WAR 09-03-2016-to-09-09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

Sorry folks, the meat world kind of had a death grip on me for the last 24 hours....

(231) 08-13-2016-to-08-19-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...19-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(232) 08-20-2016-to-08-26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...26-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(233) 08-27-2016-to-09-02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonc...economics-is-the-new-militarism/#68bc9ea45252

Opinion

Sep 4, 2016 @ 12:01 AM 1,993 views The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets

At China's G20, Economics Is The New Militarism

Gordon G. Chang, Contributor
I write about Asia, especially the Chinese economy. Full Bio
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.


Friday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said his country’s coast guard had spotted a number of Chinese barges at Bajo de Masinloc, what much of the world calls Scarborough Shoal. “What,” he asked, “is the purpose of a barge?”

The appearance of the barges can mean only one thing: Beijing is getting ready to make Scarborough, an uninhabited feature 124 nautical miles from the main Philippine island of Luzon, a Chinese military outpost. The shoal is strategic, guarding the mouths to both Manila and Subic bays.

Tensions in the South China Sea threaten global commerce—each year $5.3 trillion of goods cross the vital body of water—and have triggered war talk in East Asia. No economy in the region will do well unless leaders there can arrest the worrying trend of events.

So far, the report of the barges remains unconfirmed, but there’s no doubt that China seized Scarborough in early 2012. Then, Chinese and Philippine craft surrounded it and Washington brokered an agreement whereby both sides would withdraw. The Philippines complied, but China did not. The U.S. then did nothing, thereby rewarding the most hostile elements in the Chinese capital.

Those elements then went on a bender, ramping up pressure elsewhere in the South China Sea like Second Thomas Shoal, long thought to be part of the Philippines. They also went after the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. The Chinese call these specks the Diaoyus and have claimed them since 1971, but they are in fact controlled by Japan.

Secretary of State John Kerry in New Delhi on Wednesday said there is “no military solution” to the South China Sea, but the Chinese leadership evidently thinks there is.

And that brings us to the G20. Host China has worked hard to scrub the formal agenda of geopolitical issues, like disagreements over the South China and East China seas. Instead, Beijing wants to talk about economic cooperation and trade, as President Xi Jinping made clear in a 50-minute address Saturday at the Business 20 forum.

Yet economics is the new militarism. Beijing made it so. “When the Philippines sought to defend its claims in the Scarborough Shoal, Beijing showed its displeasure by leaving Filipino agricultural exports to rot on Chinese docks,” writes Jennifer Harris of the Council on Foreign Relations in the Washington Post. “China also initiated a fishing ban around waters claimed by the Philippines and depressed Chinese tourism to the Philippines.”

The tactic was an updating of China’s ban on rare-earth exports to Japan in 2010, over a spat in the East China Sea. That effort, a clear violation of its World Trade Organization obligations, produced only mixed results, so Beijing apparently decided to better plan its initiatives. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 2012 established its Department of International Economy, an attempt to coordinate economic relations and subject them to foreign policy objectives.

That means Xi Jinping’s wish to talk only economics at the G20 is not really that benign.

Harris believes that China’s challenge in its peripheral seas “is an economic contest, not a military one.” One does not have to agree with her on this point to understand she is right to say we need economic-based strategies to confront Beijing. As the title of her piece tells us, “The Best Weapon Against Chinese Expansionism Is Not a Weapon.”

But is it a 45% tariff on Chinese goods? Critics made many valid objections to Donald Trump’s planned duty, but the responses reveal that Americans have not thought about the broader implications of trade with China. As Harris correctly writes, “If the United States is to check Beijing’s expansionism, it will need to make China bear the economic costs of its growing bellicosity.”

So far, Washington policymakers have been reluctant to impose costs beyond the occasional punitive tariff for particularly egregious conduct regarding, say, tires or solar panels.

The lack of strategic thinking looks like an American trait. Most Americans view the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a deficient trade deal instead of a means to bind the economies of 11 Pacific nations to the U.S., as the free-trade pact was conceived by President Obama.

As the debate about TPP suggests, Americans these days judge trade deals for their economic impact only.

Not so the Chinese. China’s policymakers think of trade primarily as an instrument of geopolitics, which is why they promote their “Silk Road Economic Belt,” announced in September 2013, and their “21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” unveiled a month later.

The “One Belt, One Road” project, which contemplates the building of transportation links between China and both Europe and Africa, is sold as an economic development plan, but it is uneconomic at its core. For decades, the expensive OBOR, as it is now called, will reap political influence, not cash. Beijing plans to sink at least one trillion dollars into this infrastructure.

The Philippines, once the home of Scarborough Shoal, would like some of China’s largesse. Duterte even once said he would “shut up” to get it, but it’s unlikely he will ever agree to give away territory for cash. He can’t part with an uninhabited rock like Scarborough because his country is nothing more than a series of rocks, reefs, shoals, specks, and islands.

As a result, his archipelago and China are locked in a zero-sum contest for Scarborough and Second Thomas Shoal and other features scattered in the South China Sea. Beijing, unfortunately, has made conquest of portions of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam as well as all of Taiwan and some of the waters belonging to Indonesia a “sacred and inviolable” duty.

“We want to trade, do commerce with everybody,” Duterte said Friday. “We have plenty to sell, plenty to ship. I hope that there would not be a time that we have to make crucial decisions in our national life.”

If there are in fact barges at Scarborough, the Philippine president will have to make those decisions soon.

Follow me on Twitter @GordonGChang and on Forbes. And find much more here.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-hits-targets-newly-deployed-mobile-rocket-233036475.html

US hits IS targets with 'newly deployed' mobile rocket

AFP•September 3, 2016

Washington (AFP) - US forces have hit Islamic State group targets along Syria's border with Turkey using a "newly deployed" mobile rocket system, American officials said Saturday.

A US Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) carried out a successful strike on Friday on a tactical unit and building belonging to the IS group, Major Josh Jacques, a spokesman for US Central Command, told AFP.

US President Barack Obama's anti-Islamic State envoy Brett McGurk said on Twitter US forces hit the jihadist targets with the "newly deployed" system.

The detachment, which allows the United States to strike a target "with a high degree of accuracy and a significantly greater range," was deployed to Turkey in support of the US-led anti-IS mission, Jacques said.

"HIMARS is unique in reducing the potential collateral damage as it impacts a target at a high angle, has a relatively small blast radius for the effect achieved, and functions in all weather conditions," he said.

The US embassy in Ankara posted on Twitter that it was the "latest step in US-Turkey cooperation in the fight against ISIL (IS)."

HIMARS has been used over several years in previous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The weapon system is incorporated into our normal deliberate ýtargeting cycle and has been for quite some time," Jacques said.

"Precision strikes conducted by HIMARS are similar to the (US-led anti-IS) coalition's precision airstrikes; HIMARS is a complementary asset and involves US troops operating artillery from the soil of a NATO ally," he said.

View Comments (116)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkish-warplanes-pound-10-pkk-targets-overnight-anadolu-074134077.html

Turkish warplanes pound 10 PKK targets overnight: Anadolu

September 4, 2016
Comment

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish warplanes hit 10 Kurdish militant targets in Turkey's southeast and east overnight, the state-run Anadolu Agency said on Sunday, citing security sources.

The air strikes capped one of the most violent single days of fighting in the largely Kurdish southeast in recent years. The military has said that more than 100 militants from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) were either killed or injured in clashes on Saturday.

Turkey's southeast has been rocked by waves of violence following the collapse last year of a 2-1/2-year ceasefire between the state and the autonomy-seeking PKK.

Fighter jets pounded four PKK targets in the Cukurca district of the southeastern Hakkari province on Saturday evening, Anadolu said, citing the security sources.

Six more positions were bombed in the region between the eastern Agri and Van provinces shortly after midnight, it said.

The PKK is considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union. More than 40,000 people, most of them Kurds, have died since it started its insurgency more than three decades ago.

(Reporting by David Dolan; Editing by Mark Potter)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/31/isis-and-palestinians-peas-in-a-pod/

Like peas in a pod: ISIS and Palestinians

Both groups indoctrinate children to kill Israelis

By Ziva Dahl - - Wednesday, August 31, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s assertion that a 14-year-old Islamic State suicide bomber detonated explosives at a wedding in southern Turkey, killing 54 people including 31 children, is currently in question. What is not in question is that ISIS’ use of children as suicide bombers is surging. The day following the wedding bombing, a 13-year-old ISIS suicide bomber was captured in Kirkuk before he could kill.

As appalling as this reality is, we shouldn’t be surprised by this horrific abuse of children. In its second intifada, Palestinians used child suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians. During 2000-03, 29 suicide bombings were carried out by Palestinian children under the age of 18, and more than 40 other children were involved in thwarted attacks.

Just like the Palestinians, ISIS uses children as tools of jihad. It maintains an army of child soldiers, called “cubs of the caliphate,” indoctrinating them with the group’s version of Islam and forcing them to participate in beheadings, crucifixions and other vile acts. ISIS has released footage showing youngsters practicing decapitation on teddy bears. These mock execution games prepare them to star in videos where children behead prisoners. ISIS is sending more children into battle as suicide bombers than ever before.

Although the Palestinians are not currently using the tactic of child suicide bombings, they vigorously pursue a campaign to capture the hearts and minds of Palestinian children. Poisonous incitement to hate and kill Jews and achieve “martyrdom” comes from all directions — Palestinian state-run television, radio and print media, summer camps, school textbooks and religious pronouncements. Music videos extol the virtues of killing Israelis. Preschoolers are brainwashed by cartoons, puppet shows and Mickey Mouse-like characters, indoctrinating them to see Jews as evil-incarnate “infidels.” Palestinian and United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools display posters of martyrs on their walls, use textbooks that deny Israel’s right to exist, and objectify Jews and Christians as subhuman creatures — a message that’s reinforced by imams’ vituperative sermons in Palestinian mosques.

Every attempt is made to indoctrinate youngsters into the Palestinian “cult of martyrdom” (Shahada), which mandates that all Muslims, as a religious duty, aspire to die for Islam in combat against “infidels.” “Martyrs” become role models. Schools, summer camps and soccer teams are named after these terror “heroes.” Hamas’ Facebook page captured the message: “We bring [our children] up on love of Jihad and Martyrdom-death.” Women are taught, “Every mother should sacrifice her child for Palestine.” Martyrdom is the ultimate virtue — Jews are the ultimate evil. For children indoctrinated into this barbaric culture of hatred and death, killing Jews for Islam is like eating ice cream.

In the recent wave of Palestinian terrorism, dubbed the “stabbing intifada,” at least 36 violent attacks against Israelis have been carried out by Palestinian children, ages 11 to 17, usually using knives. Five Israeli civilians have been killed and many other victims wounded. Palestinian knife-wielding kids who die during their attacks are hailed as heroes, with the Palestinian Authority paying their parents for the sacrifice. Given that Palestinian social media offers instruction on “How to stab a Jew,” it’s not surprising that a majority of their children believe that this current terror wave “serves the Palestinian cause.”

A currently popular internet video epitomizes abuse of children: A Palestinian father is seen encouraging his three-year old son to throw stones at armed Israeli border policemen, hoping the Israelis will shoot the child. While an accomplice videos the event, the father urges the Israelis to kill his boy. Instead, they high-five the youngster.

Hamas, which doesn’t hesitate to use children as human shields and allows them to die digging Gaza terror tunnels, published a video depicting six-year-olds, wearing explosive belts and carrying toy guns, who scream in unison: “Death for the sake of Allah!” Kindergarteners envisage their future in detail: “When I will grow up, I want to blow myself up with the Zionists and to kill them … on a bus.”

The shared devotion to martyrdom for killing infidels in the name of Allah leads both Palestinians and ISIS to exploit the very youngest among them. Teaching hate, violence and murder to children is abhorrent; but to the Palestinians and ISIS, it’s the means to build the next generation of jihadis.

The West rightly expresses horror at ISIS’ exploitation of children. When the same horrific abuse of children is perpetrated by Palestinians, the West’s response is deafening silence.

• Ziva Dahl is a fellow with the Haym Salomon Center.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/02/angela-merkel-marine-le-pen-europe-destiny

European Union
Opinion

Angela Merkel and Marine Le Pen: one of them will shape Europe’s future

Natalie Nougayrède

The two women have fiercely conflicting visions, and their battle for the continent’s soul will be crucial

Friday 2 September 2016 14.22 EDT Last modified on Saturday 3 September 2016 11.57 EDT
Comments 1,019

Two very different women hold Europe’s future in their hands – and neither of them is Theresa May. The battle for Europe’s soul is being waged between Angela Merkel and Marine Le Pen. This is a clash of personalities and visions: Germany’s chancellor v the leader of France’s Front National, the largest far-right party in Europe. As Britain prepares to leave the EU, the Franco-German dimension of the continent’s destiny has arguably never been so important since the end of the cold war. What is at stake is momentous: whether Europe can survive as a project, and whether fundamental principles such as the rule of law, democracy and tolerance can be salvaged. The battle will play out nationally in 2017, in key elections in France and Germany, but it concerns all Europeans.


French elections: Front National makes no gains in final round


It may seem strange to reduce Europe’s existential crises to just one personal confrontation. Merkel has been in power since 2005 and is trying to remain there, while Le Pen may dream of being in office but has never approached it (last year her party failed to take control of a single French region in local elections). Some may ask: why would a French opposition figure count more than the man currently sitting in the Elysée Palace? But François Hollande has become so weak – even more so with this week’s resignation of his economics minister, Emmanuel Macron – and terrorism has transformed French politics to such a degree that Le Pen’s prospects now stand out as a key defining factor of where France, and Europe for that matter, may be heading.

It is only partly reassuring to say that Le Pen has little chance of becoming president next year (the French electoral system makes that difficult). The trouble is, in recent months, her brand of anti-Muslim, xenophobic and nationalistic politics has spread across the French mainstream right like wildfire. Le Pen is fast capitalising on this summer’s burkini episode and on the national trauma left by jihadi terrorism. It’s hard to see which French politician or movement can find the authority and strength to push back against her ideas, or counter their appeal among the French suburban middle classes as well as in rural areas. Nicolas Sarkozy hopes to win primaries in November, but his whole strategy hinges on imitating rather than disputing Le Pen’s line of thinking.


Angela Merkel and François Hollande
‘Le Pen lashed out at Hollande, describing him as a subdued ‘vice-chancellor of Germany’, after he’d denounced populism in a speech.’ Photograph: Philippe Wojazer/AFP/Getty Images


Marine Le Pen’s single most powerful opponent is to be found outside France: Angela Merkel. Le Pen hates Merkel, and Merkel despises Le Pen. They confront each other in a fight of European proportions. Le Pen has often attacked the chancellor – once describing her as an “empress” imposing “illegal immigration” on the whole of Europe. Merkel sees Le Pen as an acute political threat to Europe, although she has rarely mentioned her in public. If France embraces the far right, the wider impact will be far more serious than it was with, say, Hungary’s illiberal slide.

Merkel and Le Pen have never met, nor have they had any reason to. Once, last year, they sat not far from each other in the European Parliament chamber – but Merkel kept her gaze away, out of contempt. That day, Le Pen furiously lashed out at Hollande, describing him as a subdued “vice-chancellor of Germany”, after he’d denounced populism in a speech.

These two women have one thing in common and one thing only: the depth of their political conviction. Angela Merkel has been unwavering in her message that welcoming refugees is the right thing to do; Le Pen fumes against “rampant Islamisation” of the continent. Merkel wants to save the European project; Le Pen is fully aligned with forces that want to dismantle it (she recently said on CNN that France had become an EU “province”). Merkel nurtures the transatlantic link; Le Pen admires Putin’s Russia – her party sits at the heart of pro-Kremlin networks in Europe, financial ones among them. Le Pen’s ideology draws from France’s historical far right, the ideas of Charles Maurras and colonial racism; Merkel is the daughter of a Protestant pastor for whom individual freedoms are paramount values. Le Pen has always made much about being divorced and smoking cigarettes (trying to cast herself in the image of a modern woman); Merkel’s personal style is more subdued, which isn’t to say her character is less ironclad.

For decades what drove the European project was the so-called “Franco-German engine”. It is now all but broken – mainly because of France’s economic weaknesses, which have severely unbalanced the relationship. What now drives European politics is a different kind of Franco-German equation, one in which Merkel, often faulted for her eurozone policies, has on several occasions attempted to give France’s socialist government some financial breathing space against Le Pen – including by sparing France the wrath of the EU commission for disrespecting deficit targets.

Merkel’s anti-Le Pen strategy has largely been discreet. But in May she made it very plain. Speaking at Berlin’s French lycee, she said she would try to make sure “other political forces are stronger than the Front National, if that can be accomplished from abroad”. It was an unusually blunt statement. Le Pen’s supporters immediately accused the chancellor of meddling in French politics; but Merkel has long identified the populist dynamics connecting Le Pen’s rise with the rise of Germany’s far-right AfD, a party that threatens to upend politics in her own country.

This coming Sunday, regional elections in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern offer a key test for Merkel’s CDU party, which has trailed in local polls behind the AfD. Le Pen will be watching closely, and little wonder: one of the two will shape the future of Europe. The question is which.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-leader-executed-jamaat-islami-a7224356.html

Senior Islamist leader executed in Bangladesh for war crimes committed during conflict with Pakistan

Mir Quasem Ali's party, Jamaat-e-Islami, have vowed a general strike
Agency |51 minutes ago|

Bangladesh authorities on Saturday executed a top Islamist party leader convicted of war crimes involving the nation's 1971 independence war against Pakistan, officials said.

Video

Proshanto Kumar Bonik, a senior jail superintendent, said Mir Quasem Ali, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was hanged at 10:30 pm local time, hours after several dozen family members and relatives met him for the last time inside Kashimpur Central Jail near the capital, Dhaka.

"We are doing our necessary formalities now. We will send the body soon to the ancestral home in Manikganj district for burial," Bonik said after the execution.

Immediately after the execution, Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan said security measures would be put in place to prevent unrest by Ali's supporters.

Authorities deployed para-military border guards and additional police in Dhaka and other cities late Saturday.

The Jamaat-e-Islami party in a statement late Saturday protested Ali's execution and called for an eight-hour general strike beginning Monday morning.

The execution took place a day after Ali refused to seek presidential clemency. It was his last chance to see mercy. The president had previously rejected appeals for clemency by other Islamist party leaders facing execution.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a final appeal for reviewing Ali's death sentence handed out by a special tribunal two years ago.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the Jamaat-e-Islami party called for a daylong general strike across the country last Wednesday, but got little response.

A special tribunal dealing with war crimes sentenced Ali to death in November 2014 for abduction, torture and murder.

