which could enable the Islamic Republic to fire a nuclear weapon over great distances.

Asked about the reports on Tuesday, a State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon that it will not take a position on the launch before it has occurred.

“We’re not going to speculate on the specifics of something that hasn’t happened yet,” the spokesman said. “Our longstanding concerns regarding Iran’s ballistic missile development efforts remain, and are shared by the international community.”

“If there are specific launches or other actions that are inconsistent with any relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, we will address them through the appropriate channels,” the spokesman continued. “And we will continue to work with our partners, and take any necessary unilateral actions, to counter ongoing threats from Iran’s ballistic missile program.”

Efforts are also being made to launch two other satellites within the next year, according to the announcement, which has raised concerns among Western defense experts about the Islamic Republic’s pursuit of technology that would enable it to fire nuclear weapons over great distances.

“Iran has always used its satellite program as cover for developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Recently, however, the Defense Ministry has also bragged that it has made its UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] satellite-guided in order to extend their range and bypass the need for line-of-sight control,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and expert on rogue regimes.

Iran’s interest in this technology, combined with its newfound freedom under last summer’s nuclear agreement, should raise red flags on the international stage, Rubin said.

“Add to that mix that Iran can trade and sell both technologies with North Korea in exchange for inspection-proof nuclear laboratory space,” Rubin said. “In effect, in a three-fer for the Islamic Republic, all courtesy of the noxious mix of Obama’s ambition and [Secretary of State John] Kerry’s incompetence.”

Iranian officials further disclosed over the weekend that construction had begun on an advanced satellite with remote sensing capabilities.

U.S. officials have said that Iran’s space research could be applied to the construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles, work that is prohibited under United Nations resolutions governing the nuclear agreement.

“Iran has successfully orbited satellites and announced plans to orbit a larger satellite using a space launch vehicle (the Simorgh) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such,” Vice Adm. J.D. Syring, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, disclosed in April.

Syring’s comment came on the heels of Iran’s last test of its long-range Simorgh rocket.

Iran’s test firing of ballistic missiles has emerged as a hot button issue in recent months as the Obama administration has worked against claims that the tests violate the nuclear deal. The Obama administration has claimed that the tests violate the agreement in spirit only.

The U.S. intelligence community has emphasized Tehran’s desire to acquire intercontinental ballistic technology.

“Tehran has placed significant emphasis on developing and fielding ballistic missiles to counter perceived threats from Israel and U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East and to project power,” U.S. defense officials disclosed in a 2014-15 threat assessment.

“Iran has a substantial inventory of missiles capable of reaching targets throughout the region, including U.S. military bases and Israel, and the regime continues to develop more sophisticated missiles,” the report adds. “Iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year (2015), which could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that the entities responsible for building Iran’s space satellites have close ties to the country’s military industry.

“Iran’s desire to continue launching new satellites into space should be a point of concern to American officials,” Taleblu said. “To me, this does not merely appear to be an instance of a developing country attempting to produce technologies to boost its status or prestige. Rather, it may have a very real security application. Many scholars and missile analysts have long-suspected Iran’s overly-adventurous space program to have been a cover to study, test, and eventually employ the technologies associated with the production of an intercontinental ballistic missile.”

The upcoming tests could be a sign that Iran is seeking to refine its ballistic technology, raising concerns on the military front.

“It can be inferred that unless Tehran has reconfigured existing space-launch vehicles, it will either be the Safir or the Simorgh carrier rockets,” Taleblu said. “As such, repeated testing of one launch-vehicle by Tehran may be an attempt to refine existing issues in the rocket’s staging process.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-politics-khamenei-idUSKCN1162CJ

World News | Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:14pm EDT

Iran's Khamenei says need to boost offensive military capabilities

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that Iran needs to boost its offensive military capabilities.

"In order to secure our population, our country and our future we have to increase our offensive capabilities as well as our defensive capabilities,” he said at a military expo in Tehran where a number of top military officials gathered, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

The Shi'ite leader spoke a week after a U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots toward an Iranian fast-attack craft that had approached two U.S. ships, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

The Pentagon also said that Iranian vessels had harassed a U.S. warship near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil and gas shipping channel, early last week.

For its part, the Iranian military accused the United States of sending a drone into its air space on Monday, according to the Tasnim news agency. It said the drone left Iranian air space after a warning.

President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist, has presided over a limited thaw in Iran's relations with the West, with a 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers his most notable achievement. But Iran's military and security services that answer to the hardline Khamenei continue to see Western states as adversaries.


Also In World News
Brazil's Rousseff ousted in end to impeachment process
Key Islamic State leader killed in apparent U.S. strike in Syria
Turkey wants to 'cleanse' strip of territory on Syrian border
Air strike kills 16 members of Yemeni imam's family

Khamenei also said that expanding defensive capabilities was necessary “so that oppressive powers feel threatened”, an allusion to the United States and key European allies.

At the expo, held to highlight the Islamic Republic’s defense industry, there were displays and presentations of Iranian-made missiles and drones as well as the Bavar 373 missile defense system, according to IRNA.


(Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKCN1173LS

World News | Thu Sep 1, 2016 6:09am EDT

Venezuela opposition aims to flood Caracas in anti-Maduro protest

By Andrew Cawthorne and Daniel Kai | CARACAS

White-clad opposition supporters from all corners of Venezuela were descending on Caracas on Thursday for rallies intended to press for a recall referendum this year against unpopular socialist President Nicolas Maduro.

With protesters coming in from the Amazon jungle to the western Andes, the opposition coalition hopes a million people will gather in a show of anger at Maduro and Venezuela's deep economic crisis.

