WAR 1-21-2017-to-01-27-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nato-mattis-idUSKBN15B05K

World News | Thu Jan 26, 2017 | 8:40pm EST

Mattis stresses commitment to NATO to German defense chief: Pentagon

Defense Secretary James Mattis stressed the United States' commitment to NATO in a telephone call with Germany's defense minister on Thursday, the Pentagon said.

Mattis assured German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen of "the United States’ enduring commitment to the NATO alliance," the Pentagon said in a statement.

It said Mattis discussed the importance of NATO in a separate call with French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. In a call with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Mattis underscored his "unwavering commitment to Israel's security," the Pentagon said.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Writing by the Washington Newsroom; Editing by Sandra Maler)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/18...out-cold-test-of-nuclear-device-on-Oct-6-1984

Pakistan secretly carried out cold test of nuclear device on Oct 6, 1984

By Ansar Abbasi
January 27, 2017

ISLAMABAD: On October 6, 1984 -- two years after President General Ziaul Haq assured US President Ronald Reagan that Islamabad will not build a nuclear bomb -- Pakistan carried out a cold test of its nuclear bomb with 100% success.

A confidential letter dated 10 Dec 1984, addressed to President Ziaul Haq and written by Director Project Dr A Q Khan of Khan Research Laboratories Kahuta, shared the good news of confirmation of the successful test of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

“My team and I are thus ready to carry out any task in this field at a very short notice which the President may wish to order,” read the latter, which speaks volumes about how intelligently late President Ziaul Haq helped built Pakistan nuclear programme despite the strong opposition of United States, India, Israel and others.

The letter, informed the then president:*

“1. A cold test was performed on 6.10.84 with utmost secrecy and discreetness to check all the important parameters (time of initiation and total number of neutrons etc) of a nuclear weapon. Each and every component was manufactured by KRL engineers & scientists. Extensive instrumentation was done to record all the important signals/parameters.

“2. A 22-page report containing the minutest details, graphs, charts, oscillograph signal tracings, experimental set-up etc was given to 4 nuclear weapons experts on 26.11.84. After a thorough examination of it for 2 days, and then 4 hours of face to face discussions and cross-examination, they were pleased to confirm that ours was a 100% successful test, and has we put U235 as target instead of the high density tungsten alloy it would have been a highly successful nuclear explosion. My team and I are thus ready to carry out any task in this field at a very short notice which the President may wish to order…..”

Thursday newspapers while referring to the declassified documents of America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) revealed that late General Ziaul Haq had promised United States that he will not build a nuclear bomb.

Former US President Ronald Reagan, in his letter addressed to late Ziaul Haq, had expressed his concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear programme. CIA documents stated that Zia, in his letter to Reagan, in 1982 had assured him that Pakistan had no intention of making nuclear weapons.

Zia wrote that he was saddened when the US ambassador told him that they had certified information of Pakistan making efforts for acquiring nuclear weapons. “The capabilities of Pakistan’s nuclear programme are limited and the objective of this propaganda is to divert the attention of the prevalent regional situation,” President Zia wrote to Reagan.

Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the man who decided to make Pakistan a nuclear state and had initiated the work to achieve the goal. When he was removed through a military coup by General Ziaul Haq, there were apprehensions that the military regime will reverse the programme.

However, history proved that despite the strong opposition of US, India, Israel and other international players, late Ziaul Haq without being vocal on this particular issue was secretly pursuing country’s nuclear programme.*
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...include-little-boys-girls-and-now-babies.html

SUICIDE ANTIVAXXERS

Boko Haram Suicide Squads Include Little Boys, Girls, and Now Babies

It’s not enough to slaughter the innocents with explosives. The Nigerian terror group targets the vaccination campaigns that try to save them from disease.

Philip Obaji Jr.
01.24.17 10:05 PM ET

WARRI, Nigeria—What we call Boko Haram is a fractured, brutal, and deeply cynical collection of killers supposedly waging a religious war against the government of Nigeria. But as the government’s military offensive continues to deprive them of territory, these would-be holy warriors have resorted to the use of women and children, even infants, as part of their suicide-bombing avant-garde. And at the same time they have targeted public health programs, trying to stop campaigns to vaccinate children, and thus putting many tens of thousands at risk.

All this is done in the name of what they call Islam. But this has become a war on innocents.
***

The town of Madagali, located just at the edge of Sambissa forest in Nigeria’s northeastern Adamawa state, is a place where Boko Haram often uses young girls as walking bombs. Since Nigerian forces regained control of the town in 2015, over 100 people have been killed by female bombers in four separate attacks in Madagali. But after last month’s deadly bombing in which 56 civilians were killed, security was beefed up. Now anyone entering the town is searched first by local vigilantes—and then by the military.

This new screening system—though of much greater risk to security personnel—has proved effective. A couple of intended suicide attacks have been foiled this month by members of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF), a group of locals helping the military fight Boko Haram, and also by Nigerian soldiers.