The 63-year-old Ali was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami's highest policy-making body. He was found guilty on eight charges, two of which carried the death sentence, including the abduction and murder of a young man in a torture chamber. Ali was sentenced to 72 years in prison on the other charges.

Ali built his fortune by establishing businesses from real estate to shipping to banking, and he was considered one of the party's top financiers.

Ali is the fifth Jamaat-e-Islami party leader to be executed since 2010 when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina formed the special tribunal to try suspected war criminals. Also executed was a close aide of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia from the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Jamaat-e-Islami is a key partner of Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party in the opposition against Hasina.

Hasina's government says Pakistani soldiers, aided by local collaborators, killed 3 million people and raped 200,000 women in the 1971 independence war.

Jamaat-e-Islami, which had openly campaigned against independence, has denied committing atrocities.

Hasina has called the special tribunal trials a long overdue effort to obtain justice for the victims of war crimes, four decades after Bangladesh split from Pakistan. Her government has rejected criticism from abroad that the trial process did not meet international standards.

The international human rights group Amnesty International noted that the United Nations had raised questions about the fairness of the trials of Ali and other Islamist party leaders.

"There is no question that the people of Bangladesh deserve justice for crimes committed during the War of Independence, but the death penalty is a human rights violation and will not achieve this. It is a cruel and irreversible punishment that most of the world's countries have now rid themselves of," said Champa Patel, Amnesty International's South Asia Director, in a statement released Saturday.

AP

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-wary-after-record-turnout-crucial-hong-kong-election-n642761


NEWS
SEP 4 2016, 10:28 PM ET

China Wary After Record Turnout for Crucial Hong Kong Election

by REUTERS
Comment

Hong Kong residents voted in record numbers Sunday in a bitterly contested legislative election, with a push for independence among a disaffected younger generation of candidates and voters stoking tension with China's government.

Hong Kong's pro-democracy opposition is hoping to maintain a one-third veto bloc in the 70-seat legislative council in the face of better-mobilized and -funded pro-Beijing and pro-establishment rivals.


Full results aren't expected until later Monday.

The former British colony was handed back to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" agreement that promised to maintain the global financial hub's freedoms and separate laws for at least 50 years but gave ultimate control to Beijing.

The Electoral Affairs Commission said 58 percent of the city's 3.8 million eligible voters had cast ballots, up from 53 percent in 2012, and the highest turnout for any legislative election since 1997.

The turnout reflected the city's heightened political discontent and urgent appeals by candidates, some from new radical groups, jostling for extra votes in a highly competitive poll.

Much attention focused on a group of about 20 pro-democracy "localists" pushing a more radical, anti-China agenda who could become a fledgling new force in the legislature.

 

[Housecarl]

Begs the question as to any involvement with Russia in these talks since both India and Vietnam have "history" with Moscow.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...cts-to-counter-China/articleshow/54000372.cms

India, Vietnam ink def pacts to counter China

TNN | Sep 4, 2016, 06.56 AM IST

NEW DELHI: India and Vietnam added a strong defence component to their relationship even as PM Narendra Modi and his counterpart Nguyen Xuan Phuc upgraded bilateral ties to a level Hanoi enjoys only with Russia and China.
Describing Vietnam as a "strong pillar of India's 'Act East' policy," Modi said "our bilateral ties are based on strong mutual trust, understanding and convergence of views on various regional and global issues".

India has agreed to give a $500 million defence line of credit to help Vietnam source more military hardware from India.

Delhi and Hanoi signed a contract for fast offshore patrol vessels by L&T with Vietnam Border Guards under a $100 million letter of credit that had been given earlier. The defence cooperation will jump to a whole new level when India finally makes a decision to transfer the Brahmos missile to Vietnam, which has been on Hanoi's wishlist for some time. Modi said the credit was for "facilitating mutual defence cooperation" and the ties between the two countries would "contribute to stability, security and prosperity in this region". At an official luncheon, he said, "As partners, we must also take advantage of our synergies to face emerging regional challenges and exploit new opportunities."

A space agreement takes forward a decision that allows India to set up a satellite tracking and imaging centre in southern Vietnam that will give Hanoi and Delhi an eye over the entire region including China and the South China Sea. While such centres have environmental, agricultural and weather functions, they serve a dual security purpose. Ajoint statement issued at the end of the visit said that "PM Modi announced a grant of $ 5 million for the construction of an Army Software Park at the Telecommunications University in Nha Trang".

The visit in itself was a strong signal to China, a country that is a strategic challenge in its current avatar as an aggressive, expansionist giant.

The two sides also signed an agreement on double taxation avoidance, more and more important as Indian businesses set up shop in Veitnam. Moreover, Delhi's concerns over selling the BrahMos to Hanoi also appear to be fading as India and Vietnam move closer and align their strategic interests.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...ish-border-completely-secured-from-is/7813274

Syrian-Turkish border completely secured from Islamic State, Turkey's Prime Minister says

Posted about 6 hours ago

Turkey's Prime Minister Binali Yildirim says his nation's forces and Syrian rebels have expelled the Islamic State (IS) group from the last areas of the Syrian-Turkish border under its control.

"From Azaz to Jarabulus, our 91-kilometre border has been completely secured. All terrorist organisations have been repulsed and they have gone," Mr Yildirim said during a televised speech while visiting the south-eastern city of Diyarbakir.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said earlier that IS lost its last stretch after the few remaining villages it controlled were recaptured by rebels.

The Britain-based monitor said "rebels and Islamist factions backed by Turkish tanks and warplanes" had taken several villages on the border "after IS withdrew from them, ending IS's presence".

The loss of the Turkish border will deprive IS of a key transit point for recruits and supplies, though the group continues to hold territory in both Syria and Iraq.

The advance comes after Turkey launched an operation on August 24 dubbed Euphrates Shield, saying it was targeting both IS but also Syrian Kurdish forces that have been key to driving the jihadists out of other parts of the Syrian-Turkish border.

The Kurdish YPG militia is a key partner of the US-led coalition against IS, and has recaptured large swathes of territory in Syria from the extremist group.

But Ankara considers the YPG a "terrorist" group and has been alarmed by its expansion along the border, fearing the creation of a contiguous, semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria.

'Terror corridor'

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan raised concern about the formation of a "terror corridor" along Turkey's Syrian border.

Mr Erdogan was speaking to reporters after a meeting with US President Barack Obama at the G20 gathering of world leaders in China.

"It is our wish that a terror corridor not be formed across our southern border," Mr Erdogan said.

Mr Erdogan has repeatedly said that Turkey's allies should not be making a distinction between IS and the YPG as both groups pose a threat to Turkey.

AFP/Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

Recall years ago when there was talk of the possibility of Indian combat troops being deployed to Afghanistan. Well if the Taliban push this with a response, things could get real interesting, particularly when you consider the ROE and the Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-warn-india-over-military-aid-to-kabul/3493204.html

Taliban Warns India Over Military Aid to Kabul

September 04, 2016 11:54 AM
Ayaz Gul

ISLAMABAD — The Taliban is urging India to stop giving lethal military equipment to the Afghan government, condemning it as a “clear hostility” towards the war-torn nation.

In its first public reaction to New Delhi’s growing military cooperation with Kabul, the Islamist insurgency alleged Indian aircraft and equipment are being used to kill Afghans and destroy their homes as well as other civilian infrastructure.

“The Islamic Emirate [the Taliban] condemns this action with the strongest of terms,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, the main spokesman for the Taliban, in a statement issued Sunday.

Attack helicopters provided

India recently transferred four Russian-made Mi-25 attack helicopters to boost the Afghan Air Force’s ability to assist ground troops fighting Taliban insurgents, and it trains hundreds of Afghan soldiers each year in its military academy.

“We call on India to stop exporting items of killing and destruction to Afghanistan and to stop efforts of prolonging the lifespan of this corrupt regime with its military aid,” Mujahid added.

He accused Afghan forces of using Indian attack helicopters to destroy a key bridge during recent fighting in the volatile northern Kunduz province.

“This cannot be interpreted as anything other than enmity with the Afghans and shall arouse hatred of the people of Afghanistan,” asserted the Taliban spokesman.

Call for more assistance

Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan General John Nicholson traveled to New Delhi last month to urge Indian officials there to enhance military aid to Kabul.

“I know that they [Afghan authorities] have asked for more of these helicopters. There is an immediate need for more. When these aircraft come in, they immediately get into the fight,” Nicholson told reporters during his August 10 visit.

Pakistan military’s intelligence agency

U.S., Afghan and Indian officials allege the Pakistan military’s intelligence agency covertly supports the Taliban insurgency and allows it use sanctuaries on Pakistani soil to plot attacks in Afghanistan, charges Islamabad rejects.

Afghan army chief General Quadam Shah Shahim visited India last week to seek enhanced bilateral defense ties besides asking for more military equipment, particularly Mi-25 helicopters.

India has contributed $2 billion in economic assistance for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan since the ouster of the Taliban from power in 2001.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-ur...di-arabias-oversight-of-holy-sites-1473081759

WORLD MIDDLE EAST

Iran Urges Muslims to Challenge Saudi Arabia’s Oversight of Holy Sites

The call by Iran’s supreme leader comes days before the start of the annual hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

By ASA FITCH and MARGHERITA STANCATI
Updated Sept. 5, 2016 3:35 p.m. ET
9 COMMENTS

DUBAI—Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei questioned Saudi Arabia’s fitness to oversee Islam’s holiest places and accused the kingdom’s rulers of murder in last year’s deadly hajj pilgrimage stampede.

“Because of these rulers’ oppressive behavior toward God’s guests, the world of Islam must fundamentally reconsider the management of the two holy places and the issue of hajj,” Mr. Khamenei said Monday in a challenge likely to worsen hostile relations between the two political and religious powers days ahead of the start of this year’s hajj to Mecca.

The stampede at last year’s hajj left 769 people dead, according to the Saudi government.

The Associated Press said the death toll was at least 2,426, after examining state media reports and officials’ comments from countries whose citizens participated in the pilgrimage.

In his comments Monday, Mr. Khamenei said Saudi authorities behaved with deliberate cruelty in the disaster, in which 461 Iranians were killed, Iranian officials say.


“The heartless and murderous Saudis locked up the injured with the dead in containers instead of providing medical treatment and helping them or at least quenching their thirst,” he said. “They murdered them.”

The stampede wasn’t the only tragedy to mar last year’s hajj: Days before it started, high winds and heavy rains caused a crane to collapse on Mecca’s Grand Mosque, killing more than 100 people.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef on Monday defended his country’s preparedness for the hajj.

Iran in May announced that it wouldn’t participate in this year’s hajj, saying Riyadh was to blame for the collapse of negotiations over travel arrangements for Iranian pilgrims and lack of compensation for relatives of citizens killed in last year’s stampede.

“Iran’s authorities don’t want Iranian pilgrims to come for reasons up to the Iranians themselves as part of their quest to politicize hajj,” he said. “This is something that we don’t accept and won’t allow to happen, and we stand firmly and strongly against those working to disrupt security at the hajj.”

The prince, who also serves as interior minister and chairs the committee in charge of organizing hajj, made his comments after attending a parade for hajj security forces, according to Saudi Arabia’s state news agency. The annual five-day hajj to Mecca, which all able-bodied Muslims who can afford to are required to perform once, begins this week.

The Saudi king holds the title of “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” and his oversight of the hajj and administration of Medina—revered as the burial site of the Prophet Muhammad and the second-holiest city in Islam after Mecca—are sources of great prestige across the Muslim world.

The kingdom tightly controls participation in hajj, issuing visas under a quota system organized by nationality.

Saudi Arabia is the Middle East’s dominant Sunni Muslim power, and Iran its leading Shiite power. In recent years, their rivalry has intensified politically, militarily and ideologically across the region, and the two are engaged in proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Their relationship, already tense before the stampede, spiraled downward afterward.

In January, the kingdom’s execution of prominent Shiite cleric and activist Nemer al-Nemer sparked protests at Iranian diplomatic compounds in Iran. Riyadh then cut diplomatic and commercial ties with Iran, and several of the kingdom’s Sunni allies downgraded or severed their relations with Tehran.

Lower-ranking Iranian officials have questioned Saudi Arabia’s stewardship of the holy sites before. But Monday’s rebuke from Mr. Khamenei, who has final say over most matters of state in Iran, was his sharpest since the stampede.

Saudi Arabia has introduced new safety measures for the hajj this year, including electronic wristbands for pilgrims to better manage the flow of people along the pilgrimage route. Some 1.5 million of the e-bracelets, which are encoded with identification information and relevant contact details, are to be distributed.

The government also has introduced more surveillance cameras and other technology for improved crowd control, and said it would strictly enforce a timetable for carrying out the hajj rite. Some 17,000 security forces have been mobilized for the pilgrimage, Saudi officials said last week.

A recent spate of attacks by militants have heightened security concerns.

In July, three separate bombings struck Saudi Arabia on a single day, including a blast next to the mosque in Medina where the prophet is said to be buried.

Write to Asa Fitch at asa.fitch@wsj.com and Margherita Stancati at margherita.stancati@wsj.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2016/09/china-deploys-construction-vessels-at-disputed-reef-as-obama-meets-xi/

China deploys construction vessels at disputed reef as Obama meets Xi

By Bill Gertz on September 5, 2016 in AT Top Writers, Bill Gertz, China, Southeast Asia


If reports about the presence of Chinese dredging ships near Scarborough Shoal are true, Beijing may be planning to start island-building on the disputed reef to turn it into another military outpost. The U.S. Pacific Command should order a military air and surface reconnaissance operation to check on the ships and to learn their intentions. This will give a message to China that the U.S. will actively oppose regional military hegemonism.

Photos of Chinese ships deployed near a key disputed reef in the South China Sea surfaced over the weekend as U.S. and Chinese leaders met at the Group of 20 nations summit and discussed maritime disputes.

The Philippines Defense Ministry published photos of 11 Chinese ships near Scarborough Shoal that include vessels that some reports indicated appear designed for dredging operations – a key indicator Beijing is ignoring U.S. and international calls for a halt to island-building on disputed reefs and islands.

A Pentagon official confirmed that the Chinese have stepped up the number of ships and maritime patrol craft in the vicinity of Scarborough – a large reef claimed by China and Philippines and close to Subic Bay where U.S. warships will be deployed in the future in support of an upgraded Washington-Manila defense pact. But the official said it could not confirm Philippines reports they included dredging ships.

The 11 Chinese ships deployed around the northern edge of the shoal include four Chinese maritime security ships and seven blue-hulled ships that could be either fishing-related ships or possibly construction and dredging vessels. One of the ships is a fishing vessel.

The photos were taken Saturday by a Philippines surveillance aircraft and made public as the G-20 summit began in Hangzhou, China.

The increase in Chinese ships has set off alarm bells within the Pentagon, which is closely monitoring the activity in the islands.

Pentagon intelligence agencies were alerted to Chinese plans for dredging and construction on Scarborough Shoal in December. That’s when reports surfaced that a Chinese company had been contracted to build an airport, government and residential buildings, a harbor and a resort.

Additionally, China revealed in December it will build a new and larger dredging vessel to be completed by July 2017 that likely will be for Scarborough Shoal. The dredger will be similar to another vessel that was used for large-scale island building in the Spratlys and other locations.

Chinese ship activity around Scarborough Reef began increasing last month when more than a dozen maritime security vessels were spotted. In the past, China had sent one to three ships to the disputed shoal that was seized by China from the Philippines in a 2012 takeover.

Over the past several years, China has built some 3,200 acres of new islands in both the Spratlys, in the southern part of the sea, and in the Paracels, in the northern part, where Vietnam has claimed the chain as its maritime territory.

Pentagon officials believe the Chinese are preparing to build a triangle of military bases stretching from Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Mischief Reef in the south, and eventually Scarborough Shoal.

Because of its closeness to Subic Bay in the Philippines, the Pentagon has been more vocal in opposing construction on Scarborough.

If the disputed reef is militarized, it will improve China’s air and naval power projection capabilities against U.S. forces. The base also would bolster Chinese “anti-access, area-denial” capabilities designed to force the U.S. military out of the region. It also would provide the key base for China’s imposition of an air defense identification zone over the South China Sea.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, has said Chinese island-building is part of an effort to militarize the South China Sea. Advanced fighters have been deployed along with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles on some of the islands. “They’re changing the operational landscape of the South China Sea,” Harris said in February.

The White House made no mention of whether the increasing tensions in the South China Sea were discussed during the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Sunday. A White House statement said the president emphasized the United States’ “unwavering commitment” to the security of its Asia Pacific treaty allies.

“The president reaffirmed that the United States will work with all countries in the region to uphold the principles of international law, unimpeded lawful commerce, and freedom of navigation and overflight,” the statement said, without mentioning the recent U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration that ruled China’s expansive South China Sea claims had no basis in international law.

Obama also made no mention of maritime disputes with China in a press conference Monday. But he noted “maritime security” was among the United States’ differences with China that were discussed in meetings with the Chinese leader.

American concerns about a Chinese takeover of the sea, a strategic transit route for trillions of dollars in annual international trade, prompted U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter to suggest the U.S. military would adopt tough measures.

Asked about a potential military buildup on Scarborough, Carter said June 4: “I hope that this development doesn’t occur because it will result in actions being taken by both United States and by others in the region which would have the effect of not only increasing tensions but isolating China.”

Two weeks ago, Carter joined with India’s Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar to sign a military logistics agreement that is clearly intended to signal China that U.S. and Indian forces will work more closely in countering Chinese aggression. It will facilitate port visits and maintenance for naval vessels in the Indo-Pacific.

Analysts say the arrival of the Chinese ships at Scarborough appears timed to the summit and poses a direct challenge to the United States and regional allies who are opposing China’s creeping hegemony.

“The Philippine Department of National Defense release of imagery showing up to 11 Chinese ships within three miles of Scarborough Shoal is disturbing as it indicates the PRC may have decided to begin preparations for reclamation,” said retired Navy Capt. Jim Fanell, a former Pacific fleet intelligence chief.

The naval deployment should prompt the U.S. Pacific Command to order a comprehensive and sustained military air and surface reconnaissance operation to check on the ships and to learn their intentions.

“These results should be made available to the U.S. public and international community immediately and if it is determined that China is indeed beginning preparations for reclaiming Scarborough Shoal, then the U.S. Pacific Fleet should dispatch Seventh Fleet ships and aircraft to prevent our treaty ally from being abused even more than they already have been,” Fanell said.

The American response so far to what amounts to a covert Chinese takeover of the South China Sea has been limited to expressions of concern and voicing support for allies, with few shows of military strength.

