WAR 09-17-2016-to-09-23-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Sorry I'm a bit late today...juggling the "meat world" at the moment.....

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

(234) 09-03-2016-to-09-09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(235) 09-10-2016-to-09-16-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...16-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----------

FUNG RED ALERT: U.S. Aircraft Srike Syrian Army Positions...........It Begins.
Started by doctor_fungcool‎, Today 10:58 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Army-Positions...........It-Begins./page4

Israeli Air Force attacks Syrian Army in the Golan Heights
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 10:07 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...orce-attacks-Syrian-Army-in-the-Golan-Heights

London’s Islamist-Linked Mayor Tells U.S. Audience: ‘Immigrants Shouldn’t Assimilate’
Started by thompson‎, Today 01:27 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ience-%91Immigrants-Shouldn%92t-Assimilate%92

----------

Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-un-diplomats-idUKKCN11N0TL

WORLD NEWS | Sat Sep 17, 2016 | 10:51pm BST

U.N. Security Council to meet on U.S.-led air strikes in Syria

By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations Security Council will meet on Saturday at the request of Russia, diplomats said, to discuss air strikes by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria, which Moscow said had targeted and killed Syrian military personnel.

The 15-member body is due to meet behind closed doors at 7:30 p.m. EDT (2330 GMT), diplomats said.

Russia and a war monitoring group said coalition jets bombed a Syrian army position near Deir al-Zor airport on Saturday, killing dozens of Syrian soldiers.

In a statement carried on Syria's state-owned media, Syria's foreign ministry called for the Security Council to condemn what it described as U.S. aggression and require Washington to respect Syrian sovereignty.

Such a move is unlikely as statements by the council have to be agreed by consensus.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Paul Simao)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
India calls Pakistan a 'terrorist state' as 17 soldiers die in Kashmir
Started by*Possible Impactý,*Today*01:42 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...terrorist-state-as-17-soldiers-die-in-Kashmir

One in four French Muslims want an ultra-conservative form of Islam adopted forcing women
Started by*iboyaý,*Today*10:53 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...servative-form-of-Islam-adopted-forcing-women

Islam in one picture GRAPHIC WARNING
Started by*iboyaý,*Today*05:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?500169-Islam-in-one-picture-GRAPHIC-WARNING

----------

Note that there's nothing about Pakistan's role in this mess....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-afghan-war-quagmire.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Sunday Review | Editorial

The Afghan War Quagmire

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SEPT. 17, 2016

Eight years ago, President Obama pledged to wind down the war in Iraq and redouble efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. “As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said during a campaign speech. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Lasting peace, Mr. Obama said, would depend on not only defeating the Taliban but helping “Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up.” He added, “We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism.”

Now, at the twilight of his presidency, these goals are receding further into the distance as America’s longest war deteriorates into a slow, messy slog. Yet despite this grim reality, there has been no substantive debate about Afghanistan policy on the campaign trail this year. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton has outlined a vision to turn around, or withdraw from, a flailing military campaign.

The war in Afghanistan has cost American taxpayers in excess of $800 billion — including $115 billion for a reconstruction effort, more than the inflation-adjusted amount the United States spent on the Marshall Plan. The Afghan government remains weak, corrupt and roiled by internal rivalries. The casualty rate for Afghan troops is unsustainable. The economy is in shambles. Resurgent Taliban forces are gaining ground in rural areas and are carrying out barbaric attacks in the heart of Kabul, the capital. Despite an international investment of several billion dollars in counternarcotics initiatives, the opium trade remains a pillar of the economy and a key source of revenue for the insurgency.

“It does not appear that the Afghan forces in the near future will be able to defeat the Taliban,” said a senior administration official who spoke about the White House’s appraisal of the campaign on the condition of anonymity. “Nor is it clear that the Taliban will make any significant strategic gains or be able to take and hold on to strategic terrain. It’s a very ugly, very costly stalemate.”

The administration’s current strategy commits the United States to keeping roughly 8,400 troops in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future and spending several billion dollars each year subsidizing the Afghan security forces. The goal has been to coax the Taliban to the negotiating table by beating them on the battlefield, a prospect that now seems remote.

The next American president may be tempted to adopt the Obama policy and hope for the best. That would be a mistake. At the very least, the next administration needs to carry out a top-to-bottom review of the war, one that unflinchingly addresses fundamental questions.

One such question is whether the Afghan Taliban — an insurgency that has never had aspirations to operate outside the region — is an enemy Washington should continue to fight. American forces started battling the Taliban in 2001 because the group had provided safe haven for Al Qaeda, which was based there when it planned the Sept. 11 attacks. While Al Qaeda has largely been defeated, the Taliban has proved to be extraordinarily resilient.

Another question is what it would take to bring the conflict to an end — either by enabling Afghan forces to defeat the Taliban or by bringing them into the political fold — and whether that is something the United States is realistically capable of achieving.

This will not be an easy discussion. A precipitous drawdown from Afghanistan may well have calamitous consequences in the short run, exacerbating the exodus of refugees and expanding the area of ungoverned territory in which extremist groups could once again subject Afghans to despotism and plot attacks on the West.

But American taxpayers and Afghans, who have endured decades of war, need a plan better than the current policy, which offers good intentions, wishful thinking and ever-worsening results.

A version of this editorial appears in print on September 18, 2016, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The Afghan War Quagmire. Today's Paper|Subscribe
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
M5.3 Explosion - 15km ENE of Sungjibaegam, North Korea
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...on-15km-ENE-of-Sungjibaegam-North-Korea/page6

----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.omaha.com/news/military/...cle_8aa25256-2709-5af6-a6ef-603c19fa5169.html

North Korea's missile launches keep StratCom's apocalypse crew on its toes

By Steve Liewer / World-Herald staff writer Updated 1 hr ago

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE — In the U.S. Strategic Command’s underground command post, the apocalypse could be heralded by a bell.

“There’s an alarm that sounds. Literally, it’s a ‘ding,’ ” said Col. Reyes Colón, a battle-watch commander who works in StratCom’s Global Operations Center. “That alerts me that there’s an event that’s going on.”

Colón’s job is to lead a team of about 25 military and civilians who closely watch computer screens and listen on headsets for the first signs of a possible threat, so senior military leaders — or, if necessary, the president of the United States — will know about it as soon as possible.

“My job, literally, is to sit there and watch — watch the world, if you will,” Colón said.
In recent months, Colón and his fellow battle-watch commanders have heard that bell ding a lot. That’s because of an unprecedented series of North Korean missile launches — more than 30 of them this year, according to Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst with the California-based Rand Corp.

That’s far more launches than in any previous year in North Korea’s history. The previous high, by Bennett’s count, was 16 in 2014.

Besides that, the country’s dictatorial leader, Kim Jong Un, has conducted five underground nuclear explosions, two of them this year. The last one occurred Sept. 9: a blast of about 10 kilotons, roughly the size of the 1945 nuclear bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima, Japan, Bennett said.

“Since Kim Jong Un took over we’ve seen a lot of changes. There’s been an enormous investment in the missile and nuclear program,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. “You see this kind of a huge uptick in activity.”

The escalation could be one way for the nation’s 32-year-old leader to project strength in the face of continued international sanctions and isolation, experts say.

“He’s pretty clearly not the most capable person,” Bennett said. “He figures if he has 100 or 200 nuclear weapons — including (some directed) against the U.S. — no one’s going to mess with him.”

For decades, battle-watch teams like the one Colón leads have staffed the underground command post at Offutt around the clock, every day of the year.

Until 1992 it was run by the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command. Now it’s the domain of StratCom, which took over SAC’s nuclear responsibilities after the Cold War and has since added missions including cyberwarfare, space defense and weapons of mass destruction.

“StratCom’s role just keeps getting bigger and bigger,” said Brig. Gen. John Shaw, StratCom’s deputy director of global operations.

Kim’s missile launches have kept StratCom’s watch-standers busier than usual this year.

Under the terms of international treaties, countries are supposed to give notice of missile launches as a warning so that aircraft and ships can avoid the area. North Korea used to comply; but lately, Kim hasn’t bothered.

Which means that alarm can ding quite unexpectedly — as it did at 3:29 p.m. on Aug. 23, during one of Colón’s recent shifts.

Heat sensors on U.S. space satellites instantly detect a rocket launch anywhere on Earth, Shaw said, and the underground command post is alerted.

“Within seconds we got the indicators. Within minutes we’re on a conference call,” Colón said. “Because it’s early afternoon, all the bosses already (were) here.”
He quickly notifies Shaw; Maj. Gen. Heidi Brown, StratCom’s director of global operations; and Adm. Cecil Haney, StratCom’s four-star commander. All necessary personnel are brought together in a videoconference.

He also calls other military commands, including U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii and the North American Air Defense Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as well as the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center.

“There’s a lot of people watching these global events,” Colón said. “We’re constantly in contact. I have data coming in from around the world.”

During the Aug. 23 launch, the StratCom team determined North Korea had launched a KN-11 missile from a GORAE-class ballistic-missile submarine near the port of Sinpo, on the country’s east coast.

Radar sites in Japan soon picked up the rocket and allowed Colón’s battle-watch team to follow its path live.

“We have the ability to see what the ground-based radars are seeing,” said Robert Fabrizzio, StratCom’s senior space and missile defense analyst. “Immediately we know who it came from, where it’s going and what type of missile it is.”

Sometimes the North Koreans launch more than one missile. On Sept. 4 they launched three Nodong-1 sub-based missiles simultaneously, and on July 18 they launched three missiles within an hour.

But on Aug. 23 the team followed just one: the KN-11 that flew 300 miles southeast — straight in the direction of Tokyo, until it fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan.
“Once you realize this is probably just going to hit the water, you can end the conference call,” Colón said.

Even with the crisis past, the battle-watch team’s work isn’t over. Tapes of the incident are replayed to glean intelligence for reports that are sent up the chain of command. Those reports help the StratCom commander offer military options to the president and his top defense advisers.

“Adm. Haney’s job is to give the best possible advice,” said Julie Ziegenhorn, a StratCom spokeswoman.

Colón also reviews his team’s performance.

“We want to make sure we did everything correctly,” he said. “We take whatever lessons we learned and apply them to training scenarios.”

Though North Korea’s missile launches have kept StratCom’s watchers busy, other events picked up by the sensor network — such as a rocket re-entry or a collision of space objects orbiting the Earth — may prompt a report or trigger an event conference, Fabrizzio said.

The watch team also goes through its paces during planned rocket launches by NASA or in friendly countries.

“We treat all events the same way,” Colón said.

Not all of Kim’s tests have succeeded. But what concerns North Korea watchers is whether he soon will be able to — or already can — attach a bomb to one of those missiles and fire it in the direction of South Korea, Japan or the western United States.

“I don’t think we want them doing a test like that,” Bennett said. “I’m hoping they never do.”

Harsh economic sanctions against North Korea so far have failed to stop Kim’s regime from developing nuclear weapons. It’s not clear that further sanctions would help.

“I don’t think they’re going to trade them away,” Lewis said. “They’ve made it such a central part of their propaganda. They’re going to rely on ‘the Bomb’ to give them legitimacy.”

As long as threats such as North Korea remain, the battle team three stories beneath StratCom headquarters will keep up its around-the-clock vigil.
“When you and I are sleeping,” Ziegenhorn said, “they are on watch.”
steve.liewer@owh.com, 402-444-1186
************

Keeping track of Kim Jong Un’s provocations
North Korea’s missile launches and nuclear tests this year have dwarfed provocations in previous years.

JAN. 5, 2016:*Nuclear Test
North Korea conducts its fourth nuclear test at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. North Korean officials claim the country has successfully tested a hydrogen bomb, but international experts doubt the claim because the explosion was not powerful enough.

FEB. 6:*Satellite Launch
A Kwangmyongsong-4 (“Bright Star-4”) Earth-observation satellite is launched into orbit atop a rocket at 6:29 p.m. CST. Other nations view the launch as a test of North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.

MARCH 3: Short-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Six missiles, believed to be short-range KN-01s, are fired into the Sea of Japan from the Wonsan area.

MARCH 10:*Short-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Two missiles believed to be Scuds are launched from Hwangju and land in the Sea of Japan.

MARCH 17:*Medium-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Two missiles are launched from Sukchon. One flies about 500 miles and lands in the Sea of Japan; the other apparently blows up in midair.

MARCH 21:*Short-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Five short-range ballistic missiles are fired from near Hamhung into the Sea of Japan.

MARCH 29:*Short-range Ballistic Missile Launch
A short-range missile is launched from near Wonsan at 5:40 p.m. local time. It flies about 124 miles and comes down on land.

APRIL 1:*Long-range Surface-to-Air Missile Launch
Five surface-to-air missiles, presumed to be KN-06, are launched from South Hamgyong province into the Sea of Japan.

APRIL 14:*Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile Launch
To celebrate Kim Il Sung’s birthday, North Korea conducts a test launch of what is believed to be a Musudan medium-range missile at 3:33 p.m. CDT. It explodes in midair. It is the first attempt at launching a Musudan missile.

APRIL 23:*Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile
A KN-11 ballistic missile is launched at 4:29 a.m. CDT from a Sinpo-class submarine into the Sea of Japan. North Korean officials describe the launch as a success, although the missile explodes after flying about 19 miles, well short of its range.

APRIL 27/28:*Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile Launch
North Korea conducts two failed attempts to launch what was believed to be a Musudan missile about 12 hours apart.

MAY 30:*Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile Launch
North Korea conducts a failed missile launch, believed to be of a Musudan missile, from Wonsan at 3:30 p.m. CDT

JUNE 21:*Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Two intermediate-range ballistic missiles, apparently Musudans, are fired from Wonsan at 3:56 p.m. and 6:03 p.m. CDT. South Korean military sources say the first missile travels about 93 miles and is believed to have been a failure. The second missile is launched two hours later and travels about 250 miles.

JULY 18:*Medium-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Three Nodong ballistic missiles are fired into the Sea of Japan from Hwangju between 3:44 p.m. and 4:35 p.m. CDT and fly 300 to 400 miles. Six days earlier South Korea had announced it would deploy the THAAD missile defense system. North Korea says test-firings are part of a simulated pre-emptive attack on ports and airfields in South Korea.

AUG. 2:*Medium-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Two Nodong missiles are launched from South Hwanghae province on the western coast at 5:53 p.m. CDT. One explodes immediately after launch and the second travels about 621 miles and lands in the Sea of Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe calls the launch a “grave threat.”

AUG. 23:*Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile
A submarine near the Pacific port of Sinpo launches a KN-11 missile into the Sea of Japan at 3:29 p.m. CDT. The missile reportedly flies about 300 miles and enters Japan’s air defense identification zone. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff says the missile launch appears to be more successful than previous tests.

SEPT. 4:*Medium-range Ballistic Missile Launch
Three Nodong or Scud ballistic missiles are fired from a launch site near Hwangju at 10:13 p.m. CDT and fly about 600 miles into the Sea of Japan. The launch is carried out just as world leaders gather in Hangzhou, China, for the G-20 summit.

SEPT. 9:*Nuclear Test
North Korea’s fifth nuclear test (and second this year) produces a blast of at least 10 kilotons that experts assess is the strongest and most successful explosion to date. North Korean state media says the test is of an actual nuclear warhead.
Dates are as recorded in United States Central Time zone. North Korea is 13½ hours ahead of Omaha.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-fighting-idUSKCN11O0PM

World News | Sun Sep 18, 2016 | 12:26pm EDT

Libyan forces renew push against Islamic State in Sirte

Libyan forces allied with the U.N.-backed government on Sunday battled Islamic State militants in their last hideouts in the city of Sirte, in a renewed push after a break in fighting for the Muslim celebrations of Eid.

At least two were killed in clashes after self-government forces shelled neighborhoods inside the city, targeting militants who have been holding on in a last section of Sirte after months of street-to-street fighting.

U.S. air strikes and helicopter raids along with small teams of Western special forces have helped the Libyan troops advance in Sirte and losing the city would be a major blow for the militant group depriving it of its North African stronghold.

"Our forces targeted on Sunday hideouts of Daesh in Neighbourhood No.3's 600 block area and Geza Bahriya with heavy artillery shelling," said Mohamed Ghasri, a spokesman for the forces, said using an Arabic term for militants.

Akram Gliwan, a spokesman for Misrata central hospital, told Reuters two fighters had been killed and six more were wounded and were brought to the hospital.*

Mostly from Misrata city, 230 km (145 miles) to the north west, the government-allied forces say some commanders from Islamic State and fighters may have escaped and fled south or to the Tunisia border before Sirte was encircled.

But Ghasri said two Islamic State commanders, Hassan Karami and Walid Ferjani, had been killed in fighting inside the city, without giving details. Misrata commanders have said in the past Karami had been killed, but they have not indicated whether any body had been positively identified with DNA.

Western governments are supporting the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli as the best option to bring together Libya's rival armed factions to stabilize the country, end Islamist State threats and stop illegal migrant smugglers.

But it has faced opposition from hardliners, especially in the east, where Gen. Khalifa Haftar has been carrying out his own campaign against militants in Benghazi. Haftar's forces a week ago took control of major oil ports.

(Reporting by Ahmed Elumami; Writing by Patrick Markey; Editing by Ros Russell)

Also In World News
Moscow says strikes on Syria army threaten U.S.-Russia ceasefire plan
Pro-Putin party wins 44.5 percentt in parliament vote: exit poll
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKCN11O0YE

World News | Sun Sep 18, 2016 | 5:23pm EDT

U.S., Japan, South Korea ministers discuss tougher measures against North Korea

Foreign ministers for the United States, Japan and South Korea met in New York on Sunday, ahead of U.N. meetings, to discuss stepped-up measures against North Korea and expand collaboration with one another after Pyongyang's fifth and largest nuclear test.