Maduro, 53, says the opposition-dubbed 'Takeover of Caracas' disguises a U.S.-fomented coup plan, akin to a short-lived 2002 putsch against his mentor and predecessor Hugo Chavez.

Edgy authorities arrested some well-known activists in the run-up, with 13 opposition campaigners and supporters still in custody, according to a local rights group.

Extra police and troops were being positioned across the chaotic city, and roadblocks were expected.

Fearing violence, especially given 43 deaths around anti-Maduro protests in 2014, many businesses planned to close.

"We have to come out and fight for a free Venezuela! We can't take this any more," said Elizabeth De Baron, 69, a secretary planning to leave Guarenas town before dawn to drive the roughly 25 miles (40 km) into Caracas.

Dozens of indigenous people marched hundreds of miles from their home state of Amazonas for the events.

Swearing loyalty to Chavez's legacy and calling opposition leaders a wealthy elite intent on controlling Venezuela's oil, red-shirted government supporters were preparing counter-rallies.

"I will never give up!" Maduro told them this week.

He narrowly won election after Chavez died from cancer in 2013, but has failed to replicate his charismatic leadership.


Also In World News
Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report
Brazil's Rousseff ousted by Senate, Temer sworn in
Jets bomb Syrian rebels as they wage big attack in Hama province
After lifetime with the poor, Mother Teresa speeds to sainthood


The president's ratings have halved to under 25 percent as falling oil prices and the failing state-led economy leave the OPEC nation in turmoil.

Triple-digit inflation, a third year of recession, shortages of basics, and long lines at shops have exasperated Venezuelans and underpinned a resounding opposition election win at a December legislative vote.

Despite the country's ills, the opposition struggles to consolidate support among 'Chavistas' and even its own base, disillusioned with the failure of past street action.

With a compliant Supreme Court vetoing every major measure congress takes, the opposition wants to activate a plebiscite on Maduro as allowed in the constitution halfway through his term.

But the election board has dragged its feet on the process, making the vote unlikely this year. Should it happen in 2017 and were he to lose, Maduro's vice-president would take over, keeping the ruling Socialist Party in power, rather than there being a new presidential election.


(Additional reporting by Brian Ellsworth and Corina Pons; Editing by Girish Gupta and Bill Rigby)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive-idUSKCN1173LA

World News | Thu Sep 1, 2016 6:14am EDT

Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report

By Jonathan Landay | WASHINGTON

The United States and its negotiating partners agreed "in secret" to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report. It is based on information provided by several officials of governments involved in the negotiations, who Albright declined to identify.

Reuters could not independently verify the report's assertions.

"The exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran," Albright said.

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.

The exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners -- called the P5+1 -- and Iran.

One senior "knowledgeable" official was cited by the report as saying that if the joint commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the deal by Jan. 16, the deadline for the beginning of the lifting of sanctions.

The U.S. administration has said that the world powers that negotiated the accord -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- made no secret arrangements.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the joint commission and its role were "not secret." He did not address the report's assertions of exemptions.

Diplomats at the United Nations for the other P5+1 countries did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment on the report.

The report's assertions are likely to anger critics of the nuclear deal. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has vowed to renegotiate the agreement if he's elected, while Democrat Hillary Clinton supports the accord.

Albright said the exceptions risked setting precedents that Iran could use to seek additional waivers.

Albright served as an inspector with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team that investigated former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program.

While Albright has neither endorsed nor denounced the overall agreement, he has expressed concern over what he considers potential flaws in the nuclear deal, including the expiration of key limitations on Iran's nuclear work in 10-15 years.


EXEMPTIONS ON URANIUM, "HOT CELLS"

The administration of President Barack Obama informed Congress of the exemptions on Jan. 16, said the report. Albright said the exemptions, which have not been made public, were detailed in confidential documents sent to Capitol Hill that day -- after the exemptions had already been granted.

The White House official said the administration had briefed Congress "frequently and comprehensively" on the joint commission's work.

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, a leading critic of the Iran deal and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters in an email: "I was not aware nor did I receive any briefing (on the exemptions).”

As part of the concessions that allowed Iran to exceed uranium limits, the joint commission agreed to exempt unknown quantities of 3.5 percent LEU contained in liquid, solid and sludge wastes stored at Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the report. The agreement restricts Iran to stockpiling only 300 kg of 3.5 percent LEU.

The commission approved a second exemption for an unknown quantity of near 20 percent LEU in "lab contaminant" that was determined to be unrecoverable, the report said. The nuclear agreement requires Iran to fabricate all such LEU into research reactor fuel.

If the total amount of excess LEU Iran possesses is unknown, it is impossible to know how much weapons-grade uranium it could yield, experts said.

The draft report said the joint commission also agreed to allow Iran to keep operating 19 radiation containment chambers larger than the accord set. These so-called "hot cells" are used for handling radioactive material but can be "misused for secret, mostly small-scale plutonium separation efforts," said the report. Plutonium is another nuclear weapons fuel.

The deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the material -- which can be used in nuclear weapons production -- to Oman, where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.

The shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons production has already been reported. Albright's report made the new assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.


(Reporting by Jonathan Landay; editing by John Walcott and Stuart Grudgings)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/31/a-nuclear-armed-south-korea/

Opinion

A Nuclear-Armed South Korea?

Peter Huessy
President, GeoStrategic Analysis
6:36 PM 08/31/2016

Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin warns us that in the past 10 months North Korea despite some missile test failures launched a second satellite aboard the giant Unha rocket, unveiled a second generation ICBM and a close-up of what is described as an implosion nuclear warhead for ballistic missiles. The North also launched a live test of an indigenous air defense missile – which looks like a twin brother of the Russian S-300, a flight test of the hitherto mysterious “Musudan” IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile), and an underwater solid propellant SLBM (sea-launched ballistic missile) – which looks like the twin brother of the vintage Soviet liquid propellant SSN 6.