On Jan. 4, three female suicide bombers were shot dead in Bakin Dutse, a village in Gulak town close to Madagali. Officials said the three girls had planned to attack a market in Gulak before they were intercepted.

“On seeing them [the suicide bombers] fast approaching, they [the CJTF] asked them to stop, but the girls declined, instead running faster, so one was instantly gunned down and the bomb on her body exploded. So also the second girl,” said Yusuf Gulak, a local official, in an interview with ICIR Nigeria. “The third girl attempted to run but could not succeed as she was also shot dead.”

A week before this incident, the CJTF foiled an attempt by two female suicide bombers to attack a cattle market in the restive city of Maiduguri in neighboring Borno state. The vigilantes suspected they were carrying bombs when the girls rushed passed security and began to roam around the market. One of them accidentally blew herself up as the CJTF came after her, and the other was arrested by the vigilante group.

After these failures, Boko Haram adopted a new form of attack—bombing with babies.

Two weeks ago, three female suicide bombers blew themselves up, killing at least 11 people and injuring 14 others as they approached a CJTF checkpoint entering Madagali.

One of the suicide bombers had a baby on her back, an apparent move to fool security officials into believing that she was a nursing mother and, as such, shouldn’t be suspected of being a terrorist.

Witnesses said she was wearing a long hijab, or veil, which covered the baby, and in-between her and the child was a bomb which the infant was resting against.

“She was the first to approach the vigilantes, who didn’t suspect her because she was carrying a baby,” a member of the CJTF who had been briefed on the incident by colleagues who were present, told The Daily Beast. “After she slipped through, she stood at a corner waiting for the other girls.”

But the others appeared to be too scared of passing through security as they kept roaming round the checkpoint, reluctant to advance. When men from the CJTF approached them, they detonated their devices, killing a couple of the vigilantes in the process. The first suicide bomber then blew up herself and the baby.

“She must have thought that she would be shot by the soldiers nearby if she didn’t act fast,” the CJTF member said. “It appeared their main target was actually the market close to the checkpoint.”

The use of innocent infants as forced accomplices in suicide bombings has been tested by the jihadists in the past, but without so much success.

On Nov. 28, precisely, a woman suicide bomber carrying a baby on her back was shot by soldiers at a checkpoint in Maiduguri. Her explosives detonated as a result of the shot, killing the woman and the baby. Since then, no suicide attack involving a baby has been reported.

Earlier, when the jihadists began to deploy female suicide bombers, the girls had bombs tied firmly to their backs in the same manner used by many women to carry their children in northern Nigeria.

“Now that the CJTF is aware of this trick, it is going to be more vigilant,” said Yusuf Mohammed, an advisor to the vigilante group, based in Maiduguri. “No one is going overlook any lady because she is pregnant, or because she is carrying a baby.”

***

The use of innocents to kill innocents took another turn last week when a 7-year-old boy blew himself up during dawn prayers inside a Maiduguri mosque.

Among those killed was Aliyu Mani, the director of veterinary medicene at the University of Maiduguri. The highly respected 59-year-old professor died on the spot.

His young, schoolboy killer had been sent on his mission of death by the Boko Haram faction that’s headed by Abubakar Shekau, a man even the so-called Islamic State won’t accept as legitimate.

Authorities said a second suicide bomber—a teenage girl—was seen in a separate wing of the school speaking to herself. When officials asked her to identify herself, she detonated her bomb and died.

Shekau, in a released audio message, claimed the group carried out the attack because the university was mixing “Islam with democracy.”

“We carried out the attack in the morning and I am speaking to you this evening,” he said in the local Hausa language. “Here in Maiduguri… you will see more of these attacks.”

Shekau did not make a specific link, but the bombing at the university came just days after the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a mass vaccination campaign to protect more than 4 million children—aged 6 to 10—in northeastern Nigeria against the potentially deadly measles virus.

Immediately, some locals in Maiduguri began spreading rumors that the vaccines are stored in the university’s medical department, thus making it a likely Boko Haram target. And professor Mani, the victim with the biggest profile, has been a leading voice in the call for regular vaccinations for students and practitioners in the field.

“He stands for everybody without segregation,” said Philemon Columbus, a veterinary medicine lecturer at the University of Abuja in Nigeria’s capital city, who studied under Mani. “He does not look at religion. He does not look at ethnicity. He’s so transparent.”

***

Boko Haram has never hidden its hatred for vaccinations and those who carry them out, and it can draw on deep currents of suspicion.

Vaccinations—especially polio vaccinations—are widely viewed not just by Boko Haram, but by a number of Muslim clerics in northern Nigeria, as a conspiracy to sterilize young girls and eliminate the country’s Muslim population.

In 2003, a Kano physician heading the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria said the medicine had been “corrupted and tainted by evildoers from America and their Western allies.” Not long after that, the Kano state government suspended polio immunization for 13 months as suspicion surrounding the program grew. As a result, the number of infections increased massively and the virus spread to 17 countries that had been polio-free.