The Sept. 9 blast was in defiance of U.N. sanctions that were tightened in March.

The meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and their South Korean counterpart, Yun Byung-se, was the first since the latest nuclear test. It will be one of the main issues discussed by world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly this week.

In a joint statement, the ministers said North North's disregard for multiple U.N. resolutions prohibiting its missile and nuclear programs called for even stronger international pressure.

North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles at an unprecedented rate this year under leader Kim Jong Un.

"They discussed the important work currently taking place in the Security Council to further sanction North Korea and considered other possible measures of their own, in particular ways to further restrict revenue sources for the DPRK's missile and nuclear programs, including through illicit activities," the ministers' statement said.

"They reaffirmed that they remain open to credible and authentic talks aimed at full and verifiable denuclearization of the DPRK," the statement said, referring to the country's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The United States has said it is willing to negotiate with the North if the country commits to denuclearization, which Pyongyang has refused to do.

Washington has pressed Beijing, which is Pyongyang's most important diplomatic backer and trading partner, to do more to rein in North Korea.

China has expressed anger with North Korea for its largest nuclear test to date, but has not said directly whether it will support tougher sanctions. It has said it believes sanctions are not the ultimate answer and called for a return to talks.

(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Also In World News
Moscow says strikes on Syria army threaten U.S.-Russia ceasefire plan
Pro-Putin party wins 44.5 percentt in parliament vote: exit poll
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Device Explodes at Marine Race on Jersey Shore
Started by*Shacknasty Shagrat‎,*Yesterday*09:31 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?500119-Device-Explodes-at-Marine-Race-on-Jersey-Shore

Manhattan *IED Explosion*
Started by*SugarMagnolia‎,*Yesterday*05:58 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?500148-Manhattan-*IED-Explosion*/page6

St. Cloud, Minn., Suspect dead at scene of mall stabbing; multiple victims
Started by*mzkitty‎,*Yesterday*08:15 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ad-at-scene-of-mall-stabbing-multiple-victims

----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/ne...ys-st-cloud-mall-stabbing-carried-out-soldier

Islamic State says St. Cloud mall stabbing carried out by 'soldier'

By Dustin Volz and Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters Today at 3:49 p.m.

ST. CLOUD — A man who stabbed nine people at a mall in central Minnesota before he was shot dead is a "soldier of the Islamic State," the militant group's news agency said on Sunday, as the FBI investigated the attack as a potential act of terrorism.

The man, who was wearing a private security uniform, made references to Allah and asked at least one person if they were Muslim before he assaulted them at the Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud on Saturday, the city's Police Chief William Blair Anderson told reporters. Authorities said he was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers the episode a "potential act of terrorism," Richard Thornton, FBI special agent in charge of the agency's Minneapolis division, said at a news conference on Sunday.

He said the investigation is in its early stages and it was not known if the man had discussed his plan of attack with others.

Authorities had said earlier there were eight stabbing victims. One injured person transported himself to a hospital and was not initially counted, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said at the news conference.

Three victims remained hospitalized as of Sunday but none had life-threatening injuries, Kleis said.

Kleis said Jason Falconer, the off-duty officer from the Avon Police Department, a jurisdiction outside of St. Cloud, "clearly prevented additional injuries and loss of life" by shooting the man.

Amaq, the news agency affiliated with the Middle Eastern extremist group Islamic State, issued a statement on Sunday saying, "The executor of the stabbing attacks in Minnesota yesterday was a soldier of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to calls to target the citizens of countries belonging to the crusader coalition."

Reuters was not immediately able to verify the Amaq claim.

The knife attack in St. Cloud, a community about 60 miles northwest of Minneapolis-St. Paul, came at a time of heightened concern in the United States about the threat of violence in public places.

An explosion rocked New York City's bustling Chelsea district on Saturday, injuring 29 people in what authorities described as a deliberate criminal act. But both New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said there was no indication it was linked to international terrorism.

A pipe bomb also exploded in a New Jersey beach town on Saturday along the route of a charity race to benefit military veterans but no injuries were reported in what investigators also were treating as a possible act of terrorism.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said she strongly condemned "the apparent terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York" and said Islamic State's claim of responsibility for the St. Cloud attack should "steel our resolve to protect our country and defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups."

Investigators are looking for possible connections among the Saturday attacks but so far have not found any links.

In St. Cloud, the attacker entered the mall in the evening as it was busy with shoppers, Anderson said. He attacked his victims at several sites in the shopping center, which will remained closed on Sunday as police investigate, the police chief said.

The victims were male and female, Kleis said, and ranged in age from mid-50s to a 15-year-old female.

Police officials said they were still interviewing witnesses hours after the attack.
 

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic
Polla Garmiany ‏@PollaGarmiany 10h
More & more Peshmerga enter eastern Kurdistan (Rojhelat)
to liberate Kurdish territory from Iran. TwitterKurds

CspArM9WIAE3r9I.jpg:small
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
DEVELOPING: Suspicious Device Found In Elizabeth, NJ
Started by*2Trishý,*Yesterday*07:19 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...OPING-Suspicious-Device-Found-In-Elizabeth-NJ

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/us/new-york-explosion-investigation/

Mayor: New Jersey backpack contains five devices

By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Madison Park, CNN
Updated 3:25 AM ET, Mon September 19, 2016

New York (CNN)Federal and local authorities are investigating another suspicious item after a backpack was found containing up to five devices in New Jersey on Sunday.

The backpack was found in a wastebasket in Elizabeth, New Jersey, outside a neighborhood pub and located about 500 feet from a train trestle, said the city's mayor Chris Bollwage.

"Whoever threw it into the can was probably trying to get rid of it. It's not in a highly congested area," Bollwage told CNN.

On Sunday around 9:30 p.m., two men found the backpack in the garbage can and alerted police when they saw wires and a pipe, he said. No cell phones or electronic timing devices were found on the devices, the mayor said.

There is no indication whether the latest incident in Elizabeth is connected to the bombing in a New York City neighborhood that injured 29 people and the explosion from a garbage can near a charity run in New Jersey. In the other New Jersey incident, investigators discovered three pipe-bomb-type devices wired together, but no one was wounded.

An FBI Bomb Squad arrived on scene and a robot was sent to examine the devices.
"The robots that went in to disarm it, cut a wire and it exploded. I know there are other devices, I don't know what they're made up of but they're going to have to be removed," Bollwage said.

The device was detonated in a controlled setting, he said. The sound of the explosion reverberated loudly as heard on video filmed by local media.
Police checked all garbage cans in the immediate area, but found no other suspicious items.

All trains going through Elizabeth station on both New Jersey Transit and Amtrak lines have been suspended, according to the respective transportation agencies. It was yet unclear when train service would re-open and how the incident would affect the Monday morning commute.

New York incident
In New York, investigation over Saturday's bombing continued as surveillance videos showed the same man near the site of the explosion and another location where a pressure-cooker device was found four blocks away, multiple local and federal law enforcement sources told CNN.

Saturday's explosion shook New York City's Chelsea neighborhood, packed with restaurants, subway stations, shops, businesses and art galleries, and sent panicked people scrambling for cover. By Sunday, 26 of the injured who had been admitted to hospitals had been released.

A few blocks away from the blast site and shortly after the explosion occurred, investigators found one possible lead: a pressure cooker, with dark-colored wiring sticking out, connected by silver duct tape to what appears to be a cellphone, officials said.

Surveillance videos from Saturday shows the same man near both sites, multiple sources told CNN.

Shortly before 9 p.m. Sunday, the FBI and NYPD conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle of interest in the investigation, according to a statement from FBI. No one has been charged with any crime and the investigation is ongoing, the statement said.

3 attacks on US soil
The blast occurred on the same day an explosion went off near a Marine Corps charity run in New Jersey and a man stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall. Authorities are investigating all three incidents as possible terror acts.

The Department of Homeland Security is actively monitoring and participating in the investigations in New York and New Jersey. Investigators found similarities between the explosives used in both states, according to multiple law enforcement officials, but authorities said they have not concluded the incidents are linked.

"We do not have any specific evidence of a connection, but that will continue to be considered," New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said. "We're not taking any options off the table."

In New York, law enforcement officials and the mayor said that without knowing who's responsible or what the motive was, it's too soon to call the Saturday bombing a terror attack.

"We know it was a very serious incident, but we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this," de Blasio told reporters Sunday. "Was it a political motivation? Was it a personal motivation? We do not know that yet."

Suspicious device found nearby
The blast occurred around 8:30 p.m. at 23rd Street between 6th and 7th Avenues. Investigators believe the blast was caused by an explosive device in or near a dumpster, a law enforcement source told CNN. Four blocks away on 27th Street, a pressure-cooker device was found with a piece of paper with writing on it close by, officials said.

Surveillance video shows a man dragging what appears to be a duffel bag with wheels near the site of the West 23rd street explosion about 40 minutes before the blast, according to multiple local and federal law enforcement sources.

About 10 minutes later, surveillance video shows the same man with what appears to be the same duffel bag on West 27th street, multiple law enforcement sources said.

In the video, the man leaves the duffel bag where police later found the unexploded pressure cooker. After he leaves, the video shows two men removing a white garbage bag believed to contain the pressure cooker from the duffel bag and leaving it on the sidewalk, according to a senior law enforcement official and another source familiar with the video.

Investigators have not determined if those two men are connected to the man with the duffel bag on both streets, the sources said.

The device was transported to the NYPD Bomb Squad facility at Rodman's Neck Range in the Bronx.

NYPD and FBI Bomb technicians rendered the device safe. A forensic examination of the device and its components will be conducted at the FBI Laboratory at Quantico, Virginia.

'New York is up and running'
New Yorkers will see an increased police presence around the city, de Blasio said.

Stepped-up security across the city is common as world leaders arrive for the United Nations General Assembly meeting, which is underway.

"You should know you will see a very substantial NYPD presence this week -- bigger than ever," de Blasio said.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo added that 1,000 additional New York State Police officers and National Guard troops will be deployed to patrol bus terminals, airports and subway stations.

The increased policing, Cuomo said, is "just to err on the side of caution."

"I want New Yorkers to be confident when they go back to work on Monday that New York is up and running and we're doing everything that we need to do," he said.

Madison Park wrote this story. CNN's Mallory Simon, Erin McClam, Joe Sutton, Richard Quest, Rachel Crane, Jean Casarez, Max Blau, Steve Visser, and Sonia Moghe contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2016/09/if-chinese-weapons-are-so-great-how-come-hardly-anyone-wants-them/

If Chinese weapons are so great, how come hardly anyone wants them?

By Richard A. Bitzinger on September 17, 2016 in Asia Times News & Features

Though most Chinese arms are better than what they used to be,*Western, Russian, and Israeli*weapons systems still outclass them. Most of what China sells is low-end kit and its main arms buyers are from South Asia and Africa. To remain a leading arms exporter, Beijing needs to come up with more competitive products and expand its customer base.

One of the frequent arguments made about China’s 20-year-long military buildup is that its locally produced weapons are better than they used to be. To a certain extent this is true, if hardly surprising. Relatively modern systems, such as the J-10 fighter jet, the Yuan-class submarine, and the Type-99 main battle tank, are certainly superior to the weapons systems they replaced, that is, the J-7, the Ming-class sub, and the Type-59 tank – all basically copies of Soviet weapons dating back to the 1950s. They could not help but be better.

At the same time, it is true that some current Chinese arms are highly competitive with their Western or Russian counterparts. These include unmanned aerial vehicles, anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and lightweight trainer jets. But all this raises an important point: if Chinese weapons are supposed to be so great, how come hardly any other country wants to buy them?

On paper, China looks like a quite successful arms exporter. Last year, Beijing transferred nearly $2 billion worth of arms, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Moreover, SIPRI data for the period 2011 to 2015 showed that China was the world’s third largest arms exporter, accounting for nearly 6% of the total arms market. This is nearly double what China exported during the period 2006 to 2010.

In recent years, Beijing has chalked up some impressive overseas sales, including deals to export eight Yuan-class submarines to Pakistan and three to Thailand. China has also sold tanks to Myanmar, ASCMs to Indonesia, and armed drones to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, and Egypt.

Still a niche exporter

For the most part, these relatively few high-profile sales are the exceptions that prove the rule, which is that China is still pretty much a niche player in the global arms market. In the first place, it sells most of its weapons to a very few countries. In the last five years, for example, more than two-thirds (71%, to be exact) of all Chinese arms sales went to just three countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. The rest went mostly to a handful poorer countries in the African continent, particularly Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Secondly, most of what China’s sells is low-end kit: armored vehicles, small arms and ammunition, or fighter jets that are themselves copies of 50-year-old ex-Soviet designs – hardly cutting-edge stuff. One of Beijing’s biggest sellers, the K-8 jet, is a relatively unsophisticated subsonic trainer and attack aircraft, suitable mainly for developing countries lacking the money or training to operate advanced fighter jets. Overall, the kinds of weapons that China armaments are not really game-changers in the sense that they have a major impact on regional balances of power.

China’s position as a leading arms exporter remains tenuous, therefore. It may hold the number three slot in the global arms trade, but it was still far behind the United States, which has 33% of the global market, and Russia, (25%). In fact, China is only slightly ahead of France (5.6%), Germany (4.7%), and the United Kingdom (4.5%).

Moreover, China’s position in the global hierarchy of arms exporters has not been consistent. For example, according to SIPRI, during the period 2006 to 2010, China won just 3.7% of the total arms market, placing it sixth in overall weapons exports.

Barriers to expanding arms sales

Herein lies the rub: in order to remain a leading arms exporter, China needs to come up with more competitive products. It needs more sales of more advanced types of weaponry – such as supersonic combat aircraft, precision-guided weapons, airborne early warning aircraft, and long-range air-defense systems. In particular, Beijing has won few sales for its most advanced fighter jets, particularly the J-10 and JF-17. The JF-17, for example, has so far been purchased only by Pakistan – and only because Pakistan is producing the plane jointly with China (not even the Chinese air force has bought the JF-17, in fact).

Few countries are lining up to buy other Chinese weapons systems, or, if they are, they throwing out Chinese parts and replacing them with Western systems. This is because China’s defense industry is still very weak when it comes to key technologies like jet engines and electronics. A 2013 New York Times article, for example, noted that Algeria acquired corvettes from China but subsequently outfitted them with French radar and communications gear. Pakistani JF-17 jets use a Russian engine, while Thailand turned to Saab of Sweden to upgrade its Chinese-built frigates.

China also needs to greatly expand its customer base. At present (and for the past 25 years or so), it has mainly sold military equipment to countries either too poor to buy Western or Russian armaments, or who are subjected to arms embargoes (such as Venezuela). Few wealthy, big-spending arms importers (such as the oil-rich Gulf states) are interested in Chinese arms. Iran used to be a major consumer of Chinese arms, but it has not placed a new order with Beijing in several years. Similarly, China has found few takers for its arms in Latin America, Eastern Europe, or Central Asia.

So we are back where we started: if current Chinese weapons systems are really that good, then why is their appeal so limited? Why is their customer base so small and so focused on just a handful of systems? In fact, one might infer from this that most Chinese arms, while certainly better than what they used to be, are still no more than “good enough for government work,” and that other foreign weapons systems – Western, Russian, and Israeli – still outclass Chinese arms in most respects.

Richard A. Bitzinger is a Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Military Transformations Program at the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The opinions expressed here are his own.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Syria - Turkish troops launch anti-ISIS offensive in northern Syria (8/24/16)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-offensive-in-northern-Syria-(8-24-16)/page5

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...y-plans-to-create-safe-zone-in-northern-syria

Erdogan Says Turkish Military Plans a Safe Zone in Syria

Selcan Hacaoglu
September 19, 2016 — 12:20 AM PDT
Updated on September 19, 2016 — 12:56 AM PDT

- Turkish offensive to extend to IS stronghold of al-Bab town
- Turkey will not allow Kurdish corridor in northern Syria


Turkey plans to create a 5,000-square-kilometer (1,931-square-mile) safe zone in Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday, deepening its involvement in one of the Middle East’s deadliest conflicts.

Erdogan said Turkey’s offensive inside Syria, which started on Aug. 24 under operation Euphrates Shield, has already cleared “terrorist groups” from an area of about 900 square kilometers. The offensive will extend to the Islamic State-stronghold of al-Bab, which lies about 30 kilometers from the border, he said.

The size of the planned safe zone is about 85 times the size of Manhattan, making the operation one of Turkey’s largest foreign military interventions in modern history. Deepening the offensive will likely escalate its conflict with Islamic State militants and Kurdish groups seeking autonomy in northern Syria. Last month’s incursion started days after a suicide bomber said to be linked to Islamic State killed at least 54 people at a wedding in the border city of Gaziantep.

Turkey’s goal “is likely to require the deployment of thousands of Turkish soldiers in Syria for years and increase risks of a possible military confrontation with the Syrian forces,” Nihat Ali Ozcan, a strategist at the Economic Policy Research Foundation in Ankara, said by telephone on Monday.

Syrian Refugees

Turkey, which hosts about 3 million refugees from Syria’s civil war, has long advocated the establishment of a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border to help contain the human flight and stop deadly rocket attacks by Islamic State on Turkish towns. Clearing Islamic State from border areas west of the Euphrates river could seal the Turkish frontier and allow allied forces to speed up planning of a major offensive on Raqqa, the capital of Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliphate.