These threats have compelled the United States and South Korea, after some deliberation, to build in 2018 an additional THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea, conduct joint training exercises to better deter a possible North Korean attack and importantly, on August 17, 2016, fly all three USAF strategic bombers — the B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress —in the first-ever USAF integrated bomber deterrent operation in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

While these cooperative actions met with strong support in both South Korea and the United States, both China and North Korea strongly condemned the planned construction of the new missile defense system and the joint military exercises.

In particular, the Chinese government said the placement of the THAAD missile batteries in South Korea’s Gyeongsangbuk Province, (home of 12 million people) at the end of 2018 is “provocative and unsettling” to the region’s security.

The North Korean foreign minister added that “the US’s never-ending nuclear blackmail” will make America “pay a terrifying price,” while the Chinese UN Ambassador called for the US to “de-escalate the situation” while implying the US had provoked the most recent North Korean missile launches.

South Korea is currently being protected by three key military elements: the US nuclear deterrent; the US and ROK joint conventional deterrent; and US Patriot and other missile defense batteries. The added THAAD defenders are simply a prudent addition to a strong deterrent that needs always to adjust to the changing threat.

Here in Washington, Doug Bandow of the CATO Institute complains that America’s North Korea policy is based solely on “frantically denouncing” every North Korean “provocation.” He wrote August 12, 2016 for the National Interest, that the United States should “stop whining” with “empty threats” because condemning North Korea actions had little chance of affecting North Korean behavior.

I agree that UN resolutions may irritate Pyongyang, but North Korean leader Kim Jong-un probably thinks he got the better of everyone if the only thing he has to fear is a relatively harmless UN resolution. Kim is not “deterred by words.”

Bandow apparently is unaware of the multiple actions that South Korea and the United States have taken to deter North Korean aggression. And he inexplicably dismisses recent North Korean missile launches, describing them as “more of the same, barely worth a second thought” while simultaneously complaining (“whining?”) that the US is deploying “missiles without apparent shame.”

But then in a second essay on August 29 Bandow took a full 180 degree turn from his position just taken August 12. Apparently, so serious has the situation become on the Korean peninsula—obviously now “worth a second thought”—that the United States must remove both its military and its nuclear umbrella before we get caught in a peninsula-wide war.

Bandow has long advocated eliminating American forces in South Korea and folding up the nuclear deterrent umbrella the US holds over our western Pacific allies. But he now acknowledges South Korea would be “vulnerable to attack” from the North if the United States withdrew its conventional and nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula.

But to be fair, Bandow says don’t worry, the South’s 11th largest military, “greater GDP” and “international support” (except for the US?) enables “Seoul to deter and defeat the North” even though it’s “vulnerable to attack.”

Bandow sees a regional conflict that would embroil the United States unnecessarily. And thus we must quickly but artfully withdraw before such a conflict occurs without causing any future harm. Even though our exit might trigger a North invasion. To make up for danger of a US exit, Bandow says the South can build what he describes in his essay as the “Friendly Proliferation” of nuclear bombs.

The theory apparently is that North Korea is not deterred by either America’s 1550 nuclear weapons or the most powerful conventional force currently deployed in the world. But, Bandow believes, the North would be deterred by a South Korea military armed with an admittedly much smaller, even minimal number of nuclear weapons and a much smaller conventional capability.

While words obviously won’t “shame into repentance” the North Korean leaders, it is unclear why withdrawing US military forces from the region would. Perhaps Bandow’s discovered a new military doctrine which we could call “Relative Weakness Wins.”

While Bandow thinks an armed invasion by North Korea of the South is “plausible,” he sees no threat from North Korea to the United States. Here Bandow asserts North Korea is only “developing long range missiles as well as nuclear weapons” that may “eventually” but not now gain the ability to strike the United States. And in any case, any attack by the North on the United States “isn’t likely.”

Is this true? Admiral William Gortney, head of the US Northern Command, told Congress earlier this year North Korea has nuclear weapons, has long range rockets capable of hitting the US and has the capability to both miniaturize and mount a nuclear warhead on its ballistic missiles.

And the newest North Korean developments? They have twice orbited a mock satellite directly over the United States and successfully test flew a submarine-launched ballistic missile with a 1000-kilometer range just this past week.

Both reveal a capability to attack the United States from long range and from the sea, with a particular threat being a surreptitious electromagnetic nuclear strike (EMP) that would wipe out our industrialized economy by taking down our electrical grid. After all, with enough diesel fuel a North Korean submarine can get to the maritime environment adjacent to our country and certainly within the sub’s missile range of 600 miles.

It is very true that words alone will not defend America from North Korea.

But smart missile defenses, including the use of space based assets and Israeli know-how, electric grid protection and sustaining our nuclear umbrella based-alliance with South Korea are the top actions on my list to keep the peace.

But leaving South Korea to the tender mercies of a North Korean murderous regime just 17 miles from Seoul is not prudent policy or wise strategy. And hardly friendly.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKCN1175O1

WORLD NEWS | Thu Sep 1, 2016 1:22pm EDT

After sweeping into northern Syria, Turkey faces hard choices

By David Dolan | JARABLUS, SYRIA
Flashing victory signs and firing in the air, the young rebels who took this Syrian town from Islamic State a week ago may be jubilant, but their ability to hold territory will hinge on Turkey's appetite for keeping its forces inside Syria.

Sweeping in to Jarablus may have been the easy part. Backed by Turkish tanks, jets and special forces, Arab and Turkmen fighters under the loose banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) drove out Islamic State in a matter of hours last Wednesday.