Deadly attacks on health workers involved with vaccination campaigns in Nigeria started in 2012 not long after the trend began in Pakistan, where militants accused them of spying for the U.S. following reports that a Pakistani doctor ran a fake vaccination program to help the CIA track down and kill Osama bin Laden.

In October of that year, two police officers involved in guarding an immunization campaign were shot and killed in Kano by suspected Boko Haram militants.

The jihadists are also believed to have killed nine female polio vaccinators in two shootings at health centers in northwestern Nigeria nearly five years ago. In the first attack in February 2013 in Kano, the biggest city in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, the polio vaccinators were shot dead by gunmen who drove up on a motor tricycle. Half an hour later gunmen targeted a clinic in the Unguwa Uku neighbourhood—just outside Kano—as the vaccinators prepared to start work. Four people were killed in the incident.

***

Why take such risks to immunize children against measles, a disease many in the West see as a minor problem?

In fact the disease claimed more than 134,000 lives globally in 2015, and in Nigeria’s Borno state, for example, more than 77 percent of children younger than 5 have never received the vaccine.

“Massive disruption to health services in conflict-affected areas for many years has deprived these children of essential childhood vaccinations,” said Wondimagegnehu Alemu, WHO Representative in Nigeria, in a statement by the organization. “In addition, many of them have severe malnutrition, making them extremely vulnerable to serious complications and death from measles.”

But Boko Haram will see this move as un-Islamic—a Western plot against it—and to fight back against this effort to save children, it may well use its new weapons of choice: the children themselves.
*
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...at-flashpoint-town/ar-AAmiIwe?ocid=spartandhp

Turkey's Syria offensive stalls at flashpoint town

AFP
Fulya OZERKAN
10 hrs ago

Turkey is enduring the biggest challenge of a five-month military campaign inside Syria as it battles to capture the town of Al-Bab from Islamic State (IS) jihadists, taking heavy casualties and testing an army stretched by post-coup purges.

The ambitious "Euphrates Shield" operation -- with Turkish forces backing pro-Ankara Syrian rebels in an unprecedented incursion -- began in spectacular style in August as the army ousted jihadists from a succession of border towns including Jarabulus.

But Al-Bab, which symbolically means "The Gate" in Arabic, has proved far tougher, with Turkish officials predicting repeatedly in the last few weeks that it will be taken imminently but with no clear end in sight.

At least 48 Turkish soldiers have been killed in the incursion so far, according to an AFP tally, the vast majority in the battle for Al-Bab since the fight for the town began on December 10.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed on Friday that Turkey would "finish the job" in Al-Bab, but indicated it was not necessary to push any deeper inside Syria.

Turkey has repeatedly complained of being isolated by its NATO allies in the operation, although Ankara has recently won some backing from its newfound ally Moscow.

But the operation has come with NATO's second largest standing army facing troubles after the failed July putsch, with more than 6,000 soldiers and 168 generals -- half the entire pre-coup contingent -- arrested in the crackdown.

Showing the tremors from the coup are still shaking the army, several soldiers who had been due to go on trial last week did not appear in court in Istanbul as they were waging the Al-Bab campaign.

- 'Syria quagmire' -

"Euphrates Shield is under-resourced," said Aaron Stein, resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

"The rebels Turkey is fighting with are poorly trained and have, for years, proved incapable of taking and holding territory."

Whereas Jarabulus is practically on the border, Al-Bab is 25 kilometres (15 miles) south of the frontier and a far tougher logistical proposition.

Faruk Logoglu, a former Turkish ambassador to the United States and ex-opposition MP, said the Turkish-led campaign "is lacking final objectives and an exit strategy".

Gallery

"The target given is well beyond what's achievable. That's the problem," he told AFP. "Turkey risks being drawn further into the Syria quagmire."

IS in December claimed to have burned to death two Turkish soldiers -- although this was never confirmed by Ankara -- while the corpses of two kidnapped soldiers were returned this month.

- 'Moved forward alone'-

Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute, said Turkey had suffered from the lack of support for the operation from the United States.

"Because Ankara launched its move to take Al-Bab from ISIS without securing concrete cooperation with the US, Turkey had to move forward alone," he told AFP.

"This naturally slowed down the operation. This is why Ankara has moved to secure Russian air support."

In November, the Pentagon said the US-led international coalition was not backing the Al-Bab campaign because it was "independently" launched by Turkey.

That prompted Ankara to turn to Moscow, even though the two countries have been on opposing sides of the Syria conflict since it erupted in 2011.

But Turkey and Russia late last year brokered a ceasefire in Syria and have stepped up cooperation since.

The two countries on January 18 staged their first joint air strikes against IS around Al-Bab, the Russian defence ministry announced.

By taking Al-Bab, Turkey is keen to prevent Syrian Kurdish militia allied to the US establishing a stronghold in the area. Ankara even wants to push northeast to Manbij, where the Kurds already ousted IS.

In January, the US-led coalition also conducted four strikes near Al-Bab and Turkey has greater expectations from the new US administration under President Donald Trump.