Erdogan also said Turkey will not allow Kurdish rebel fighters in Syria to link areas under their control along Turkey’s 911-kilometer long border with Syria.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/asia/nuclear-north-korea-no-win-scenario-1090

Nuclear North Korea: A No-Win Scenario?

September 18, 2016 | Will Edwards

The latest North Korean nuclear test was the largest to date, yet the international consensus on a response is as fractured and indecisive as ever. In the days following the test, China announced that it opposed the unilateral sanctions pursued by Japan. The United States is in support of sanctions, but is not set to deviate from its policy of “strategic patience,” the policy of isolating North Korea via sanctions and waiting for it to return to negotiations. Everyone agrees that the threat is real and growing, but there is no agreement on how to confront the threat of a North Korea armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles.

In addition to upping the kiloton yield of its weapons, North Korea’s nuclear program is increasing the rate at which it can produce nuclear warheads. A new estimate in an article published at 38 North by Siegfried Hecker, the American expert who was invited by the North Korean regime to tour its nuclear facilities in 2010, points to an increased production of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Conservatively, Hecker suggests that North Korea can now produce enough material for seven nuclear weapons per year. HEU production is also troublesome because it is much harder to reliably estimate as development continues. Variables such as the number of centrifuges and their individual output can change, whereas plutonium can only originate from a single reactor – and that reactor’s output is known from previous IAEA surveys. The growth of the nuclear arsenal is a worrisome unknown.

Critically, North Korea has domestic uranium deposits that can supply its production of both plutonium and HEU. With direct access to this essential raw material, and an established production process, the cycle is essentially self-contained and difficult to impede directly via sanctions or material embargoes. Every day that passes without a solution is a day that North Korea has more fissile material.

Many experts and policy makers suggest that China is the key to accessing and influencing North Korea. While more action from Beijing is certainly an advantage, Washington has leverage it can wield as well. Trust and cooperation among the two strongest powers in Asia – the U.S. and China - has been in short supply in recent years. Fixing that would increase the success of any nuclear negotiations with North Korea, according to Dennis Wilder, a former NSC advisor to George W. Bush on East Asian affairs and member of The Cipher Brief network.* He told The Cipher Brief: “the next President should appoint an Ambassador to Beijing who meets two key criteria: a deep understanding of China and one who has direct and personal access to the President.” The U.S. and China both oppose a nuclear North Korea. The right ambassador could help keep the two countries on the same page on how to confront it.

The North Korean nuclear problem evades a solution in part because it is beyond the timeframe of a four-year or even an eight-year administration cycle. Since the Clinton administration, strategies against North Korea’s nuclear program have changed markedly from president to president. The lesson learned in North Korea is that building and holding on to a credible nuclear deterrent is more permanent than the treaties and negotiated settlements that come out of dealing with successive presidents. As a North Korean official reportedly told Joel Wit, senior fellow at the U.S. Korea Institute: “It’s easier for us to build nuclear weapons than to be involved with you for decades only to have agreements turn into useless scraps of paper.”

Former Ambassador Joesph DeTrani, the U.S. Department of State’s special envoy to the Six Party Talks - the most recent attempt at multilateral negotiations with North Korea which had its final session in 2007 - told The Cipher Brief what the next administration could do as a first step: “The administration could make it clear that the U.S. is not hostile to North Korea and does not seek regime change.” Such a confidence building measure, though difficult to develop, could help pave the way for more fruitful negotiations.

While it still remains to be seen how the international community will respond to this most recent test, the larger question is what will it do in the long run to curb North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal. It has been ten years since the first test and in the intervening years the North has slowly but surely grown its capabilities in the face of all of the condemnations and sanctions the world has thrown at it. Some experts say North Korea is less than five years away from a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the west coast of the United States. The question for U.S. policy makers is: can the solution come first?

Will Edwards is an international producer at The Cipher Brief.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?500237-The-IEDs-Come-Home

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_ieds_come_home_110082.html

The IEDs Come Home

By Sale Lilly
September 19, 2016

After recently attending a military veterans conference at the University of Southern California, I could forgive the government, private and non-profit organization attendees for thinking that they were gathered to discuss how returning military veterans could better adjust to civilian life.* Instead, after another weekend of improvised attacks in the U.S. and Western Europe, I wonder if it’s average Americans who should be transitioning into a more militarized life, replete with improvised explosive device (IED) detection training, emergency tourniquet instruction and mastering barricade-in-place strategies for your school, your place of work or even your home.

If you're news-numb from the reports of killings in Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando or any other number of terror attacks in the U.S., then I would urge you to take pause and consider this week’s three attacks; two with IEDs in New York and New jersey and a third with a knife in Minnesota.* Although information about the attacks is still limited, two things are significant about this weekend in American life:

One, terrorist attacks in America have definitively graduated beyond high-profile targets; to focus on a range of softer targets. Al-Qaeda and ISIS supported attacks would certainly strike high-profile landmarks and infrastructure if they possessed the capability to overcome or bypass existing security measures. To that point, this weekend we are not talking about one of the most sophisticated bomb builders in Al-Qaeda’s roster; Ibrahim al-Asiri, the bomb maker who is credited with building Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s 2009 “underwear bomb” and the 2010 toner cartridge bombs that very nearly brought down three separate aircraft. Instead, attacks with seemingly less complex designs; knives, pressure cooker bombs, were effective in terrorizing three separate states for what I would reason was no more than two to three hundred dollars of equipment and a pro-rata internet connectivity for the still-at-large bombers. If you take solace in the fact that it only took three years for terrorists to ratchet down their targets from the Boston Marathon in 2013 to a Your-Town-USA* 5K run- then don’t. Diffuse targets mean that we have traded one defensive block for another challenge, and this challenge comes with higher costs and more potential victims. While in uniform, I briefed my units deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq on the IED “hotspots” that were considered the most dangerous areas. Those briefs, while critical, lost some of their importance when insurgents made gains in infiltrating friendly military forces for the purpose of insider attacks and assassinations of coalition personnel. The interior of our own combat outposts were now suddenly “hotspots,” and the idea of a green zone needed to be stripped from our collective vocabulary. When I read in early reports that the Minnesota attacker was in a jacket marked as “security” as he stabbed eight victims, I couldn’t help but think how easily that tactic had migrated from one battlefield in Afghanistan to one shopping mall in America.

A second point, Unlike in previous high-profile attacks, life in America is quickly moving forward. The news generated about the attacks in New Jersey; at least on social media platforms, had trouble keeping up with other pop-culture topics such as a potential Notre Dame Football fourth quarter rally against Michigan State. In part, public attention may wane at these low or no casualty events compared to the astoundingly high number of fatalities in Orlando or Nice, France earlier this year. But for the bulk of Americans who don’t live near the Pentagon, New York City or major sporting venues, the week’s attacks should be all the more troubling. There is no consolation in staying away from New York City during 9/11 memorials or getting out of the Beltway on a Fourth of July weekend for fear of being too close to potential harm. Your mall could just as easily be the St. Cloud Mall; your fundraiser could just as easily be the New Jersey Semper Five race that was targeted over the weekend. So what then? Do terror attacks simply become another insurance category for Act of God or Force Majeure that we must suffer through? I personally think not. Like many returning service members, I see threats to American society and solutions to those threats embedded in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Shortly after the September 11th attacks, I heard Jordanian and Israeli defense officials separately remark that the expanded U.S. Air Marshal programs and random anti-terror measures were just the beginning. You will look more like us, was the message. I didn’t fully appreciate their point of view, nor did I fully understand what “they” looked like at the time, but as I consider the world my infant son will grow up in (as he is beginning to crawl around my feet now) I want to consider the things he may take for granted growing up if the volume and ingenuity of terrorist attacks do not relent. With the U.S. military and Israeli force protection model in mind, here are just a few things that I think these attacks portend:

- Anti-terrorism force protection roles, unique and distinct from the requirements of law enforcement, become a part of the local and municipal government, perhaps even joining the cadre of electable positions or seats we see in election years, not unlike a county judge or comptroller. The pressure on local authorities to handle crises effectively will be high, and that pressure could generate more full-time roles in this field.

- Taxes for visible and undercover private security guards are partly subsidized by the venues that need them the most, with Israeli’s restaurant security tax mimicked or even mandated in the U.S. for restaurateurs, club owners, malls and large retail chains- who will be all too eager to have the surcharge itemized in the receipt to reassure customers their prices are not predatory.

- Opt-out mass text and social media alerts, like Amber Alerts in the case of child abduction, are the norm for all the electronic media we utilize, with victim call chain confirmations an important element for parents and loved ones to determine the relative safety of a loved one in an attack.

- And sadly, the average American citizen will relate much more closely to the American military veteran (where I started this piece), since the world the American civilian inhabits will not appear all that different - at least in tone and threat posture - from the world the service member recently departed.

The above is speculation based on what I saw in the U.S. Military, and none of it may come to pass. But I find myself suddenly a parent now and ruminating on what I will do as a parent.

When my son is old enough, will I teach him to tackle “heads-up” so he doesn’t receive a concussion in football? Will I teach him to permanently keep his personal electronics on “vibrate” so he won’t draw an active shooter to him? Will I teach him some silly rhyme about ‘liquor and beer’ for when he drinks alcohol for the first time? Will I teach him to count door exits when he enters a movie theater so he can better escape in an attack; or to be wary of vehicles that have a low suspension like the heavily packed car bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will I teach him to always walk along the innocuous but ever-present traffic barricades that would give him cover in an improvised vehicle attack, as in Nice, France?

Yes. Yes, I will teach him all of those other things. Because that is what American parents must now do.


Sale Lilly is a former naval threat analyst and naval officer who served alongside NATO units in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Afghanistan. He is currently a crisis management consultant.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html

The U.S. Nuclear Gambit

By Peter Huessy
September 19, 2016

If you don’t think nuclear weapons will ever be used against the United States, the Ploughshares Fund has some new ideas that could make a nuclear attack on the United States more likely. *

Ploughshares says the USA should get rid of all our 450 land-based Minuteman missile silos and missiles, cut the number of Ohio Replacement submarines to 10, eliminate the long-range cruise missile the B-22 bombers would carry and eliminate the only modern aircraft-based theater nuclear weapon we have in the arsenal—the B-61. They think this will make us safer.

*But as the new Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force has warned, such a plan is very unstable, as it would reduce our nuclear “platforms” to ten targets or less. This, he says, would give a country like North Korea the capability to wipe out most of the U.S. nuclear arsenal even with their minimal arsenal of a dozen nuclear weapons.
Why would we do anything so reckless?

Fortunately, the United States is now wisely planning to keep over 650 land and sea-based missiles and bombers armed with nuclear weapons for the next 50 years. This is the planned life-cycle of the modernization program currently underway and is completely consistent with the 2010 New Start arms control deal. Our deterrent would consist of 40-60 bombers, 12 submarines with 198 missiles, and 400 land based missiles and 48 launch control centers. This force is one-third of the platforms we maintained during the Cold War and supports some 90% less warheads. But it still would be a highly robust, very survivable, and a credible force.

But what happens if we alternatively follow the suggested Ploughshare cuts?

Well, our bombers are deployed on three bases and are no longer kept on alert ready to be airborne. They are thus soft targets and able to be destroyed. But without cruise missiles, even if on alert, our bombers would face formidable air defenses and lack time to target capability. Their nuclear deterrent value would be seriously curtailed.

With only 10 new submarines, given the refit “bathtub” necessary from 2030-2040 of bringing some of the older submarines into port for maintenance, the U.S. would actually have only 8 submarines available to deploy in that time period.

Of this number, only about one-third or 2-3 would be on patrol. The remainder would be in port or in transit. There is also some serious question whether we could maintain both a Pacific and an Atlantic home port for the nuclear submarine fleet if we built less than 12 submarines. That would dramatically lessen the ability of the U.S. to deter both Russia and China.

And of course, with the Minuteman land-based missiles eliminated, any adversary would no longer have to worry about nearly 500 ICBM assets now available for American use in a retaliatory strike. *

So the resulting Ploughshares force structure would be 128 missiles and 40-60 bombers at 3 bombers bases and 2 sub bases. Anywhere from 2-5 submarines would be at sea either on patrol or in transit. Or seven to ten targets compared to over 500 which we have today, or equal to a 98-99% cut.

And the only missiles we would have for day to day deterrence under this scheme would be aboard at most 2-3 submarines in their patrol box at sea, each with only 16 missiles, and each of those missiles with at most 8 warheads.

That leaves the entire U.S. nuclear deterrent that could promptly respond to a Russian or Chinese attack with 250-350 warheads. This compares to a current Russian deployed “ready to go” arsenal of 1850 strategic nuclear weapons and a Chinese arsenal now approaching 800 weapons. And a current U.S. retaliatory capability above 1000 warheads—depending upon the specific scenario being considered.

But the Ploughshare scheme gets worse. Russia has at least an additional 2000 theater or tactical nuclear weapons threatening Europe. Given Ploughshares proposal to eliminate the B-61, which is the only theater or tactical nuclear weapons in our arsenal, the U.S. would effectively be out of the extended deterrent business in Europe.

Would a submarine only deterrent be adequate? In 1957, the Soviets launched a satellite into space in a technological surprise for which America was unprepared. As Brad Roberts and other nuclear experts have warned, at some point in the future our enemies may be able to detect our submarines when they are submerged deep in the ocean or in transit to port. If that should occur, over time the submarines could be attrited or destroyed surreptitiously.

The late Senator John Warner told me when he was Navy Secretary, his number one fear was just such a technological surprise. Can you imagine he said to hear from our Chief of Naval Operations that “one of our boomers” [Navy nuclear armed submarines] did not come home?

Thus relying solely on submarines is setting us up to be blind-sided by just such a technological breakthrough. If that happens, the U.S. will be facing not only one nuclear armed enemy in Russia, like the Soviet Union at the time of Sputnik but also other nuclear powers such as Pakistan, China, North Korea and possibly Iran.

But relying solely on the subs represents another problem. To meet our deterrent requirements, each sub missile would have to carry a maximum loading of warheads. We still would have 800-1000 less than the number we are allowed—including special bomber counting rules—under the New Start treaty. We would also have only half the allowed number for the Russians and probably less than one-third of the number deployed by China and Russia combined.

We would also have a zero upload or “hedging” capability if the Russians broke out of the New Start treaty or simply waited for the treaty to expire. We would be stuck at 1000 warheads while the Russians currently have an upload or growth pathway to 4000-5000 strategic warheads.

In addition, each sub missile would carry more warheads than needed to cover a target footprint thus carrying redundant warheads. The weight of the missile would also be heavier than optimum and this would reduce the target coverage of the missile as well as its range, requiring our submarines to operate in less geographic ocean area than is optimum, leaving them more vulnerable to detection. The navy has emphasized over and over again that the critical key to its deterrent value is the number of submarines available to the Commander in Chief not so much the total number of warheads. Too few submarines—which the Ploughshares plan would give us—wouldn’t work.

What about the cruise missile on our bombers? Without it, the ability of the air-breathing bomber deterrent to cover targets that are time-urgent—meaning they have to be destroyed quickly—is eliminated, and the remaining gravity bombs from aircraft have to be delivered over heavily defended areas which as the head of Global Strike Command said a few weeks ago is “no pleasant task”.

On the other hand, despite its many flaws and drawbacks, and its lack of any strategic sense, the Ploughshares plan may seem attractive to some because it appears to save billions of dollars. Unfortunately, in the near term that is not true. The plan relies heavily on some miscalculated and fuzzy nuclear math, saving in reality little money at all in the next decade. *

First, the new conventional bombers will carry conventional cruise missiles. Even if they are not nuclear armed, the cost is reduced only marginally, perhaps by 3%.

Second, on ICBMs, the next ten years average costs are $2.8 billion a year. $1.2 billion of that is for the Air Force personnel and base maintenance. Given one of the Minuteman ICBM bases is also used for bombers, at least one-third of the savings from closing the ICBM bases disappears. And given the average cost of base closures is usually 40% or more of the base operating costs, the savings are even less. So in the first decade of the Ploughshares scheme, around $1.2 billion a year might be saved in the ICBM force.

Third, as for the submarines, keeping older submarines in the force longer is more costly than the current plan. Stopping construction of the submarines at 10 rather than 12 also doesn’t save any money until the mid-2030 when the submarine construction would be completed. So for the next decade, this option costs us money, further reducing the small savings from eliminating the ICBMs and cruise missiles.

Fourth, as for the B-61, the warhead work is under budget and ahead of schedule. The warhead remains critical to the defense of our allies in NATO and Europe. Killing it now might very well invite Russian aggression against even more NATO or European allies of the United States, and at what unknown cost to our security. Without the B-61 we have no regional or theater nuclear deterrent in all of Europe.
At best such a disarmament plan might save $15 billion over the next decade, but undermine our security and deterrent capability at the same time. It might invite aggression and an attack against America’s interests.

Looking at a bigger picture, in ten years says OMB the Federal budget will grow from $4.1 trillion today to $6.6 billion then. The entire nuclear modernization effort then at its peak--$36 billion-- would be about 5/10ths of 1% of all Federal spending and a reasonable 5% of the projected 2025 defense budget of $647 billion. That compares to $24 billion today or 4% of the $603 billion defense budget and 6/10ths of 1% of our Federal budget.

The increase in the nuclear budget to modernize the force is approximately $12 billion a year over the next decade, less than what Americans annually spend to go to the movies.