It could prove more difficult for the rebels, who number only around 1,500 fighters, to push west and secure the 90 km (56-mile) stretch of Islamic State-held border territory that Ankara has touted as a potential buffer zone.

They face not only the challenge of displacing the ultra-hardline Islamist group but of preventing Kurdish militia fighters, backed by the United States but viewed as a hostile force by Turkey, from filling the void.

"Daesh and the Kurds are the same. Both of them brought these people to hunger," said Fikret Ismail, a rebel fighter in his late 20s, using an Arabic name for Islamic State.

"We will fight for our land with our last blood," he said, as he patrolled a street near the Jarablus town centre, brandishing a rifle and surrounded by a group of small children.

Turkey has revealed little about the strategy behind its first major incursion into Syria, beyond saying it wants to drive Islamic State and Kurdish fighters away from the border.

"Operation Euphrates Shield" has drawn criticism from NATO ally Washington, which has called on Turkey to avoid confrontation with Kurdish-aligned forces and stay focused instead on the joint battle against Islamic State.

The United States sees the Syrian Kurdish YPG as its strongest ally against the Sunni radicals. Turkey views them as a terrorist group and is worried that their advance in northern Syria will embolden a Kurdish insurgency at home. It has said no one can tell it which terrorist group it should fight.

On Thursday, the Turkish military said it had taken three more villages around 20 km (12 miles) west of Jarablus and hit 15 militant targets with howitzers and four more in air strikes. It gave no details on the targets, but the villages were in an area still held by Islamic State.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, confirmed the takeover of 3 villages near the border.

COHERENT FORCE

Jarablus had been under Islamic State rule for three years and its black and white murals can still be seen on the walls. The town is slowly coming back to life. Women walk the streets, their faces uncovered. One man told Reuters one of his first acts when the group fled was to trim his beard.

A week after it helped drive out the jihadists, there is no sign of the Turkish military in Jarablus itself. Instead, the town was filled with the scruffy young rebels Ankara is backing, some driving their Toyota trucks, machine guns mounted in the back, at high speed through the streets.

Turkey's aim is to turn the fractured Free Syrian Army into a coherent force as a counterweight to the Kurdish YPG, said Metin Gurcan, a former major in the Turkish military and an analyst for the Al Monitor journal. Which group gained control of al-Bab, a town to the south, would be critical, he said.

Al-Bab, held by Islamic State, lies on the southern edge of what Ankara sees as its potential buffer zone. Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, one of the ultra-hardline Islamist group's most prominent leaders, is thought to have been killed in a U.S. air strike there this week.

"You have two forces who are very eager, highly motivated, to capture al-Bab. At the end of the day, this serves the strategic interests of the U.S., which is prioritising the fight against ISIS," Gurcan said.

Turkish-backed forces have also been advancing towards Manbij, a city around 30 km (20 miles) south of Jarablus that was captured last month from Islamic State by a U.S.-backed coalition that includes the YPG.

Ankara, which accuses the YPG of "ethnic cleansing" in northern Syria, has demanded that Kurdish fighters return to the east of the Euphrates river. Manbij, like Jarablus, is west of the river. Turkey has long said that a Kurdish presence west of the Euphrates is a "red line" it cannot abide.

Mohammed, a 16-year-old rebel in Jarablus who had been fighting with the FSA for just a month, told Reuters he was from Manbij and had no desire to fight the Kurds.

"Everything is destroyed in Manbij now," he said, blaming the ruin on Islamic State.

BUFFER ZONE

Turkey has repeatedly lobbied for the creation of a "buffer zone" just inside Syria to help secure its border and create a protected area for displaced civilians. But the idea has failed to resonate with NATO allies, who see such a move as requiring a prolonged intervention and whose focus is on Islamic State.

Turkey has taken in nearly 3 million Syrian refugees since the start of its neighbor's five-year war, and is under pressure from Europe to stem the flow of migrants trying to travel onwards illegally from its shores.

Ankara has been providing aid to tens of thousands of displaced civilians just inside Syria, effectively a step towards creating a de facto safe zone.

"In order to create a 'buffer zone,' Turkey would have to keep a significant force on the Syrian side of the border," said James Stavridis, former NATO supreme commander and dean at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Such a strategy appeared immediately unlikely, he said, but added it could not be ruled out in the longer term.

"Turkey will have a set of unpalatable choices ahead of it having entered into serious military operations in Syria."

Colonel Ahmad Osman, head of the Sultan Murad forces, one of the main Turkish-backed rebel groups, told Reuters last week that the priority was now to advance some 70 km westward to the town of Marea, long a frontline with Islamic State.

The next phase of their operation could take weeks or months, he said, and could require an increase in the number of rebel fighters from their current level of 1,200-1,500.

While they did not wish to fight Kurdish forces, they would do so if necessary, Osman said.

For Turkey, which has long called for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, containing advances by the Kurdish militia appears to have eclipsed all other concerns.

"The fundamental Turkish red line is not Assad," Stavridis, the former NATO commander, said. "It is against the formation of a Kurdish state."

(Additional reporting by Edmund Blair in Istanbul, Tom Perry and John Davison in Beirut; Writing by David Dolan and Nick Tattersall; editing by Anna Willard)

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Venezuelan opposition floods Caracas in vast anti-Maduro protest
U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: think tank
U.S. troops in Iraq increasingly active as Mosul battle nears
Germany, Italy, France to meet with Turkey on migrants: Merkel

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-troops-iraq-increasingly-active-mosul-battle-nears-170753159.html

U.S. troops in Iraq increasingly active as Mosul battle nears

By Stephen Kalin
September 1, 2016

GREAT ZAB RIVER, Iraq (Reuters) - Kurdish Peshmerga forces retook a swath of northern Iraq late last month from Islamic State and days later American forces appeared in the area, the latest sign of increasing U.S. military activity in the country.