The presence of Chinese ships and possibly dredging ships near Scarborough should produce a greater response, including flights by P-8 maritime patrol aircraft warship and submarine deployment to the region as a strategic warning to Beijing that the United States will not stand idly by and will actively oppose regional military hegemonism.

Bill Gertz is a journalist and author who has spent decades covering defense and national security affairs. He is the author of six national security books. Contact him on Twitter at @BillGertz

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-france-idUSKCN11C1HR

World News | Tue Sep 6, 2016 9:35am EDT

France deploys artillery, readies carrier ahead of Mosul offensive

France said on Tuesday it was deploying artillery to Iraq and readying its aircraft carrier for deployment to reinforce foreign military support for the Iraqi army's expected push to recapture Mosul, the de facto capital of Islamic State in Iraq.

The Iraqi army and its elite units have gradually taken up positions around the city 400 km (248 miles) north of Baghdad, with international coalition forces keen to capitalize on the militant group's loss of territory in both Iraq and Syria.

"We decided to bolster our support of the Iraqi forces this Autumn with the aim of recapturing Mosul," French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told a gathering of defense and military officials in Paris.

"At this very moment, artillery is arriving close to the front line," Le Drian said, adding that the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier would soon leave for the Middle East.

French defense officials declined to give details on the nature of the artillery.

It was from Mosul's Grand Mosque in 2014 that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdad declared a caliphate spanning regions of Iraq and Syria.

France, the first country to join U.S.-led air strikes in Iraq, has stepped up aerial operations against Islamic State, including in Syria, after several attacks by the group in France. Paris also has special forces operating in both countries and has provided weapons to Syrian rebel groups.

(Reporting by Marine Pennetier; writing by Richard Lough; editing by John Irish)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-china-idUSKCN11C0CD

World News | Tue Sep 6, 2016 5:13am EDT

G20 a success for China, but hard issues kicked down the road

By Ben Blanchard | BEIJING

China is lauding its successful hosting of the G20 summit in scenic Hangzhou, with open confrontation largely avoided and broad consensus reached over the fragile state of the global economy and the need for a wide range of policies to fix it.

There was even a joint announcement by China and United States that they would ratify the Paris climate change agreement, a significant step for the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.

But scratch beneath the surface, and the gathering of the world's most powerful leaders was not all plain sailing - from the distraction of a North Korean missile test to the failure of the United States and Russia to reach agreement over Syria, and diplomatic faux pas to double speak over protectionism.

Chinese state media, while largely basking in the glory of a summit that happened without being too overshadowed by disputes such as the South China Sea, also let slip Beijing's frustrations at what it sees as Western efforts to stymie its economic ambitions.

"For the world's major developed economies, they should curb rising protectionism and dismantle anti-trade measures as economic isolationism is not a solution to sluggish growth," China's official Xinhua news agency said late on Monday.

"In order to build an inclusive, rule-based and open world economy, protectionism must be prevented from eroding the foundation for a faster and healthier economic recovery."

In the run-up to G20, China has been particularly upset by what it sees as unwarranted suspicion of its overseas investment agenda smacking of protectionism and paranoia.

A few weeks before the summit, Australia blocked the A$10 billion ($7.63 billion) sale of the country's biggest energy grid to Chinese bidders, while Britain delayed a $24 billion Chinese-invested nuclear project.


BEHIND THE SCENES

Behind the scenes, Western countries have been accusing China of not sticking to its own goals.

Before the summit, European G20-sources doubted that the Chinese agenda would mark a real new chapter to create more sustainable growth for the global economy.

China, asking in public for more openness and steps to counter protectionism, is still giving Western investors only very limited access to their market, a European official said.

A big concern for foreign investors in China is what they see as the increasing difficulty of doing business in China, driven by concern that new laws and policies are seeking to effectively shut out foreigners or make life very hard for them.

"President Xi accurately raised the alarm on the need to counter the increase in protectionism around the world," said James Zimmerman, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.

"But actions speak louder than words and the ball is in China's court to implement its own needed domestic reforms and to provide greater market access for foreign goods, services and technology."

And calls to utilize innovation as an economic driver should reflect policies that encourage an environment promoting fair and market-driven innovation that is open to all participants, and not just a few domestic champions, Zimmerman said.

Several diplomats familiar with the summit said China had resisted the idea of putting steel on the final communique, though it did make an appearance in the end with G20 leaders pledging to work together to address excess steel capacity.

For countries like Britain, whose steel industry crisis has been directly blamed on a flood of cheap Chinese imports, the issue is key.

An official from British Prime Minister Theresa May's office said they and the United States had pushed for language in the communique on the importance of working together at G20 to tackle excess production.

"We have, despite resistance from some countries, secured some language on the importance of doing that," the official said.

Asked if China was one of those resisting, she just repeated "in the face of some resistance".

Another shadow over the G20 has been the rise of popular opposition to free trade and globalization, embodied by phenomenon like Britain's summer vote to leave the European Union and Donald Trump becoming the Republican presidential candidate in the United States.

"We agree with the G20's analysis that the benefits of trade and open markets must be communicated to the wider public more effectively," said John Danilovich, Secretary General of the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce.

"It's vital that business and governments work together to explain how and why trade matters for all."

($1 = 1.3110 Australian dollars)


(Additional reporting by William James and Gernot Heller in Hangzhou, China; Editing by Ryan Woo)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/what-happens-if-north-korea-collapses/

What Happens If North Korea Collapses?

If Kim Jong-un’s regime collapses, how will China, the U.S., and South Korea react?

By Phil W. Reynolds
September 03, 2016

Kim Jong-un is not planning on giving up his rule of North Korea anytime soon. Having achieved another successful nuclear test, and successfully launching a theater ballistic missile from a submarine, Kim capped his summer by reportedly executing his Vice Premier Kim Yong-jin for slouching during Kim’s speech at 13th Supreme People’s Assembly this past June.

The annual summer military exercises between the United States and South Korea elicited the usual rhetoric from the Pyongyang regime, including the threat to attack Seoul with nuclear weapons. Described in defense terms as a response to a North Korean attack, the war games usually end with the reunification of the peninsula. But a growing chorus of voices think that internal collapse is more likely.

In the event of collapse, there are several issues that will have to be thought through, none of which are simple. First and foremost is the Chinese reaction. In any scenario in which the North Korean regime falls, many of its former subjects will head across the Yalu River. Beijing already sits uneasily on its relationship with its western minorities; with several million ethnic Koreans already living in China, Beijing fears another problem in borderlands, this time in its northeast. This potential trouble spot is much close to the growing middle class in Beijing, and it would be much harder to contain reports of repression. Chinese Koreans would also have a powerful voice across the Yellow Sea in the new, larger Korea.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

In a gambit aimed at preserving the status quo, China has even backed peace talks between the United States and North Korea, a significant step toward normalization. The North rejected the deal since the United States insisted on addressing denuclearization at the same time, a key goal if South Korea were to go along.

Any normalization of the relationship between North Korea and its allies could have long term consequences for Beijing. Economic liberalization would certainly bring much more goods, bought from China, into North Korea, but rising consumer lifestyles also bring aspirations of political freedom, aspirations that are certain to rock the North Korean regime, and by association, Beijing itself. On the other hand, permanent peace on the peninsula would surely bring about a change in the military alliance between the United States and South Korea and Japan. The South Korean and Japanese militaries are the eleventh and seventh most powerful in the world, and are backed up by the United States’ cutting edge anti-missile, air, and logistics capabilities. The recent announcement that the U.S. will deploy THAAD to South Korea is seen as a threat to China. With South Koreans already protesting its deployment, it would be difficult for Seoul to sell the system after peace, and certainly Washington would look for a peace dividend, reducing its own forces on the peninsula and in Japan by a considerable amount. Geopolitically, peace on the peninsula is a win worth the long term problem of a liberalizing North.

The next issue is peace between a unified Korea and China, with more than a possibility of the tension along the 38th parallel simply moving north to the new international boarder. China would have to be convinced that Korea would pose no threat and the departure of U.S. troops might be the price to secure Beijing’s acceptance of a unified Korea. Any belligerence on the part of Seoul during an imminent collapse of Pyongyang could be interpreted by China as a need to cross the Yalu River, where Beijing already claims the inter-river islands. A new partition is a possibility, with China occupying the northern half of North Korea, down to Pyongyang, saving the elites who occupy “Pyonghatten.” In the case of a what would be a rather brotherly occupation, the probable Chinese zone would simultaneously accomplish two goals for China: It would be able to install a pliant regime that would no longer threaten the South or Japan, driving a wedge into the 70-year-old alliance between Beijing and Pyongyang. Establishing China’s international border with Korea a hundred miles or so south of the Yalu River would retain a buffer between China and a strong Western adversary.

The last issue, and in many ways, the most pressing is the case of the North’s weapons of mass destruction. Hardliners may be tempted to use them, fulfilling their purpose of regime survival, or warlord minded generals may use them to set up their own quasi-kingdoms. In the event that Western intelligence in can predict a collapse, military forces in the south will go to high alert, and any provocation could invoke an artillery duel that quickly escalates to an air campaign. In the chaos that follows, South Korean and American forces would most likely attempt to capture WMD sites quickly. If the Chinese are coming south, this creates a dangerous situation where Allied forces could bomb Chinese forces, turning a housekeeping operation into a superpower confrontation. In some cases, South Korean or U.S. ground forces in far northern areas could be captured by Chinese forces, creating a very public bargaining piece that plays toward China’s goals.

The collapse scenario creeps closer to reality. The execution of Kim Yong-jin is the most recent in a series of high profile executions dating back to 2012, and follows the defection of Thae Yong-ho, the deputy ambassador of the North Korean embassy in the U.K., who is now under British protection. Continued executions and more erratic behavior from a spoiled despot will continue to drive North Korean elites toward considering better alternatives. As Kim Jong-un becomes increasingly isolated, no doubt he will double down on his own peculiar style of rule, driving his domestic audience even further away. The United States will need to begin thinking seriously about a unified Korea, not just South Korea, and what China will do.

Phil W. Reynolds is a PhD Candidate at the University of Hawaii. He specializes in Security Studies and Global Politics.

 

[Possible Impact]

US Mission to NATO ‏@USNATO 4h
They’re here!
Two US B-1s and a B-52 land in the Czech Republic
for Exercise #AmpleStrike
http://goo.gl/D0HFVN

Meanwhile, over in the Persian Gulf area...

Mark ‏@Mark_swl 2h
The USAF bombers B-52`s (cs Mytee lead & Mytee93) wkg on HF.
Heading to Qatar. Mytee 93 prob spare.

Already Happened ‏@M3t4_tr0n 5h
Russia: Iran to receive all S-300 systems before year-end,
half already supplied - Kozhin

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/nato-is-an-institutional-dinosaur/

NATO is an Institutional Dinosaur

Ted Galen Carpenter
August 25, 2016

Editor¡¯s Note: Welcome to the fifth installment in our new series, ¡°Course Correction,¡± which features adapted articles from the Cato Institute¡¯s recently released book, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America¡¯s Global Role. The articles in this series challenge the existing bipartisan foreign policy consensus and offer a different path.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has managed to gain unprecedented attention for stating in his usual flamboyant fashion something that many respected foreign policy analysts have maintained for years: that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an obsolete security arrangement created in a vastly different era to meet an entirely different security situation. Yet NATO partisans typically act as though the date on the calendar reads 1950 instead of 2016. They see Russia as nearly identical to the Soviet Union at the zenith of its military power and global ideological influence and regard democratic Europe as a helpless protectorate. Today, however, Russia is little more than a regional actor with limited ability to project power. And far from helpless, Europe¡¯s democratic nations have robust economies. As long as they continue to rely on America¡¯s military and its security guarantees, they will not divert financial resources from their preferred domestic welfare priorities to national defense.

A striking feature of analysts who echo former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright¡¯s contention that the United States is the ¡°indispensable nation¡± is the bland assumption that America must take primary (and often exclusive) responsibility for the defense of other regions. One popular proposal is to reverse the post¨CCold War drawdown of U.S. forces stationed in Europe. Advocates also typically want to pre-position large quantities of sophisticated weaponry in the Baltic republics and along other points on Russia¡¯s western frontier so that the American military can ride to the rescue if Moscow engages in threatening behavior.

The notion of the United States as the indispensable nation is a manifestation of national narcissism that is especially pernicious with respect to Europe. The European Union now has both a population and an economy larger than the United States. Equally pertinent, the European Union has three times the population and a gross domestic product (GDP) some ten times that of Russia ¡ª the principal security concern of those countries. Even post-Brexit, that impressive strength will be diminished just modestly. Clearly, the European Union is capable of building whatever defenses might be necessary to deter Russian aggression ¡ª even granting the questionable assumption that Moscow harbors large-scale expansionist ambitions instead of just seeking to preserve a limited security zone along its borders. The European nations have not done more to counter Russia because it has been easier for them to free-ride on America¡¯s security efforts.

The degree of allied free riding is breathtaking. At the NATO summit in 2006, the members committed to spending a minimum of two percent of GDP on the military and 20 percent of that spending on major equipment, including related research and development. But only the United States, Britain, Greece, and Estonia met that commitment prior to 2015 (and Greece did so only because of a perceived threat from fellow NATO member Turkey and a collapsing GDP). Moreover, only the United States, Britain, and Poland met both spending mandates in 2015. Several major NATO powers, including Germany, Italy, and Spain, have spending levels far below the 2 percent threshold. By comparison, the U.S. military¡¯s budget exceeds four percent of its GDP.

U.S. concern about a lack of NATO burden sharing is nothing new. In late 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles warned that the United States might have to conduct an ¡°agonizing reappraisal¡± of Washington¡¯s European security commitment if the allies didn¡¯t make a more serious effort. But Washington¡¯s frustration has become more noticeable in the years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. U.S. military spending nearly doubled during the following decade, whereas the already anemic outlays of NATO¡¯s European members continued the downward trajectory that began with the end of the Cold War.

At a meeting of NATO defense ministers in February 2014, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are ¡°not sustainable. Our alliance can endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it.¡± Rebalancing NATO¡¯s ¡°burden-sharing and capabilities,¡± Hagel stressed, ¡°is mandatory ¡ª not elective.¡± His tone was firm: ¡°America¡¯s contributions in NATO remain starkly disproportionate, so adjustments in the U.S. defense budget cannot become an excuse for further cuts in European defense spending.¡±

Hagel¡¯s warning did little more than inspire yawns. Russia¡¯s annexation of Crimea and its support of secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, however, have generated greater agitation among NATO¡¯s European members. The decision at the July 2016 NATO summit to station four battalions in the Baltic republics and Poland may have had more symbolic than actual military importance, but it did at least hint at greater seriousness.

Yet even in Eastern Europe, military exertions remain quite modest. Warsaw¡¯s defense budget just now reached the two percent level that it promised following the 2006 summit ¡ª some ten years ago. A great deal of self-congratulatory fanfare accompanied Lithuania¡¯s announcement that it was increasing its military spending by nearly one-third for 2016. However, that change would barely bring the country¡¯s military expenditures up to 1.4 percent of GDP ¡ª still far below the two percent pledge. The reality is that for all the professed concern about possible Russian aggression, political leaders in Europe show few signs they are willing to back up their rhetoric with meaningful action.

It is time for the United States finally to conduct Dulles¡¯s agonizing reappraisal. The only way to change the long-standing, frustrating dynamic is for the United States to make clear by actions ¡ª not just words ¡ª that it will no longer tolerate free riding on America¡¯s military posture. That means, at the very least, gradually withdrawing all U.S. ground forces from Europe and drastically downsizing the presence of air and naval forces. It also means ending Washington¡¯s insistence on U.S. domination of collective defense efforts through its NATO leadership. Indeed, the United States needs to abandon its myopic opposition to the European Union developing an independent security capability.

Policymakers need to take a hard look at NATO for two other reasons. First, allies are supposed to enhance America¡¯s security, but recent additions to NATO have done the opposite. Most of the newer members fall into two categories ¡ª the irrelevant and the dangerous. In the former category are countries like Montenegro, with a tiny population and economy and a minuscule military. How Montenegro is supposed to help the United States in the event of a military crisis is truly a mystery.

But at least Montenegro has few enemies and no great power enemies. The same cannot be said of the three Baltic republics, which are on bad terms with Russia. The only thing worse than committing the United States to defend a small, weak, largely useless ally is doing so when that ally is highly vulnerable to another major power. Yet that is what Washington has foolishly done with the Baltic republics. RAND analysts conclude that a concerted Russian attack would overrun the Baltic states in about 60 hours. That would leave the United States (as NATO¡¯s leader) with an ugly choice between a humiliating capitulation or a perilous escalation.

Worse, hawks in the United States advocate making defense commitments to Georgia and Ukraine, which are even more sensitive geographic locales to Russia. Alliances with such client states are perfect transmission belts to transform a local, limited conflict into a global showdown between nuclear-armed powers.

Second, although the United States likes to portray NATO as an alliance of liberal democracies, the reality is now murkier. There are disturbingly authoritarian trends in several NATO countries. Those trends are most pronounced in Turkey, which in the aftermath of July¡¯s abortive military coup has become a barely disguised dictatorship under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But authoritarian developments have also taken place in Hungary and to a lesser, but still worrisome, extent in Poland, where elected leaders are now cracking down on political opponents and undermining democratic institutions. Does America really want to risk its security to protect such allies, especially when it purports to lead an alliance of enlightened democracies?

The world has changed a great deal since the stark days of the early Cold War when Washington felt compelled to defend a weak, demoralized democratic Europe from a powerful, menacing totalitarian adversary. It is long past time for European countries to take responsibility for their own defense ¡ª and for the overall security of their region. U.S. leaders should move beyond the usual futile rhetorical quest for burden sharing and take substantive steps toward burden shifting. Those steps must include reducing America¡¯s military presence in the region, especially ground forces, and preventing any further ill-considered expansion of the alliance.

But those are only the necessary first steps. At a more basic level, the United States needs to consider whether the Article 5 provision that an attack on one NATO member constitutes an attack on all really serves America¡¯s best interests any longer. Incurring risks, even grave risks, to protect a democratic and economic power center from a rapacious totalitarian adversary was one thing. To incur similar risks to protect marginal client states along the border of a second-tier regional power (which is today¡¯s Russia) is quite another. The justification for the latter is far less compelling.

Not only should policymakers revisit the wisdom of the Article 5 obligation, they need to consider whether American interests are best served by the United States remaining in the alliance at all. No foreign policy institution is sacred or permanent. NATO has had a very long run ¡ª nearly seven decades. It emerged victorious in the Cold War, and there is a compelling argument that it should have been given a dignified retirement on that occasion. It is time to rectify that error and promptly begin the multi-year process of transferring security responsibilities for the European region to a Europeans-only organization. That would prepare the way for a U.S. withdrawal from NATO if future American leaders decide such a step is appropriate.


Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of ten books and the contributing editor of ten books on international affairs, including four on NATO.


----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://berlinpolicyjournal.com/why-the-us-still-needs-nato/

Why the US Still Needs NATO

The Cold War alliance is still relevant in the 21st century.

Bullets and Bytes
Michael R¨¹hle , August 30, 2016 / §D918 §R0

Donald Trump isn¡¯t the only American politician calling NATO¡¯s value into question ¨C for years now, a number of commentators have decried what they see as an excuse for European freeloading. They miss what the alliance achieves for the United States.

When Donald Trump suggested that the United States should only defend those NATO allies who foot their share of the bill, most commentators took him to task for putting America¡¯s most successful alliance at stake. Some pundits, however, disagreed. In a flurry of articles, Trump supporters ¨C as well as some Trump opponents ¨C expressed their discontent with NATO.

According to some, Europeans are perfectly capable of paying for their own defense (¡°These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense,¡± CNN). Others warned that NATO had ¡°needlessly antagonized Russia¡± by admitting the Baltic states back in 2004 (The Atlantic). Yet others opined that by committing to the defense of countries ¡°in the suburbs of St. Petersburg¡± (Newt Gingrich on Estonia, CBS), NATO had become a major liability for US security. In short, NATO had become ¡°a 20th century organization adrift in a 21th century world¡± and, hence, should be ¡°phased out¡± (USA Today). Apparently, the GOP Presidential candidate had only articulated what many in the US were thinking but had been afraid to admit: that NATO has outlived its usefulness to the United States.

Has it? Clearly, NATO cannot thrive on Cold War nostalgia. The days when the US, Canada, and Western Europe kept the Soviet war machine in check are long gone. But those who adhere to the caricature of the alliance as a mere burden-shedding exercise for wily Europeans risk missing the forest for the trees. Yes, as a superpower with global security interests and commitments, the US considerably outspends its NATO allies. But it gets more in return than meets the eye.

Stability in Europe. Ensuring that a conflict in Europe does not lead once again to global war has been a major goal of US foreign policy since 1945. NATO has served this goal well: it prevented the Cold War from getting hot, and, at the Cold War¡¯s end, provided a security home for the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. NATO also played an indispensable role in bringing peace to the Balkans after the violent collapse of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

Given the United States¡¯ security interests, as well as the fact that the US and Europe form the world¡¯s largest trade and investment relationship, America¡¯s need to maintain influence on European issues should be a no-brainer. NATO is the major institutional framework that legitimizes such a US role. Through NATO, the US has become, in effect, a ¡°European power¡±, with a unique voice in European affairs. Without NATO, a major political and military ¡°transmission belt¡± would be lost, and American weight in Europe would be much reduced.

A ¡°red line¡± for Russia. Russia¡¯s current military and political assertiveness demonstrates that geopolitics did not end with the Cold War. Preventing the nuclear-armed Eurasian great power from intimidating its European neighbors requires a kind of balance that Europe, as a conglomerate of mostly smaller states, simply cannot provide if left to its own devices. Once the US enters the equation, however, the picture changes. As a military power second to none, the US, together with its NATO allies, can draw credible ¡°red lines¡± that can keep Russian adventurism in check.

The good news is that such a deterrence posture comes with a much smaller price tag than the massive military presence that the US maintained in Europe during the Cold War. But a complete bailing out of European security would lead America¡¯s challengers to conclude that Washington no longer has the guts to uphold the liberal order. As a result, Washington¡¯s red lines would be tested around the world. Hence, if the US wants to remain a global power, it will have to remain a ¡°European power¡± as well.

Reliable Allies. Given the multitude of security challenges, Winston Churchill¡¯s observation that the one thing worse than fighting with allies is to fight without them still rings true. NATO provides the US with allies that are more militarily capable, more interoperable, and more willing to share risks and burdens. In Afghanistan, for example, even though some NATO allies suffered major casualties, none of them quit. Achieving consensus in NATO can be tedious at times, but once allies agree on a certain course of action, they will carry it through.

True, coalitions of the willing may be easier to put together. Yet they also tend to dissolve much more easily, and the US has to provide an even higher percentage of troops and equipment than to NATO-led operations. Whether Afghanistan, Libya, or countering the so-called Islamic State ¨C when the challenge requires a sustained, long-term effort, using NATO, or at least its tried-and-tested procedures, is still the best option. Moreover, in NATO Washington finds almost 30 member countries around the same table, predisposed to working with the US. Everywhere else in the world Washington has to work through complicated bilateral relationships without getting as much in return.

For all these reasons, reducing NATO to the issue of fair of unfair burden-sharing has it wrong. To be sure, the fact that European defense spending trends are finally pointing upwards again is a most welcome development, but NATO is about much more than money: it is a long-term strategic alliance, which provides tremendous strategic value for the US, Europe, and indeed the West at large. Long-term strategic alliances deserve better than being judged by short-term tactical and electoral considerations.

NB. The author expresses his personal views.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/pakistan-looks-to-bloody-kabul-as-us-shifts-to-india/

Pakistan Looks to Bloody Kabul as US Shifts to India

ISI is waging a covert war to bloody Kabul, using its “veritable arm,” the Haqqani Network, to achieve its objectives.

By Shawn Snow
September 06, 2016

I wrote for The Diplomat last week on America’s efforts to speed Afghanistan’s pivot to India. As I stated in that piece, that pivot will not come without consequences for Kabul. With the United States canceling defense contracts and subsidies for the Pakistani military, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is waging a covert war to bloody Kabul, utilizing its “veritable arm,” the Haqqani Network, to achieve its objectives.

Recent events in Afghanistan highlight that the Haqqani Network is currently on the rise in Afghanistan and within the main core of the Taliban itself.

Over the weekend several villages in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktika province were overrun by Taliban militants. Gunmen overtook villages in Omna district, reminiscent of the recent collapse of Jani Khel district in Paktia province. Some reports indicate that the entire district has already collapsed, with 21 Afghan security forces killed or wounded.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Both Paktia and Paktika provinces have deep connections to the Haqqani Network. On June 9, 2016, a senior Haqqani commander, Sirajujdin Khademi, a logistician for Paktika province operations, was killed in a U.S. drone strike. The collapse of these provinces would establish a safe space for Haqqani operations, and the ability to launch deadly bombings and suicide operations in Kabul.

Historically, Paktika province has served as a staging ground for operations against Kabul. After the deadly 2011 attack on Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel, NATO launched a larger scale operation to destroy a Haqqani training camp suspected of organizing the deadly terror act.

“The encampment site was a staging area for Haqqani and foreign fighters. These fighters were moved into the country by Haqqani insurgents who planned to use them for attacks throughout Afghanistan,” ISAF said.

The collapse of these strategic districts is a worrisome sign for Kabul as it struggles to push beyond recent divisions between President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah. Attacks in Kabul may further the political divide between the two men — making it ever more difficult to address the economic and security issues plaguing the war torn country.

Furthermore, several recent bombings this year have already been attributed to the Haqqani Network, highlighting the terror group’s extensive and sophisticated network and capabilities. The attack on the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) this August that killed 16 and injured 53 was loosely attributed to Haqqani after Ghani phoned the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, and “asked for serious and practical measures against the terrorists organizing the attack.”

The unprecedented attack on the Kabul based university has also raised interesting questions on the current state and structure of the Taliban. Though attacks on rural school systems have been a common modus operandi for Taliban fighters, high profile attacks in urban areas on school systems such as the university in Kabul are largely unheard of.

A week prior to the attack on AUAF, Taliban leaders, in an attempt to reign in various commanders, issued the following statement, “According to the principles of the Islamic Emirate, no mujahid has the permission to destroy a bridge or burn a school… Our countrymen have to be aware that the Islamic Emirate mujahideen never intentionally harm any school or public property. The Emirate’s leadership has repeatedly brought the protection of these institutions to the attention of mujahideen.”

The prohibition of attacks on schools and universities illustrates two possibilities with regards to the inner workings of the Taliban. The first possibility is that fanatics and extremists such as the Haqqani Network have gained an extensive voice within the network; as evidence, Sirajuddin Haqqani, de facto leader of the Haqqani Network, has been described as the main day to day driver of the Taliban’s military operations. This position is further bolstered by the attack carried out by the Haqqani and publicly supported by the core of the Taliban on Tolo News in January that killed seven.

The second possibility is that powerful decentralized groups are carrying out attacks not supported by mainstream elements of the Taliban, or these attacks are designed to provide the central command of the Taliban deniability.

Either way, the Haqqani Network is gaining sway within the main element of the Taliban, and the driving force behind the Haqqani is the Pakistani ISI. In 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated, “The Haqqani Network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” With the United States pushing Afghanistan closer to India, Pakistan feels it has no recourse but to prop up its proxy elements in the beleaguered nation.

Attempting to punish Pakistan for its support of the Haqqani Network, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter refused to provide testimony before Congress that Pakistan had fulfilled its obligation to fight terror groups within the country, denying Pakistan $300 million in subsidies from the U.S. government, which the Pakistani government relies on for a quarter of its $4 billion military budget.

With three bombings reported in Kabul Monday, two at the Ministry of Defense, and one targeting a guest house, these scenes may become all more common as Pakistan reacts to Kabul’s pivot to India. The collapse of two strategic districts in eastern Afghanistan vital to Haqqani indicates Pakistan is prepping its proxies to undermine U.S. and Indian efforts at rebuilding and defending the war torn nation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newsweek.com/afghan-forc...ter-hours-long-militant-attack-charity-495975

World

Afghan Forces End Kabul Siege After Militant Attack on Charity

By Jack Moore On 9/6/16 at 5:56 AM

Afghan security forces have killed all the attackers that targeted an international aid organization building in Kabul overnight, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The end of the hours-long standoff brought the death toll from two days of attacks in the capital to 25.

A suicide car bomb detonated outside the building of charity CARE International in the Shar-e Naw district of Kabul before militants stormed the building. They killed one civilian before Afghan forces killed three gunmen, spokesman for the Afghan interior minister Sediq Sediqqi told the Associated Press.

“Police special forces immediately reached the site of the attack and started rescuing people from the building...42 people who were trapped were evacuated by the security forces,” an Interior Ministry statement said.

The district houses a small number of foreign nationals and diplomats. The attack came a day after two bomb blasts in close proximity to the country’s Defense Ministry killed at least 24 people and wounded 90 more.

The Afghan Taliban claimed the attack on Monday. No group has yet claimed responsibility for the overnight attack on the charity but the radical Islamist group will remain the prime suspect, despite the growing influence of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in the country.

The Taliban, which lost its leader Mullah Mansoor in May to a U.S. air strike, is continuing its insurgency against Afghan authorities in the Afghan capital and other cities.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-ur...di-arabias-oversight-of-holy-sites-1473081759

WORLD MIDDLE EAST

Iran Urges Muslims to Challenge Saudi Arabia’s Oversight of Holy Sites

The call by Iran’s supreme leader comes days before the start of the annual hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

By ASA FITCH and MARGHERITA STANCATI
Updated Sept. 5, 2016 3:35 p.m. ET
9 COMMENTS

DUBAI—Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei questioned Saudi Arabia’s fitness to oversee Islam’s holiest places and accused the kingdom’s rulers of murder in last year’s deadly hajj pilgrimage stampede.

“Because of these rulers’ oppressive behavior toward God’s guests, the world of Islam must fundamentally reconsider the management of the two holy places and the issue of hajj,” Mr. Khamenei said Monday in a challenge likely to worsen hostile relations between the two political and religious powers days ahead of the start of this year’s hajj to Mecca.

The stampede at last year’s hajj left 769 people dead, according to the Saudi government.

The Associated Press said the death toll was at least 2,426, after examining state media reports and officials’ comments from countries whose citizens participated in the pilgrimage.

In his comments Monday, Mr. Khamenei said Saudi authorities behaved with deliberate cruelty in the disaster, in which 461 Iranians were killed, Iranian officials say.


“The heartless and murderous Saudis locked up the injured with the dead in containers instead of providing medical treatment and helping them or at least quenching their thirst,” he said. “They murdered them.”

The stampede wasn’t the only tragedy to mar last year’s hajj: Days before it started, high winds and heavy rains caused a crane to collapse on Mecca’s Grand Mosque, killing more than 100 people.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef on Monday defended his country’s preparedness for the hajj.

Iran in May announced that it wouldn’t participate in this year’s hajj, saying Riyadh was to blame for the collapse of negotiations over travel arrangements for Iranian pilgrims and lack of compensation for relatives of citizens killed in last year’s stampede.

“Iran’s authorities don’t want Iranian pilgrims to come for reasons up to the Iranians themselves as part of their quest to politicize hajj,” he said. “This is something that we don’t accept and won’t allow to happen, and we stand firmly and strongly against those working to disrupt security at the hajj.”

The prince, who also serves as interior minister and chairs the committee in charge of organizing hajj, made his comments after attending a parade for hajj security forces, according to Saudi Arabia’s state news agency. The annual five-day hajj to Mecca, which all able-bodied Muslims who can afford to are required to perform once, begins this week.

The Saudi king holds the title of “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” and his oversight of the hajj and administration of Medina—revered as the burial site of the Prophet Muhammad and the second-holiest city in Islam after Mecca—are sources of great prestige across the Muslim world.

The kingdom tightly controls participation in hajj, issuing visas under a quota system organized by nationality.

Saudi Arabia is the Middle East’s dominant Sunni Muslim power, and Iran its leading Shiite power. In recent years, their rivalry has intensified politically, militarily and ideologically across the region, and the two are engaged in proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Their relationship, already tense before the stampede, spiraled downward afterward.

In January, the kingdom’s execution of prominent Shiite cleric and activist Nemer al-Nemer sparked protests at Iranian diplomatic compounds in Iran. Riyadh then cut diplomatic and commercial ties with Iran, and several of the kingdom’s Sunni allies downgraded or severed their relations with Tehran.

Lower-ranking Iranian officials have questioned Saudi Arabia’s stewardship of the holy sites before. But Monday’s rebuke from Mr. Khamenei, who has final say over most matters of state in Iran, was his sharpest since the stampede.

Saudi Arabia has introduced new safety measures for the hajj this year, including electronic wristbands for pilgrims to better manage the flow of people along the pilgrimage route. Some 1.5 million of the e-bracelets, which are encoded with identification information and relevant contact details, are to be distributed.

The government also has introduced more surveillance cameras and other technology for improved crowd control, and said it would strictly enforce a timetable for carrying out the hajj rite. Some 17,000 security forces have been mobilized for the pilgrimage, Saudi officials said last week.

A recent spate of attacks by militants have heightened security concerns.

In July, three separate bombings struck Saudi Arabia on a single day, including a blast next to the mosque in Medina where the prophet is said to be buried.

Write to Asa Fitch at asa.fitch@wsj.com and Margherita Stancati at margherita.stancati@wsj.com

And in reply.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1cc66c-7424-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

Saudi Arabia’s top cleric says Iran’s leaders ‘not Muslims’

By Abdullah Al-Shihri and Aya Batrawy | AP September 6 at 8:50 AM


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia’s top cleric is revving up the kingdom’s rhetoric against Iran, saying in comments published on Tuesday that Tehran’s leaders are “not Muslims,” in response to rancorous remarks from Iran’s supreme leader.

The remarks by Grand Mufti Abdulaziz Al Sheikh came a day after Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Saudi authorities of killing Muslims injured during last year’s crush of crowds at the hajj pilgrimage.

Their confrontational comments mark a sharp escalation in the countries’ faceoff as their spat plays out across the region.

Khamenei, in remarks published on his website Monday, said the “heartless and murderous Saudis locked up the injured with the dead in containers — instead of providing medical treatment and helping them or at least quenching their thirst. They murdered them.”

Mostly Sunni Saudi Arabia and majority Shiite Iran back opposite sides of the wars in Syria and Yemen, and support opposing political groups in Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.

In comments to the Makkah newspaper, the top Saudi cleric was quoted as saying that Khamenei’s remarks are “not surprising” because Iranians are descendants of “Majuws”— a term that refers to Zoroastrians and those who worship fire. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion predating Christianity and Islam and was the dominant religion in Persia before the Arab conquest.

“We must understand they are not Muslims, for they are the descendants of Majuws, and their enmity toward Muslims, especially the Sunnis, is very old,” the Saudi cleric said.

The September 2015 stampede and crush of pilgrims killed at least 2,426 people, according to an Associated Press count. Iran had the highest of death toll of any country, with 464 Iranian pilgrims killed.

Saudi authorities have not released any findings of their investigation into the hajj disaster. Preliminary statements suggested the crush was caused when at least two large crowds intersected.

Khamenei also blamed Saudi Arabia for an earlier crane collapse in Mecca that killed 111 people, and urged Muslims around the world to reconsider Saudi Arabia’s custodianship and management of Islam’s holiest sites in Mecca and Medina where the hajj is performed. He also said Saudi rulers promote sectarian strife and arm “wicked takfiri groups” — a reference to extremist Sunni militants who denounce other Muslims as heretics and non-believers.

The two countries severed diplomatic relations in January after Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric and angry Iranian crowds overran Saudi diplomatic missions.

Negotiations between the two countries over hajj security measures also collapsed earlier this year, prompting Iran to declare it would not be sending any of its citizens to this year’s pilgrimage, which begins this weekend.

___

Batrawy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Maamoun Youssef in Cairo contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-navy-idUSKCN11C1TL

World News | Tue Sep 6, 2016 11:36am EDT

U.S. military ship changes course after Iran vessel interaction: U.S. officials

A vessel from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came within 100 yards of a U.S. military ship in the central Gulf on Sept. 4, two U.S. Defense Department officials told Reuters on Tuesday.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the Iranian vessel sailed directly in front of the USS Firebolt, a 174-foot (53 m) coastal patrol vessel, forcing the U.S. ship to change course in a maneuver they described as "unsafe and unprofessional."

(Reporting by Idrees Ali)

 

[OldArcher]

HC, sooner or later, a situation will arise where lethal force must be utilized, in order to protect ship and crew. I hope and pray that the Captain of that vessel will not be chained by suicidal ROEs, but terminate the threats with extreme prejudice... As for me, there is no such thing as a safe and friendly mu-slime. To me, they are all timebombs waiting to go off... NONE of them can, or should be, trusted... No other "religion" is so vile, dangerous, and implacable... It/They, are the enemies of all living creatures...

Thank-You, Sir, for all that you've done, and are doing... God Bless You and Yours...