Even though in reality Minuteman is affordable, Ploughshares says the missile system is unstable. This is based on the strange idea that the land-based ICBMs in the U.S.*arsenal are only good for a first strike. They have to be used, so goes the logic, before Russia strikes first and takes them out. But using our nuclear weapons first risks all out nuclear war, says Ploughshares, so ICBMs should be abandoned before they trigger a rush to strike first.*

But wait. If going first risks Armageddon, why would anybody—by definition—including the Russians, use their nuclear weapons “first”? Wouldn’t such an attack on our “supposedly vulnerable” 500 land-based missile silos and launch control centers be suicidal?

Of course, it would be as there is no doubt such an attack would invite massive retaliation by the U.S. But Ploughshares is claiming that our adversaries are so irrational they will use nuclear weapons first to attack 500 of our nuclear ICBM assets, knowing they will be demolished in return.

Even stranger is the “logic” that says the Russians would be less likely to attack us even if we make things dramatically easier for them and reduce our nuclear targets or platforms from over 500 to less than 10, a reduction of 98-99%.

As former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former DCI James Woolsey wrote in the New York Times many years ago when advocating a survivable Triad deterrent force, why would we hang a sign on our nuclear deterrent inviting our adversaries to “Come Get Us”! *

Ironically, another disarmament group, Global Zero, in a report of May 2012, agrees. The report notes the most serious technological threat on the horizon is that sophisticated computing and sensors could strip away the oceans shield from our at-sea submarines. The report concludes, (ironically in a footnote on page seven), that if the oceans became transparent, eliminating the ICBM leg of our nuclear Triad would “dramatically alter this prognosis” of safety in a submarine only missile deterrent. Exactly.**

To sum up, I agree with the current President of the United States. The administration has correctly sought a modernized Triad, seeing it as critical to the future security of the country. In numerous votes, and in passing the last seven defense bills, a wide bipartisan coalition in Congress has concurred—a modernized, robust Triad of bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles, along with safer, more secure and modern warheads and communication systems, is the way to go.

There is a name for such a strategy. Peace through strength. It won the Cold War. And for the 36 million minutes our land and sea-based missiles have been on alert since they were deployed, they have never been fired. But they have kept the nuclear peace—perfectly.

In short, if the American nuclear deterrent strategy isn’t broken, and has kept the nuclear peace for seventy years, why should we pay attention to the nuclear termites, trying as hard as they are, to eat away at our extraordinarily strong nuclear foundation, under the false idea that making the world more unstable is a better way to protect America? *


Peter R. Huessy is President of Geostrategic Analysis, and Senior Fellow in National Security at the American Foreign Policy Council, and Senior Fellow for Strategic Deterrent Studies of the Mitchell Institute.
 

OldArcher

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"The U.S. Nuclear Gambit" is probably very high on obama's to-do list... After all, the cretin wants to "change" America...

God Bless You and Yours, HC...

Maranatha

OldARcher
 

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic
Raytheon's Excalibur N5 Round
Could Triple the Range of US Navy 'Big' Guns


Kris Osborn
September 17, 2016
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

dgfghdf.jpg


The Navy is seeking longer-range precision weapons for its deck-mounted
“5-inch” guns to better destroy enemy targets, defend maritime forces on
the move in combat and support amphibious operations.

Every Navy Cruiser and Destroyer is armed with “5-inch” guns to attack
land and sea targets from the deck of a ship. In existence since the 70s,
the weapon can be used to attack enemy targets or lay down suppressive
fire so that maritime forces can better maneuver or reposition while in
battle.

However, the 5-inch guns, called Mk 45, have a maximum effective range
of only about eight or nine miles
, and the current rounds lack precision
so many rounds need to be fired in order to ensure that targets are
destroyed.

A new Raytheon-developed GPS-guided Excalibur N5 round, however, can
pinpoint target out to about 26 nautical miles
, Paul Daniels, Raytheon
business development, Excalibur, told Scout Warrior in an interview.

"We're more than tripling the max effective range of the Mk 45 five inch
guns and providing Excalibur precision with less than 2-meters miss
distances at all ranges
,” he said.

“Think of the area that you can cover as a commander
of a ship -- that is about 8 nautical miles, 200 squared
nautical miles around your ship to more than 2,000
square miles,” Daniels said.


The new round, which recently destroyed a target in a test at Yuma
Proving Grounds, Ariz., is being offered in response to a 2014 Navy
Request for Information to industry for precision-guided technology for
the services’ 5-inch guns.

The initiative to develop longer range precision weapons is entirely
consistent with the Navy’s often discussed “distributed lethality” strategy.

The idea is to not only better arm the fleet with more lethal and effective
offensive and defensive weapons but also enable the fleet to better
“distribute” its forces across wider swaths of geography, Navy leaders
explain.

(This first appeared in Scout Warrior here.)
Longer range weapons could increase the distances at which Navy forces
could operate, be less at risk of enemy fire, and still hold an enemy at
risk with precision-guidance technology.

The prospect of dispersing and aggregating forces will allow the fleet
to better confuse potential adversaries and make it more difficult for
enemy precision weaponry to pinpoint and attack U.S. Navy ships,
Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden, Director of Surface Warfare, said Jan. 12
at the Navy Surface Warfare Association National Symposium,
Arlington Va.

“When we talk about distributed lethality, we are not backing away
in any sense from the requirement to ensure the continued defense
of our aircraft carriers, ensure the continued defense of our amphibious
ready groups, ensure the continued defense of our logistics train,”
Rowden said at the symposium.

The extended range of the Excalibur N5, Daniels explained, could prove
valuable for amphibious Marine Corps forces in need of fire support while
approaching shore.

“It is also a critical capability to support Marines ashore which is naval
surface fire support. This is a longstanding capability gap the Marines
have had. They want extended range and they want precision to support
amphibious operations. Now they can use Excalibur to support their
operations ashore,” Daniels explained.

Excalibur Modifications:

The new Excalibur N5 emerged as a result of making several modifications
to an Army 155mm precision-guided artillery round called Excalibur 1B;
this weapon, in service now for many years, has been used more than
800 times in combat and successfully helped commanders complete
attack missions during the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The round has been particularly effective against terrorist and insurgent
targets, including force positions, IED-making facilities and enemy bunkers.

Precision is of particular relevance in a counterinsurgency type of combat
environment and battles against forces such as the Taliban or Iraqi
insurgents. In these types of scenarios, targets often quickly move,
shift in close-in urban settings and at times deliberately blend in with
civilian populations.

“We are leveraging all the technology and investment that has been
developed by the Army and brining that to this Navy Mk45 five-inch gun.

We are re-using 100-percent of the guidance and navigation unit from
the Army projectile, 70-percent of all parts and 99-percent of the software,”
Daniels said.

In order to produce the Excalibur N5 round, Raytheon engineers simple
take the front end of the round off the production line of the existing
Excalibur 1B round and re-use the technology for the new munition.

“It has all the electronics that make the projectile work. It is engineered
so that the electronics can survive the extreme forces of gunfire. We are
talking about upwards of 15,000 Gs. The Army has spent a lot of time
and money developing a consistent weapon,” Daniels said.

The Army and Marine Corps 155mm artillery shell is configured to fire
from a 6-inch barrel, whereas the Navy’s ship-based guns are 5-inch
guns. As a result, the body of the Excalibur N5 round has been slightly
tweaked in order to accommodate the Navy guns.

For instance, the “canards” or fins at the front end of the round that
help guide and correct the weapon’s flight path, called “control actuation
systems,” have been slightly modified for the new round, Daniels explained.

The Excalibur N5 could be operational within several years. The explosive
in the weapon can detonate using three different methods; point detonate
allows the weapon to explode upon impact, delayed detonate gives the
weapon an ability to break through up to four inches of concrete before
detonating – and “height of burst” detonate mode allows the weapon
to use a sensor to determine it is near the desired target and explode
in the air, Daniels said.

The weapon often lands on a steep vertical trajectory, allowing the kinetic
energy of impact on a target to break the round through up to 4-inches
of concrete before exploding, he added.

As part of its development of both variants of the Excalibur weapon,
Raytheon has engineered the weapon with a dual-mode seeker which
can alternate between GPS and laser guidance technology.

During a recent weapons test, the Excalibur round was launched with GPS
guidance and then, at a given point in its trajectory, it used its laser-guidance
seeker technology to find a different target location while in flight.

“It handed off from GPS guidance to the laser guidance and destroyed
the target at the very first test,” Daniels added. “This is important in
a land attack circumstances because may there is an urban environment.”

Laser guidance technology could be particularly relevant in a fast-moving
urban combat circumstance wherein targets might quickly move – and
the utmost precision is called for.

When it comes to maritime targets, however, the Navy might be interested
in what is called “millimeter wave” seeker technology, Daniels said.
This guidance technology is able to help the weapon guide its way to
a target in bad weather or conditions where a target could be obscured
such as rough seas.

“The Navy would like to be able to fire in a maritime environment against
things like fast-moving boats in bad weather in rough seas. They would
potentially rather not have a laser designator but might prefer a fire and
forget, millimeter wave approach. You can hand off from GPS guidance
to a millimeter wave seeker,” Daniels explained.

The Excalibur round is also capable of functioning in a GPS jamming
environment, although details about how this works are not publically
available.

Leveraging Army technology is also a way to minimize costs in a budget
constrained environment, Daniels said.

Costs of the round can vary depending upon the quantity purchased,
however previous Excalibur rounds have sold for about $ 68,000 per
round, sources indicated.

Kris Osborn became the Managing Editor of Scout Warrior in August of 2015.
His role with Scout.com includes managing content on the Scout Warrior site
and generating independently sourced original material. Scout Warrior is aimed
at providing engaging, substantial military-specific content covering a range
of key areas such as weapons, emerging or next-generation technologies
and issues of relevance to the military.

Just prior to coming to Scout Warrior, Osborn served as an Associate Editor
at the Military.com. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified
Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics
& Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist
at CNN and CNN Headline News. This story originally appeared in Scout Warrior.

 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-idUSKCN11P0DA

World News | Mon Sep 19, 2016 | 2:49pm EDT

India mulls response after deadly Kashmir attack it blames on Pakistan

By Fayaz Bukhari and Rupam Jain | SRINAGAR, India/NEW DELHI

India said on Monday it had the right to respond when and where it chose to a deadly attack on an army base in Kashmir, after blaming Pakistan for the raid that killed 18 soldiers.

The assault, in which four gunmen burst into a brigade headquarters in the town of Uri before dawn on Sunday, was among the deadliest in the disputed Himalayan region and has sharply raised tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals.

Army officials said the critically wounded had been flown to New Delhi and one had died in hospital. Most of dead and wounded suffered severe burns after their tents and temporary shelters caught fire from incendiary ammunition while they were sleeping.

Senior Indian politicians, including Home Minister Rajnath Singh who called Pakistan "a terrorist state", were quick to warn of action against Islamabad, putting pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take a tough line.

The head of military operations of the Indian army, Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh, said India had the desired capability to respond, without elaborating.

"We reserve the right to respond to any act of the adversary at a time and place of our own choosing," Ranbir Singh told reporters, adding that the army had seized equipment from the Uri base with Pakistani markings.

Pakistan accused India of apportioning blame before it had properly investigated.

"Pakistan categorically rejects the baseless and irresponsible accusations being leveled by senior officials in Prime Minister Modi's government," the prime minister's foreign affairs adviser said in a statement late on Sunday.

The Pakistan army said that India was promoting a "hostile narrative".

Kashmir, divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, is at the heart the neighbors' seven decades of mutual distrust. Two of their three wars since independence from Britain have been fought over the region.

India's portion of Kashmir has been under a major security lockdown during more than two months of protests sparked by the July 8 killing of a popular young commander of a Kashmiri militant group.

LIMITED OPTIONS

India's options to hit back at Pakistan appeared limited, as they carried the risk of escalation.

India held back from military retaliation when a Pakistan-based group killed 166 people in a 2008 rampage through Mumbai, for fear of igniting a broader conflict, and opted instead for a diplomatic offensive to isolate Islamabad.

An attack on another Indian base near the border with Pakistan in January also drew a measured response, but the casualty toll was lower than in Sunday's raid.

The concern is that Modi's government has signaled a lower threshold for retaliation against attacks from Pakistan than the previous Congress government, which adopted a policy of "strategic restraint".

Among the military options that India could consider are artillery strikes on Pakistani army positions it alleges are used for helping militants cross over into its part of Kashmir, military experts say.

But that would imperil a 2003 ceasefire along the frontier, although it has frayed in recent years.

A second option on the table would be sending special forces inside Pakistan to attack guerrilla training camps, although that was a high-risk gamble that could easily go wrong, the experts said.

Modi held talks with leaders of his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party at a cabinet meeting on how to respond.

"Our first priority is to fortify every defense base and it is shocking that one of our strategic locations was hit," a senior aide told Reuters.

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL

Indian troops searched three ravines that cut across the de facto border in mountainous terrain near Uri, which a senior army official said the militants were believed to have used to sneak into Indian-administered territory.

Reinforcements were also sent to patrol one of the world's most heavily militarized frontiers, where Indian and Pakistani forces stand eyeball to eyeball in places and sometimes exchange fire, the army official added.

A weekly bus service between Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir and Muzaffarabad, the capital on the Pakistani side, operated as normal on Monday, however. The bus passed through Uri and passengers waited at the frontier ready to cross.

The United States, United Kingdom and France condemned the attack and said they stood with India in its fight against "terrorism".

India was ranked fifth in the world in terms of military strength, according to a 2015 assessment by Credit Suisse based on data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Global Firepower, compared to 11th for Pakistan.

Pakistan has an estimated 120 nuclear warheads against India's 110, according to the Arms Control Association.

India has long blamed Pakistan for playing a role in the 27-year long insurgency against its rule in Jammu and Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state.

Singh, the army general, said Sunday's assault bore the hallmarks of Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. But he did not offer evidence tying the attack to the group.

Led by Islamist hardliner Maulana Masood Azhar from Pakistan's Punjab province, Jaish-e-Mohammed was blamed for the January air base raid as well as a 2001 attack on India's parliament that nearly led to war.

Pakistan denies sending fighters into Indian-administered Kashmir.

No one has yet claimed responsibility and other Pakistan-based militant organizations like Laskhar-e-Taiba have been accused of plotting attacks in India.

Pakistan has called on the United Nations and the international community to investigate atrocities it alleges have been committed by Indian security forces in Kashmir.

The UN is preparing to hold its annual general assembly in New York, where Kashmir is likely to be on the agenda.

(Additional reporting by Sanjeev Miglani in NEW DELHI and Mehreen Zahra-Malik in ISLAMABAD; Writing and additional reporting by Tommy Wilkes; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani, Nick Macfie and Mike Collett-White)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/north-korea-what-options-remain/

North Korea: What Options Remain?

Has the United States fully explored diplomatic options with North Korea?

By Walter C. Clemens, Jr.
September 19, 2016

Americans think they have done everything short of war to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear weapons state. To be sure, Washington has encouraged the sporadic moves by Seoul and Pyongyang to cooperate and grope toward confederation. The U.S. government has supported programs to feed the hungry and treat the sick in North Korea. However, Washington did nothing to help North Korean musicians to reciprocate the New York Philharmonic’s performance in Pyongyang in 2007. Instead, the United States*has supported radio broadcasts to show North Korea’s people the nature of their rulers—part of what one specialist calls “hack and frack.”

The U.S. Treasury and U.S. diplomats at the United Nations have worked to tighten sanctions to choke Pyongyang’s weapons programs and penalize its rulers for their abuse of human rights. Washington has importuned Beijing to rein in its rogue client, though to limited effect.* The Clinton administration considered a surgical strike on North Korea’s nuclear facilities in 1994, but this option has become too dangerous to contemplate. As with the former Soviet Union, the United States has sought to contain a dangerous foe. Washington has maintained powerful forces in South Korea, Japan, and across the Pacific Ocean to reassure allies and deter North Korea aggression. None of this, however, has stopped the North from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Has the United States fully explored a negotiated settlement of its differences with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)?* The answer is both yes and no. President George H.W. Bush gave an impetus to negotiation when he withdrew all nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991. Within months, Seoul and Pyongyang agreed to denuclearize the peninsula. Soon, however, each side accused the other of violating parts of the accord.

When signs mounted in 1994 that North Korea was building nuclear weapons, the Clinton administration mobilized to attack the North’s nuclear sites. Momentum toward war halted when former U.S. president Jimmy Carter flew to Pyongyang and drew up a plan with DPRK leader Kim Il-sung to freeze the North’s plutonium production in exchange for energy assistance and normalization of *DPRK ties with the United States. Their draft accord soon became an “Agreed Framework” signed by top U.S. and DPRK diplomats. Republicans in Congress, however, balked at paying for energy assistance to the North and U.S. oil deliveries often arrived late. More troublesome, work on the two light water reactors promised to the North proceeded very slowly. Despite mutual suspicions, a top DPRK official came to the White House in 2000 and invited President Bill Clinton to Pyongyang. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went there in his stead, she reported that Kim Jong-il appeared ready to make a deal on missiles as well as nuclear weapons.

Succeeding Clinton as president in 2001,* George W. Bush broke off these exchanges and, soon placed North Korea on an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran.* Soon, both Washington and Pyongyang denounced the Agreed Framework and the North resumed reprocessing plutonium. (Thanks to Pakistan, it could also enrich uranium, not specifically addressed in 1994).* Despite all this, the Bush administration veered from its initial intransigence and promoted six-party talks with North Korea.* These negotiations produced several joint statements that seemed to revive the 1994 principle of aid for arms control.* Each accord withered, however, when buffeted by hardliners in Washington and* Pyongyang.

