WAR 10-15-2016-to-10-21-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(237) 09-24-2016-to-09-30-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...30-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(238) 10-01-2016-to-10-07-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...07-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(239) 10-08-2016-to-10-14-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...14-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/10/14/army-deploy-1st-infantry-division-soldiers-iraq.html

Army to Deploy 1st Infantry Division Soldiers to Iraq

Military.com | Oct 14, 2016 | by Matthew Cox

The U.S. Army announced Friday it will deploy about 500 soldiers from the Big Red One to Iraq this fall.

The 1st Infantry Division Headquarters troops will assume the role of Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, according to an Oct. 14 Army press release.

The Fort Riley, Kansas, unit will replace soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), providing command and control of coalition troops training, advising and assisting Iraqi Security Forces.

"Our Big Red One soldiers are well trained and ready to continue the tremendous support the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the coalition are providing to our Iraqi allies," said Maj. Gen. Joseph M. Martin, incoming commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley.

"We will assist in training Iraqi commanders, staffs, soldiers and police officers as they plan and conduct counter-ISIL operations in both the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys, with a central focus on the city of Mosul."

In late July, the Army announced the deployment of about 800 soldiers from Fort Riley to Afghanistan.

The service deployed 800 soldiers from 1st Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, as part of a regular rotation of forces to the country in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel, the name of the U.S. counter-terrorism operation against the remnants of al-Qaida; an emerging offshoot of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS; and other terror groups.

President Barack Obama announced in July a change in plans for U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan when he said 8,400 American service members would stay in the country into next year, leaving it up to his potential successor Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to decide on the size of the military footprint there.

The president initially planned to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to 5,500 before he left office but changed course after a recommendation from Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in country. The current authorized level of U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the rest of the year stands at 9,800.

The U.S. troops are split between two missions that will continue -- NATO's Resolute Support mission to advise Afghan security forces and the separate Freedom's Sentinel.

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-possible-crisis-response-in-south-sudan.html

US F-16s in Djibouti for Possible Crisis Response in South Sudan

Stars and Stripes | Oct 14, 2016 | by Krystal Ardrey

STUTTGART, Germany -- U.S. Air Force F-16s and KC-135s were quietly deployed in July to the U.S. military’s counterterrorism hub in east Africa, where they remain on standby amid concerns over threats to Americans in South Sudan.

F-16s based out of Aviano Air Base in Italy and KC-135’s out of RAF Mildenhall, along with airmen in support, were deployed to Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, U.S. Africa Command said.

The move was a "precautionary measure in order to protect Americans and American interests in South Sudan if required," AFRICOM said in a statement.

The deployment came at the request of the State Department and embassy in the South Sudanese capital of Juba, where violent unrest posed a risk to U.S. personnel and facilities, AFRICOM said.

"These assets have remained in Djibouti out of an abundance of caution in response to that situation in South Sudan," AFRICOM said.

In July, AFRICOM dispatched about 50 combat-equipped troops at the order of President Barack Obama to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel amid widespread violence and civil unrest in South Sudan.

The deployment was defensive in nature, officials said at the time.

On July 7, a group of U.S. diplomatic personnel were fired upon by government troops, U.S. officials have said.

"I can say that we do not believe our vehicles and personnel were specifically targeted in the attack," Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, told reporters at the Pentagon in September. "It’s our assessment that the attack was connected to the breakdown of command and control among South Sudanese government forces, and we have demanded that the government of South Sudan investigate this incident and punish and hold accountable those responsible for it."

For AFRICOM, unrest in South Sudan, a country that gained independence in 2011, has been a source of recent concern.

Sudan had been roiled by violence for decades, including the most recent civil war, which stretched from 1983 to 2005.

After South Sudan gained independence, tensions continued with its neighbor to the north, but armed militia groups and tribal conflict within its own borders also posed a security risk.

-----
-----

Note - By the very nature of their location, such an aviation task force is also in a position to fly across the Red Sea and be employed over Yemen, or "further north"....HC

ETA: I see Possible Impact beat me to the second article's subject matter.....

USAF F-16s Deploy From Italy To The Horn Of Africa As Region Simmers

Vipers arrive in Djibouti as tensions rise near the Mandeb Strait and in South Sudan.