Maranatha

OldArcher

 

[CGTech]

(very good reporting video at the cnn link on this btw)

(CNN)Seven Iranian fast-attack boats were involved in an unsafe encounter with the USS Firebolt over the weekend, with one Iranian craft coming to a stop in front of the American ship, a US defense official told CNN Tuesday.
The provocative maneuver, which on Sunday brought the Iranian boat within 100 yards of the Firebolt, a coastal patrol boat that carries a crew of about 30, was assessed by the US to be unsafe and unprofessional and could have led to a collision, the official said.

There have been 31 unsafe America encounters with Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf so far this year, up from 23 in all of 2015, the official said.
Less than two weeks ago, US naval ships in the northern Persian Gulf were harassed by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps vessel, which came within 200 yards of the US ships. Following standard maritime procedures, the USS Squall fired three warning shots to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
US Army Gen. Joseph Votel, Commander of US Central Command, last week called the Iranian conduct "concerning."
"In recent days, we have witnessed even more provocative activity by the IRGC and Navy vessels. That type of behavior is very concerning, and we hope to see Iran's naval forces act in a more professional manner," he said.
Votel believes the "unsafe, unprofessional" behavior is an attempt by Iran to "exert their influence and authority in the region."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/iran-us-navy-confrontation/index.html

 

[CGTech]

BREAKING: 7 Iranian Ships Swarm US Navy Boat

September 6, 2016 By Robert Gehl 6 Comments

IRANIAN PATROL BOATS

A U.S. navy patrol boat was approached and harassed by seven Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf, narrowly avoiding a collision with one of them.

It’s the latest in a string of incidents with the Islamic Republic of Iran in those waters.

The U.S. Naval Institute is reporting that seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy “fast in-shore attack craft” approached the USS Firebolt while it was operating in international waters in the central part of the gulf on Sunday.

Three of the Iranian ships maneuvered close to the Firebolt, mirroring the ship’s course and speed 500 yards away for eight minutes before leaving. Another Iranian attack ship then sped toward the Firebolt, and stopped directly in front of the ship, causing it to maneuver to avoid a collision. The two ships came within 100 yards of each other.
U.S.S. Firebolt

U.S.S. Firebolt

During the incident, the Firebolt crew attempted radio communication three times to understand the Iranians’ intentions, but the FIAC crews never responded. The FIACs’ crew-served weapons were uncovered and manned but untrained during the encounter, the official said.

The Navy Central Command called the incident “unsafe” and “unprofessional” due to a lack of communication and harassment at close range.

“The Iranian’s unsafe maneuvers near a United States ship operating in accordance with international law while transiting in international waters created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures by Firebolt,” the official told USNI News.

“This type of incident would have led NAVCENT to recommend that the State Department deliver a diplomatic message of protest if this interaction had been with a country with which the United States had an official diplomatic relationship.”

Within the last two weeks, the USS Nitze, a guided-missile destroyer was harassed by Iranian vessels, as well as the patrol coastal ships USS Tempest, USS Squall and destroyer USS Stout.

They’re playing us for fools and Obama’s letting them. It’s disgraceful.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/breaking-7-iranian-ships-swarm-us-navy-boat

 

[OldArcher]

Kill all the camel rapists that come within 1,000 yards. No exceptions, no hesitations, no quarter, no surrender, and no mercy... Let God sort 'em out... ALL of them...

OA

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...med-missile-seen-costing-u-s-85-billion-up-36

America's New Nuclear-Armed Missile Could Cost $85 Billion

by Anthony Capaccio
September 6, 2016 — 2:00 AM PDT

- Pentagon estimate rises from preliminary Air Force projection
- Acquisition chief warns of ‘significant uncertainty’ on cost

The U.S. Air Force’s program to develop and field a new intercontinental ballistic missile to replace the aging Minuteman III in the nuclear arsenal is now projected to cost at least $85 billion, about 36 percent more than a preliminary estimate by the service.

Even the $85 billion calculated by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office is a placeholder number that’s at the low end of potential costs, according to an Aug. 23 memo from Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall to Air Force Secretary Deborah James. It includes $22.6 billion for research and development, $61.5 billion for procurement and $718 million for related military construction.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. are all competing to build the new ICBMs. But the latest estimate may add to debate about the cost and need for the planned modernization of all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad of land, air and sea weapons. The nuclear modernization plan contributes to what defense analysts call a gathering “bow wave” of spending in the coming decade on major weapons that the next presidents will face.

At this stage of the ICBM program “there is significant uncertainty about program costs” because “the historical data is limited and there has been a long gap since the last” such development program, Kendall wrote.

The $85 billion estimate must be revised no later than March 2018 once missile designs are more advanced, technical risks are reduced and the service has a better understanding of overall costs, Kendall said in the memo.

Earlier Story: Pentagon Poised to Approve Work on Missile

Nonetheless, Kendall approved proceeding with early development and efforts to reduce technology risks of the new ICBM. He directed the service to move toward buying 642 missiles at an average cost of $66.4 million each to support a deployed force of 400 weapons and to budget at least $1.25 billion annually from 2036 to 2040 for operations and support costs.

The Pentagon’s ability to estimate the cost of the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent was limited by the “incompleteness and significant age of” the “data for comparable ICBM and submarine launched ballistic missiles dating back to the 1960s through the early 1990s,” Kendall wrote.

‘Greater Risk’

The Pentagon and Air Force are “accepting greater risk by going with” the $85 billion estimate that’s at the lower end of its calculations, Kingston Reif, an analyst with the Arms Control Association in Washington who follows the program, said in an e-mail. “From a good-government perspective” it is “better to build in contingency and plan for and prioritize around a bigger bill now, lest a sudden big cost increase threaten to wreck the budget and the program five to 10 years from now.”

Kendall wrote that inflation assumptions and the defense industry’s capability to produce the missiles are major sources of cost uncertainty. Still, he said the $85 billion placeholder is “the most reasonable estimate of program cost at this point.”

In addition to the new nuclear systems, the bow wave of coming costs includes nine Air Force conventional systems and plans for increased construction of naval vessels such as a second Ford-class aircraft carrier.

For the air component of the nuclear triad, Northrop defeated a Lockheed-Boeing team in October for the right to build a new dual-use bomber that can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, a project valued at as much as $80 billion.

At sea, the Navy is planning to replace its Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarines through a production program now estimated at $122 billion, which doesn’t include development.
That estimate will be updated by year’s end as the Pentagon reviews moving the program into full development.

Official Beginning

Kendall’s decision to let the ICBM program move forward marks the official beginning of the technology development stage, with spending increasing from about $75 million this year to $1.6 billion in 2021 and $2.6 billion in 2022, according to the Pentagon estimate.

The “program plans to buy enough missiles to maintain a 400-missile deployed force through 2075,” Air Force spokeswoman Leah Bryant said in an e-mail. “The overall number of missiles acquired in the inventory may vary depending on testing, evaluation, maintenance,” she said.

The Air Force made its early estimate last year that the new ICBM program would cost $62.3 billion for research, development and production as well as command and control systems and infrastructure. That number, as well as the new $85 billion estimate, is calculated in so-called “then-year,” or current-year, dollars.

Bryant said “it is important to keep in mind that at this stage,” as “in any acquisition program, there can still be some uncertainty about projected” ICBM costs because “the historical data used for estimates, whether ours or another organization’s estimate, are limited and very dated.” The last ICBM development occurred in the 1980s, she said.

Kendall’s memo was provided to the staff of the Senate and House defense committees last week.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asean-summit-southchinasea-idUSKCN11D08P?il=0

South China Sea | Wed Sep 7, 2016 4:31am EDT

Ahead of summit, Philippines shows images of Chinese boats at disputed shoal

By Manuel Mogato | VIENTIANE

The Philippines' defense ministry released pictures on Wednesday showing what it said were Chinese boats near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, just hours before Southeast Asian nations were due to meet China's premier at a summit in Laos.

There was no explanation for the timing of the release, but it came two days after Manila expressed "grave concern" about the increasing number of Chinese vessels around the Scarborough Shoal and demanded an explanation from Beijing's ambassador.

A Philippines official said the release of the photographs and a map was ordered by the defense minister, who is at the summit in Vientiane, Laos.

China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei claim parts or all of the resource-rich South China Sea, making it a hotspot of regional tension. The last four are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The 10 images and map were sent by email to journalists, many of whom are in Vientiane for the ASEAN summit. The leaders were due to meet Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday, although it was unclear if the row over the South China Sea would be openly addressed.

The move by the Philippines comes after a spat with the United States, its main ally. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte criticized U.S. President Barack Obama, prompting the cancellation of a meeting between the two leaders in Laos.

China has repeatedly blamed the United States for stirring up trouble in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which more than $5 trillion of trade moves annually.

The United States says it has no position on the territorial dispute, but has conducted freedom of navigation patrols close to Chinese-held islands, to Beijing's anger, while China has been bolstering its military presence there.


FEW ROCKS

Although the Scarborough Shoal is merely a few rocks poking above the sea, it is important to the Philippines because of its tranquil waters and rich stocks of fish. Manila says China's blockade of the shoal is a violation of international law.

The dispute has become more significant since the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled on July 12 that no one country had sovereign rights over activity in the Scarborough Shoal, a traditional fishing ground for Chinese, Filipino and Vietnamese.

China has refused to recognize the ruling by the court in The Hague.

Duterte wants China to abide by the ruling but he had pledged not to raise the issue during the meeting in Laos. He wants to smooth the way for bilateral negotiations and last month sent former President Fidel Ramos as his special envoy to meet Chinese representatives in Hong Kong.


Related Coverage
Chinese coast guard involved in most South China Sea clashes: research
Philippines seeks clarification from China on ships at disputed shoal
China confident can improve relationship with Philippines: deputy FM
Thailand 'supports' China's efforts to maintain maritime peace


A draft ASEAN communique seen by Reuters on Monday listed eight points related to the South China Sea, but made no mention of the ruling.

However, Duterte's defense minister said ahead of the summit that a Philippines air force plane had flown over the shoal and spotted more boats than usual in a flotilla China has maintained since seizing the shoal after a tense standoff in 2012.

Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the presence of six Chinese vessels in addition to coastguard ships in the area was "a cause of grave concern".

A Philippine security official traveling with Duterte said it was a challenge for the government to explain why Filipino fishermen cannot go back and fish in the area when The Hague had ruled that Scarborough was a fishing ground for all.

"We won in the arbitral court, but we could not enforce it, how can we explain that to our own fishermen?" said the official, who declined to be named.

"So, we wanted to talk to China and resolve the issue, but the situation like this is making it more difficult. The president is asking what is China's intentions in the area?"


(Writing by John Chalmers; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...ry-police-team-amid-fears-isis-attack-n643691

News
ISIS Terror
Sep 7 2016, 4:23 am ET

German Military, Police to Team Up Amid Fears of ISIS Attack

by Andy Eckardt

MAINZ, Germany — Germany is preparing to train troops to be deployed within its borders for the first time since World War II amid fears of terrorist attacks.

The country's armed forces will hold joint drills with police early next year, officials confirmed.

Authorities stress that counterterrorism measures will primarily remain the responsibility of police.

However, the potential for large-scale attacks have made the use of German military assets "conceivable, even probable," according to Lt. Gen. Martin Schelleis, the Bundeswehr's chief of joint support services.

Plans to involve soldiers in counterterrorism operations — and the suggestion troops could also be used to beef up security in public places — have proved controversial in a country only seven decades removed from totalitarian rule that's still grappling with guilt from the Nazi era.

A 2012 constitutional court ruling paved the way for the deployment of the Bundeswehr on German streets in the aftermath of an attack.

Special Report: How Europe Is Confronting Terrorism

Until then, Germany's constitution had allowed for domestic military missions only under special circumstances — such as natural disaster relief.

The restrictive legal framework was instituted as a result of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's abuse of state powers.

Schelleis suggested that a terrorist attack could qualify as "such a grave disaster" to allow the armed forces to support the police.

"What matters in a large-scale terrorist situation is that quick and effective action is taken," he told NBC News. "This calls for the procedures to be coordinated and practiced."

Schelleis added the military assistance on offer could include low-altitude air space surveillance, checkpoints, explosive ordnance disposal and even advice on nuclear, biological and chemical threat situations.

"We could also provide mobile laboratory capabilities," Schelleis said. "Our troops are excellently trained. The same applies to medical personnel, who are well versed in treating gunshot and burn injuries."

The joint exercises are due to take place in February in four German states.

Debate over deploying the Bundeswehr inside Germany has raged for years — with some high-ranking officials still not convinced that the threat from ISIS and other extremist groups warrant such a change in approach.

Following a shooting rampage in Munich in late July, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the Passauer Presse newspaper that the "incident showed the speed and the great degree of professionalism of the police forces."

He added: "There were no gaps that could or needed to have been filled by the Bundeswehr."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-germany-idUSKCN11D0RW?il=0

World News | Wed Sep 7, 2016 4:17am EDT

Germany's Merkel hopes Russia, U.S. can reach ceasefire deal for Syria

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday the situation in the civil war in Syria was atrocious and urged the United States and Russia to press for a ceasefire agreement.

"I can only hope that Russia and the United States make progress on a ceasefire agreement, that the bombing of doctors and hospitals can be stopped, and the people in Aleppo are suffering so terribly. That is an indefensible situation," she said.

(Corrects headline to make clear ceasefire deal for Syria, not Russia)

(Reporting by Michael Nienaber and Madeline Chambers, Writing by Andrea Shalal)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/restrained-strategy-lower-military-budgets/

Restrained Strategy, Lower Military Budgets

Benjamin H. Friedman
September 7, 2016

Editor’s Note: Welcome to the eighth installment in our new series, “Course Correction,” which features adapted articles from the Cato Institute’s recently released book, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role. The articles in this series challenge the existing bipartisan foreign policy consensus and offer a different path.

Despite five years of official complaints about “sequestration” budgets, U.S. military spending remains historically high. In 2016, U.S. military spending will be $607 billion, including $59 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, the fund that ostensibly finances wars but also funds non-war (or base) accounts. Barring a new budget deal, the fiscal year 2017 budget, now stuck in Congress, will be virtually the same size.

In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, Americans spend more on the military today than at any point in the Cold War, except the brief peaks during the Korean War and the 1980s. Current military spending is 36 percent higher in real terms than in 2000, with two-thirds of the growth in base spending. The United States spends more than double what Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea collectively spend on their militaries.

U.S. military spending is so high because U.S. security ambitions remain too broad. The strategy of primacy fails to guide choices among military responses to danger. It requires a large U.S. military, with units permanently deployed in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, and with the capability to quickly strike anywhere with air, naval, and ground forces. It sees threats everywhere and prescribes U.S. forces everywhere to meet them. As such, primacy is less a strategy, which prioritizes resources to achieve specific goals, than a vague invocation to try to use U.S. military forces to manage the world. A strategy of restraint, by contrast, would make more choices, involve the United States in far fewer potential fights, and lead to vast savings.

A strategy of restraint would serve the United States better. By narrowing the scope of what U.S. security requires, restraint would establish a true “defense” budget. Though cost savings are secondary to strategic benefits, a military budget premised on restraint would save substantially more than hunting “waste, fraud, and abuse,” a common method of finding military savings. Waste hunters implicitly endorse primacy by objecting only to what offends their sense of sound management: overruns in acquisition programs, failed projects in war zones, or research projects with foolish titles. The Pentagon’s efficient pursuit of unwise goals is a far richer target for cuts.

The 2011 Budget Control Act theoretically imposed austerity on the Pentagon through caps enforced by across-the-board sequestration. Compliance with those caps would have cut base spending 14 percent by 2021 — hardly draconian after a decade where it grew 40 percent. However, three subsequent budget deals raised the caps and reduced cuts to 10 percent. War funds further reduced austerity’s bite. Because the Overseas Contingency Operations fund is exempt from caps, Congress allowed the Pentagon to inflate war costs and shift the excess to the base.

Even those attenuated cuts forced some adjustments. Active-duty Army end strength dropped from 570,000 to 475,000 troops over the past five years and is due to hit 450,000 in 2018 (but a total of 980,000 when the National Guard and Army reserves are included). The Navy and Air Force saw delays in the procurement of new aircraft and ships and some orders trimmed. Military construction slowed and some administrative units shrunk. After years of requests from Pentagon leaders concerned by increases in personnel costs, Congress recently agreed to modest efforts to curtail pay raises and benefits for health care and housing.

Still, the Pentagon dodged the hard choices that a real drawdown would have required. No cancellation of a major procurement program has occurred since 2011. More importantly, the Pentagon essentially avoided strategic adjustment. The much-ballyhooed rebalancing (or pivot) to Asia produced no rebalancing of funds to the Navy and Air Force, which would be most relevant in a war with China. The fight against the Islamic State kept U.S. forces in the Middle East. In the name of countering Russia, the Pentagon’s recent budget proposal for 2017 has thousands more of U.S. troops rotating through Europe. The only big change that has a strategic rationale is the Army’s shrinkage.

The Pentagon will need to find additional savings in the next several years. The military’s latest five-year spending plan would exceed the caps by $107 billion between 2017 and 2020. Moreover, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) notes, the department’s plans could cost an additional $57 billion by 2020, with less rosy assumptions about cost control and acquiescence to measures Congress heartily opposes, like another Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Congress is likely to raise budget caps but not enough to cover the gap.

Pressure to find military spending cuts will remain after caps expire. The CBO now expects the deficit to grow from 2.9 percent to 4.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years while adding nearly $10 trillion in debt. Even though defense spending should drop to around 2.5 percent of GDP by 2020, it will remain a prime target. Recent experience suggests that Republicans will block tax increases, Democrats will protect entitlements, and deficit-reduction efforts will focus on discretionary spending, more than half of which belongs to the Pentagon.

Restraint-oriented reforms can help, cutting at least 25 percent from the current $600 billion plus. Savings would arrive gradually, as the United States exited alliances, ended wars, closed facilities, and retired forces. Those cuts would be achieved by reducing commitments and military units. Divesting force structure would allow substantial savings in personnel, operations and maintenance, intelligence, and real estate costs.

A strategy of restraint would take advantage of America’s geographic advantages and give the Navy a larger share of the Pentagon’s budget. Ships and submarines have access to most of the earth’s surface without needing basing rights. With gains in range and massive increases in missile and bomb accuracy, aircraft can deliver firepower to most targets, even against states with considerable ability to defend their coastlines. The Navy would operate as a surge force that deploys to attack shorelines or open sea lanes, rather than constantly patrolling peaceful areas in the name of presence. Divested of presence-driven requirements, the navy could reduce the number of carriers and associated air groups it operates to eight or nine, retire several amphibious assault ships, cancel the littoral combat ship while developing a cheaper frigate alternative, replace the floundering F-35 with F-18s, and accelerate the shrinkage of the attack submarine force.