The U.S. troops, numbering about a dozen, were still there this week and spent Wednesday supervising Iraqi army engineers repairing a bridge to help local forces cross the Great Zab river in their push towards Mosul, the militants' de facto capital in Iraq which Baghdad wants to retake this year.

"We move around a lot. We've been all over the country," one of the U.S. servicemen told Reuters on the bridge, about 45 km (28 miles) southeast of Mosul. He said the Iraqis were making quick progress in repairing the span, and that the American troops would leave the area within days.

Loath to become mired in another conflict overseas, the White House has insisted there will be no American "boots on the ground" in Iraq, but current troop levels are approaching 5,000.

That is still a fraction of the 170,000 deployed at the height of the nine-year occupation that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, sparking an al Qaeda-backed insurgency and throwing the country into a sectarian civil war.

President Barack Obama withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq but they returned in 2014 after the Iraqi army fled Islamic State's advance through a third of the country despite billions of dollars in U.S. aid and training.

The United States is conducting an extensive air campaign over Iraq and also covert special forces raids against the jihadists behind their frontlines.

But Washington says the focus of its troops in the country is to train, advise and equip local forces - Iraqi military and police, Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni tribal militias, which are both battling Islamic State - and that U.S. servicemen there have no combat role.

Advisers from the United States and other countries from an international coalition fighting Islamic State were initially confined to a few military bases across Iraq, but as the campaign progressed and Mosul comes into focus, Americans have inched closer to the action.

ROCKET ATTACK

A Reuters correspondent saw coalition soldiers in May outside the northern Iraqi village of Hassan Shami, a few miles east of the frontline at the time. They spoke English but their nationality was not clear. [nL8N18Q044}

While the U.S. military advisers and the soldiers who protect them do not have a combat mission, circumstances have at least occasionally blurred their role and brought them into contact with Islamic State militants.

Such encounters have only been made public three times.

Last October, Master Sergeant Joshua Wheeler was killed in a raid in Hawija where the military said U.S. special forces acting as advisers were sucked into battle when Kurdish fighters came under fire.

Then in April, a rocket attack by Islamic State killed Marine Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin at an American base near Makhmour used for protecting U.S. advisers.

A few weeks later, Petty Officer First Class Charles Keating was killed in the village of Tel Asqof where the U.S. military says he was called in as part of a "quick reaction force" to help advisers who had got caught up in a firefight.

The U.S. military, which tightly controls media access to its bases and no longer embeds reporters with troops like it did during the occupation, has tried to keep attention away from its activities in Iraq.

The soldiers who Reuters encountered on the bridge quickly turned their backs to cameras, and a Reuters request to visit Qayyara airbase, where the Pentagon is sending several hundred troops to help set up a logistics hub for the Mosul operation, was recently denied.

A military convoy heading on Monday towards the base, which was heavily damaged by fleeing Islamic State militants, contained sophisticated engineering vehicles and heavily armored transport vehicles.

(Reporting by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Pravin Char)

Comments (2)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-campaign-libya-enters-second-month-local-forces-155041857.html

US campaign in Libya enters second month as local forces make IS gains

AFP•September 1, 2016

Washington (AFP) - The US air campaign targeting the Islamic State group's former Libyan stronghold entered its second month Thursday, with the steady pace of strikes continuing as local forces advanced on the jihadists' last remaining holdout.

When the Pentagon announced its latest front in the war against IS on August 1, officials said the campaign to help local forces push the jihadists from the coastal city of Sirte would likely be quick, taking "weeks, not months."

The military action follows a request by the UN-supported Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), and the Obama administration has stressed that ongoing US involvement would be framed by the interim Libyan government's needs.

"Though operational security precludes us from speculating on a timeline, the US will continue to support the GNA as they look at options for Libya's future once Sirte is liberated," Robyn Mack, a spokeswoman for the US military's Africa Command, told AFP.

As of September 1, the US had conducted 108 strikes via drones, bombers and helicopter gunships in Sirte.

The Tripoli-based GNA launched an operation in May to retake Sirte, the hometown of slain dictator Moamer Kadhafi that the jihadists have controlled since June 2015.

Libyan pro-government forces this week said they were advancing on the city's last remaining IS holdout -- an area known as district Number Three.

Fewer than 200 IS jihadists remain in Sirte, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said, and they are essentially surrounded by GNA forces and the sea.

Many of the strikes are being conducted from the USS Wasp, an amphibious assault ship off the Libyan coast in the Mediterranean. The vessel can launch Marine Corps AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopters and Harrier jets.

Mack said the pace of strikes remained "steady," and noted that it takes time for the United States to vet target requests from the GNA to ensure no unwanted casualties occur.

The fall of Sirte, 450 kilometers (280 miles) east of Tripoli, would represent a significant blow to IS, which has also faced a series of setbacks in Syria and Iraq.

View Comments (1)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/world/asia/pakistan-mardan-court-suicide-bomber.html?_r=0

Asia Pacific

Pakistan Suicide Bombing Kills at Least 11 at Court Compound

By ISMAIL KHAN
SEPT. 2, 2016

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide bomber killed at least 11 people at a district court in northwestern Pakistan on Friday morning, a senior police officer said.

The bomber attacked the compound of the district court in the city of Mardan, throwing a hand grenade, opening fire at the main gate and then entering before detonating his explosive vest, said the police officer, Ijaz Khan. Twenty people were wounded, he said.

“The bomber managed to get seven or eight meters inside the compound, but the police engaged him, prompting him to trigger his suicide vest,” Mr. Khan said by telephone. The dead included four lawyers and two police officers, he said.