Cagaptay said Turkish forces were being targeted by IS foreign fighters who had been largely encircled by offensives in Syria and Iraq and were engaged in a fight to the death, ready to employ suicide bombers.

"For these foreign fighters, there are two ways out: capture by anti-ISIS forces, or death," he said.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...inas_nuclear_capabilities_stretch_110704.html

How Far China's Nuclear Capabilities Stretch

By Stratfor
January 27, 2017

china-icbm-map-w%20%281%29_0.png

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/main/images/china-icbm-map-w (1)_0.png

China has had a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States since the early 1980s, the Dongfeng-5, but it has issues that have recently limited its effectiveness as a deterrent. Its liquid fuel propellant means that it must undergo a lengthy fueling process before it can be launched, and its lack of mobility renders its silos vulnerable to strikes by increasingly accurate munitions. Those threats to its survivability reduce its value as a minimum credible deterrence. China needed to upgrade to a more survivable missile inventory given its historically smaller nuclear arsenal and no-first-use doctrine.

Development of the Dongfeng-41 — a*solid-fuel*nuclear-capable*road-mobile*system — is thought to have begun in the late 1980s, but the program was subject to multiple delays and pauses along the way. Other updates to China's strategic arsenal were introduced in the meantime. The medium-range Dongfeng-21 ballistic missile was deployed in 1991, followed by the intercontinental Dongfeng-31 missile in 2006. With those deployments, the Chinese replaced many of their older, less capable and immobile missiles with*solid-fueled mobile systems. The Dongfeng-31 in particular gave China the capability to strike all of India or Russia, but China continued to rely on the aging Dongfeng-5 to underpin its nuclear deterrence posture against the United States. It was the only missile in the Chinese arsenal with the range to reach the U.S. mainland. This gap was ameliorated somewhat with the introduction of the extended-range Dongfeng-31A, but its payload was considered insufficient, so the capability gap remained.

Chinese media reported Jan. 24 on the possible deployment of long-range Dongfeng-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles in northeastern China close to Russia, triggering speculation in Russian media about China's intent. But since China has had the Dongfeng-31,*a missile capable of reaching all of Russia, for more than a decade, Moscow does not consider the Dongfeng-41 to be an added threat. If anything, the recent deployment of the Dongfeng-41 near the Russian border actually increases the system's vulnerability to a Russian strike, including from conventional weapons. Instead, its deployment is influenced by geography. Given the distances involved and the ballistic missile trajectory from China to the United States, Heilongjiang province is the ideal location to maximize the missile's reach so it covers all of the continental United States. The Dongfeng-5 missiles have long been based in the same region for the same reasons.

China is in the middle of a campaign to expand both the scope and capabilities of its nuclear forces. But the nuances, deployments and developments of China's entire nuclear arsenal must be kept in perspective when evaluating the deployment of its new intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is even more crucial to maintain a close watch on the effect*Chinese nuclear weapons developments*have on the rest of the world. Its evolving capabilities have the potential to increase competition with India, in turn affecting*Pakistan's nuclear growth. They could also*complicate arms control dynamics between the United States and Russia.


This article appeared originally at Stratfor.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/world-order-2-0/

World Order 2.0

27 Jan 2017|Richard N. Haass

For nearly four centuries, since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, the concept of sovereignty—the right of countries to an independent existence and autonomy—has formed the core of the international order. And for good reason: as we have seen in century after century, including the current one, a world in which borders are forcibly violated is a world of instability and conflict.

But, in a globalised world, a global operating system premised solely on respect for sovereignty—call it World Order 1.0—has become increasingly inadequate. Little stays local anymore. Just about anyone and anything, from tourists, terrorists, and refugees to e-mails, diseases, dollars, and greenhouse gases, can reach almost anywhere. The result is that what goes on inside a country can no longer be the concern of that country alone. Today’s realities call for an updated operating system—World Order 2.0—based on ‘sovereign obligation,’ the notion that sovereign states have not just rights but also obligations to others.

A new international order will also require an expanded set of norms and arrangements, beginning with an agreed-upon basis for statehood. Existing governments would agree to consider bids for statehood only in cases where there was a historical justification, a compelling rationale, and popular support, and where the proposed new entity is viable.

World Order 2.0 must also include prohibitions on carrying out or in any way supporting terrorism. More controversially, it must include strengthened norms proscribing the spread or use of weapons of mass destruction. As it stands, while the world tends to agree on constraining proliferation by limiting countries’ access to the relevant technology and material, the consensus often breaks down once proliferation has occurred. This should become a topic of discussion at bilateral and multilateral meetings, not because it would lead to a formal agreement, but because it would focus attention on applying stringent sanctions or undertaking military action, which could then reduce the odds of proliferation.

Another essential element of a new international order is cooperation on climate change, which may be the quintessential manifestation of globalisation, because all countries are exposed to its effects, regardless of their contribution to it. The 2015 Paris climate agreement—in which governments agreed to limit their emissions and to provide resources to help poorer countries adapt—was a step in the right direction. Progress on this front must continue.