Restraint recommends cuts to ground forces for two reasons. First, the dearth of conventional wars where the United States might play a leading role. In the event of a conventional war on the Korean Peninsula, in the Persian Gulf region, or even in Eastern Europe, wealthy U.S. allies should man their frontlines. No modern Wehrmacht is poised to overcome them, and there is time to adjust if circumstances change. Second, counterterrorism is not best served by manpower-intensive occupational wars, which struggle to produce stability, let alone democracy. Air forces and raids cannot reorder fractious states, but they can deny haven to terrorists and aid local allies, as we see today in the war against the Islamic State.

U.S. policymakers should cut the end strength of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. Because restraint requires less frequent deployments and reduces the emphasis on deployment speed, it would cut a smaller portion of reserve and National Guard forces. Reduced demand for military-to-military training and fewer U.S. wars would allow substantial cuts to the size and budget of Special Operations Command.

Restraint also implies cutting the Air Force’s air wings across active and reserve forces. Few enemies today challenge U.S. air superiority. This is why so many missions fall to drones and non-stealth aircraft with limited ability to fend off rival aircraft or surface-to-air missiles. Recent advances in aircraft’s ability to communicate, surveille targets, and strike them precisely with laser guidance and GPS have made each aircraft and sortie vastly more capable of destroying targets. Naval aviation, which also benefits from these gains, can bear most of the remaining airpower load.

Precision also allows massive savings in the nuclear weapons budget. A credible nuclear deterrent does not require nearly 1,538 deployed nuclear weapons nor a triad of redundant delivery vehicles — bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). No enemy can reliably track U.S. ballistic missile submarines, let alone do so with the sort of reliability required to attempt a preemptive strike against all of them. Even if extended deterrence requires the ability to preempt enemy nuclear forces, which is doubtful, a monad-only nuclear force can achieve it. They would have the withhelp of conventional missiles, which are now accurate enough to destroy hardened silos.

Doing without the ICBM and bomber legs would save much of the $18 billion that the Pentagon plans to spend annually starting in 2021 on improving nuclear delivery systems, including a new bomber-launched cruise missile or upgrading B-2 bombers, Minuteman ICBMs, and their warheads.

Three other areas for savings are sensible though not intrinsic to restraint’s logic. First, the Pentagon’s administrative costs remain excessive despite repeated pushes to trim them. Greater results will come from consolidating combatant commands, reducing three- and four-star commands, and reducing associated contract and civilian personnel.

Second, compensation costs — including basic pay, medical costs, housing allowances, and other benefits — should be controlled. Manpower costs have jumped since 2000, with compensation far exceeding comparable private-sector earnings. Service leaders and a bipartisan coterie of defense experts annually beg Congress to adopt cost-controlling reforms. Congress has agreed to slow pay increases and to allow modest hikes in contributions to Tricare fees and housing, but it should accept the Department of Defense’s more aggressive cost-saving proposals in those areas. Also, Congress should consider reforms to future service members’ retirement benefits, such as those recommended by the 2015 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.

Third, Congress should authorize another BRAC round. The Pentagon estimates that base capacity exceeds needs by 20 percent. It estimates that the five rounds between 1988 and 2005 produced $12 billion in recurring annual savings. BRAC is designed to overcome the congressional parochialism that imposes such inefficiency.

Proponents of a strategy of primacy often argue that a restrained military budget will expose us to danger. But the real danger is the idea that our security requires constant global patrolling, alliances, interventions, and annual costs of nearly $600 billion. A strategy of restraint would reduce our profligate military budget, save us a fortune, and keep us out of needless conflicts.


Benjamin H. Friedman is a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute.

 

[TammyinWI]

It Came Within 10 Feet

Russian fighter jet makes 'unsafe' intercept of US aircraft


Washington (CNN) — A Russian fighter jet made an "unsafe close-range intercept" of a US aircraft over the Black Sea Wednesday, coming within 10 feet of the American plane.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said the potentially dangerous incident, involving a Russian SU-27 jet and a US Navy P-8A Poseidon plane, lasted 19 minutes.

A US official told CNN's Barbara Starr that the Russian plane came within 10 feet of the P-8 at one point. Davis added that the US plane was conducting routine operations in international airspace at the time.

"These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions, and could result in a miscalculation or accident," Davis said in a statement.

The US has long protested Russian intercepts of its aircraft; there have been several this year.

On two separate occasions in April, Russian SU-27 fighters performed "barrel rolls" over American KC-135 planes flying above the Baltic Sea.

RELATED: Russian jets keep buzzing U.S. ships and planes. What can the U.S. do?

Russian officials have defended the actions of their pilots in the past, but have yet to comment on the most recent incident.

Tensions have been ratcheted up in the Black Sea recently as Russia began five days of military exercises Monday involving 12,500 personnel and its Black Sea fleet based in Crimea, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense. Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 an event that has subjected Russia to international sanctions.

The Russian Defense Ministry posted a video Thursday on its Facebook page showing Russian fighter crews based in Crimea conducting an intercept drill.

The latest incident also comes as US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are due to meet Thursday to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/russia-us-jet-intercept/index.html

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://mondediplo.com/2016/09/02war

September 2016

West fearful as it loses military advantage

Sleepwalking into a big war

The major powers are planning for war and claim that’s the best way to defend against war. Will this mutual hawkishness lead to armed conflict?

by Michael T Klare


As the US presidential race approaches its climax and European officials ponder the implications of the UK’s Brexit vote, public discussion of security affairs is largely confined to strategies for combating international terrorism. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are trying to persuade voters of their superior qualifications to lead this battle, while European leaders scramble to bolster their countries’ defences against homegrown extremists. But though talk of terrorism fills the news media and the political space, it is secondary in the conversations of generals, admirals and defence ministers: it’s not low-level conflict that commands their attention but rather what they call ‘big wars’ — large-scale, high-level conflict with great-power adversaries like Russia and China. Such major conflicts, long considered most unlikely, are now deemed ‘plausible’ by western military strategists, who claim that urgent steps are needed to deter and, if necessary, prevail in such engagements.

This development, overlooked by the media, has serious consequences, starting with heightened tension between Russia and the West, each eyeing the other in the expectation of a confrontation. More worrying is the fact that many politicians believe that war is not only possible, but may break out at any moment — a view that historically has tended to precipitate military responses where diplomatic solutions might have been possible.

The origins of this thinking can be found in the reports and comments of senior military officials (typically at professional meetings and conferences). ‘In both Brussels and Washington, it has been many years since Russia was a focus of defence planning’ but that ‘has now changed for the foreseeable future,’ states one such report, summarising the views at a workshop organised in 2015 by the Institute of National Strategic Studies (INSS), a branch of the US National Defence University. The report says that as a result of Russian aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, many defence experts ‘can now envision a plausible pathway to war’ and this, in turn, ‘has led defence planners to recognise the need for renewed focus of the possibility of confrontation and conflict with Moscow’ (1).

‘A return to great power competition’

Such a conflict would be most likely to occur on NATO’s eastern front, encompassing Poland and the Baltic states, and would be fought with high-tech conventional weapons. But these planners also postulate that it could encompass Scandinavia and the Black Sea region, and might escalate into the nuclear realm. So US and European strategists are calling for a build-up of western military capabilities in all of these regions and for moves to enhance the credibility of NATO’s tactical nuclear options (2). A recent article in the NATO Review calls for the increased inclusion of nuclear-capable aircraft in future NATO military exercises, to create uncertainty in Russian minds about the point at which NATO commanders might order nuclear strikes to counter any Russian breakthrough on the eastern front (and presumably deter such an assault) (3).

This way of thinking, though confined until recently to military academies and thinktanks, has begun to shape government policy in significant and alarming ways. We see this in the new US defence budget, in decisions adopted at the NATO summit in July, and in the UK’s July decision to renew the Trident nuclear missile programme.

US defence secretary Ash Carter said the new budget ‘marks a major inflection point for the Department of Defence.’ Whereas the department had been focused in recent years ‘on large-scale counter-insurgency operations,’ it must now prepare for ‘a return to great power competition,’ possibly involving all-out conflict with a ‘high-end enemy’ such as Russia or China. These countries, Carter declared, ‘are our most stressing competitors,’ possessing advanced weapons that could neutralise some US advantages. To overcome this challenge, ‘we must have — and be seen to have — the ability to impose unacceptable costs on an advanced aggressor that will either dissuade them from taking provocative action or make them deeply regret it if they do’ (4).

In the short term, this will require urgent action to bolster US capacity to counter a potential Russian assault on NATO positions in eastern Europe. Under its European Reassurance Initiative, the Pentagon will spend $3.4bn in fiscal 2017 to deploy an extra armoured combat brigade in Europe and to pre-position the arms and equipment for yet another brigade. To bolster US strength over the long term, there would be greater US spending on high-tech conventional weapons needed to defeat a high-end enemy, such as advanced combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines. Carter noted that, on top of this, ‘the budget also invests in modernising our nuclear deterrent’ (5). It’s hard not to be struck by echoes of the cold war.

The final communiqué adopted by the NATO heads of state and government in Warsaw on 9 July is also reminiscent of this era (6). Coming just a few days after the Brexit vote, the NATO summit drowned out any concerns over disarray in Europe with a stentorian anti-Russian attitude. ‘Russia’s recent activities and policies have reduced stability and security, increased unpredictability and changed the security environment,’ says the communiqué. As a result, NATO remains ‘open to political dialogue’ but must not only suspend ‘all practical civilian and military cooperation’ with Russia but also take steps to enhance its ‘deterrence and defence posture’ (7).

Of the steps taken at the summit to implement this commitment, the most important is to deploy, in rotation, multinational combat battalions in Poland and the three Baltic republics, with the US, UK, Canada and Germany each assuming leadership of one unit. These deployments are notable because they represent the first semi-permanent garrison of NATO forces on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and imply that any skirmish with Russian forces in the Baltic region could trigger a full-scale (possibly nuclear) war.

It became clear that nuclear escalation is still a very real consideration in the minds of western leaders soon after the NATO summit, when Britain’s new prime minister Theresa May, in her first major parliamentary appearance after assuming office, won a vote on 18 July to preserve and enhance the Trident nuclear missile programme. ‘The nuclear threat has not gone away,’ she told parliament. ‘If anything, it has increased’ (8). On this basis, she asked British lawmakers to approve a multiyear £41bn ($53bn) plan to maintain and modernise the UK’s fleet of missile-carrying submarines.

Analysing the other’s moves

When explaining the need to prepare for a major war against a high-end enemy, US and European analysts usually point to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Chinese adventurism in the South China Sea (9). Western military moves, it is claimed, are an undesired but necessary reaction to provocations by others. But probe more deeply into the thinking of senior leaders and a different picture emerges. Running throughout this discussion is a pervasive anxiety that the world has changed in significant ways, and that the strategic advantages once possessed by the West are slipping away as other powers gain increased military and geopolitical leverage. In this new era — ‘a time of renewed great power competition’ as Carter put it — the US’s military might no longer appears as formidable as it once did, while the military capabilities of rival powers appear increasingly potent.

When speaking of Russia’s moves in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, western analysts highlight what they view as the illegal nature of the Russian intervention. But their real concern is over evidence that Russian investment in enhanced military capabilities over the past decade is beginning to bear fruit. Whereas western observers largely dismissed the Russian forces in the wars in Chechnya and South Ossetia as substandard, those deployed in Crimea and Syria are believed to be well-equipped and high quality. ‘Russia has made significant strides in developing the capability to use force effectively,’ noted the INSS report.

Western observers have also been impressed by the growing strength and effectiveness of the Chinese military. China’s ability to convert low-lying reefs and atolls in the South China Sea into islands capable of housing substantial military installations has surprised and alarmed US military officials, who had long viewed the area as an American lake. Although the US still enjoys air and naval superiority in the region, these bold moves suggest that China has become a significant military competitor and a growing future challenge.

Under these circumstances, strategists see no option but to acquire capabilities that will enable the US to retain a significant military advantage over all potential rivals for decades, and prevent them from imposing their will on the international system and undermining vital US interests. And this means emphasising the big-war threats that justify lavish spending on the super-sophisticated weapons needed to defeat a high-end enemy.

Of the $583bn in Carter’s February US defence budget, $71.4bn will be allocated to research and development on new, advanced weapons — an amount greater than the entire defence budget of all but a few other countries. ‘We have to do this,’ Carter said, ‘to stay ahead of future threats in a changing world, as other nations try to catch on to the advantages that we have enjoyed for decades, in areas like precision-guided munitions, stealth, cyber and space’ (10).

Expenditure on advanced arms

Besides these research efforts, mammoth sums will be spent on the acquisition of advanced weapons intended to overcome Russian and Chinese defensive systems and bolster US military capabilities in potential areas of conflict, such as the Baltic and the western Pacific. Some $12bn will be spent over the next five years on preliminary development of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber, a stealth aircraft capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons and designed to penetrate Russia’s heavily defended airspace (11). To counter Chinese gains in the Pacific, the Pentagon will acquire additional Virginia-class submarines and Burke-class guided missile destroyers, and begin deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system in South Korea — an anti-missile system meant to defend against attacks from North Korea, but which could also bring down Chinese missiles.

A President Clinton or Trump would put their own stamp on military policy. But it is highly unlikely that the current emphasis on planning for a major conflict with Russia and/or China will disappear, no matter who wins the election. Clinton already has the support of many neocons, who consider her more trustworthy than Trump and more hawkish than Obama. Trump has repeatedly stated his determination to rebuild the US’s ‘depleted’ military capability, and has chosen former generals as key foreign policy advisers. He has largely focused on the fight against ISIS, and said that ‘if our country got along with Russia, that would be a great thing.’ But he has also expressed concern that China is ‘building a ... fortress in the South China Sea’ and has emphasised the need to invest in new weapons systems more than Obama has done, or Clinton during her time in government (12).

So should we expect military posturing and muscle-flexing in highly contested areas like eastern Europe and the South China Sea to become the new normal, with a risk of accident, miscalculation and unintended escalation? The US, Russia and China have all signalled that they will deploy more forces in these areas, in more frequent and elaborate military exercises. Any of these could produce an accidental clash between the major powers, precipitating an uncontrolled chain of events culminating in full-scale war.

An equally dangerous outcome is the growing militarisation of international relations, with the major powers more inclined to threaten military action than to resolve disputes at the negotiation table. This is not unprecedented: Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers and other pre-first world war accounts describe how European leaders were induced by military officers to favour armed over diplomatic responses to perceived affronts, hastening the onset of mass slaughter.

Although military thinkers in the West have embraced the big-war approach with particular enthusiasm, this outlook has powerful advocates in Russia and China — actions on both sides tend to reinforce the arguments made by their military thinkers. It is clear that the problem is not East or West, but rather the shared assumption that a full-scale war between the major powers is entirely possible and requires urgent military preparations. Only by repudiating this assumption — by demonstrating how such preparations more often precipitate than discourage the outbreak of conflict — will it be possible to eliminate the risk of unintended escalation and improve the chances for success in overcoming other urgent dangers.


Michael T Klare

Michael T Klare is a professor of world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst (Mass) and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left:the Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources (Picador, 2012).

Original text in English


(1) Paul Bernstein, ‘Putin’s Russia and US Defence Strategy’ (PDF), Workshop Report, Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defence University (NDU), 19-20 August 2015.

(2) See Alexander Mattelaer, ‘The NATO Warsaw Summit: How to Strengthen Alliance Cohesion (PDF)’, Strategic Forum, INSS/NDU, June 2016.

(3) Camille Grand, ‘Nuclear deterrence and the Alliance in the 21st’, NATO Review, 2016.

(4) US Department of Defence, ‘Remarks by Secretary Carter on the Budget at the Economic Club of Washington, DC’, 2 February 2016.

(5) Secretary of Defence Ash Carter, ‘Submitted Statement — Senate Appropriations Committee — Defence (FY 2017 Budget Request)’, 27 April 2016.

(6) See Serge Halimi, ‘Provoking Russia’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, August 2016.

(7) NATO, ‘Warsaw Summit Communiqué’, Warsaw, 9 July 2016.

(8) As quoted in Stephen Castle, ‘Britain’s New Leader Wins Votes to Renew Nuclear Program’, The New York Times, 19 July 2016.

(9) See Didier Cormorand, ‘For a fistful of rocks’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, July 2016.

(10) US Department of Defence, ‘Remarks by Secretary Carter on the Budget at the Economic Club of Washington DC’, op cit.

(11) Secretary of Defence Ash Carter, ‘Submitted Statement — Senate Appropriations Committee — Defence (FY 2017 Budget Request)’, op cit.

(12) Maggie Haberman and David E Sanger, ‘Donald Trump expounds on his foreign policy views’, The New York Times, 26 March 2016.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-one-against-isis/?postshare=2041473243885775

10 new wars that could be unleashed as a result of the one against ISIS

By Liz Sly September 7 at 4:00 AM

The borders of the Islamic State's "caliphate" are shrinking fast. The group’s strongholds in Iraq and Syria are collapsing one by one. The U.S.-led war has reached a point where questions are being raised about what comes next.

So far, the answer seems likely to be: more war.

That’s partly because the U.S. strategy for defeating the Islamic State relies on a variety of regional allies and local armed groups who are often bitterly at odds. Though all of them regard the Islamic State as an enemy, most of them regard one another as enemies, too. As they conquer territory from the militants, they are staking out claims to the captured lands in ways that risk bringing them into conflict with others who are also seizing territory. New wars are brewing, for control of the post-Islamic State order.

Here is a list of 10 of them, in no particular order. There are doubtless more. Some have already started. Others may never happen. But any one of them could increase the Islamic State’s chances of survival, perpetuating the conditions that enabled the group to thrive — and perhaps entangling the United States in the region for many years to come.

WAR NO. 1: U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces and Turkish-backed Arab forces

This is one of the wars that have already started, and it is also one of the more complicated ones. Turkey, which is fighting a war at home against separatist Turkish Kurds, has watched with alarm as Syrian Kurds have capitalized on U.S. support to expand Kurdish control over northeastern Syria. Syrian Arab rebels allied to Turkey are also opposed to the Kurdish expansion, which is encroaching on Arab areas. So when Turkey intervened in Syria two weeks ago to help Syrian rebels capture Islamic State territory, it was clear that the Kurds were as much of a target as the Islamic State. Fighting has since erupted, and though the United States has asked both sides to stop, it is unclear whether the it has enough leverage over its rival allies to prevent a deepening conflict.