The president of the district bar association, Amir Hussain, said the toll would have been much higher had the bomber reached a part of the compound where lawyers assemble. “The bomber was stopped a few meters inside the main gate,” Mr. Hussain said. “He couldn’t reach the main sitting area.”

It was the second mass attack in recent weeks that appeared to target lawyers. More than 70 people, mostly lawyers, were killed last month in an attack on a hospital in the city of Quetta, in Baluchistan Province, where lawyers had gathered after the president of Baluchistan’s bar association was shot and killed.

Reuters reported that Jamaat-e-Ahrar, an offshoot of the Pakistani Taliban, had claimed responsibility for the assault in Mardan. That group and the Islamic State both claimed responsibility for the bombing in Quetta.

Earlier Friday, four suicide bombers attacked a Christian enclave west of Peshawar, but casualties appeared to be few.

Armed with guns and explosives, the assailants struck the gated neighborhood, home to about 100 Christian employees of the nearby Warsak Dam, shortly before 6 a.m., the local news media quoted the military spokesman as saying. The neighborhood is about 12 miles west of Peshawar.

All four attackers were killed. Shafqat Malik, who oversees a bomb disposal squad that was at the scene, said one bomber had detonated his explosive vest at the main entrance of the colony, while another did so near a residential area.

-

Related Coverage

Keen Pain in Pakistan Over Lives ‘Shattered Into Pieces’
MARCH 28, 2016

Opinion News Analysis

Pakistan’s Hand in the Rise of International Jihad
FEB. 6, 2016

 

[Housecarl]

I guess they are in full production now

Joseph Dempsey þ@JosephHDempsey 4h
#China H-6K bomber w/ CJ-20 Strategic Land Attack Cruise Missile
in official public debut at Changchun AFB Open Day

^^^ ChangJian-20 (CJ-20), or “Long Sword 20”
(This is the Air-launched version of the CJ-10)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-defence-idUSKCN11809E

World News | Thu Sep 1, 2016 11:03pm EDT

China says developing new type of long-range bomber

China is developing a new long-range bomber, the head of the Chinese air force was quoted as saying in state media on Friday, the latest move in its ambitious military modernization program.

China has already improved its ability to strike at targets far from home and there will be further improvements in the future, the Global Times quoted air force chief Ma Xiaotian as saying at an air force open day.

"We are now developing a new generation of long-range bomber, and you'll see it in the future," Ma said, according to the paper, without elaborating.

China has been ramping up research into advanced new military equipment, including submarines, aircraft carriers and anti-satellite missiles. This has rattled nerves regionally and in Washington as China takes a more muscular approach to territorial disputes in places such as the South China Sea.

The air force, which has for years relied on large numbers of Chinese copies of Russian aircraft, is now also developing its own stealth fighters. In July, it put into service a new, domestically developed large transport aircraft.

Ma said the air force had entered into a "transformation" stage, changing its focus from quantity to quality, the report said.


(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...both-stabilizing-and-destabilizing-force-1091

Venezuela's Military: Both a Stabilizing and Destabilizing Force

September 2, 2016 | Kaitlin Lavinder

Tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators flooded Venezuela’s capital Caracas yesterday to protest President Nicolás Maduro after three years of recession, extreme inflation, and a severe lack of basic goods. The protestors are asking for a recall referendum to be held this year, when an opposition politician has a chance of winning. If the referendum is held after January 10, 2017 and Maduro is removed from office, then his Vice President – a member of the United Socialist Party like Maduro – will take over, ensuring the Socialists retain power.

Government supporters also took to the streets yesterday in a series of countering protests. Extra police and troops were stationed around the city, in case violence broke out. Notably, the military did not suppress the demonstrations.

The Venezuelan military could be a force of stability or instability in the country. On the one hand, it is responsible for supplying food and medicine to an increasingly hungry and sick populace. On the other, the Maduro government is so reliant upon the military that it has the power to create significant instability (for example, in the form of a coup) in order to bring about future democratic stability.

The military has yet to confront the also increasingly authoritarian President Maduro. In fact, in some ways, the military seems more intertwined with Maduro than it was with former President Hugo Chávez. This is due partially to the military’s new role following Chávez’s rise to power and partially to Maduro’s maneuvering to keep the military close.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy (2007-2010) explains that Chávez relied heavily on the military, understanding its power, but also “sought to transform the military into an element of the Bolivarian Revolution.” That means that much of the military identifies with the United Socialist Party (the product of Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution) and, as such, wants to keep that party in power.

Likewise, Maduro wants to be on good terms with the military both for its political support and for the basic stability it provides through its power. Duddy, now Director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at Duke University, comments that “the military appears to be playing an even more prominent role” under the Maduro government, compared to the Chávez administration.

Last month, Maduro appointed Defense Minister General Vladimir Padrino López (pictured) to the head of the Sovereign Supply Mission, a food supply system. “The military has been assigned to control the country’s ports, borders, and food distribution system in an effort to tamp down on smuggling and black markets,” Harold Trinkunas tells The Cipher Brief.

Trinkunas, who is Director of the Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution, explains that this “formalizes a role the military already has and also allows President Maduro to give the appearance of doing something about the shortages.” In this sense, the military is actively helping to stabilize a nation facing triple digit inflation and a serious scarcity of goods.

Still, Trinkunas points out that the Venezuelan military is “riven by multiple internal divisions,” including between those who believe in Bolivarianism and those who do not. As public discontent with the Maduro administration grows, it seems more and more likely the military will want to distance itself from the leader who many blame for Venezuela’s current economic crisis. At the same time as it helps stabilize the country, it does not want to be remembered as complicit with a failed government as it ran its country into the ground.