Cyberspace is the newest domain of international activity characterised by both cooperation and conflict. The goal in this area should be to create international arrangements that encourage benign uses of cyberspace and discourage malign uses. Governments would have to act consistently within this regime as part of their sovereign obligations—or face sanctions or retaliation.

Global health presents a different set of challenges. In a globalised world, an outbreak of infectious disease in one country could quickly evolve into a serious threat to health elsewhere, as has happened in recent years with SARS, Ebola, and Zika. Fortunately, the notion of sovereign obligation is already advanced in this sphere: countries are responsible for trying to detect infectious disease outbreaks, responding appropriately, and notifying others around the world.

When it comes to refugees, there is no substitute for effective local action aimed at preventing situations that generate large refugee flows in the first place. In principle, this is an argument for humanitarian intervention in selective situations. But translating this principle into practice will remain difficult, given divergent political agendas and the high costs of effective intervention. Even without a consensus, however, there is a strong case for increasing funding for refugees, ensuring their humane treatment, and setting fair quotas for their resettlement.

Trade agreements are, by definition, pacts of reciprocal sovereign obligations regarding tariff and nontariff barriers. When a party believes that obligations are not being met, it has recourse to arbitration through the World Trade Organization. But things are less clear when it comes to government subsidies or currency manipulation. The challenge, therefore, is to define appropriate sovereign obligations in these areas in future trade pacts, and to create mechanisms to hold governments accountable.

Establishing the concept of sovereign obligations as a pillar of the international order will take decades of consultations and negotiations—and even then, its acceptance and impact will be uneven. Progress will come only voluntarily, from countries themselves, rather than from any top-down edict. Realistically, it will be difficult to forge agreement on what specific sovereign obligations states have and how they should be enforced.

Complicating matters further, US President Donald Trump’s administration has espoused an ‘America First’ doctrine that is largely inconsistent with what is being suggested here. If this remains the US approach, progress toward building the sort of order that today’s interconnected world demands will come about only if other major powers push it—or it will have to wait for Trump’s successor. Such an approach, however, would be second best, and it would leave the United States and the rest of the world worse off.

Now is the time to begin the necessary conversations. Globalisation is here to stay. Moving toward a new international order that incorporates sovereign obligation is the best way to cope. World Order 2.0, predicated on sovereign obligation, is certainly an ambitious project—but one born of realism, not idealism.

Author
Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of the new book, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order, from which this article is adapted.*This article is presented in partnership with Project Syndicate © 2017. Edited image courtesy of Flickr user Project Apollo Archive.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/dead-drop/dead-drop-january-27

Dead Drop: January 27

January 27, 2017| anonymous

MR. TRUMP, STARE DOWN THIS WALL!* Well, President Donald Trump’s visit to CIA HQ was eventful.* As one CIA veteran told us – “Trump gave a great five-minute speech” at Langley. “Unfortunately,” he observed, “it was buried amid ten minutes of inappropriate stuff.”* Newly former CIA Director John Brennan let it be known (via tweets from his former Deputy Chief of Staff Nick Shapiro) that he was “deeply saddened and angered at Trump’s despicable display of self-aggrandizement.” So how did things go so wrong?* The Dead Drop hears that the visit was planned on very short notice – but was originally intended to feature the swearing in of Trump’s CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, in front of the iconic Wall of Honor – a site used for swearing in all new CIA officers these days.* When Senate Democrats delayed Pompeo’s confirmation a few days – the visit went ahead, but the event was repurposed as a pep talk.* An experienced White House advance team would have warned the President about the CIA HQ lobby being viewed as “hallowed ground” by Agency officers – but Trump’s advance people are experienced only in handling campaign like events.* (Whether Trump would have listened to advice to keep things serious is another question – but apparently, that was advice he never got).

STANDING OH? President Trump defended his appearance at CIA during his interview with ABC-TV’s David Muir Wednesday.* Trump said to Muir, “I have great respect for the people in intelligence and CIA. I'm – I don't have a lot of respect for, in particular one of the leaders. But that's okay.” He added that he got “the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl, and they said it was equal.”* We didn’t know the Super Bowl was played at Langley.

DO OVERS? If Team Trump wants to demonstrate that the President gets the importance of the wall to the CIA community – they might schedule him for a return visit to CIA around Memorial Day, when the Agency dedicates new stars that have been approved to be added to the wall, and when family members of those memorialized over the years gather. The event is always closed to the press, because the names of all those represented by stars are read out loud – including those who still cannot be identified—and many of the current agency employees in attendance are currently under cover.* While Trump’s participation would not be a media event – his words – demonstrating that he gets the importance of the wall could be subsequently released as they have been in the past.

BLINKING RED WARNINGS: NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly reported this week that Steve Hall, a CIA veteran who ran Russian operations asked her: “…what happens when the CIA collects a stellar piece of intelligence that maybe puts Vladimir Putin in a bad light?” She said Hall asked rhetorically: “…what happens when the CIA briefs Trump, and he wants to know the source?” Kelly said Hall asked one more rhetorical question: “How can you say, no, we don't trust you with the sourcing of that information?”