WAR NO. 2: Turkey and the Syrian Kurds

This war would be similar to war No. 1, but bigger. For now, Turkey has confined its incursion into Syria to an area of Syria occupied by the Islamic State that is mostly Arab. But Turkey is just as worried about the de facto Kurdish state emerging along its border farther east. Kurds declared an autonomous region there earlier this year, and Turkey is now building a wall along the border to try to seal it off. If the tensions persist, a direct Turkish invasion of the Kurdish area — where a small number of U.S. troops also are based — can’t be ruled out.

WAR NO. 3: Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government

The Syrian government also feels threatened by the territorial ambitions of the Kurds. Until recently, they had maintained an uneasy alliance, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad boasted on a number of occasions that his government provides the Kurds with arms. But the relationship has soured since the autonomy declaration by the Kurds, and the two sides have fought brief battles in areas where they both have forces.

There is now a cease-fire, but the Kurdish aspirations to self-rule are directly at odds with Assad’s proclaimed goal of reasserting Syrian sovereignty over the whole country.

WAR NO. 4: The United States and Syria

This is a war that could have erupted on any number of occasions in the five years since President Obama called for the ouster of Assad. That it hasn’t is testimony to how much both sides want to avoid conflict. It still seems extremely unlikely. But there are a few front lines where the Islamic State war could at some point bring U.S.-backed groups into direct conflict with Syrian government forces. Among them is the Islamic State’s Syrian capital, Raqqa, where in June the United States and Syria were both backing rival offensives from opposite directions. Last month, the U.S. military scrambled jets to deter Syrian warplanes from bombing the Kurds.

WAR NO. 5: Turkey and Syria

The Turkish intervention in Syria has for now been confined to fighting the Islamic State and Kurdish forces. Turkey has also taken steps to mend fences with both Russia and Iran, Assad’s most important allies, who appear to have given a green light to Turkey’s intervention in northern Syria.

If Turkey’s fight against the Islamic State goes well, however, the Turkish forces will soon find themselves up against Syrian government front lines around the contested city of Aleppo. That could get messy.

WAR NO. 6: Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi government

Moving east from Syria along the Islamic State’s dwindling borders into Iraq, the situation is somewhat less immediately volatile. But it is no less complicated — or dangerous. Just as Syrian Kurds have expanded the areas that are under their control in ways that challenge the Syrian government’s sovereignty, so too have Iraqi Kurds moved into areas of Iraq that were once under Iraqi government control. The U.S.-backed Iraqi government says it intends to reclaim these areas once the Islamic State has been fully vanquished. The U.S.-backed Kurds have said they won’t let go of any territory Kurds have shed blood to conquer.

These disputes predate the existence of the Islamic State, but they will reemerge with a vengeance once the militants are defeated.

WAR NO. 7: Iraqi Kurds and Shiite militias

This would take place for reasons similar to war No. 6, except that it has already started to simmer. Shiite militias, many of them backed by Iran, have taken a leading role in some of the conquests of Islamic State territory, pushing north from Baghdad to drive the militants back. They have come up against U.S.-allied Kurdish peshmerga fighters pressing south from the Kurdish areas. In at least one location, Tuz Khurmatu, clashes have already taken place.

But, the Kurds themselves are not united, either in Syria or Iraq, which gives rise to the possibility of:

WAR NO. 8: Kurds against Kurds

This is perhaps the most complicated of all the scenarios, but it is far from unlikely. The Kurds are bitterly divided among themselves over just about everything except their aspirations to a Kurdish state. The Kurds of Iraq are split between two factions that fought a bloody civil war in the 1990s. One of them is a sworn foe of the Kurds who control northern Syria. The other is allied to the Syrian Kurds — who themselves are far from united. Conflict between U.S.-allied Kurdish groups is possible, in Iraq or Syria or both.

WAR NO. 9: Sunni Arabs against Shiites and/or Kurds

In pursuit of the goal of defeating the Islamic State, towns and villages that are predominantly Sunni are being conquered by forces that are mostly Kurdish or Shiite. Many Sunnis are teaming up with them to help defeat the militants. Many are overwhelmingly relieved when their oppressors are driven out.

But there are also reports of abuses by Shiites and Kurds against the Sunni communities they liberate. These include the forced displacement of Sunnis from their homes and mass detentions of Sunni men. In the absence of genuine reconciliation, including political solutions that empower Sunnis, a new form of Sunni insurgency could emerge.

WAR NO. 10: The remnants of the Islamic State against everyone

The Islamic State still controls a big chunk of territory in Syria and Iraq. Offensives to control its twin capitals, Mosul and Raqqa, have yet to begin. If the groups who are supposed to participate in the offensives fight among themselves, those battles could be delayed indefinitely.

Even if they don’t, these other conflicts, left unresolved, will herald long-term instability in the region. Military gains are not being matched by political solutions to the wider chaos and dysfunction that enabled the rise of the Islamic State in the first place. If the current war begets new wars, the Islamic State may yet endure.

Read more:

U.S. is trapped between its allies’ ambitions in Syria

With ISIS on the run, new wars could erupt in Iraq

For the first time since 2013, ISIS has no border with NATO


87 Comments

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/turkey-iraq-what-turkish-army-doing-in-mosul.html

What is Turkish army really doing in Iraq?

A cannon shot roared into the night. The target was in the town of Bashiqa in northern Iraq, seized by the Islamic State (IS) in 2014. Seconds after the explosion, the clatter of a collapsing building echoed in the mountain.

Summary: It is not clear who will take control if Mosul is liberated from the Islamic State, but Turkey and its allies want nothing more than to prevent the Kurds from declaring a semi-autonomous state in the region.

Author Wilson Fache
Posted September 6, 2016
Comments 44


For months now, the Turkish army has repeatedly targeted IS from positions they hold 15 kilometers (9 miles) northeast of Mosul.

“The main goal of this base is to fight against Daesh [Arabic acronym for IS],” one Turkish soldier told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “We deployed some fire-support vehicles, artillery, tanks and mortars, among other things, to destroy them,” he added.

According to the soldier who was reading from a statement, Turkish troops deployed in northern Iraq have eliminated numerous targets, including 602 fighters, 416 buildings used by the Sunni hard-line group, 83 armored vehicles and 17 artillery positions.

Beyond its direct engagement against IS, the Turkish army is also training and arming Hashd al-Watani, a predominantly Arab Sunni militia created by Atheel al-Nujaifi, the former governor of Ninevah province and, along with his highly influential family, a close Turkish ally.

“We train them for close quarter combat, which will take place in Mosul in the near future,” the Turkish soldier said, adding that local fighters were all provided with AK-74s and ammunition.

In a country where the number of militiamen fighting for a religion, an ethnic group or a region seems to be growing by the day, Hashd al-Watani’s leaders do not shy away from voicing their ultimate prize: capturing the IS de-facto capital in Iraq. “Mosul is ours. If we get inside, all of it will be for us,” Brig. Gen. Mohamed Tahma Talib, who is commanding Hashd al-Watani, told al-Monitor.

To be able to reach the outskirts of the city, Hashd al-Watani is working in cooperation with the Kurdish peshmerga, the army of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

According to peshmerga Gen. Bahram Arif Yassin, stationed at Bashiqa Mountain, the Kurdish forces will seize the town of Bashiqa and advance toward Mosul, paving the way for the Ankara-backed fighters.

“We will recapture the area around Mosul. We will [stop] 2 kilometers [1 mile] from the city. And then,” Yassin said, “we will open a way for Hashd al-Watani to go inside Mosul.”

Dismissed by Iraqi parliament members for corruption and alleged complicity with IS, Nujaifi has since found exile in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region. Like most Sunni leaders, Nujaifi initially opposed Kurdish autonomy, which he saw as a first step toward total independence.

“Our relation with the KRG is not like before. We have a positive relationship now,” Nujaifi told Al-Monitor, referring to the peshmerga and Kurdish de-facto President Massoud Barzani as “allies.”

“We wait for the peshmerga to do their part, and then our role will start,” he said. Now, Nujaifi argues that the Ninevah region should follow the lead of its Kurdish neighbors and transform itself into a semi-autonomous region as well.

Turkey, the KRG and Nujaifi’s partially colluding interests have led to a “marriage of convenience” to better secure their interests at the moment and eventually during the political vacuum that could follow Mosul’s liberation, according to Renad Mansour, an El-Erian fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center.

“He [Nujaifi] still considers himself as someone who will return, who will have a big homecoming in Mosul. … He seems to be sort of trying to fight a military war, a political war, and obviously he is getting a lot of support. So you have this really odd sort of triangle of Nujaifi, Barzani and Turkey working together,” Mansour said.

“Turkey wants to maintain some form of regional power in these parts. Particularly now, it will have to start using proxies even more. … Turkey needs to rely on allies, and typical allies Turkey has had in northern Iraq have been the Barzanis and also the Nujaifis,” he added.

In 1994, a civil war erupted between the two main Kurdish factions in the north: the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which is the political party of the Barzani clan, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which was aligned with Iran and Ankara’s long-time enemy, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). That war paved the way “for an open-ended Turkish presence at several Iraqi bases with the KDP's tacit and gradually open cooperation,” an analysis published by the Washington Institute stated.

Last December, when Turkey deployed an additional 150 troops and 25 tanks to positions close to IS-held Bashiqa without asking Baghdad for permission, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s office called the action a “serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty,” and later threated to take the matter to the UN Security Council. It was Erbil that had reportedly leased Ankara the rights to the Bashiqa military camp.

While Ankara has been nurturing over the years an economically and politically profitable relationship with the KRG, it has been repeatedly pounding Kurdish groups in Turkey and Syria, including the People's Protection Units, one of the main ground forces battling IS.

Ankara’s viewing a Kurdish state as a bigger threat than IS has led to numerous accusations of its tacit support for the self-styled caliphate.

On Sept. 4, the rebels — mainly Syrian Arabs and Turkmens fighting under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) — took control of the frontier between Azaz and Jarablus after seizing 20 villages from IS, the Turkish military said in a statement. But Turkey’s perceived inability — or unwillingness — to clear until now its border to prevent the stream of foreign jihadists pouring into Syria from Turkey has been a cause of concern.

“They have actually, some would argue, helped facilitate [IS] in Syria at a certain point — maybe not directly, but indirectly through porous border management. In any case, it seems like now the No. 1 priority for Turkey would be to limit the PKK,” Mansour said.

While the Turkish-backed FSA aim at Syrian Kurdish fighters, Turkish-backed Hashd al-Watani is working in cooperation with Kurdish peshmerga as they advance toward Mosul. But the militia still needs to prove its military capability, said Gen. Sirwan Barzani, a nephew of Massoud Barzani and the commander of a 120-kilometer-long (75-mile-long) front line east of Mosul. “They are not good fighters for an offensive,” he told Al-Monitor, “but they are from the region; they are good for holding [recaptured] ground.”

With the support of Turkey, Nujaifi’s private army could soon demonstrate what it is capable of as the eventual battle for Mosul draws closer. But for Lt. Gen. Najim al-Jibouri, leading the Iraqi army offensive to retake IS' last stronghold in the country, Hashd al-Watani will have to follow his command.

“The prime minister told us about Hashd al-Watani. He wants them to fight with us under the Iraqi flag,” Jibouri said, “not under any other flag.”


Related Articles

Iran

Will Turkey be dragged deeper into Syria?
Kadri Gursel

Syria

Shiite alliance against Saudis grows tighter
Ali Mamouri

Saudi Arabia

Why did Iraq ask Riyadh to change its ambassador?
Mustafa Saadoun

Iraq

Will Popular Mobilization Units participate in Iraqi elections?
Omar al-Jaffal

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKCN11E0UI

World News | Thu Sep 8, 2016 4:40am EDT

Taliban forces sweep into provincial capital in Afghanistan: officials

Taliban forces were fighting within the capital of Afghanistan's central province of Uruzgan on Thursday, threatening government offices as the leadership fled to the airport, officials said.

Militants had fought their way to within a few hundred meters of the governor's compound and police headquarters while gun battles spread in the provincial capital of Tarin Kot, a city of about 70,000 people, said provincial police chief Wais Samim.

The militant offensive, and the apparent government collapse in some areas, was reminiscent of the Taliban's speedy but brief capture of Kunduz city last year, the first time the group had seized a provincial capital since they lost power in 2001.

Top provincial leaders in Uruzgan had retreated to the airport, which houses an Afghan military base, according a police official who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

In separate phone interviews with Reuters, security officials were already assigning blame for the apparent collapse of the defense.

Police chief Samim said many of the city's police had made deals with the Taliban and left their checkpoints without a fight, while another police official accused the province's senior leadership of abandoning the city.

Late on Wednesday, the Taliban released a statement promising government forces protection if they surrendered peacefully.

The city's prison had fallen to the advancing militants, but its occupants had previously been transferred to the airport, said Abdul Karim, head of the Uruzgan provincial council.

In a statement online, the Taliban said their fighters had entered the city and overrun at least seven checkpoints as well as the prison, with city officials taking the prisoners as "hostages" and fleeing to the airport.

"Street to street clashes are currently taking place against the enemy inside the city," the statement said.

Last year, Kunduz was retaken by the government only after nearly two weeks of fighting, with American special forces and warplanes backing up elite Afghan troops.

A spokesman for the U.S. military command in Kabul said officials were monitoring the situation, but as of Wednesday there were no coalition advisers in Uruzgan and no American air strikes had been conducted this week.

At least 69 coalition troops died in Uruzgan province during nearly a decade and a half of international military efforts to defeat the Taliban and other militant groups after 2001.


(Reporting by Mohammed Stanekzai in Lashkar Gah and Sayed Sarwar Amani in Kandahar. Writing by Josh Smith. Editing by Nick Macfie)


Also In World News
Asia leaders tiptoe around South China Sea tensions
Iraq militia fighters join battle for Syria's Aleppo
Syria says peace plan remarks show Britain's Johnson out of touch with reality
Japan PM urges 'strict' implementation of sanctions on North Korea

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-france-car-idUSKCN11E0HG

World News | Thu Sep 8, 2016 2:08am EDT

Second couple arrested after car with gas cylinders found in Paris: judicial source

French police have arrested a second couple in connection with a car found carrying seven gas cylinders near Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris, a judicial official said on Thursday.

The couple were arrested on Wednesday evening and taken into custody. Further details were not immediately available.

A first couple, aged 34 and 29, were arrested on a motorway on Tuesday in southern France also in connection with the incident on Saturday and remain in custody.

There was no detonating device present in the car, found on a Seine riverside stretch called the Quai de Montebello, metres from Notre-Dame, one of Paris's most popular attractions. Documents with writing in Arabic were also found in the car.

More than 200 people have been killed in attacks by militant Islamists in France over the past 18 months.

France remains on maximum alert after calls by the Islamic State group for followers to attack the country, which is taking part in bombing the militant group's bases in Iraq and Syria.

(Reporting by Marine Pennetier, Writing by Dominique Vidalon; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asean-summit-idUSKCN11E0EC

South China Sea | Thu Sep 8, 2016 3:55am EDT

Asia leaders tiptoe around South China Sea tensions

By Amy Sawitta Lefevre and Manuel Mogato | VIENTIANE

Asian leaders played down tensions over the South China Sea in a carefully worded summit statement on Thursday, but even before it was issued Beijing voiced frustration with countries outside the region "interfering" in tussles over the strategic waterway.

The heads of 10 Southeast Asian nations, as well as U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang among six other leaders, "reaffirmed the importance of maintaining peace, stability, security and freedom of navigation in and over-flight in the South China Sea".

But the draft of a statement to be issued in Vientiane, Laos, tiptoed around the regional strains caused by competing claims to areas of the strategically important sea.

"Several leaders remained seriously concerned over recent developments in the South China Sea," said the draft.

The statement, seen by Reuters, made no reference to a July ruling by a court in The Hague that declared illegal some of China's artificial islands in the sea and invalidated its claims to almost the entire waterway.

Obama said on Thursday the ruling had helped clarify maritime rights. "I recognize this raises tensions but I also look forward to discussing how we can constructively move forward together to lower tensions," he said at a summit meeting.

Officials said that talks on Wednesday between leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China's Li had gone smoothly.

But in a statement later from China's Foreign Ministry, Li was paraphrased as saying China was willing to work with Southeast Asian countries in "dispelling interference ... and properly handling the South China Sea issue".

He did not elaborate, but such wording is typically used by Chinese leaders to refer to not allowing countries from outside the region with no direct involvement in the dispute, like the United States, from getting involved.

China claims much of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion of trade moves annually. Taiwan and four ASEAN members - Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei - also have claims, making it a hot spot of regional tension.

The other ASEAN nations are Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore and Thailand. Leaders from Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and the United States also attended the summit.

China has over the past year alarmed other claimants, and outside powers such as the United States and Japan, by re-claiming land on several disputed reefs through dredging, and building air fields and port facilities.

Shattering an illusion of cordiality at the summit in Laos on Wednesday, U.S. ally the Philippines released photographs and a map showing what it said was an increased number of Chinese vessels near the disputed Scarborough Shoal, which China seized after a standoff in 2012.

Its defense ministry expressed "grave concern" that Chinese boats were preparing to build structures at the shoal.


CLEARED THE AIR

The Philippines' move came after a dispute with the United States, its former colonial power. Ties turned frosty when new President Rodrigo Duterte insulted U.S. counterpart Barack Obama on Monday, prompting the cancellation of a meeting between them.

The two leaders made some steps toward clearing the air late on Wednesday, however, chatting briefly, and exchanging pleasantries as they prepared to take their seats at a leaders' dinner.

The United States has been a staunch ally of the Philippines and China has repeatedly blamed Washington for stirring up trouble in the South China Sea.

Washington says it has no position on the territorial disputes but wants to ensure freedom of navigation. To press that point, it has conducted patrols near Chinese-held islands.

Although the Scarborough Shoal is merely a few rocks poking above the sea, it is important to the Philippines because of the fish stocks in the area. Manila says China's blockade of the shoal is a violation of international law.

The dispute has become more significant since the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in July that no country had sovereign rights over activity at Scarborough Shoal. China has refused to recognize the ruling by the court in The Hague.

Li made no direct mention of Scarborough Shoal in the comments provided by the foreign ministry, but Beijing said on Wednesday there had been no new activity there and "some people" were spreading information that was "hyping the situation".

China's embassy in Manila said there has been no dredging or building at the shoal and China has maintained a coastguard presence there for law enforcement patrols.

A statement by ASEAN on Wednesday listed eight points related to the South China Sea, but made no mention of the arbitration ruling.

The bloc traditionally shies away from taking a position on thorny diplomatic issues, especially where China is concerned, because of its influence in the region and the need to balance ties with the United States.