So while there has not yet been a coup attempt against Maduro in response to public discontent and in the name of future democratic stability, it is likely the military is becoming increasingly indifferent to, if not yet openly supportive of, Maduro’s removal, as long as the Socialist party remains in power.

What may be most palatable for the military now is to continue its role as both a stabilizing and destabilizing force – continuing its work in distributing food and other basic necessities to a largely impoverished nation, while allowing Maduro to lead with an iron fist until at least January.

-

Related Articles:

Caracas in Crisis
Kaitlin Lavinder

Russian Influence in Latin America
Dr. R. Evan Ellis

Why the Venezuelan Elections Matter
Verónica Colón-Rosario

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column/strategic-view/down-not-out-beware-resilience-boko-haram-1089

Beware of Boko Haram's Resilience

September 1, 2016 | J. Peter Pham

While claims last week by a Nigerian army spokesman that Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau was “fatally wounded” in an August 19 airstrike should be taken with a dose of skepticism—the military has announced the elusive militant’s death on at least four prior occasions, only to have him reappear taunting them—there is no doubt that the Islamist insurgents have had a bad run of late. However, while the once-puissant group, affiliated since early 2015 with the so-called Islamic State, has lost almost all of the territory it once controlled in the northeastern part of the West African country and has been riven with factional disputes, it would be a mistake to forget its record of resilience or discount its continued threat potential.

Since the Nigerian armed forces, together with regional allies from Benin, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger, went on the offensive against the insurgents during the last months of the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, Boko Haram has steadily lost the dominion it once held over sizable areas around the Lake Chad Basin. Ironically, Gwoza, the mid-sized town that was “capital” of the militants’ self-styled “emirate,” was liberated by government forces just one day before Jonathan lost his bid for another four-year term to retired Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, who had made the incumbent’s inability to end the insurgency the leading issue in his campaign, promising a quick and decisive campaign against Boko Haram. The appointment of new military commanders, the shift of command headquarters close to the battlefront, improved relations and cooperation with both neighboring countries and more distant allies, and the heightened tempo of operations all contributed to significant gains against the militants during the months following the inauguration of the new president in May 2015.

In response to the military defeats it has suffered, Boko Haram has shifted tactics, expanding its use of suicide bombings, most of which have targeted the civilian population. One such attack on a busy market in the northern Cameroonian town of Mora last week left three people dead and two dozen others wounded, bringing the death toll from such assaults in Cameroon to nearly 600 since the start of the year. Moreover, hounded from its erstwhile Nigerian strongholds, the militants have stepped up attacks in neighboring Niger’s eastern regions. An attack on a group of pastoralists earlier this month near Diffa, for example, left five dead. While Boko Haram may be shifting tactics, operational areas, and perhaps even strategy, it remains far from a spent force, underscoring once more the remarkable resilience that has long characterized the movement.

Even before it burst into the headlines with its brazen April 2014 abduction of nearly three hundred schoolgirls from the Government Secondary School in Chibok, sparking an unprecedented social-media phenomenon that made its name a household word worldwide, Boko Haram had already distinguished itself as one of the fastest evolving organizations of its kind. The group underwent several transformations in the space of barely more than half a decade with a seeming effortlessness that often left policymakers and analysts scrambling to keep up. In a very short period of time, the group went from a small militant band focused on localized concerns in Nigeria’s northeastern Borno State and using relatively low levels of violence, to a formidable terrorist organization with a clearer jihadist ideology (and links to al-Qaeda’s regional affiliates), and then on to a powerful insurgency seizing and holding large swathes of territory. Just over a year ago, Boko Haram underwent another evolution, with its early 2015 pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State and subsequent rebranding of itself as the “Islamic State West Africa Province.”

The link with the Islamic State has, in recent weeks, proved to be the source of new problems for the militants. At the beginning of this month, the group appointed Abu Musab al-Barnawi as the new “governor” (wali) of its province, pushing aside Shekau, who was denounced for the large number of Muslims and the frequent use of children to carry out the attacks. In response, Shekau, who had not made a media appearance for more than a year, released a new YouTube video contesting the “usurpation” of his leadership by al-Barnawi, although he still acknowledged Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as “caliph.” Adding to the confusion is the choice by the Islamic State’s high command of al-Barnawi. In the past, al-Barnawi has been associated with the Ansaru splinter group within Boko Haram that had not only expressed misgivings about the killing of fellow Muslims by the insurgents (as opposed to Christians and other infidels, against whom he vowed war), but who also is reputed to have had links with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other pan-Sahelian extremists.

A week later, the faction loyal to Shekau released another video showing some of the abducted Chibok schoolgirls. The video claimed that some girls were wounded in government airstrikes against Boko Haram and went on to demand the release of Boko Haram captives held by the Nigerian government. Altogether, about 50 young women were shown in the film, including one whose mother had gone public with a poignant message in April on the second anniversary of the kidnapping. Whatever else can be said for the production and its propaganda message, just the fact that Boko Haram operatives still has the ability to gather so many people together in one place and shoot the video indicates a not inconsiderable level of operational capability.

All this leaves a great number of questions. However, what is clear is that Boko Haram has shown once again that it remains one of the fastest-evolving jihadist groups, one whose proven tactical, operational, and strategic resilience to date ensure that, for the foreseeable future, it will remain a major security challenge for Nigeria and its neighbors and, potentially, the broader international community.

-

The Author is J. Peter Pham

Dr. J. Peter Pham is Director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. He also serves as the incumbent Vice President of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), an academic organization representing some 1,300 scholars of Middle Eastern and African Studies at more than 300 colleges and universities in the United States and overseas, and is Editor-in-Chief of ASMEA's peer-reviewed Journal of the Middle East and Africa.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-g20-china-just-can-t-stop-being-a-bully.html

Out of Control

Even on the Eve of the G20, China Just Can’t Stop Being a Bully

One might have thought Beijing would cool it before the confab of the world’s richest nations that begins Sunday. But no. And there are reasons.