Committed to negotiate with any adversary, Barack Obama’s administration focused on Iran (which had never tested a nuclear weapon) but also explored a deal with North Korea, which began testing nuclear devices in 2006. While Kim Jong-un was succeeding his father, Kim Jong-il, diplomats from North Korea and the*United States*seemed to reach* another agreed framework on February 29, 2012. The United States committed to provide food aid in return for a halt on nuclear and long-range missile tests by the North. The deal, which was never formalized except in separate statements by each side,*fell apart in April when the North attempted to launch a satellite on a three-stage rocket. Washington did not buy Pyongyang’s argument that its “space” rocket was not a missile for military use.

Feeling let down by Pyongyang, the Obama administration settled into a posture of “strategic patience.” Usually the United States demanded that the DPRK again commit to denuclearization before negotiations could resume. At other moments, Washington said only that negotiations—on a peace treaty and other matters–must include denuclearization. Thus, Secretary of State John Kerry stated on September 10, 2016 *that Washington is willing to negotiate with North Korea, but only if Pyongyang agrees that the goal of those talks is for it to give up its weapons. But then Kerry *softened—nearly contradicting himself—by stating “All that Kim Jong-un needs to do is say, ‘I am prepared to talk about denuclearization.’” President Obama did a similar two-step on October 16,*2015, as he spoke alongside South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Such ambivalence provokes distrust and sharpens the question of sequencing—who should go first and how.

The longer the present impasse continues, the more the DPRK leadership will oppose any dismantling of its advanced weaponry. Still, a conditional freeze of *DPRK nuclear and missile development might benefit all sides. Stanford University nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker has suggested the United States and its partners pursue the “three nos” — no more*bombs, no better bombs (no more nuclear testing), and no export of nuclear technology and materials — in return for one yes: American willingness to seriously address North Korea’s fundamental insecurity. A freeze would permit Pyongyang to claim a nuclear deterrent in addition to its conventional overkill poised to destroy Seoul. The freeze would be conditioned on an end to sanctions; a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice; and establishment of* political and economic relations with the United States. Such a deal would entail risks and uncertainties, but no more than an untrammeled arms race in Northeast Asia.

Walter C. Clemens, Jr. is Associate, Harvard University Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Boston University. He wrote*North Korea and the World: Human Rights, Arms Control, and Strategies for Negotiation*(University Press of Kentucky, 2016).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iraq-forces-launch-push-held-town-094811703.html

Iraq forces launch push on IS-held town

September 20, 2016
1 Comment

Kirkuk (Iraq) (AFP) - Iraqi forces launched an operation on Tuesday to retake the town of Sherqat from the Islamic State group which has controlled it for more than two years, military sources said.

The town lies on the west bank of the Tigris river 260 kilometres (160 miles) northwest of Baghdad and around 80 kilometres (50 miles) south of Mosul, the jihadists' last major bastion in Iraq.

Iraqi forces have already reconquered other towns north of Sherqat on the way to Mosul but the question of Shiite militia involvement in military operations there had held up the push.

"The operation to liberate Sherqat started at 5:30 am (0230 GMT) from several directions... with the support of coalition forces," Joint Operations Command spokesman Yahya Rasool said.

"We are making good progress," he told AFP. "Sherqat is important, we can't move on Mosul and have terrorists control Sherqat."

Sherqat lies in the far north of Salaheddin province, which includes the cities of Samarra and Tikrit, and close to the border with Nineveh province of which Mosul is the capital.

Ahmed al-Assadi, the spokesman of the Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation) paramilitary force, also announced the operation.

"The sons of Hashed al-Shaabi and the Iraqi army backed by the air force launched the 'Sherqat Dawn' operation to finish expelling those terrorist gangsters from usurped Iraqi land," he said.

The Hashed al-Shaabi, which has played a big part in retaking IS-held areas since 2014, is nominally under the control of the prime minister but dominated by Tehran-backed Shiite militia.

It also includes less powerful Sunni tribal forces supporting the government against IS.

Rasool stressed that only tribal forces -- sometimes referred to as Hashed al-Ashaeri (Tribal Mobilisation) -- were fighting in Sherqat, not Shiite militias.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, speaking from New York after a meeting with US President Barack Obama, said the same operation also included efforts to flush out IS fighters from desert areas near Ramadi and Heet in the western province of Anbar.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/8-arrests-france-truck-attack-killed-86-nice-093200074.html

8 new arrests in France truck attack that killed 86 in Nice

September 20, 2016
Comment

PARIS (AP) — French authorities have made eight new arrests in connection with the Bastille Day truck attack in Nice that left 86 people dead, the Paris prosecutor's office said Tuesday.

The office said the suspects detained Monday were French and Tunisian and had links to the attacker, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who plowed a 19-ton truck down Nice's Promenade des Anglais and into a crowd assembled for a July 14 fireworks display. All eight were arrested in the Alpes-Maritimes region in the southeastern corner of France that includes Nice.

At least five people already face preliminary terrorism charges in the attack, and are accused of helping Bouhlel obtain a pistol and providing other support. It was not immediately clear what role is suspected for the men arrested this week.

The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the July 14 attack. French authorities say Bouhlel, a Tunisian with French residency, was inspired by the extremist group's propaganda, but they say no evidence has been found that IS orchestrated the attack.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-erdogan-idUSKCN11P0HL

World News | Mon Sep 19, 2016 | 10:44am EDT

Turkey-backed rebels could push further south in Syria, Erdogan says

By Orhan Coskun and Seda Sezer | ANKARA/ISTANBUL

Turkey-backed rebels may extend their zone of control in northern Syria by pushing south and are now targeting the Islamic State-held town of al-Bab, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday.

Turkey's "safety zone" in the region could eventually span an area of 5,000 square km (1,930 square miles), Erdogan told a news conference before departing for New York where he was due to address the United Nations' General Assembly.

Ankara launched its operation in northern Syria known as "Euphrates Shield" last month, aiming to clear Islamic State from Turkey's Syrian border area and to stop the advance of Syrian Kurdish fighters. So far, it has secured a thin wedge of land along its border.

"As part of the Euphrates Shield operation, an area of 900 square kilometers has been cleared of terror so far. This area is pushing south," Erdogan said.

"We may extend this area to 5,000 square kilometers as part of a safe zone."

Turkey has long argued for the need for a "safe zone" or a "no-fly" zone along its Syrian border, with the aim of clearing out Islamic State and Kurdish fighters and stemming a wave of migration that has fueled tensions in Europe.

But Western allies have so far balked at the idea, saying it would require a significant ground force and planes to patrol, marking a major commitment in such a crowded battlefield.

Erdogan said on Monday the Turkey-backed rebels - a group of Syrian Arabs and Turkmen fighting under the loose banner of the Free Syrian Army - were now focused on capturing the Islamic State-held town of al-Bab.

"Jarablus and al-Rai have been cleansed, now we are moving towards al-Bab... We will go there and stop (Islamic State) from being a threat to us," he said.

CONTROL OF AL-BAB
Gaining control of al-Bab, which lies on the southern edge of what Ankara sees as its potential buffer zone, is crucial to Turkey's plans to keep the Syrian Kurdish YPG fighters in check, analysts say.

Ankara's challenge now is to turn the fractured Free Syrian Army into a coherent force as a counterweight to the YPG.

Turkey, a NATO member and part of the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State in Syria, regards the Washington-backed YPG as a terrorist group and an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Ankara worries that advances by the YPG will embolden insurgents in its largely Kurdish southeast.

Erdogan has frequently castigated the United States for its support of the YPG. On Monday he accused Washington of exacerbating tension in the region, referring to an incident last week when a small number of U.S. forces entered the town of al-Rai but were forced to withdraw after the Free Syrian Army rebels protested against their presence.

The U.S. special forces entered the town to coordinate air strikes against Islamic State.

"The Syrian army did not and does not want interference from U.S. special forces," Erdogan said. "Unfortunately, the behavior of U.S. officials has pushed the FSA to this point," he said, in what appeared to be a reference to Washington's support of the YPG.

Separately, Turkey's military said on Monday it hit Islamic State targets in northern Syria in air strikes a day earlier, targeting barracks and an ammunition store.

Erdogan said he plans to address the Syria crisis, the fight against terrorism and Turkey's failed July 15 military coup when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly later this week.

(Additional reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu and Humeyra Pamuk; Writing by David Dolan; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Related Coverage
Syrian army ceasefire expires, no statement of extension
Syrian rebel says truce has 'practically failed and has ended'
Turkey's Erdogan to address Syria crisis, terrorism fight in U.N. speech
Eastern Aleppo aid stuck in Turkey as Syria truce ends
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
marqs;@MarQs__ · 14 sek.
BREAKING: Indian and Pakistani troops exchange fire in Kashmir: army

marqs;@MarQs__ · 48 sek.
@MarQs__ India says they gunned down '8 terrorists' in the skirmish

TIMES NOW;@TimesNow · 7 min.
#BREAKING India retaliates to Pak firing. Army foils infiltration bid; guns down at least 8 terrorists in Uri sector, J&K
 

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic
Jelena Milic ‏@Jelennah169 10h
@CMC_NATO @CEAS Serbia on tendentious statement
of @SerbianPM against NATO and other alarming trends in Serbia

https://www.ceas-serbia.org/en/93-p...ther-alarming-non-democratic-trends-in-serbia


Mikhail D. ‏@Eire_QC 4h
Tensions are brewing between Serbia and Bosnia
after Serbian referendum in Republika Srpska in Bosnia.


Mikhail D. ‏@Eire_QC 4h
(3) #Serbia's Prime minister is now reportedly
coming back from New-York urgently over the tensions.



Mikhail D. ‏@Eire_QC 4h
(4) Foreign Ministry of Serbia has now said
that we will not allow an attack on Republika Srpska.

Marcus Papadopoulos ‏@DrMarcusP 24m
I fully support the referendum
which the Republika Srpska is holding this Sunday.
And I fully support Srpska becoming part of Serbia.

David ‏@follownewsnow1 3h
Serbia Belgrade Bosnia:
War talk again in the Balkans



SE Europe & Blck Sea ‏@JSEEBSS 1h
Who Will Run the U.N.?
Best choice for reform is Serbia’s Vuk Jeremic.
@WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-wil...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Cs0WqhMWEAAk7mp.jpg:small
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
marqs ‏@MarQs__ 54m54 minutes ago
Reports of pro Russian vehicle movements yday & tonight in eastern #Ukraine. At the front but also in the 'hinterland'. Probably rotation.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 1h1 hour ago:siren::siren::siren::siren:
BREAKING: US reaches preliminary conclusion #Russian warplanes bombed Syrian aid convoy, officials tell @barbarastarrcnn - @jimsciuttoConflict News ‏@Conflicts 2h2 hours ago
BREAKING: Russian, Syrian planes bombed aid convoy: opposition leader - @AlArabiya_Eng
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
WSJ: U.S. Believes Russia Bombed Syrian Aid Convoy
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 01:32 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...U.S.-Believes-Russia-Bombed-Syrian-Aid-Convoy

----------

Is the Chinese economy due for a crash?
Started by Troke‎, Today 01:58 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?500348-Is-the-Chinese-economy-due-for-a-crash


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economywatch.com/features/Japan-Challenges-Chinas-African-Influence0920.html

Japan Challenges China's African Influence

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016• ECONOMIC RELATIONS• BY EAST ASIA FORUM

Africa is becoming a new strategic playground where economic and geopolitical rivalry between Asian powers compels Japan to compete in a contemporary struggle for influence. Japan’s decision to hold the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) on African soil in August 2016 — for the first time in TICAD’s 23-year history — is just one example of its invigorated engagement with the region.

China has already identified Kenya as a key hub of its ‘Maritime Silk Road’, forcing Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to present his own vision of Africa ripe with economic potential, political dividends and international leverage. At the 2015 Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, Chinese President Xi Jinping boldly committed US$60 billion in development investment to Africa. The pledge has no definitive timeline, but an action plan marks 2020 as a milestone for specific trade, investment and infrastructure goals. In Nairobi, Abe similarly committed US$30 billion over three years, a clear signal that Japan is willing to go head-to-head with China in the African ‘aid game’.

As Japan challenges Chinese influence on the continent, Africa stands to benefit from a windfall of investment. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s comments at TICAD VI acknowledged this sentiment when he stated ‘the landscape across the continent is rapidly changing: investments in infrastructure, energy and education are unlocking the value of Africa’s abundant natural resources. And as this mammoth continent moves, it is sending shockwaves throughout the world’.

Addressing 54 African leaders and 52 international representatives at TICAD VI, Abe associated Japan’s national brand with ‘quality’ and ‘empowerment’. By suggesting Japan’s superiority in quality, Abe invoked common African prejudices against Chinese business and construction firms. Abe also appealed to the principle of ‘quality infrastructure investment’ established at the G7 Ise-Shima Summit.

Africa, as the world’s next great growth market, offers Japan long-term economic opportunity. Its development is critical to Japan’s economic revival, presenting entrepreneurs with the promise of rising middle-income consumers across the continent.

However, ‘empowerment’, as Abe presents it, is more than just economic opportunity. Rather, Abe speaks of an African continent that is stable, secure and assertive of its rightful place internationally. He highlights Japan’s role and responsibility to empower Africa. This is a common theme of the Abe government and is aligned with its broader visions for an enlarged Japanese security presence. As Abe points out, ‘in Africa, where possibilities abound, Japan can grow vigorously’.

Beyond business and development partnerships, security and stability took centre stage at the conference. As outlined in the Nairobi Declaration, stability featured as one of the ‘three pillars’ of this meeting. Five initiatives fell under the banner of stability: social stability and peacebuilding, terrorism and violent extremism, global Issues and challenges (including sustainable development, resource security and good governance), maritime security, and United Nations reform.

All of these initiatives are also features of Japan’s broader defence strategy and its desired role in the international community. While human security has been discussed in previous conferences, TICAD VI featured specific security domains and defence initiatives for the first time. For example, under the ‘social security and stability’ initiative, the Nairobi Declaration pledged Japanese support to strengthen the ‘capacity for surveillance and containment, cross-border security, coordinated border management and peacekeeping operations’.

Currently, Japan deploys more than 270 Self-Defence Force (SDF) personnel in South Sudan as part of the United Nations’ Mission in the Republic of South Sudan, with a promise of growing its commitment across the continent. New security laws passed in March 2016 empower SDF personnel in South Sudan to conduct escort and support missions for fellow peacekeepers and NGO workers. The newly revised International Peace Cooperation Act enables SDF troops to extend protection to civilians and local populations and use weapons if necessary.

Beyond the increasing aid and security related interests, Japan also wants to engage Africa through expanding diplomatic networks. To that end, Tokyo plans to establish a diplomatic mission and appoint an ambassador to the African Union headquartered in Ethiopia as well as establish two more embassies in Africa, raising the total to 36.

TICAD VI reinforced Japan’s far-reaching security ambitions and willingness to compete with China in addition to its economic engagement. Along with the perception of ‘quality’, Abe aims to brand Japan as an ‘empowered’ player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, with Japan bringing its ‘empowerment’ strategy somewhat late to the great game of African influence, the question remains as to whether it will be able to take advantage of a growing discontent among African nations with their current Asian patron.

Can Japan make its presence felt in Africa? is republished with permission from East Asia Forum

See Also: Is China 'Squeezing Out' US Aid to Africa?
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.energyintel.com/pages/worldopinionarticle.aspx?DocID=937149

The Real War for Iraq
September 2016 Rafiq Latta

Two years after it stunned the world by routing the Iraqi army at Mosul, Islamic State is staring battlefield defeat in the face. An operation to retake Mosul should begin by year-end, and if successful, could leave the jihadists besieged at their Syrian capital Raqqa. Military victory and the dismantling of the jihadists' state would mark a watershed for Iraq, sparking an opportunity to rebuild but also re-energizing struggles for power among the country's political groups. Frozen to a certain extent by the war against the jihadists, fundamental change to the way Iraq is governed is coming. And with it looms the prospect of a restructuring of northern Iraq's oil industry, with major implications for investment and the wider region's future energy architecture.

The battle to liberate Mosul is yet to get under way, but the fight to gain leverage at the negotiating table in post-Islamic State Iraq has begun in earnest. The Iraqi state has come close to buckling under the sectarian pressures fueled by the war against Islamic State and rising sectarian nationalism (EC Sep.2'16). And from the outside, it is easy to see myriad ways the country could fall apart.

Sunni vs. Sunni rivalries are intensifying; political parties in Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region are at each other's throats; the oil-rich province of Kirkuk is threatening revolt against Baghdad; the oil-richer province of Basrah is clamoring for a greater share in oil wealth; and Sunni anger at pro-Iranian Shiite militia excesses is rising. Furthermore, corruption remains rampant, and the oil price slump continues to emasculate state coffers and by extension Baghdad's ability to address challenges. Add to this mix the largely negative impact of Iranian and Turkish rivalry on Iraq's political stability, coupled with a refugee crisis that the Mosul operations threaten to exacerbate exponentially, and it is easy to paint a bleak picture for Iraq's prospects.