"Both China and the United States are among the most important partners of ASEAN, and ASEAN does not want to have to choose between those partners," the secretary general of the bloc, Le Luong Minh, told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Writing by John Chalmers; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Also In South China Sea
Tensions over South China Sea belie summit cordiality
China says wants to 'dispel interference' in South China Sea
Chinese coast guard involved in most South China Sea clashes: research
Seeking smoother summit, ASEAN to skirt mention of South China Sea ruling

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003191193

How capable are N. Korea¡¯s subs, missiles?

2:13 pm, September 08, 2016

The Yomiuri Shimbun
North Korea has been repeatedly test-firing submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs (see below). On Aug. 24, an SLBM launched off Sinpo, a city in northeast North Korea, flew for about 500 kilometers. If fully deployed, these missiles pose a serious security threat to Japan, the United States and South Korea. The Yomiuri Shimbun interviewed experts on North Korea¡¯s SLBMs.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 28, 2016)


===

Concerns over nuclear umbrella¡¯s credibility

Toshiyuki Ito / Former Commandant of Maritime Self-Defense Force¡¯s Kure District


North Korea¡¯s SLBM program is steadily progressing. Looking at footage released by North Korea, a missile ignited the moment it cleared the water and flew smoothly. This was the most difficult part, and probably relied on technology provided by the former Soviet Union. North Korea is now able to reproduce that technology.

The SLBM may be the same type as a Musudan medium-range ballistic missile. The Musudan is widely believed to be a variant of the R-27 SLBM purchased from Russia that has been modified for land-based launches. A series of launches have been carried out since spring, and a missile reached an altitude of 1,000 kilometers for the first time in June.

North Korea¡¯s SLBM was launched from a Sinpo-class submarine. Although it was modeled on a Golf-class submarine made in the Soviet Union, the crucial launch equipment was removed prior to purchase. According to U.S. reports, North Korea later purchased missile launch equipment and modified the submarine so that equipment could be installed, creating the Sinpo class.

The submarine¡¯s hull is roughly six meters in diameter, and the bridge is about six meters high. As the Musudan is about 12 meters long, it can be installed vertically. Therefore, the recently launched SLBM was also likely fired from a Sinpo-class submarine.

Submarine construction is not easy. One of the most important factors is resistance to water pressure. In order to make the hull withstand extreme water pressure, steel plates must be molded into a true circle and welded to avoid leaving any gaps. Only a few countries, including Japan, are capable of building submarines on their own.

The Sinpo class is most likely a battery-powered submarine of about 2,000 tons. It can only dive to shallow depths and operate in coastal waters. I believe it is incapable of venturing far into the Sea of Japan, let alone the Pacific.

Technically speaking, it is virtually impossible for North Korea to send its submarines into the Pacific and approach the U.S. mainland in the near future.

What North Korea wants most is to develop the KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile, which uses improved technologies from its advanced Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile and is capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. If it can do this, North Korea believes it will be on an equal footing with the United States in terms of nuclear deterrence.

With Musudans and SLBMs, which are still in an experimental stage, the objective is to achieve a range of 4,000 kilometers. The intended target is not Japan or South Korea, but rather Guam, a strategic base for the U.S. military. It will be sufficient if SLBMs launched off the coast of Sinpo ¡ª like the most recent launch ¡ª could reach Guam.

In terms of nuclear deterrence, the significance of SLBMs lies in their second-strike capability. In other words, even if a country¡¯s ground-based nuclear capabilities are destroyed in a first nuclear strike, nuclear weapons at sea can be used in a second strike against the enemy. Theoretically, this is how they work as a mutual nuclear deterrent.

If North Korea¡¯s SLBMs were to achieve full combat capability, the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella could be undermined. This is because it could lead to such doubts as, ¡°Will the United States really carry out a nuclear strike against North Korea in order to defend Japan?¡± or ¡°Will the United States hesitate to carry out a nuclear strike against North Korea out of fear that Guam will be hit by a second strike?¡±

For Japan, the prospect of the nuclear umbrella being disregarded can be considered a threat.


(Taken from an interview conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Senior Writer Tatsuya Fukumoto)


¡ö Ito¡¯s profile

After serving as captain of the MSDF submarine Hayashio, Toshiyuki Ito retired as a vice admiral and commandant of the MSDF Kure District in August 2015. He is now a professor at the K.I.T. Toranomon Graduate School and a visiting research fellow at the Canon Institute for Global Studies. He is 58.


Keep focus on submarine developments¡¡

Yang Uk / South Korean commentator on military affairs

To determine whether the recent SLBM launched by North Korea was a ¡°success,¡± the weapons system and the missile launch need to be evaluated separately.

Regarding the missile launch, great obstacles have been overcome and it can be said with near certainty to have been a ¡°success.¡± However, its success as a weapons system is another matter.

Three criteria must be met in order to have SLBMs. These are (1) the missile launch, (2) the nuclear warheads, and (3) the submarines from which to launch the missiles. Currently, it is fair to conclude North Korea has succeeded in completing (1) and could probably be said to have successfully met the criteria for (2), with four nuclear tests.

Although the SLBM launches in April and July are widely regarded as ¡°failures,¡± this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that the April and July launches were experiments in which the missiles were intentionally exploded at certain altitudes, as was done with Scud and Rodong launches.

The problem for North Korea now is (3), submarines. In order for SLBMs to work as a deterrent, submarines need to be capable of remaining submerged for long periods of time.

Although North Korea possesses a large number of submersibles and submarines for landing and launching anti-ship torpedoes, when it comes to submarines capable of launching missiles it only has one outdated submarine that can remain at sea for only two to three days. It will, therefore, likely be some time before they are capable of building a successful weapons system.

Be that as it may, North Korea first introduced submarines in the 1960s and has produced all of them at its Sinpo submarine base. Over the years, they have accumulated a considerable amount of production technology. The submarine currently installed with missile launch tubes is based on a Golf-class submarine purchased from Russia in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For SLBM-equipped submarines to be useful in actual combat, they require at least two missile launch tubes and an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which enables submarines to continually navigate underwater without surfacing.

It is believed that North Korea is currently constructing a 3,000-ton class submarine equipped with such features. Satellite images show construction of some sort is being carried out at Sinpo¡¯s shipyards.

North Korea has continued to launch land-based missiles and apply those technologies to SLBMs, judging by the fact that the Musudan and SLBM are almost identical in appearance.

The nuclear powers of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia all possess SLBMs. By completing its own SLBM, North Korea is seeking global recognition as a nuclear power.

If North Korea¡¯s submarines become capable of venturing out into the open seas, constant monitoring patrols will be needed.

Japan has the best patrol capability in Northeast Asia. As South Korea lacks such capabilities, patrols may become the starting point for security cooperation between the two countries.


(Taken from an interview conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Seoul Correspondent Kentaro Nakajima)


¡ö Uk¡¯s profile

Yang Uk graduated from Seoul National University and gained a master¡¯s degree from the Korea National Defense University¡¯s Graduate School of Defense Management. Among other positions, he serves as a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, and as a policy advisory committee member of the National Defense Ministry. He has authored a number of books, including on national security and weapons. He is 41.


¡ö SLBM

Ballistic missiles that can be launched from submerged submarines. They are difficult to detect because they can be launched from below the ocean surface. Speech

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...-in-fragile-states-by-bennett-ramberg-2016-09

Bennett Ramberg

Bennett Ramberg, a policy analyst in the US State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs under President George H.W. Bush, is the author of Destruction of Nuclear Energy Facilities in War and Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy.

SEP 7, 2016

Nuclear Weapons in Civil War Zones

LOS ANGELES – The recent failed military coup in Turkey has produced instability, paranoia, and a crackdown on the regime’s perceived opponents, including many journalists. Luckily, it did not end with rebel forces seizing some of the dozens of US nuclear weapons stored at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, from which rebel aircraft departed. But what about next time?

The world’s nine nuclear powers claim that there is little to worry about. They argue that the combination of physical protection and, in most cases, electronic safeguards (permissive action links, or PALs) means that their arsenals would remain secure, even if countries where they are stored or deployed were engulfed by violence.

Robert Peurifoy, a former senior weapons engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, disagrees. He recently told the Los Angeles Times that such safeguards – earlier versions of which he helped to design – may only delay terrorists in using seized nuclear weapons. “Either you keep custody or you should expect a mushroom cloud.”

Peurifoy’s statements have rightly raised concerns about the security of nuclear weapons stockpiled in insecure regions. Consider Pakistan, which has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal and suffers relentless jihadi terrorism and separatist violence. Attacks have already been carried out on Pakistani military installations reportedly housing nuclear components. The country’s new mobile “battlefield nuclear weapons” – easier to purloin – augment current fears.

North Korea, with its volatile and mercurial regime, is another source of concern. Suspicious of the military, Kim Jong-un’s government has repeatedly purged senior officers, which has surely stoked opposition that someday could spark serious civil strife. Adding nuclear weapons to that mix would be highly dangerous. While other nuclear powers appear stable, countries like China and Russia, which rely increasingly on authoritarianism, could face their own risks, should political cohesion fray.

Of course, there are plenty of examples of security enduring strife. The 1961 revolt of the generals in French Algeria, which placed a nuclear test device in the Sahara at risk, produced no dangerous incidents. In China, the government effectively protected nuclear weapons sites threatened by Revolutionary Guards during the Cultural Revolution. And neither the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev nor the Soviet collapse resulted in a loss of control over the country’s nuclear arsenal.

But it is a leap to presume that these precedents mean that nuclear weapons will remain safe, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan and North Korea. Nuclear bombs or materials risk being controlled by rebels, terrorist groups, or even failing and desperate governments. And, in those cases, the international community has few options for mitigating the threat.

External powers can, for example, launch a targeted attack, like the one that Israel carried out on suspected reactors under construction in Iraq and Syria. Those strikes would not have succeeded had Israel not been able to identify the targets accurately. Indeed, though the existence of Iraq’s Osirak plant was public knowledge, uncovering Syria’s Al Kibar plant was an intelligence coup.

Carrying out such a strike on North Korean or Pakistani nuclear sites in a time of crisis would require a similar breakthrough – one that may be even more difficult to achieve, given extensive concealment efforts. Stealthy movement of bombs or materials amid the unrest would further complicate targeting.

Another option – invasion and occupation – avoids the challenge of identifying nuclear sites. The defeat of Nazi Germany permitted the Allies to find and destroy the country’s nascent nuclear program. The 2003 invasion of Iraq granted the US unfettered access to all possible sites where weapons of mass destruction could be stored. But the costs were huge. Likewise, invasion and occupation of either North Korea or Pakistan would require massive armies risking a bitter conventional war and possible use of the weapons against the invaders.

A third option is nuclear containment, which relies on several measures. First, in order to prevent nuclear migration, all land, sea, and air routes out of the country in question would have to be controlled, and homeland security near and far would have to be strengthened. While the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is already in place to stop the smuggling of nuclear contraband worldwide, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports continued trafficking of small amounts of nuclear material. An increase in monitoring may reduce, but still not eliminate the problem.

Containment also requires nuclear custodians be persuaded to risk their lives to defend nuclear sites against terrorists or rebels. And it demands that states neighboring the country in question put ballistic missile defenses on alert. While India, South Korea, and Japan continue to modernize such systems, no missile defense is perfect.

In a time of crisis, when the facts on the ground change fast and fear clouds thinking, mitigating the nuclear threat is no easy feat. While concerned governments do have confidential contingency planning in place, such planning has a mixed record when it comes to responding to recent international upsets in the Middle East. And simply hoping that things will go according to plan, and nuclear command and control will stick, remains a gamble.

The time has come to discuss new ideas, with the United States – still the global leader in combating proliferation – taking the lead. A public discussion with input from the executive branch, Congress, think tanks, investigative journalists, and scholars should lay a foundation for policy. We cannot allow ourselves to stand on the precipice of catastrophe without a well-considered and broadly supported plan in place.

The lesson from Turkey is not that the bombs of Incirlik – not to mention other nuclear weapons in unstable regions – are safe. Rather, it is that our most deadly weapons could be compromised in an instant. It ought to be a wake-up call for all of us.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2016/09/hezbollahs-horror-weapon-and-its-remedy/

Hezbollah’s horror weapon and its remedy

By David P. Goldman on September 7, 2016 in AT Top Writers, David P. Goldman, Spengler
Comments 5

The canonical definition of the Yiddish word chutzpah involves a man who murders his parents and then asks for clemency because he is an orphan. An unprecedented degree of chutzpah informs the machinations of radical Muslims, who engineer humanitarian disasters and then demand that the West intervene to save them.

Most of Clinton’s cabinet didn’t want to support the KLA, which made its money in narcotics and human trafficking, and they didn’t want to divide the sovereign state of Serbia—a precedent that Russia later used to justify its seizure of the Crimea. Nonetheless the moral blackmail succeeded, and Muslim radicals learned how to push the guilt button of the West.

My review-essay on Mandelbaum’s book appears in the Summer 2016 issue of Claremont Review of Books. Although I find much to disagree with, his reading of the salient events is incisive. His argument intersects with my warning just after the 9/11 attacks that radical Islam intended to horrify the West—not only by committing atrocities against Western civilians, but by causing massive civilian casualties among Muslims.

To a great extent they have succeeded. The fragile conscience of the Germans could not bear the suffering of Syrian refugees streaming towards its border with the connivance of Turkey. As Giulio Meotti reported for the Gatestone Institute, the refugee invasion will radically alter Europe’s demographic balance.

Hamas fought the Gaza War in order to maximize civilian casualties among its own population, and thereby entice the West into forcing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, where short-range rockets could devastate the national airport as well as Tel Aviv. This has not succeeded — yet — because Americans support Israel over the Palestinians by a 4:1 margin. But Palestinian leaders are patient; as the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Daraghmeh wrote (translate by the Times of Israel), the war with Israel “will end only when the world understands it has a duty to intervene and to draw borders and lines, as it did in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo.”

This macabre pantomime should be transparent, but such is the squeamishness of the West that enlightened opinion shudders at the prospect of more dead Palestinian civilians. The world forgets that the Allies killed 1 million German civilians and between a quarter and half a million Japanese, mostly through aerial bombardments. This sacrifice was justified by the need to destroy wicked governments that killed tens of millions of civilians in Europe and Asia. States have the right to defend themselves against artillery attacks. Israel’s right of self-defense is generally acknowledged, but with the caveat the self-defense should be “proportionate,” that is, ineffective.

Frequently, the “proportionality” canard is linked to a demand for Israeli concessions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Oxford University theologian Nigel Biggar for example writes in the Summer 2016 issue of the Christian strategy journal Providence: “It was within Israel’s power to take diplomatic, confidence-building initiatives. Unilaterally, she could have stopped and reversed the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Since she didn’t do so, her military assaults on Gaza were inapt and therefore disproportionate.”

Prof. Biggar forgets that Israel’s unilateral “confidence-building” withdrawal from Gaza put Hamas rockets on its borders. Logic is beside the point. The West is horrified and wants the horror to stop, and that is just what Hamas counts on.

Worse is yet to come. On Israel’s northern border, Hezbollah now has 150,000 rockets, by far the largest such inventory in the world, including many precision-guided missiles which can be programmed for evasive flight paths and are more difficult to shoot down with the Iron Dome air defense system, as I warned two years ago. Many of these are emplaced in civilian homes in the Shi’ite towns of southern Lebanon. To destroy them would entail civilian casualties one or two orders of magnitude greater than the collateral damage in Gaza.

Knowledgeable Israeli sources report that the Israeli Air Force decided not to make contingency plans to target Hezbollah rocket installations with a high quotient of probable civilian casualties, or those which would bring charges of human rights violations against Israel. After a heated argument among senior officers, the Israelis did include rocket batteries surrounded by human shields in their target list. The fact that they were left out of the targeting procedure to begin with shows how deeply the horror tactic has cut into Israeli self-confidence.

For the moment, Hezbollah is bogged down in the Syrian civil war, where it has lost perhaps a third of its front-line fighters, and in no mood for a confrontation with Israel. Nonetheless, a war on Israel’s northern border is likely some time during the next several years. Hezbollah’s masters in Iran, who provided the munitions and constructed their emplacements, and who man some of the rocket artillery on the ground, probably would begin a war with a limited bombardment—daring Israel to retaliate massively and earn the condemnation of the UN Security Council.

Simple military logic dictates that if Hezbollah begins to fire any rockets, the correct thing to do is destroy the inventory. A fraction of Hezbollah’s projectiles could shut down the national airport, destroy major refinery and electrical generating facilities, and put the whole population of Israel in bomb shelters.

Judging by Israel’s fumbling over the targeting issue, its leadership seems in a quandary.

If Israel were prepared to reduce Hezbollah in the event of war, it would have taken the precautionary step of publicizing its estimates of the likely number of civilian casualties, in order to inoculate world opinion against the eventual need to kill some tens of thousands of civilians. I do not normally offer advice to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but this is not an issue of Israeli defense per se but rather the management of world opinion. He should make public an estimate of the probable number of civilian dead in the event of a war with Hezbollah, but double the number. He could then argue after the fact that he had exercised restraint by killing only half as many as initially estimated. I do not mean this facetiously. The West got used to half a million dead Syrians, and it can get used to the idea of 100,000 dead Lebanese.

Hezbollah’s vulnerability lies in the fact that it is a militia that lives in the Shi’ite communities of Lebanon rather than an army based far from civilian centers. Iran is prepared to sacrifice Shi’ite life in Lebanon in its own imperial interests, but the Lebanese Shi’ites themselves may not wish to be sacrificed. By spelling out the terrible consequences of war with Israel, Jerusalem would sow fear and doubt among its prospective enemies.

The risk, to be sure, is that such an announcement would put arguments in the hands of Western governments (for example France) that want to impose a solution on Israel that ends its control over buffer lands in the West Bank. The reality on the ground, however, is that the Sunni Arab world is in such chaos from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf that the prospects of a settlement of any kind are remote.

The greater risk in destroying Hezbollah’s rocketry at high civilian cost comes from Iran, which would feel honor-bound to retaliate. Iran probably does not yet possess nuclear weapons, so it is in Israel’s interest to finish its business in the north before it acquires them. Iran is unlikely to start a nuclear war with Israel because its leaders wake up one morning feeling apocalyptic. The danger, rather, comes from the possible escalation of what would begin as a conventional exchange. Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (a supposed moderate) famously called Israel a “one-bomb country,” claiming that Iran could survive a nuclear exchange that would wipe Israel off the map.

In fact, it would not be technologically challenging to eliminate all mammalian life in Iran through a combination of nuclear blasts, EMP attacks on the electrical system, delivery of “dirty bombs” into water supplies, and so forth. That is not the sort of thing that governments should go bragging about, but in Mr. Netanyahu’s position, I would arrange for an obscure but respected think tank to publish a report on the subject in the style of the late Herman Kahn.