Gordon G. Chang
09.01.16 10:00 PM ET

China, for the first time ever, is hosting the G20, the grouping of the world’s largest economies.

Beijing has a lot riding on the summit, which starts Sunday in Hangzhou. China’s economy, although stabilized, is still fragile, and the country’s officials hope the world’s heavyweights will implement stimulus plans so they can buy more Chinese products.

China’s two-way trade fell a stunning 8.0 percent in 2015, and since then the country’s performance has deteriorated. In the first seven months of this year, exports were down 7.4 percent and imports off 10.5 percent.

So China, whose economy in reality is barely growing, could use help from its 19 powerful visitors. Yet Beijing is not acting like it needs favors. Especially since June, it has engaged in extraordinarily provocative behavior in an arc stretching from India to South Korea.

One might have thought Beijing would cool it in the run-up to the G20 to ensure a successful meeting.

In recent months, China’s diplomats have been fanning out across the globe to lay groundwork for the event. For instance, Foreign Minister Wang Yi flew down to New Delhi in the middle of last month to persuade Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will go to Hangzhou, not to raise contentious issues like the South China Sea.

Moreover, senior officials, seeking to keep geopolitical matters off the agenda, have been putting their points across to the media in a clearly orchestrated campaign. “The Hangzhou summit must focus on economic issues,” Li Baodong, a foreign vice-minister, told the South China Morning Post. “This is what people want to talk about most at the summit.”

Actually, it’s not. G20 members don’t seem to be overly concerned about the global economy at the moment. On the contrary, everyone wants to talk about China.

Beijing has been roiling the international system in many ways, but none more troubling than trying to expand its territory, often by force.

In India, for instance, there has been an uptick in incursions of the Chinese army into Indian-controlled territory in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. In July, China’s troops intruded into Uttarakhand, a state close to New Delhi. Up until then, that region had been mostly free of such dangerous incidents.

In the East China Sea, Beijing last month surrounded the Senkaku Islands with 324 fishing trawlers and 16 patrol boats. China claims the uninhabited features that Japan in fact administers, and Beijing has been trying to unnerve Tokyo with continual incursions, near-incursions, and assorted other provocations.

In the South China Sea, Beijing has been trying to enforce expansive territorial claims that, after a July 12 arbitral ruling in The Hague, have virtually no basis in international law.

To show its defiance of the decision, which legally binds China, Beijing sent out hundreds of trawlers, protected by its maritime surveillance craft, to surround Scarborough Shoal. The feature is far from China and just 124 nautical miles to the main Philippine island of Luzon. Moreover, the Chinese military flew a nuclear-capable H-6K bomber over Scarborough and started regular combat air patrols over the South China Sea.

As a result of all this provocative conduct, several nations are beginning to coalesce against Beijing.

Modi, for example, will stop over in Hanoi before going to Hangzhou, and there he is expected to stitch up agreements to help the Vietnamese defend themselves against Chinese expansionism.

President Obama, after the G20, will visit Laos. That will be the first time a sitting American president has gone there, a signal Beijing is about to lose its hold on one of its few reliable friends in the region.

Moreover, the U.S. and India on Monday signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement, which allows for unprecedented military cooperation, including the sharing of base facilities.

So why is Beijing pursuing a clearly counterproductive foreign policy?

There are many explanations for what the Wall Street Journal in June of last year called China’s “impulsive style.” The primary reason, I believe, is turmoil in Beijing due to the incomplete leadership transition from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping.

Xi, since becoming Communist Party general secretary in November 2012, has taken extraordinary steps to grab power, breaking decades-old norms designed to ensure stability. For a time, it appeared he had succeeding in firming up his grip, but in March infighting broke out into the open, indicating there had been disunity all along.

That month, there were striking displays of defiance of China’s ruler. The Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, Xi’s main instrument in his political purge, posted an essay indirectly criticizing the Chinese supremo. There was also a public call for him to step down, which ended up on a semi-official website.

The maneuvering among civilians now appears to be intensifying as they prepare for the 19th Party Congress next year. To make matters even more complicated, as senior officers of the People’s Liberation Army become increasingly influential power brokers, the military has become an increasingly troubled institution.

There are two main reasons for discord. First, Xi Jinping, as he sought to get rid of the military allies of his civilian adversaries, has roiled the officer corps with unprecedented purges. Second, Xi’s reorganization of the PLA, perhaps the most sweeping in the history of the People’s Republic, has created tensions among generals and admirals, many of whom have lost—or will lose—important postings.

The symptoms of turmoil are obvious.

Last month, three senior officers—one a general—committed suicide. Moreover, at the end of the month, for the first time in Xi’s rule, an active-duty general was detained for corruption. From all outside appearances, Gen. Wang Jianping was sidelined because he had links to a Xi adversary and his departure allowed China’s ruler to pick an ally to take Wang’s place. The situation in the armed forces obviously remains fluid.

In this chaotic situation, it is not surprising that Chinese foreign policy has begun to lose coherence, largely because hawkish elements, both civilian and military, now have latitude to do what they want.

And as provocative as China is now, it could become even more so. The South China Morning Post last month reported that China might start turning Scarborough into a military fortification after the Hangzhou G20, but before the American presidential election.

Reclaiming this feature, which it seized from the Philippines in early 2012, could be the incident triggering the conflict that many see coming because Beijing would be making permanent its act of aggression.

The Chinese know this is one of the worst times to commit provocations. Yet at a moment when their country needs calm, its leaders just can’t help themselves. That means things are terribly wrong in in the Chinese capital.