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT:* Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the CIA, DNI, and Defense Department seeking expedited access to documents relating to possible blackmail information the Russians are alleged to be holding over the head of President Trump. LawNewz quotes Gerstein’s lawyer Mark Zaid as expressing surprise that the CIA doesn’t share his sense of urgency in responding to the request.

SELDOM HURD: *There was a time when service on one of the Congressional Oversight Committees meant that you had to toil in obscurity.* But in recent years, assignment to the Senate or House Intelligence Committees has been a ticket to lots of air time.* Case in point, Texas Congressman Will Hurd, who was appointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) this week to take the slot vacated by Mike Pompeo . Hurd was almost immediately invited on CNN’s The Situation Room to discuss President Trump’s weekend visit to CIA, the possibility of returning to enhanced interrogation, etc.* Hurd, who is a former member of CIA’s clandestine service himself, made an early miscue telling Wolf Blitzer that “the CIA is not always depicted positively within the press, either. They don't have a press shop. They don't fight back.”* Blitzer jumped in to say, “I will correct you. They do have a press shop, a public affairs office. I have worked with them. Reporters work with them. So, they do speak to the news media, but usually on what we call background, not for attribution. But they do have a public affairs office.” *Hurd recovered by saying, “Yes, but they're not coming on shows like this. They're not talking about what they did or why they didn't do this. That is something that you do not see official spokesmen and women from the CIA happening.”

NEW CREW: Now that Mike Pompeo has been sworn in as Director of the CIA, The Dead Drop hears he is busily searching for a Deputy and looking to fill other critical position like Chief of Staff and perhaps Executive Director.** For the number two slot – we hear he is focusing on someone with a background in the clandestine service – talking both to current officials and retirees who might be enticed back to the fold.* Pompeo was asked during his confirmation hearing whether he would keep in place the structural changes that his predecessor, John Brennan, put in place. *He said he would study the steps which the old regime called “modernization” and everyone else called “reorganization.”* The betting here is that, at least initially, Pompeo will have bigger fish to fry than re-wiring the rewired wiring diagram.* That said – the folks most unhappy with the “reorganization” tended to be from the Directorate of Operations – the outfit Pompeo is looking to for a Deputy.

POCKET LITTER: Bits and pieces of interesting /weird stuff we discovered:
History of the Wall: Back in 1990, the first journalist allowed to videotape the Memorial Wall at CIA headquarters, was a very young Wolf Blitzer.* In a tweet this week, Blitzer dug up the video in which he explained the significance of the Wall – which at the time had just 53 stars.* Today it bears 117.

Just a Daesh of ISIL: Jamie McIntyre of The Washington Examiner has noticed one more change in the post-Obama world.* The Trump administration seems to have settled on what to call those evil SOBs in the Middle East. So far they have consistently called them” “ISIS.”* Obama folks seemed to prefer “ISIL”…except when they went with “DAESH.”* Now, if they can just clear up how to spell Qaddafi.

NETWORK NEWS: Not a day goes by when members of The Cipher Brief Network aren’t making news.* Here are just a few examples from this week:

Unhealthy Obsession: Former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin on Monday told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that President Trump’s speech at CIA HQ was “self-obsessed” but adding that “we will get past this.”*

Surge Lessons: General Jack Keane offers some tips for the new Commander in Chief of important lessons from the Iraq Surge on FoxNews.com
Pakistan-Crisis in Waiting: Admiral James Stavridis, writing in Foreign Policy offers four ideas for creating a more stable Pakistan.

WHAT’S ON THEIR NIGHTSTAND? (Our contributors tell us about what they’re currently reading)

Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldmith’s (very extensive) reading list includes:
Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914; Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War; Sean McMeekins' The Ottoman Endgame and July 1914; Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans; David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace; and Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919. **“I'm reading about World War I because I was trying to understand the history of the modern Middle East better, and then I just became interested in the earlier period, which is fascinating, in its own right.”

SECURITY QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
*“The so-called peace process is not ready for prime time. Neither side is prepared to make decisions on the core issues. There is very little confidence and interest.* Nor is it a forgone conclusion, by any means, that the incoming administration is going to focus heavily on this issue. Let’s be clear, if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem, you can probably hang a “closed-for-the-season” sign on the peace process for a while.”

- Aaron David Miller, former adviser to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations

IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING:**Got any tips for your friendly neighborhood Dead Drop?* Shoot us a note at*TheDeadDrop@theCipherBrief.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...il&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-3d0bdedfd7-122460921

Expert Commentary

Defending North America

January 27, 2017 | James Fergusson
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba

The Canada-U.S. defence relationship is unique in the world of international politics. Its foundation is premised on the shared principle that the defence of North America is indivisible. From this premise, Canada and the U.S. further share the belief that threats to North America should be met overseas. As such, this relationship is largely immune to the vagaries of specific governments on either side of the border. Certainly there have been, and will be, times at which Canadian and American policy diverge, as occurred over Iraq in 2003. Nonetheless, the depth and breadth of the relationship ensures that such divergences have little, if any, lasting effect on the relationship.