By Tyler Rogoway
October 14, 2016
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...italy-to-the-horn-of-africa-as-region-simmers
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...en-*U.S.-just-hit-back*&p=6223644#post6223644

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...increases-airstrikes-militant-held-mosul.html

US-led Coalition Increases Airstrikes on Militant-held Mosul

Associated Press | Oct 14, 2016

KHAZIR, Iraq — The US-led coalition is increasing airstrikes in and around the militant-held city of Mosul as Iraqi ground forces build up ahead of a planned operation to retake the city, it said in a statement Friday.

The coalition said its planes had conducted more than 50 airstrikes against the Islamic State group in the Mosul area over the past two weeks.

"We have been intensifying our efforts in and around Mosul," said Col. John Dorrian, a spokesman for the US-led coalition.

Iraqi ground forces are moving into place to the south and east of Mosul. While Qayara air base to the south of Mosul remains the main base of operations, Iraqi army convoys, including a unit of the country's elite special forces, could be seen traveling to frontline positions to the east of the city.

"All the troop movements now are related to the Mosul operation," said Iraqi Army Brig. Gen. Firas Bashar, stationed at an Iraqi army base in Makhmour.

The operation to retake Mosul is expected to be the most complex yet for Iraq's military. Iraqi and coalition forces say some 30,000 troops will be needed to retake the city that has been under IS control for more than two years.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...alation-saudi-arabia-humanitarian-crisis.html

Will Obama push for Yemen cease-fire?

Author: Bruce Riedel
Posted: October 13, 2016

The war in Yemen is escalating and becoming more dangerous.*The Yemeni people are facing a humanitarian catastrophe.*Unlike in Syria, the United States has significant leverage to halt the war and the suffering.*Unfortunately, the*frivolous override by Congress of President Barack Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has made using American leverage harder at this critical juncture.*But Obama needs to act.

The Saudi-led coalition bombing of a funeral in Sanaa last weekend that killed over 140 mourners and wounded hundreds more has set off a wave of retaliation by the Yemeni rebels who control most of northern Yemen.*The rebel alliance of Zaydi Shiite*Houthis and followers of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh fired missiles at an American destroyer in the Red Sea.*The rebels have long argued that American military, logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi coalition makes Washington a co-belligerent.*The Oct. 13 cruise missile strikes against rebel radar sites — absolutely necessary to protect our ships in the strategic waters — will only add to the anti-American narrative.

The rebels have also fired at least one surface-to-surface missile at Taif, a Saudi city near Mecca.*They have fired dozens of other missiles and rockets at Saudi border towns and at coalition garrisons in southern and eastern Yemen.*They appear to have an unlimited supply of munitions and missiles. Sooner or later, one missile will cause a disaster.

The big beneficiary of the war is Iran.*It provides the rebels diplomatic support and limited military assistance.*In return, it bogs down the Saudis, Emiratis and its other Gulf enemies in a quagmire in Yemen that is expensive in lives and treasure, when oil prices are depressing their economies at home.*Tehran is all too happy to fight to the last Yemeni.

The New York Times this week rightly suggested that Obama use American diplomacy to secure an immediate cease-fire.*The United States and the United Kingdom are the Saudis' major arms providers.*On Obama's watch, over $111 billion in US arms have been sold to the kingdom.*American and British maintenance is crucial to keeping the coalition aircraft in the air.*That also makes the countries culpable in war crimes.

The Times editorial reflects growing unease in Washington with Riyadh's war.*Although the American media is preoccupied with the drama of our election, the mood on the Hill is increasingly skeptical about arms sales to the Gulf.*Despite enormous lobbying efforts, the Saudis face increasing hostility.

The override of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act*passed the Senate 97-1, a massive bipartisan message to the kingdom.*Despite an expensive public relations effort, the kingdom was all but declared guilty of conspiracy with al-Qaeda in the worst terrorist attack in American history by both chambers of the Congress.

As I wrote here in May, Congress has tasked two bipartisan independent investigations to ascertain who was responsible for 9/11.*In 2004 and 2015, the studies absolved the government of Saudi Arabia and its officials of any role in the plot and its execution.*The kingdom is a vital ally against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.*But both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump backed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.*Few, if any, on the Hill read the reports they commissioned.

Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have rightly responded with astonishment at this frivolous act.*Despite many calls for retaliation, so far they have kept their powder dry.*When legal proceedings begin, as they will, the Gulf states will be hard pressed to show restraint.*Whether Clinton or Trump wins the US presidency in November, she or he will inherit a damaged relationship in January.

The damage of the override will also impact Yemeni diplomacy, unfortunately, because it poisons the atmosphere.*Nonetheless, Washington needs to use all its leverage now before the conflict escalates further.*The Iranians would be delighted to see America get even more bogged down in another war in the Middle East.

The international community is rightly concerned with the horrific tragedy in Aleppo.*But it needs to be equally gripped by the tragedy unfolding in Sanaa, Taiz and Saada.*The poorest Arabs are being blockaded by air and sea by the richest with our help.*The coalition should unilaterally impose a open-ended cease-fire, allow an international investigation of the funeral bombing and lift the blockade.*The United States should insist on no less.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-insurgency-idUSKBN12F0HV

World News | Sat Oct 15, 2016 | 10:04am EDT

Egypt retaliates against Islamist militants after North Sinai attack

Egyptian jets bombed Islamist militant targets for three hours on Saturday, one day after Islamic State guerrillas killed 12 soldiers in North Sinai province, the armed forces said in a statement.

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Friday for the attack on a checkpoint 40 km (25 miles) from the town of Bir al-Abd. It was the first major attack in the central Sinai area, which had so far escaped the militants' insurgency.

"A targeted air strike, which lasted for three hours, resulted in the destruction of the areas ... that harbored terrorists, as well as locations for assembling weapons and ammunition," the statement said, adding that the operation was continuing.

Islamic State said in its statement on Friday that it had killed more than 20 soldiers while suffering no losses itself. The military said 15 attackers had been killed.

The Islamist insurgency in the rugged and thinly populated Sinai Peninsula gained pace after the military overthrew President Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's oldest Islamist movement, in mid-2013 following mass protests against his rule.

The group staging the insurgency pledged allegiance to Islamic State in 2014 and adopted the name Sinai Province. It is blamed for the killing of hundreds of soldiers and policemen, and has started to target Western targets within Egypt.

(Reporting by Mostafa Hashem, writing by Asma Alsharif)

 

[Housecarl]

The "Great Game" continues......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-russia-idUSKBN12F0BP

Deals | Sat Oct 15, 2016 | 9:20am EDT

India and Russia sign energy, defense deals worth billions

By Douglas Busvine and Denis Pinchuk | GOA, India

India and Russia signed billions of dollars of defense and energy deals on Saturday at a summit that sought to inject new life into a relationship that has been tested by shifting global alliances and conflict in the Middle East.

Under the biggest agreement, a group led by Russian state oil major Rosneft (ROSN.MM) said it would pay $12.9 billion for a controlling stake in both India's Essar Oil and port facilities that it owns.

The countries, which had strong ties during the Cold War, announced plans for a joint venture to build helicopters in India. New Delhi said it would also buy surface-to-air missile systems and stealth frigates from Moscow.

"Ours is a truly unique and privileged relationship," Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the western seaside state of Goa.

Modi said that his views were aligned with Putin's on the unstable situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East, where Moscow is at odds with the West in the five-year-old civil war in Syria that has killed hundreds of thousands.

"We are conducting a comprehensive dialog on a wide scale of international issues, in which Indian and Russian approaches are close to each other or coincide," said Putin.

Modi also praised Putin's support for the fight against international terrorism, which India accuses its neighbor and rival Pakistan of sponsoring. "Russia's clear stand on the need to combat terrorism mirrors our own," Modi said.

MULTIPLE DEALS

The Rosneft-Essar deal will be the biggest foreign takeover in India, and Russia's largest outbound deal, according to Thomson Reuters data.

It comes as Russia moves to reassert its role in global affairs and at a time when its own economy is stagnant, hit by Western sanctions and low oil prices.

Under the deal, a group led by Rosneft will acquire 98 percent of Essar Oil, and with it a 400,000 barrels-per-day refinery and port at Vadinar for $12.9 billion, the two sides said.

Russian state bank VTB (VTBR.MM) said it would refinance $3.9 billion owed by the Essar Group. Rosneft would pay $3.5 billion and its partners, oil trader Trafigura and investment fund UCP the same amount for an equal joint stake.