Nevertheless, the last two years of war against Islamic State have also given birth to some positives. Iraqis have looked into the abyss and not liked what they have seen. Sunnis by and large have rejected Islamic State. "Sunnis see the government as the lesser of two evils. 2017-18 is a real window of opportunity to build bridges," argues Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Iraq's military, compared to the pre-Islamic State years of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is undoubtedly better run, more ethnically integrated, and has genuine special forces capability. The oil price collapse that almost brought Baghdad to its knees has also shown that Iraq can survive on hunger rations. While mistreatment at the hands of Shiite militia has sharpened the sense of disenfranchisement felt by many Sunnis, the welcome given to some Sunni refugees by their fellow Iraqis and the battlefield experiences shared by Sunni and Shiites have also helped rebuild a sense of "Iraqiness." For all its faults, the post-2003 Iraqi state has proved surprisingly robust, defying numerous predictions of its imminent demise -- with the example of Syria next door serving as a powerful incentive for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Putting Out Fire With Gasoline

Amid all this political turbulence, Iraq's southern oil sector has proved remarkably resilient. Exports from Basrah have averaged 3.2 million barrels per day or more for nine of the last 10 months, and levels so far this year are running 300,000 b/d higher than the same period of 2015. But the oil price slump has badly hit investment, and while payments to investors improved dramatically with the signing of a $5.34 billion IMF agreement over the summer, oil companies will need improved terms to trigger the spending needed to make the next big capacity leap. Baghdad also badly needs to rehabilitate and expand its storage and pipeline infrastructure, and invest in water injection to maintain reservoir pressure (PIW Jun.15'15).

The political turmoil is having a bigger oil impact in the northern region of Kirkuk, where amid all the positioning for post-Islamic State Iraq, rivalries are being played out most intensely. Here, pretty much everyone who could be having an argument with someone is doing so. The fact that the ethnically mixed province is the capital of northern Iraq's oil industry has only fanned the flames of these disputes. But there is also a powerful argument to be made that oil could be key to solving this most intractable of conflicts.

Northern Iraq Oil Fields and Pipelines
567390.jpg

http://www.energyintel.com/_LAYOUTS/Eig/Images/WPSImages/567390.jpg

Kurds are the largest single ethnic group in the province, with Arabs and Turkmens (both Sunni and Shiite) making up significant minorities. Federal state oil firm North Oil Co. (NOC) operates the province's oil fields; pre-2014, these used to produce 500,000 b/d, but with redevelopment, the NOC fields theoretically could go as high as 1 million b/d (PIW Sep.22'14).

Kirkuk's provincial council is controlled by the PUK party, which is also the junior partner in the ruling coalition of the neighboring Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Based in Suleimaniyah, the PUK has traditionally been closer to Iran. The KRG's ruling party, the KDP, in 2014 angered both Baghdad and the PUK by seizing the 170,000 b/d Bai Hassan and the 90,000 b/d Avana fields from NOC in July 2014. But with the main export pipeline to Turkey blown up by Islamic State, Baghdad was forced to rely on KRG export infrastructure for all Kirkuk exports, blunting its protests over the Bai Hassan/Avana seizure.

In recent months, the PUK has broken completely with the pro-Turkish KDP, accusing it of corruption on a massive scale and withholding oil revenues. Parliament is not sitting and the PUK has begun lobbying hard for a pipeline to be built taking crude from both its fields and Kirkuk fields via territory it controls to Iran. PUK leaders have tried to sabotage efforts to resolve the KRG-Baghdad oil dispute and are leading a campaign to dismiss Iraq's finance minister, Hoshyar Zibari, a KDP appointee.

Baghdad earlier this month made its most public statement yet over Bai Hassan and Avana, proclaiming it intends to restore control of the fields. It is in initial discussions with BP for a project covering all Kirkuk's major fields, involving integrated gas processing and water injection facilities. Yet it is hard to see any foreign oil company investing billions in Kirkuk any time soon, given the political and security challenges, and the very real danger of a shooting war breaking out. Despite the challenges, some resolution needs to be found, because without some form of certainty over Kirkuk's oil, Iraq cannot start long-term reconstruction of northern Iraq in any concerted way. Furthermore, the tensions will remain a millstone around the necks of both the KRG and the central government in Baghdad, and if the dispute turns nasty, Kirkuk oil exports potentially face two years of stoppage until repairs are made to the main Iraq-Turkey pipeline. The KRG, for its part, is desperate for political stability, first to mend the KDP-PUK rift, but also to restore investor confidence in its own beleaguered oil sector (EIF Jun.22'16). A Sisyphean task it might be, but a breakthrough on Kirkuk oil could go a long way to resolving the province's other intractable disputes over land and sovereignty.

Where Now?

All parties bidding for influence in northern Iraq are banking on future provincial administrations in both Kirkuk and Nineveh, home to Mosul, having a greater share of their region's hydrocarbon wealth. But major concessions in the north would leave Baghdad vulnerable to growing demands from Iraq's oil heartland Basrah for a greater share of the province's oil wealth. Basrah, which generates over 70% of state revenues, has long been agitating on this issue (EC May23'14). Beyond the impact on Baghdad's finances, compromise here would likely complicate already fraught contract renegotiations with oil investors aimed at boosting Iraqi oil output to 6 million b/d and beyond.

The fight against Islamic State has also seen the reemergence of tribes as a critical factor. The Shammar, for instance, have been influential on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border and could play a key role of kingmaker in Nineveh politics after Mosul's fall. Both tribal strength and the growing provincial assertiveness reflect the erosion of the old regional model of an all-powerful centralized state, part of a wider post-Arab Spring trend.

At least in the north, Baghdad appears to have learned the lesson of marginalizing local groups. Sunni tribes there are integral to current planning, and post-Islamic State, greater tribal influence in local politics is also likely to figure strongly in Anbar and Salahaddin provinces.

Change may be coming, but it will be an infuriatingly slow, messy and nonlinear process. Post-2003 Iraq has witnessed many false dawns, only for reform to falter. Complete breakdown has up to now been averted, but genuine progress on national reconciliation remains stubbornly elusive. The result? A state of permanent instability.

This is due to outside factors as much anything. Since the US-led invasion 13 years ago, Iraq has become a Lebanon-style theater for the playing out of great power and regional rivalries. These have hampered reform efforts. But by the same token, Iraq's strategic and oil market importance has meant that it has been in none of these powers' interests to see the country collapse -- hence the succession of averted near-meltdowns.

These great power rivalries over Iraq are unlikely to change. While US policy under a Donald Trump presidency is unknowable, the likelihood is that there will be no US disengagement from either Iraq or the fight against Islamic State under a new administration. The real risk is that a change in US policy toward Iran sharpens the Tehran-Washington rivalry in Iraq.

While a major redrawing of the Sykes-Picot borders is unlikely, the next few months will be testing. Iraq's ability to rebuild itself as a functioning state could hinge on its willingness to manage a partial devolution of power to tribes, provinces and regions. Provincial elections, scheduled for April, will provide a litmus test of the state of the country post-Mosul. Islamic State, even if beaten in Mosul, will be a real wild card. The jihadists will likely still retain significant retaliatory capabilities, both to strike in Iraq and beyond. As July's Karrada shopping center bombing, in which 250 died, showed, Baghdad remains horribly vulnerable to suicide attacks.

Rafiq Latta is a senior correspondent at Energy Intelligence, based in Nicosia. A shorter version of this article originally appeared in Energy Intelligence's geopolitics publication, Energy Compass.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...a-border-wall-won-t-keep-out-the-cartels.html

FENCING LESSONS
Tunnels, Drones, Jet Skis, and Planes: How the Cartels Beat a Border Wall
Criminal money and imagination win out over all obstacles. The cartels have already proven a physical wall won’t stop them, and that U.S. border patrol is inept.

ANDREA NOEL
09.16.16 9:15 PM ET

TIJUANA, Mexico — A few of the cartels’ drones have crashed. How many more have made it across the border is a matter of guesswork, like so much in this city so close to the United States.

One drone that we know of soared over the streets where tourists are invited to take pictures with zonkeys (local burros painted to look like zebras) and vendors sell statues of the Virgin Mary alongside Bart Simpson T-shirts. There is always something of the circus here: illusion, chicanery, and imagination in the service of survival.

All seemed to be going well for that inexpensive Chinese drone, at first. It’s normally outfitted with a camera, and was designed to carry a payload of up to 15 pounds. But then it collapsed under the weight of six and a half pounds of methamphetamine and plunked down in a supermarket parking lot about 10 blocks short of the existing wall. One was reminded of those old films of the first flapping, failing flying machines at the beginning of the last century.

Then, in August 2015, came what is believed to be the first successful seizure of drone-smuggled narcotics on the U.S. side of the border. Authorities retrieved more than 28 pounds of heroin that had flown to a field near Calexico. Two U.S. residents were arrested while retrieving the packages.

But that was amateur hour, and just a beginning. Drones are cheap and drugs are dear, and such aerial smuggling operations are only likely to increase as the cartels master the technology and pay for better versions of it, which they always do. There won’t be many walls, or any, able to stop the drones completely.

Which is one more reason why the contentious crux of Trump’s plan as POTUS, “ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns, and people across our border, and [putting] the cartels out of business” is such a hollow, and indeed deeply misleading promise.

Build a wall, he thinks, and you’ve patched the country’s greatest weakness.
If elected, he says, “On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. And Mexico will pay for the wall—they don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it.” This he continues to insist, despite the claims to the contrary of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and his two most recent predecessors.

But financing is far from the most problematic part of Trump’s delusional Maginot Line for America. The fatal flaw now (as it was for the French army in 1940) lies in the notion it will be “impenetrable.”

Security along the Mexican frontier already is tight, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy noted in a statement last year, but “drug traffickers have thought of every conceivable method to move their drugs over, under and through the border… We have found their tunnels, their Cessnas, their jet skis, their pangas [small boats], and now we have found their drones.”

The clichéd metaphor of Wack-a-Mole is perfectly appropriate in these parts, where innovative new approaches to border crossing just keep popping up.
One short-statured young woman from Tijuana, told me she thwarted the wall in 2013 by climbing into a large concert speaker, which her then-boyfriend bolted shut, loaded into the back of his pickup truck, and drove straight through customs.
But resorting to bizarre smuggling tactics is nothing new. Fifteen years ago, at the same border crossing, the world’s busiest, San Ysidro Port of Entry, then 42-year-old Enrique Aguilar Canchola was discovered sewn into the upholstery of a car seat. Authorities took a few photos before slicing him out of his faux leather disguise.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Andrea Noel ϟ ✔ @metabolizedjunk
Flashback to 2001:

Enrique Aguilar Canchola, then 42, sewn into the upholstery of a car at the San Ysidro border.

8:33 PM - 13 Sep 2016


Smugglers have resorted to hiding migrants in increasingly snug recesses, including modified gas tanks, floor compartments, and even under car hoods alongside engines.

“You open a glove compartment and there’s a face,” says Immigration and Naturalization Service official Robert Knox. These smuggling attempts are often successful, but death by asphyxiation is a predictable side effect.

Traffickers also have honed their skills moving underground, excavating elaborate tunnels equipped with trolleys on rails and ventilation systems.

This past April, federal authorities seized the longest Mexico-California underground smuggling tunnel discovered so far. The half-mile passage led from a closet inside a private home in Tijuana to a large metal dumpster in a parking lot 500 yards into U.S. territory. Agents discovered a 10-foot-deep hole leading into the tunnel underneath the drug-filled dumpster, and subsequently recovered seven tons of marijuana, and more than 2,200 pounds of cocaine—the largest drug bust associated with a Southern California tunnel to date.

But, again, tunneling is something of a tradition.

If you walk to Colonia Federal past the many dentists offices catering to uninsured gringos, you start to see colorful murals dedicated to the exploding population of deportees, dumped back across the border too far from their homes to go back, and still too close to the U.S. to give up.

Here, in 2004, a now-famous tunnel was discovered. It began just a few paces from the corrugated border fence and stretched more than 150 feet underground and ended under a manhole cover in a Duty Free parking lot in the U.S., where a false-bottomed van would park on top so people could climb in from below, simultaneously loading kilos of drugs.

The owner of the house on this side, Gabriel Lozano, was cleared of all charges. He claimed to have been renting out the house at the time, and the “Casa del Tunel,” the tunnel house now serves as an experimental art gallery.

RELATED: Donald Trump to Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nieto: What Wall?

Whether by air, sea, land, or subterranean routes, smugglers have devised both tech-savvy and laughably do-it-yourself ways to thwart our nation’s physical barriers—including handmade catapults and hairspray-propelled spud guns. They have even attached cheap GPS devices and drug packages to the vehicles of so-called “blind mules” and just crossed their fingers in waiting.

On one occasion smugglers attempted to drive a Jeep up a makeshift ramp and over the 14-foot border fence into Yuma, Arizona. Border authorities retrieved the vehicle, but its passengers escaped into Mexico along with its contents—presumably drugs or humans.

Last year, a 28-year-old Honduran drug mule decked out in scuba gear was discovered, along with almost $2 million worth of cocaine—55 pounds, distributed among 25 weighted down parcels—at the end of a 150-foot partially underwater tunnel leading from Mexicali into the All-American Canal, an aqueduct near Yuma, Arizona.

More elaborately, almost $194 million worth of cocaine was discovered aboard a so-called narco-submarine in March off the Pacific coast. The vessel took on water and sank before the drugs could be recovered by authorities. But according to the U.S. Foreign Military Studies Office, this method of drug trafficking, as of mid-2012, accounted for up 80 percent of the illicit drugs travelling from the Andean states toward mid-way points, like Mexico, before the drugs eventually reach their final destination, the U.S. It remains the world’s largest cocaine market, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

However, sometimes smugglers, traffickers, and hopeful aliens need not try such complicated machinations. It’s easier just to find allies among corruptible law enforcement officials.

No wall is going to take care of that.

Last year, a Los Angeles police officer was indicted by federal authorities for human smuggling after border patrol agents discovered a 26-year-old Mexican man hiding in the spare tire compartment of his vehicle.

Trump hopes to hire 5,000 fresh new Customs and Border Protection agents, but there’s a sorry record of some of those already on duty caught serving the interests of cartels and criminals.

In February, 38-year-old former CBP officer Johnny Acosta was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for his role in conspiring to import more than 1,000 kilos of marijuana into Arizona, and accepting bribes. The previous month, in Texas, officer Julio Trujillo was arrested over allegations he accepted bribes in exchange for extending and facilitating visas.
Only a few days ago, 50-year-old CBP officer Jose Luis Cota was arrested for receiving sexual favors and large sums of cash, after repeatedly allowing illegal aliens to enter the country through his lane at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. The following day, 20-year veteran CBP officer Lawrence Madrid was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for immigrant smuggling and accepting bribes.

The corruption scandals within Homeland Security ranks are constant and ongoing. The CBP staff of roughly 60,000 employees has nearly doubled over the past decade, yet there continues to be little oversight for the agency, whose operating budget is now a staggering $12 billion.

“The true levels of corruption within CBP are not known,” according to a 2015 Homeland Security report on CBP integrity. “There is data indicating that arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other federal law enforcement agencies.”

Trump’s claim that the government can easily and cost-effectively achieve border security using “above and below ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance, and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels, and keep out criminal cartels,” is just not supported by empirical evidence.

A 2015 report from the Department of Homeland Security called Customs and Border Protection’s own drone patrol system a “dubious achiever.”

“After spending eight years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, U.S. CBP has yet to prove the value of its Unmanned Aircraft System (drone) program while drastically understating the costs,” the report reads (PDF), recommending that the CBP “abandon plans to spend $443 million more on additional aircraft and put those funds to better use.”

An audit of the drone program found that the estimated cost of operating each drone in the program had ballooned from $2,468 an hour in theory, to a whopping $12,255 in practice—once factoring in the cost of salaries, equipment, and overhead.

Inspector General John Roth concluded that there is “no evidence that the drones contribute to a more secure border.” And in fact, the audit also found that unmanned aircraft even failed to meet the promised number of airborne hours, spending 88 percent of the time grounded due, primarily, to weather restrictions.

An expanded Inspector General report found that ground sensors failed to produce a significant increase in border apprehensions, and in many cases failed to detect human or vehicular traffic, while often reacting to false triggers like animals and weather changes (PDF).

And then there is Trump’s claim that a wall would deter the flow of guns—but in what direction?

Guns, which are for the most part illegal in Mexico, aren’t entering the U.S. through the southern border—they are coming in here from the U.S., where they are often purchased legally (repeat, legally). This is a major factor contributing to the violence here, which displaces migrants who have been forced to flee their homes due to the cartel violence plaguing their towns.

When the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tried an innovative approach, “letting guns walk” in the now infamous “Operation Fast and Furious,” from 2009 to 2011, the results were disastrous. About 2,000 guns acquired by straw purchasers in the U.S., which were supposedly being tracked by the agency, were subsequently allowed to leave for Mexico.

Dozens of these weapons have since reappeared at crime scenes in Mexico, and several have been linked to high-profile murders, including the scene of the 2011 death of CBP agent Brian Terry, and an AK-47 linked to the murder of Mexican beauty queen María Susana Flores Gámez in 2012.

Another weapon recovered from the gruesome scene of the Flores Gámez murder—after cartel members used her as a human shield in an hours-long shootout with Mexican authorities—was, inexplicably, one personally purchased by an ATF agent at a gun store in Phoenix, using the address of the ATF field office. The agent, George Gillett, has since retired, but at the time he served as second-in-command at the Phoenix division, and was responsible for overseeing the failed program during its most catastrophic months.