There is an expectation that the relationship between the liberal government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the new Trump Administration will be a difficult one, especially on the trade/NAFTA front. This expectation is a function of the negative views of Donald Trump held by most Canadians, historical evidence of difficulties due to the ideological divide between liberal prime ministers and Republican presidents, and sharply contrasting personalities, even though both are populists.

On the defence file, the Trudeau government’s core objective is to re-engage in United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts, with the commitment of 600 troops to a currently unspecified African operation (the bet is on Mali). This is directly at odds with the Trump Administration, which holds a wholly negative view of the UN. Even so, indications that the Trump Administration is committed to continuing the war against terrorism overseas will act as a buffer on this issue. Not least because Mali, in particular, is currently fighting against jihadist terrorists. The issue for Canada is whether its forces will be able to rely upon “behind the scenes” U.S. support as has traditionally been the case.

One might also expect NATO (the North American Treaty Organization) to be an issue. Here, despite the priority attached to UN peacekeeping, the Trudeau government has not downgraded its support to NATO in Eastern Europe. It has continued the previous government’s defence support to Ukraine, provided fighter aircraft to Eastern Europe, and has committed to send ground troops and lead one of the NATO brigades currently being deployed to the Baltic states. It is unclear, however, whether the Trump Administration will re-consider its similar commitment to the Baltic states and Poland, given the president’s campaign threats related to allied defence burden-sharing. In addition, much will depend upon the future American relationship with Russia. Even so, Trump has not definitively disparaged the value of the alliance, while the views of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Secretary of Defence James Mattis on the threat posed by Russia suggest that little will change.

If there is any issue that may prove difficult for the binational/bilateral defence relationship, it’s Trump’s threat not to come to an ally’s assistance, as per Article V of the NATO Treaty, if member countries do not invest adequately in defence. This has raised alarm bells in Canada. Canada ranks among the lowest of the NATO allies in defence spending as a percentage of GDP – less than 1%.

Frustration at allied burden-sharing is not, however, unique to this administration. Past American ambassadors to Canada have regularly, but diplomatically, raised the need for Canada, and all the allies, to carry more of the defence burden. Trump has just been a bit more extreme in providing a threat for failure. Perhaps Trump’s rhetoric and unpredictability, at least for now, might push the Trudeau government to spend more on defence, but don’t count on it. Moreover for Canada – to a much greater extent than the European allies – American rhetoric meets geo-strategic self-interest. The U.S. must cooperate in North American defence with Canada in order for the U.S. to defend itself.

There are, of course, lower level punishments that the U.S. can employ due to its military superiority. Canadian defence relations can be downgraded or scaled back, and Canadian access to U.S. defence information reduced. But this has happened before, such as in the wake of the Canadian non-decision on participation in the Reagan Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). But, these have always been relatively shortlived and are more a function of decisions made at lower military levels, rather than by the Administration.

This reality is a function of two additional factors. First, the Canada-U.S. defence relationship is largely beneath the political radar in Washington. Trump, like his predecessors, will be focused overseas on adversaries like Russia, China, and the Middle East, among other regions. Canada is largely taken for granted and thus easily forgotten.

Moreover, the relationship is largely managed at the bureaucratic level. Canada and the U.S. enjoy close military-to-military ties from the level of the Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff and U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, the Military Cooperation Committee, and the binational North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), down to the large number of officer exchanges, bilateral trainings, education programs, and direct experience in military cooperation overseas in places like Afghanistan. All of these act as a major buffer to tensions at the political level.

One final issue of note is the apparent priority that the Trump Administration will assign to strategic ballistic missile defence (BMD) against threats from Iran and North Korea. Although Canada supports the U.S. BMD mission through the provision of early warning assessment via NORAD to U.S. Northern Command, Canada rejected direct participation 2005. Whether this will lead to U.S. pressure on Canada to participate, remains to be seen. However, it is also evident that the Trudeau government will signal its intent to re-engage in discussions with the U.S. about BMD when the Canadian Defence Review is released shortly.

Until the Defence Review is released and U.S. defence policy becomes clearer, it is difficult to predict which issues will complicate the relationship. Regardless, the Canada-U.S. defence relationship has deep roots, first laid out by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938, who said that the U.S. would not stand idly by if Canada was attacked by a third party, to which the Prime Minister replied that Canada would not allow its territory to be used to attack the United States. This reality has not changed. Expect some problems, but little real damage to the relationship.*


The Author is James Fergusson
Dr. James Fergusson is a Professor in the Department of Political Studies, Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba. He teaches a range of courses in the fields of international relations, strategic studies, Canada-US defence relations, and Canadian Foreign and Defence Policy. His recent publications include “Left of Bang: NORAD’s Maritime Warning Mission,” and “NORAD in Perpetuity” with Andrea Charron.*
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ps-preparedness-possible-military-conflict-us

China ‘steps up preparedness for possible military conflict with US’

Donald Trump’s election as US president has increased the risk of hostilities breaking out, according to Chinese state media and analysts

Liu Zhen
zhen.liu@scmp.com
PUBLISHED : Friday, 27 January, 2017, 7:01am
UPDATED : Friday, 27 January, 2017, 9:12am
Comments 61

China is stepping up preparedness for a possible military conflict with the US as the Donald Trump presidency has increased the risk of hostilities breaking out, state media and military observers said.