The refinery deal follows a string of upstream investments in Russia by Indian companies in recent months that, Modi said, were worth $5.5 billion.

Also on display was Russia's nuclear prowess, with the second reactor of the Russian-built Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu hooked up to the grid and concrete being poured in a ceremony carried by a TV linkup to mark the start of work on the third and fourth reactors there.

Putin said that Russia would be able to build a dozen nuclear reactors in India over the next 20 years to back Modi's growth strategy for Asia's third-largest economy, which continues to suffer chronic power shortages.

HELICOPTERS, MISSILES, SHIPS

The defense pacts will also deepen military ties between the two countries that dates back to the Soviet era, when India entirely depended on Moscow to equip its armed forces. The United States has since taken over as India's top arms supplier.

Indian military officials have said the plan is for the joint venture to build at least 200 Kamov 226t helicopters required by the country's defense forces. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will be the local partner of Russian Helicopters and state arms exporter Rosoboronexport.

The S-400 surface-to-air missiles would strengthen India's defenses along its borders with China and Pakistan, Indian military officials have said. Also agreed were plans to build and supply stealth frigates for the Indian navy.

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of space and military industries, said two frigates could be built in India and two in Russia, RIA news agency reported. Rogozin said the ships may later be equipped with missiles manufactured by BrahMos Aerospace, a venture co-owned by the Indian and Russian governments.

(Additional reporting by Rupam Jain and Sanjeev Miglani; Writing by Douglas Busvine and Euan Rocha)

 

[Possible Impact]

Fars News Agency ‏@EnglishFars 2h
Russia to Remove Visa Requirement for Iran
http://bit.ly/2eie1pn


pete john ‏@petejohn10 2h
Egypt received the Chinese drones Pterodactyl
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2184105.html

pete john ‏@petejohn10 5h
Russia Supports India as Potential Permanent Member of Reformed UNSC
https://sputniknews.com/world/201610151046360375-russia-india-unsc/

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/china...dia-modi-uri-attacks-brics/story/1/13439.html

Why China is shielding Pakistan’s strategic assets

Beijing’s protective armour is clearly part of a plan.
POLITICS*| *5-minute read*| * 15-10-2016

Sandeep Unnithan@SandeepUnnithan

Buried in Pakistani journalist Cyril Almeida’s by now famous October 6 story of a civil-military rift within Pakistan is a nugget as explosive as the story’s main premise. Almeida story in The Dawn hints at China’s discomfiture with Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

Almeida describes Pakistan’s foreign secretary Chaudhary speaking words to the effect that "while China has reiterated its support for Pakistan, it too has indicated a preference for a change in course by Pakistan. Specifically, while Chinese authorities have conveyed their willingness to keep putting on technical hold a UN ban on Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar, they have questioned the logic of doing so repeatedly".

On October 10, Beijing put India’s attempt to get the UN to ban the JeM’s Azhar on another three-month hold. China’s vice foreign minister Li Baodong made a preposterous suggestion that*India was seeking political capital out of the move to designate Azhar a global terrorist. “There should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. No one should pursue own political gains in the name of counter-terrorism,” Baodong said.

Chinese and Pakistani troops post*the launch of their first joint patrol of the border connecting PoK with Xinjiang province. Photo: PTI*

China’s move to block the ban on someone who masterminded high-profile attacks on Indian soil this year at Pathankot and Uri might sound bizarre. China’s block on the ban was raised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he met President Xi Jingping in Goa as part of the BRICS summit in Goa on October 15.

But Beijing’s protective shield is clearly part of a plan.

Pakistan’s deep state revived Masood Azhar’s Jaish-e-Mohammed only in 2014. This followed a post 26/11 diplomatic initiative by India globally spotlighted the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. This culminated Saeed being declared a globally designated terrorist by the UN on December 17, 2008.

China’s blocking action at the UN essentially completes a circle of shielding Pakistan’s twin "strategic assets" — terrorists and nuclear weapons.

In Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the secret trade in nuclear weapons, investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott exposed the sordid truth about Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi’s quest for the bomb. Libya wound up its nascent nuclear weapons programme and surrendered its plans to the United Nations in January 2004 — blueprints for a Chinese CHIC-4 nuclear fission device came from Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr AQ Khan’s nuclear blackmarket. The most brazen peddling of nuclear arms in the 20th century came in a decidedly casual wrapping — the blueprints were wrapped in plastic bags of "Good Looks Fabrics and Tailors" in Islamabad.