When it comes to deterring cartel violence, the ATF program was directly responsible for contributing to the strength of the bloodthirsty Sinaloa cartel—40 of these weapons were discovered in the Juarez safe house of José Antonio Torres Marrufo, a.k.a. “the Jaguar,” who led an armed wing of the Sinaloa cartel.

Unbelievably, one of the ATF’s missing .50-caliber semi-automatic rifles was found at the safe house used by drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán, the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, who escaped from prison through one of his trademark underground tunnels last year only to be rearrested on Jan. 8.

As a direct result of the U.S. government’s disastrous program, dozens more of these weapons have been found across Mexico, in the hands of other sanguinary cartels, including Michoacan’s La Familia cartel, the Gulf cartel, and the Beltrán Leyva cartel.

Trump is right when he looks at all this and says “our country is a mess.” But a wall is not going to solve any of the problems.

Instead of looking toward Mexico as an “enemy,” perhaps he could address other pressing issues, such as the United States’ export of weaponry and its insatiable consumption of drugs. The crime wars these have created and fueled have displaced thousands of Latin Americans, whose best bet for survival is to risk their lives and liberty in an attempt to flee the violence, poverty, and lack of opportunity.

Back in 1979 Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters posed a series of questions that are all too appropriate today: “Mother should I build the wall? Mother should I run for president? Mother should I trust the government?”

The answer to all is, probably, “No.”

Please, no.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International...mists-claim-40-troops-killed-nigeria-42236973

Islamic Extremists Claim 40 Troops Killed in Nigeria

By MICHELLE FAUL, ASSOCIATED PRESS LAGOS, Nigeria — Sep 20, 2016, 10:00 PM ET

Islamic extremists said Tuesday they killed more than 40 troops from a multinational force in an attack on a convoy in northeast Nigeria — the fourth attack in three days following a lull as Nigeria's home-grown insurgency confronts a leadership struggle.

Analysts are warning that the struggle could lead to more violent attacks that will kill more people in a 7-year-old Islamic uprising started by Boko Haram that has killed more than 20,000 people, forced 2.6 million from their homes and spread to neighboring states.

The Islamic State's West Africa Province annihilated "a convoy of the African Coalition Crusader forces" in the town of Malam Fatori, the SITE Intelligence Group reported, translating an IS communique posted on social media. There was no way to independently verify the claim and no word from Nigeria's military late Tuesday night.

Eighteen people were killed Sunday and Monday when insurgents ambushed another convoy, gunned down Christians leaving a Sunday church service and beheaded a village head and his son.

No one has claimed responsibility for the earlier attacks.

Tuesday's was the first Nigeria attack claimed by the IS group since August, when it named a new caliph in Nigeria and provoked a struggle with the longtime leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau.

Shekau pledged Boko Haram's allegiance to the Islamic State in 2015, giving it its first sub-Saharan franchise. Islamic State said it replaced Shekau in August, in a dispute that revolved around his indiscriminate killings of Muslims.

Many more Muslims than Christians have been killed in attacks targeting mosques, churches, marketplaces and schools.

Tuesday's Islamic State communique did not say when the convoy was attacked but claimed it "resulted in killing more than forty and wounding dozens" of troops from Nigeria and neighboring countries. The multi-national force is also battling Nigeria's home-grown Islamic insurgents who have spread their extremist uprising to Chad, Cameroon and Niger.

Analysts from IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre warned the recent lull and drop in fatalities likely will be followed by increased cross-border attacks.

In the leadership struggle, Shekau has reverted to the old name for his group, Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, meaning "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad." They are commonly called Boko Haram, a nickname that means "Western education is forbidden or evil."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-military-parade-idUSKCN11R0VJ

World News | Wed Sep 21, 2016 | 7:05am EDT

Iran parades new weapons at time of Gulf tension with U.S.

By Babak Dehghanpisheh | BEIRUT

Iran marked the anniversary of its 1980 invasion by Iraq by showing off its latest ships and missiles and telling the United States not to meddle in the Gulf.

At a parade in Tehran on Wednesday, shown on state TV, the military displayed long-range missiles, tanks, and the Russian-supplied S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system.

At the port of Bandar Abbas on the Gulf, the navy showed off 500 vessels, as well as submarines and helicopters, at a time of high tension with the United States in the strategic waterway.

U.S. officials say there have been more than 30 close encounters between U.S. and Iranian vessels in the Gulf so far this year, over twice as many as in the same period of 2015.

On Sept. 4, a U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship changed course after an Iranian Revolutionary Guard fast-attack craft came within 100 yards (90 meters) of it in the central Gulf, at least the fourth such incident in less than a month, U.S. Defense Department officials said.

"We tell the Americans that it’s better that the capital and wealth of the American people should not be wasted on their inappropriate and detrimental presence in the Persian Gulf," said Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Tasnim news site quoted him as saying: "If they want to extend their reach and engage in adventurism they should go to the Bay of Pigs" - a reference to the location of a botched U.S. attempt to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 1961.

In Tehran, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri, declared that Iran wanted peace.

"BROTHERS IN FAITH"

But he said Iran's lessons in the 1980-88 war against Iraq now served as a guide for “our brothers in faith” in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Bahrain, countries where Iran has political, religious or military allies.

Among the weapons displayed was the new long-range "Zolfaqar" ballistic missile, named after a legendary sword said to have given by the Prophet Mohammad to Imam Ali. It has "a cluster warhead capable of hitting targets spread over the ground", according to Tasnim.

A banner on the side of a truck carrying the new missile bore a threat to Iran's arch-foe Israel: "If the leaders of the Zionist regime make a mistake then the Islamic Republic will turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to dust."

The Russian-supplied missile defense system on show in Tehran was deployed last month around Iran's underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow.

Enrichment at the site, around 100 km (60 miles) south of Tehran, has stopped since the implementation in January of Iran's agreement with world powers to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions.

Also on display was the Qadr H missile, which has a range of 2,000 km, according to state TV. Iran’s ballistic missile program has been criticized by the West, and the U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on two Iranian companies in March because of their alleged ties to it.

(Editing by Andrew Roche)

Also In World News
Taiwan asks Google to blur images showing new South China Sea facilities
U.S. bombers fly over South Korea for second time since North's nuclear test
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ls-in-Canadian-province-cite-potential-threat

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-security-school-idUSKCN11R1T2

World News | Wed Sep 21, 2016 | 10:19am EDT

Police evacuate all schools in Canadian province, cite potential threat

All schools in the small Canadian province of Prince Edward Island were told to evacuate because of a "potential threat" on Wednesday, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in a release.

The police said the students were being taken to safe locations. Prince Edward Island, off Canada's Atlantic coast, is the country's smallest province with a population of approximately 146,000.

Police in the nearby province of Nova Scotia also closed some university campuses, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. said, adding some of the closures were related to suspicious calls.

(Reporting by Allison Martell Editing by W Simon)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://qz.com/787946/india-is-angry...rrorist-burhan-wani-a-young-leader-at-the-un/

NAME CALLING

India is angry that Pakistan’s prime minister called a terrorist it killed a “young leader”

Written by Ananya Bhattacharya
4 hours ago Quartz india

India has many names for armed separatist group Hizbul Mujahideen’s posterboy Burhan Muzaffar Wani—a terrorist, a militant—but none of them paint him as a hero.

While addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 21, Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, eulogized Wani as a “young leader murdered by Indian forces.” Sharif lauded the 22-year-old whose killing by the army in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has put the state in turmoil that has led to over 80 civilians losing their lives.

Christine Fair)))

@CChristineFair
What a clown. Really? Praising a dead terrorist? FFS. Nawaz Sharif praises Burhan Wani in United Nations Assembly =>
http://
kashmirreader.com/2016/09/21/naw
az-sharif-praises-burhan-wani-in-united-nations-assembly/*

11:01 AM - 21 Sep 2016
110
110 Retweets
86
86 likes

Sharif credited Wani for emerging “as the symbol of the latest Kashmiri Intifada, a popular and peaceful freedom movement, led by Kashmiris, young and old, men and women, armed only with an undying faith in the legitimacy of their cause, and a hunger for freedom in their hearts.” He called India’s stronghold over the region a form of “brutal repression by India’s occupation force of over half a million soldiers.” Most Indians, however, see the gun-wielding Hizbul militants as far from peaceful.

“It is shocking that a leader of a free nation can glorify a self-declared terrorist (Burhan Wani). This is self-incrimination by Pakistan,” Indian minister of state for external affairs M J Akbar told local media in India.

Wani, arguably Kashmir’s most influential militant commander in recent times, was the root of the social media-driven psychological warfare in the disputed state. The son of a school teacher became a tech-savvy member of the insurgency at age 15. Since then, he had taken his group’s campaign for Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan to platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, circulating videos and photos on social media.

Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup tweeted about Sharif putting the young militant on an undeserved pedestal.

Vikas Swarup

@MEAIndia
PM Sharif at #UNGA says India poses unacceptable conditions to dialogue. India's only condition is an end to terrorism. This not acceptable?
Follow

Vikas Swarup

@MEAIndia
Pak PM Sharif at #UNGA glorifies Hizbul terrorist Burhan Wani in UN's highest forum. Shows continued Pak attachment to terrorism.
11:20 AM - 21 Sep 2016
1,537
1,537 Retweets
1,123
1,123 likes

Referring to the decades-long tension between the neighbours, Sharif said “Pakistan wants peace with India. I have gone the extra mile to achieve this, repeatedly offering a dialogue to address all outstanding issues.”

Akbar rebuked his statement when talking to the local media and followed up with serious allegations in response. “Pakistan at this moment seems to be run by a war machine rather than a government,” Akbar said. “Pakistan wants dialogue while holding a gun in its hand… Talks and guns don’t go together.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
ISIS launches chemical attack on US troops in Iraq
Started by*Ordinary Girl‎,*Yesterday*03:11 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...launches-chemical-attack-on-US-troops-in-Iraq

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-iran-syria-idUSL8N1BX4W4

Cyclical Consumer Goods | Thu Sep 22, 2016 | 2:00am EDT

RPT-Abandoning discretion, Iranians proclaim their role in Syrian war

(Repeats Wednesday item)
* Iran leaders present Syria as existential war
* Volunteer fighter numbers rise
* Perceived threat from Islamic State
* Fighters who die praised as heroes
* War deepens region's sectarian strains

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin and Babak Dehghanpisheh

DUBAI/BEIRUT, Sept 21 Abandoning a long-standing reticence, Iranians are increasingly candid about their involvement in Syria's war, and informal recruiters are now openly calling for volunteers to defend the Islamic Republic and fellow Shi'ites against Sunni militants.

With public opinion swinging behind the cause, numbers of would-be fighters have soared far beyond what Tehran is prepared to deploy in Syria, according to former fighters who spoke to Reuters, and commanders quoted by Iranian media.

Iran has been sending fighters to Syria since the early stages of the five-year war to support its ally, President Bashar al-Assad, in the struggle against Sunni rebels backed by Gulf Arab states and Western powers.

Once Tehran described these forces as military "advisers" but with around 400 killed on the battlefield, this discretion has slipped and several thousand are now believed to be fighting Islamic State and other groups trying to topple Assad.

Many Iranians initially opposed involvement in the war, harbouring little sympathy for Assad. But now they are warming to the mission, believing that Islamic State is a threat to the existence of their country best fought outside Iran's borders.

"The first line for the security of Iran is Syria and Iraq," a would-be volunteer named Mojtaba told Reuters by email from Tehran. Mojtaba, who asked that he be identified by only his first name, said he had been trying in vain to get out to fight in Syria for the past two years.

While Islamic State still holds large areas of Syria and Iraq, it has so far failed to stage attacks in neighbouring Iran like it has in Turkey.

Nevertheless, Iranian media have reported the breaking up of cells linked to the jihadist group at home, and the large numbers of people such as Mojtaba willing to join the battle in Syria suggest Tehran has the stamina to pursue its involvement there for years if it wishes.

"DEFENDERS OF THE SHRINE"
Iran alludes to its fighters in Syria as "defenders of the shrine", a reference to the Sayeda Zeinab mosque near Damascus, which is where a granddaughter of the Prophet Mohammad is said to be buried, as well as other shrines revered by Shi'ites.

It is casting its recruitment net wide. As well as Iranians, it has gathered Shi'ites from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to battle the Syrian opposition in what has become a sectarian conflict.

Brigadier General Mohsen Kazemeini, the Revolutionary Guard Corps commander for greater Tehran, said last month there were so many volunteers that "only a small number of them are sent to (Syria)", according to the Defa Press site.

Fighters killed in Syria are praised as heroes on state television and given lavish funerals. Iranian wrestler Saeed Abdevali dedicated the bronze medal he won at the Rio Olympics to the families of "defenders of the shrine" who have been killed.

Some volunteers, disappointed at the long waiting list, take a shortcut. They fly directly to Damascus and volunteer at the Sayeda Zeinab shrine, according to postings on Modafeon, a web site dedicated to news and pictures of the "defenders".

The potent message of protecting the shrines has drawn in Shi'ite Afghans, some of whom live in Iran and others in Afghanistan. These Afghans fighting in Syria under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guards are known as the Fatemiyoun.

SACRED BELIEFS
A 26-year old Afghan student living in Mashad in northeast Iran described how he was sent with other Fatemiyoun to fight in Damascus and Aleppo for about 45 days after limited training.

"My motivation is the same as the Iranians," the student, who asked not to be identified because of security concerns, said. "We are both fighting in Syria, so it shows our cause is far beyond geographic borders. We are fighting to defend our sacred beliefs and Shi'ite ideology."

Asked if he thought Iranian society had grown more welcoming to those who fight in Syria, he said "One hundred percent. When I was deployed, people were saying that they were doubtful if our fight would change anything. But now they respect the fighters more, as they are more familiar with the threats the rebels in Syria and Iraq can cause to Iran."

He said that pay, or the promise of gaining Iranian citizenship upon their return from the battlefield, are also incentives for some Afghans to volunteer. The Afghan fighters get about $450 a month, according to a Fatemiyoun commander interviewed by the Tasnim news site.

Senior officials regularly discuss the role of the Revolutionary Guards and Iranian special forces in Syria in terms of confronting the existential threat that mostly Shi'ite Iran faces from Sunni militant groups such as Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said this appealed more to public opinion than support for Assad.

"Fighting Shi'ite-hating bloodthirsty ISIS jihadists is easier to sell to Iranians than wasting billions on a ruthless dictator who gasses his population," he said.

A video regularly featured on Iranian state television shows a group of children wearing fatigues and combat boots singing about a religious duty to fight in Syria.

"The red lines around the shrine are made of my blood," they sing. Children under 18 may go to Syria to serve in non-combat support roles as long as they are accompanied by a guardian, according to postings on the Modafeon web site.

LESSON FROM EUROPE
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has described the wars in Syria and Iraq, where Iranian-backed authorities are also fighting Sunni militants, as crucial to the survival of the Islamic Republic. If Iranians had not gone and died fighting there, "the enemy would enter the country", he said,

This perception has won over many doubters. Sasan Sabermotlagh, a 34-year-old decorator in Tehran, said he was initially "100 percent" against the war, but he and many others he knows had changed their mind.

Despite Iran's often fraught relations with the West, Sabermotlagh cited attacks staged by Islamic State in Europe in recent months. "Now that people completely know (Islamic State) and after the incidents in France, Germany and elsewhere, you can say that 90 percent of the people who criticised the 'defenders of the shrine' don't anymore," he said.

Sabermotlagh even considered joining the fight. "When I see the videos and the pictures it has a big effect on me," he said. "I think if (Islamic State) or a similar group find their way to Iran then we will suffer similar things."

The presumed glory of the war is such that some people invent military service records to gain others' admiration. In August, Iran arrested four men in Mashad "accused of trying to attract young people's attention by putting together fake stories about their presence on the frontline", a local judiciary official was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafeddin in Dubai and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Beirut, Editing by William Maclean and David Stamp)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-security-proliferated-world-will-require-new-icbm-17781

The Buzz

U.S. Security in a Proliferated World Will Require a New ICBM

The United States will need to develop and deploy a new ICBM called the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).

Dan Goure
September 21, 2016

It’s really quite simple: deterrence of an attack on the United States by a hostile nation rests, ultimately, on the nuclear triad -- intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and bombers. While each leg of the triad plays a critical role in deterring aggression, there are some circumstances in which the land-based missile force could make the difference between war and peace.* For that reason, the United States *will need to develop and deploy a new ICBM, now called the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).

It is certain that in the not-too-distant future the United States will face both more and larger nuclear threats. Russia is aggressively modernizing its strategic nuclear forces and has published a defense strategy that proposes the first use of nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” conventional conflicts with other major powers. China has taken a patient, more deliberate approach but is also increasing both the size and sophistication of its theater and strategic nuclear forces. North Korea has defied decades of sanctions and political maneuvers in its march to acquire not merely a theater nuclear capability but a strategic deterrent involving ICBMs and SLBMs. How many of these systems Pyongyang will eventually deploy is unknown. Finally, it is only a matter of time before the regime in Teheran develops and deploys both nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.

Deterrence of large-scale attacks on the homeland requires that the United States have a secure retaliatory capability. This is the vital role played by the SLBM force. But more is needed. An adversary might seek to execute only a limited attack, against a set of critical military and leadership targets in an attempt to paralyze this country. The United States has made commitments to protecting a number of allies against attack, including with nuclear weapons. This is extended deterrence, the so-called nuclear umbrella. This country also maintains the right to use nuclear weapons to deter attack on U.S. deployed forces and overseas bases. Virtually all planning scenarios for the use of U.S. strategic nuclear forces, including those for “crazy states” such as North Korea, see their use as the outcome of an intensifying military conflict that begins without the use of nuclear weapons and then grows to involve limited nuclear attacks and, finally, large-scale exchanges.