Beijing is bracing itself for a possible deterioration in Sino-US ties, with a particular emphasis on maritime security.

The People’s Liberation Army said in a commentary on its official website last Friday, the day of Trump’s inauguration, that the chances of war have become “more real” amid a more complex security situation in Asia Pacific.

The commentary written by an official at the national defence mobilisation department in the Central Military Commission said the call for a US rebalancing of its strategy in Asia, military deployments in the East and South China Seas and the instillation of a missile defence system in South Korea were hot spots getting closer to ignition.

“‘A war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality,” it said.

The official People’s Daily said in another commentary on Sunday that China’s military would conduct exercises on the high seas regardless of foreign provocations. China’s sole aircraft carrier Liaoning passed through the narrow Taiwan Strait last month.

The commentary referred to remarks by the US secretary of state Rex Tillerson hopeful that the US should stop China’s access to artificial islands it has built in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

New White House spokesman Sean Spicer told a press conference on Monday that the US would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea.

Spicer told the press “the US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,” when asked about US President Donald Trump’s position on the South China Sea. “It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying responded by telling the US “to be cautious in what it says and does, so as to avoid harming the peace and stability in the region.”

The Chinese military is constantly prepared for possible military conflict whoever serves as US president, but Donald Trump’s possible “extreme approach” against China was dangerous, according to analysts.

Ian Storey, a senior fellow at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said some of the comments from Trump’s key advisors and appointees suggest that the US may pursue a more hardline policy against Beijing in the South China Sea over the next four years.

“As it’s highly unlikely that China will compromise its sovereignty claims in the face of US pressure, we can be sure that the dispute will increasingly become a risky point of contention between Beijing and Washington,” he said.

The comments come as President Xi Jinping is overseeing massive reforms within China’s military to improve its fighting capabilities. A huge reshuffle is also underway in the military’s top brass. Vice-Admiral Shen Jinlong, commander of the South Sea Fleet, is to replace retiring Admiral Wu Shengli as chief of the PLA Navy.

Meanwhile, Vice-Admiral Yuan Yubai, the former North Sea Fleet commander, has been promoted to head the Southern Theatre Command, which focuses on the South China Sea. “Promoting naval officers to command theatres is aimed at utilising them to the maximum and getting ready to win wars,” Song Zhongping, a military affairs commentator at Phoenix TV, said.

The navy has been the focus of recent developments within the PLA, with massive investment and the construction of large numbers of ships, Song said.

China is involved in other disputes beyond the South China Sea, particularly with Taiwan. Sovereignty disputes with Japan in the East China Sea and concerns over the deployment of the missile shield in South Korea are other potential flashpoints.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-peace-idUSKBN15B28O

World News | Fri Jan 27, 2017 | 3:09pm EST

Colombia and FARC rebels to wage joint fight against coca cultivation

Colombia's government and Marxist FARC rebels announced a plan on Friday to substitute illegal crops and eradicate vast tracts of coca leaf, the raw material for cocaine, over the next year as part of a peace deal to end a half-century conflict.

Colombia, which according to the United Nations has more than 96,000 hectares (237,000 acres) sown with coca, manually destroyed 17,642 hectares last year and seized a record 378 tons of cocaine.

Planting of coca was up 39 percent in 2015 after the government halted aerial fumigation with the chemical glyphosate, which was a key part of its U.S.-backed counternarcotics strategy. Colombia and neighboring Peru are the world's leading producers of cocaine.

"The goal is to replace approximately 50,000 hectares of illicit crops during the first year of implementation in more than 40 municipalities in the most affected departments," the government and the rebels said in a joint statement.

The FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, was considered one of the biggest players in Colombia's drug business.

President Juan Manuel Santos and FARC leadership agreed on the crop substitution program as part of last year's peace agreement.

Post-Conflict Commissioner Rafael Pardo said the government would invest $340 million in the substitution program, which he said would benefit 50,000 families.

Cacao and fruit trees are among crops that will be planted instead of coca, depending on soil characteristics.

Colombia's conflict, pitting leftist rebels against right-wing paramilitaries and the military, has lasted almost 53 years and taken more 220,000 lives.

The FARC initially "taxed" coca production by farmers in rural areas under its control but it went on to dominate trafficking in those same areas.

The guerrillas vowed to abandon the lucrative drug trade once a peace deal was reached but other armed groups, including paramilitary groups and other crime gangs have been looking to replace the FARC and take over its old income stream wherever possible.

(Reporting by Luis Jaim Acosta; Writing by Helen Murphy; Editing by Tom Brown)
 
Top