In order for strategic deterrence to be effective, meaning that an adversary chooses not to risk an attack on U.S. forces, bases or allies by conventional or nuclear means, the United States must have the option to escalate to the next level of military intensity. This is the so-called escalation ladder. On each step up the ladder, the United States needs to be able to either defeat/destroy the enemy forces being employed or impose unacceptable costs on the aggressor.

The most important rung on the escalation ladder is provided by the GBSD force. The reason for this is straightforward. If the U.S. chooses to employ long-range ballistic missiles in response to intensifying military aggression, that adversary faces a stark choice: either accept being struck in this manner, essentially being defeated, or escalate in turn, knowing in this case that the U.S. secure retaliatory capability will annihilate that country. But the enemy must recognize that this is the only step on the escalation ladder over which he has control: the one that will inevitably lead to Armageddon.

That is the value of the GBSD force; it poses an insoluble dilemma for an aggressor. The only way to prevent the United States from employing its strategic nuclear forces to deny the adversary the fruits of his aggression is by attempting a disarming attack on them. There are only a handful of targets that involve the bomber and submarine legs of the triad. But the land-based leg includes 450 missile silos in addition to launch control centers and other facilities. This would be an attack of such magnitude that, even assuming the adversary had enough nuclear weapons to attempt it, would cause such damage to the U.S. homeland as to trigger the launch of a massive retaliatory strike. So an aggressor can either start climbing the escalatory ladder with high likelihood of failure or not commit military aggression at all.

It is the GBSD, first and foremost, that provides the United States with an ability to dominate the escalatory ladder. In addition, it provides a prompt, precise nuclear strike capability that cannot be countered effectively by existing air and missile defenses.

While the mission of the triad’s land-based leg is enduring, the same cannot be said for the missiles themselves. The current GBSD, the Minuteman III, was first deployed in 1966. Although the Minuteman III has been repeatedly upgraded and its service life extended, there are limits to what can be done. The current ICBM force is fast approaching that limit. It is not just a matter of rising maintenance costs. The reliability of the overall missile system, to include launch control centers, is increasingly at risk.

The Air Force’s current plan for the GBSD is to develop an integrated system that includes launch and command and control capability. The GBSD program will not only develop a new missile, one based on 21st century technologies, but also design in features that will allow adaptability in response to future threats. The GBSD will help secure the United States, it allies and overseas bases and forces from attack into the next century. This is a capability the nation must have and a program it must pursue.

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

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...its-flag/ar-BBws0Yf?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

Now you can be jailed in Zimbabwe for flying its flag

The Washington Post
Max Bearak
4 hrs ago

Six months ago, a Zimbabwean pastor named Evan Mawarire posted some videos on YouTube. He was fed up with the*corruption and brutality of his country's government, which has been led by Robert Mugabe for more than 36 years. Mugabe is now a frail 92-year-old, but he retains a stranglehold on power.

In the videos, Mawarire is draped in Zimbabwe's flag. The videos were accompanied by the hashtag #ThisFlag, which became the name of a nascent movement, instigating protests over the past few months that were met with police brutality and widespread arrests. In the videos, Mawarire calls on his countrymen to join him in working for change and to reclaim their flag.

On*Tuesday, it appeared that the movement has done just that.

Responding to the use of the nation's flag in the*protests, the Zimbabwean government made the highly unusual*move of*banning private citizens from*using their flag — at least in any way the government might disapprove of.

"Members of the public who participate in any action or activity involving the national flag or to bring the national flag into disrepute are warned that they are liable to prosecution," Virginia Mabiza, a senior official in the Justice Ministry, said in a statement. She added that the government would begin enforcing an existing law that bans production and sale of the flag without the Justice Ministry's permission. Offenders could face a fine of approximately $200 or up to a year in jail.

Mawarire is currently in self-imposed exile after Mugabe and other government officials threatened him by name. Other activist leaders in Zimbabwe have gone missing in the past, such as Itai Dzamara, who disappeared last year after leading protests in the capital, Harare.*Mawarire is currently in New York, leading protests at the U.N.'s annual General Assembly meeting, where Mugabe is in attendance.

"The ban*is a sign," Mawarire said in an interview. "Let me register it as a victory for the citizens of Zimbabwe. This flag belongs to the citizens now, not the government."
Mawarire was joined at the protest by Dzamara's brother, Patson, as well as Thomas Mapfumo, one of the country's most popular and politically charged singers, who lives in exile in the United States.

Zimbabwe is in the midst of a total economic meltdown. It doesn't have a currency of its own. Drought has ravaged the country and left millions in need of food aid. Mugabe has been long rumored to be in declining health, and members of his ZANU-PF party have been jostling for years over his eventual succession.

Read More:
Zimbabwe is planning to print its own ‘U.S. dollars’
Robert Mugabe loves this statue of himself. Everyone else thinks it’s ridiculous.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-weighs-arming-syrian-kurds-ahead-raqa-fight-182105270.html

Pentagon weighs arming Syrian Kurds ahead of Raqa fight

AFP•September 22, 2016
Comments 1

Washington (AFP) - Washington is considering arming Syrian Kurdish forces who will join the offensive to retake the Islamic State group's stronghold of Raqa, the US military's top officer said Thursday.

Though the United States has already helped arm Kurdish fighters in Iraq, a similar move in Syria is more contentious as key ally Turkey regards the group as terrorists and allies of PKK separatists fighting within Turkish borders.

"We're in deliberation about exactly what to do with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) right now," General Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The SDF numbers about 30,000 fighters and is made up largely of Kurds, though Syrian Arabs also form a significant component.

While the Pentagon has already provided military equipment to the SDF, it insists these shipments have only gone to the Arab part.

The United States is helping train and advise the SDF, as they are expected to conduct the eventual push to retake Raqa, the de-facto capital of IS's self-declared "caliphate."

"They are our most effective partner on the ground. It's very difficult as you know, managing a relationship between our support for the Syrian Democratic Forces and our Turkish allies," Dunford said.

"We're working very closely with our Turkish allies to come up with the right approach ... and still allay the Turkish concerns about the Kurds' long-term political prospects."

When asked by a lawmaker if arming the Syrian Kurds would make the SDF more effective, Dunford said: "I would agree."

"If we would reinforce the Syrian Democratic Forces' current capabilities, that will increase the prospects of our success in Raqa," he said.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said no "specific decision" had been taken on the issue. He did not directly respond when asked if he would support arming the Syrian Kurds.

"I support whatever is required to help them move in the direction of Raqa," Carter said.

Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad's regime were pushed out of Raqa, which lies on the Euphrates River, in 2013, making it the first provincial capital in Syria to fall out of government control.

IS rapidly infiltrated the city, which is strategically located near the Turkish border, and declared a caliphate in 2014.

Ousting IS from the city would be a turning point in the conflict and mark a huge blow to the jihadists.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/...-general/131751/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl

EXCLUSIVE: ISIS ‘Will Fight to the Death’ for Mosul, Says Top Peshmerga*General

The Kurds’ chief of staff, who dreams of Kurdish independence, hopes the American military stays long after Mosul.

By Kevin Baron
Executive Editor, Defense One
Read bio
September 22, 2016

ERBIL, Iraq – When Kurdish Peshmerga, Iraqi army, and U.S.-led coalition forces move to liberate nearby Mosul, possibly within two weeks, Islamic State fighters will not abandon their prized city and quietly slink away as many in Washington have predicted, according to the Peshmerga’s top military*officer.

“They will fight to the death,” said Gen. Jamal Mohammad Omer, Kurdish military chief of staff, in an exclusive interview with Defense One in his office*Thursday.

Just when that fight will begin, however, seems out of his hands. Peshmerga commanders said they are awaiting political negotiations with Iraqi leaders they do not trust for a future they cannot predict. But the future is on everyone’s mind. With the battle for Mosul looming, Peshmerga leaders sense they are now on a path that leads beyond the defeat of ISIS, if not yet to the ultimate destination of Kurdish*independence.

Until then, they are cooperating with the Iraqi government. Kurdish, Iraqi, and U.S. officials met Monday in Erbil for the latest negotiations, which a coalition spokesman described as a major step toward Mosul. U.S. leaders have said that operation could begin as soon as the middle of October; surrounding towns already are being*liberated.

“We are ready,” said Omer, who also goes by Jamal Mohammed, or*Jamal Eminki. “If we liberate Mosul, Daesh will be finished,” he said, using the preferred derogatory acronym for the Islamic*State.

On Thursday, Iraqi forces pushed into the center of Shirqat, a town south of Mosul and Erbil along the Tigris river. It lies near Qayyarah West, the Iraqi airfield that has become a key military base for massing U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces that include French artillery units. U.S. commanders in Baghdad have placed a media blackout on the base, as they have over much of the American combat experience here. But the U.S. presence has been vital to the Peshmerga’s success against ISIS, according to several officers, from a platoon commander to the chief of staff, who spoke with Defense One this week at the Bnaslawa training camp and in ministry offices in*Erbil.

“We are still part of Iraq, but in name only,” said Omer. “We didn’t get any military support from Iraq” when ISIS moved into their region. “Many countries tried to help us, to help Peshmerga. They*stopped.”

For two years, the government of Iraq has provided the Peshmerga no military assistance, he said. Instead, Peshmerga watched ISIS move through Mosul, scooping up the arms Iraqis left behind. Now, they say they need Western coalition militaries to send them more weapons, including heavy weapons, to continue the fight and secure Kurdistan. “Who knows? Maybe we will face another enemy like ISIS, so we need to be prepared for*that.”

For now, Peshmerga leaders said, Kurdish fighters will do their jobs by creating lanes for the Iraqi military to advance into the center of Mosul and hand over whatever territory they secured, per whatever pre-battle agreement is made. They know what is at stake for Kurdistan’s*future.

“Our participation in the Mosul operation has some risk. We don’t want a civil war between Kurdish and Iraq in Mosul. There may be some groups that try to make problems between the two peoples, Omer said. “It was good for us to not go inside*Mosul.”

The fight, he said, is not against Iraq. It’s against their common foreign enemy,*ISIS.

“After liberation, we don’t want to see civil wars between minorities. We want the citizens of the city to decide how they want to run the city,” said Brigadier Halgwrd Hikmat, the Ministry of Peshmerga’s general director of media, culture and national awareness, in his Erbil office*Wednesday.

First, they must reclaim Mosul, the prize of the Islamic State’s caliphate, just 40 miles from here. Just east*of Erbil, at the Bnaslawa training camp, Italian and German troops have been training brigades of new and veteran Peshmerga fighters. One non-U.S. coalition trainer, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the program has evolved since he was first here in 2014. It now includes specialized counter-IED and intelligence network*training.

Among the trainees are First Lt. Nawzad Amjad’s platoon of 33 men, who came from the front lines to get 10 weeks of instruction on a range of subjects from urban assault to electronic warfare, communications, and countermines. “Morale is very, very high,” among his troops, Amjad said. “They are Peshmerga. They know what they are fighting*for.”

To explain, the junior officer invokes a word spoken frequently among Peshmerga commanders: injustice. “We don’t believe in any injustice,” he said. Amjad said he has known only injustice against Kurds his entire life. He is 30 years*old.

Amjad spoke at the edge of a mock Kurdish village built of concrete cinder-block homes and two-story shipping containers, the kind now so familiar to the U.S. military, intelligence, and private-military-contractor personnel who have deployed to this region since 2003. The training supplied by the U.S.-led coalition has made “a huge difference,” he said. “Because here, the Iraqi government is not helping us, not supporting Peshmerga. So all support we get comes from the U.S. and coalition officials.” He, too, worries the West will abandon them when they are no longer*needed.

“This time, we hope they don’t do the same thing. This time, we hope they stay with us.**

“To be honest with you, we have no trust with our neighbors – not Arab, not Turk, not Iran. Because they think of themselves as a big fish and they have to eat all the small fishes. We hope that we will have good relationship with the U.S., with the coalition, and this relationship will continue after Daesh, and not just be temporary this*time.”

Across the base, Capt. Tarik Fariq, a company commander, watched Italian commanders teach his men how to take a firing position, don a gas mask, and fire and reload their coalition-provided*M-16s.

“Peshmerga are fighting terrorists on behalf of the whole world,” said Fariq said, who previously was a journalist. “Kurds are fighting injustice,” he said, and they are good at it, but they are weak on equipment. He, too, wants the U.S. and coalition militaries to*remain.

“We hope they will stay and support us,” he said. “I hope they will continue. We are living in this geographic area that is filled with conflict…so always we will need coalition*support.”

Back in Omer’s office, the chief of staff sipped strong coffee. “If you remember in 2011 when Americans left Iraq, you see what happened, the groups such as Daesh, came up,” he said. “Hopefully the U.S. will consider this and look at what happened in the past and what could happen in the future. You have to be careful with your*decision.”

Hikmat, the younger Peshmerga spokesman, said there are two goals ahead: defeat ISIS and win independence. “Certainly. No doubt. Every single Peshmerga wishes*that.”

Omer entered military service in Baghdad in 1982, joined the Peshmerga in 1991, and has fought and commanded Kurdish troops across the entire region. He has the same wish, but a more seasoned outlook. There should be no fight for independence; that should come via public referendums and negotiations. But he said there are too many people who, if they take seats in the Iraqi government, will have the same mindset of previous governments against*Kurdistan.

“In my personal opinion, I do not believe there will be*peace.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/63957/...rcises-conclude-with-island-seizing-operation

Military Capabilities

Sino-Russian naval exercises conclude with 'island seizing' operation

Andrew Tate, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
21 September 2016

Eight days of exercises involving ships, aircraft, submarines, and marines from the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and Russian Federation Navy (RFN) culminated in a simulated assault to seize an island off the Chinese coast using amphibious forces.

Chinese and Russian marines practised an airborne and seaborne landing using helicopters, amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, and rigid raiding craft deployed from a landing platform dock (LPD) and two smaller amphibious landing ships.

Called 'Joint Sea 2016', the exercise, which began on 12 September, took place in the coastal waters to the east of Zhanjiang, where China's South Sea Fleet has its headquarters and a major naval base. In addition to the amphibious assault, the drills included live firings, search-and-rescue, boarding, air-defence and anti-submarine serials.

Chinese sources emphasised that the exercises were the fifth iteration of an annual training event, alternately hosted by China and Russia, and were not directed at any other country. South Sea Fleet Deputy Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Yu Manjiang rejected "finger pointing" from other countries, which he said was unwarranted.

The exercise director, PLAN Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Wang Hai, indicated that the aim was to improve combat capability, with better command co-ordination using standardised procedures. Other reports noted that much work has been done by the PLAN and RFN since 'Joint Sea 2015' to develop combined operational and command procedures.

Media reports also stated that a new joint command information system was used by both sides for the first time. This improved shared situational awareness, enhanced the flow of information and intelligence and reduced the dependence on voice communications.

Another innovation was to divide the participating units into Red and Blue forces, with greater freedom for tactical decision making, rather than following a scripted scenario. In the air-defence serial, two destroyers and a frigate from the Red force were tasked with protecting an auxiliary, while the Blue force deployed airborne radar to detect the group and initiate an attack using JH-7A fighter bombers.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options�@ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login
(351 of 629 words)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKCN11T0G4

World News | Fri Sep 23, 2016 | 2:34am EDT

Turkey's Erdogan says U.S. sent weapons to Kurdish fighters in Syria

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan accused the United States of supplying more weapons to Kurdish fighters in northern Syria this week, delivering two plane loads of arms to what Ankara says is a terrorist group.

Erdogan's comments, in a speech in New York on Thursday, are likely to add to tensions between Turkey and Washington over U.S. support for Kurdish YPG forces involved in operations against Islamic State fighters.

Turkey is part of the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State but views the Syrian Kurdish YPG and its PYD political wing as an extension of Kurdish militants who have waged a three-decade insurgency on its own soil.

"If you think you can finish off Daesh with the YPG and PYD, you cannot, because they are terrorist groups too," Erdogan said in comments broadcast on Turkish television, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

"Three days ago America dropped two plane loads of weapons in Kobani for these terror groups," he said, adding he had raised the issue on Wednesday with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden who he said had no knowledge of this.

The United States, which sees the YPG as a major strategic partner in the fight against Islamic State in Syria, air-dropped weapons to the group in the largely Kurdish town of Kobani in 2014. Erdogan said that half of those arms were seized by Islamic State fighters.

Kobani was besieged by Islamic State for four months in late 2014 and is about 35 km (20 miles) east of the Syrian border town of Jarablus, which Turkey-backed rebels seized a month ago in an operation dubbed "Euphrates Shield".

That operation is designed to clear Islamic State fighters from Turkey's southern border area but it has also brought Turkish and Syrian rebel forces into conflict with the YPG.

Erdogan's spokesman Ibrahim Kalin on Thursday ruled out the possibility of Turkey joining an operation by coalition forces against Islamic State militants in their stronghold of Raqqa if the YPG also takes Kurdish fighters also take part.

The Turkish border town of Kilis was struck on Thursday by three rockets, fired from Islamic State-controlled territory in Syria, which wounded eight civilians including six children, the Turkish military said.

(Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by David Dolan and Ralph Boulton)

Also In World News
Jets pound rebel-held Aleppo after army offensive declared: rescue worker, monitor
Iraqi army says it recaptured key town south of Mosul
 
Top