The drawings and step-by-step instructions on assembling a nuclear weapon, most of them in Chinese, left no doubt whatsoever of the provenance of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Chinese assistance enabled Pakistan to leapfrog India’s nuclear weapons programme. They had their gensis in two tectonic events in the late 1970s which gave the Pakistan army a new warfighting strategy.

The 1977 coup by General Zia-ul-Haq saw the military hang the initiator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme—the hapless President ZA Bhutto. The Pakistan army took over the civilian-led nuclear weapons programme. It has not let go ever since. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 saw the Pakistan army and its ISI receive billions of dollars of US arms and assistance to fund a war against the occupying Soviets.

China, by now on the side of the US following the Nixon-Kissinger breakthrough of 1972, also supplied weapons in the Afghan war against the Soviets. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan rolled back sanctions imposed by his predecessors to punish Pakistan’s nuclear weapons pursuit. He offered Pakistan a massive five-year aid package totaling $3 billion including $100 million in year in economic assistance and $400 million a year in loans to buy military equipment. The transfers also included F-16 fighter aircraft which gave Pakistan the capability to deliver nuclear weapons.

The nine-year long resistance fought by the Mujahideen and controlled by the Pakistan army’s ISI established and strengthened the foundations of the deep state. By the early 1990s, GHQ Rawalpindi had recalibrated its strategy to what can best be described as a sword and shield: the sword of terrorism/ non- state actors and the shield of nuclear weapons. The Pakistan army would use the sword of terrorism to inflict death by a thousand cuts against India even as the shield of nuclear weapons protected itself against a military riposte.

By the early 1990s, Pakistan’s deep state trained, funded and raised the Afghan Taliban to control the narrative on its western borders, in Afghanistan. Nuclear weapons and terrorists had become strategic assets for the Pakistan army. Multiple attacks on Indian soil began from the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai.

These strikes culminated in the savage November 26, 2008 attacks on Mumbai, arguably the most brazen attempt to test the threshold of India’s tolerance since the December 13, 2001 attack on India’s parliament. The parliament attack led to the massive ten-month deployment of Indian forces in Operation Parakram. The failed deployment led to the drafting of the "Cold Start" strategy to rapidly mobilise Indian forces and mount a swift response.

The UPA government in 2008 resisted the urge to even carry out token punitive strikes against Pakistan’s terrorist proxies. Pakistan, nevertheless, perfected what could be best called a "counter Cold Start"*strategy — testing and deploying tactical nuclear weapons to blunt an Indian military assault.

The surgical strikes of September 29 authorised by the Modi government in retaliation for the Uri attacks in which 19 Indian army soldiers were killed, have demonstrated the chinks in the sword and shield strategy and indeed in the counter Cold Start. Besides the range of political, diplomatic and economic options like the cancellation of the SAARC summit in Islamabad, the surgical strikes have demonstrated the existence of the space for sub-conventional military options.

China’s President Xi Jingping has authored a new initiative to bind Pakistan, Beijing’s "batie" (Iron Brother) in a military-economic embrace. GHQ Rawalpindi is almost certainly working out its new strategy factoring Beijing in its response against India.

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/vladi...a-russia-ties-modi-defence/story/1/13438.html
DailyO

Why BRICS summit 2016 is a game-changer for India-Russia ties

The proof of the pudding is in bold print in the many defence and trade agreements signed between the two countries.

POLITICS *| * 6-minute read*| * 15-10-2016
K Srinivasan@KrishSri59

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Russia remains the nation’s most important defence partner, while Russian president Vladimir Putin, who is on a two-day visit to Delhi, pledged full support to old friend India in the areas of defence and bilateral trade.

Russia's clear stand on the need to combat terrorism mirrors our own. We deeply appreciate Russia's understanding and support of our actions to fight cross-border terrorism, which threatens our entire region, said Modi.

The Russian president, on his part, said that New Delhi and Moscow enjoy close cooperation in fighting terrorism.Modi said both he and Putin noted the similarity of views on the situation in Afghanistan and turmoil in West Asia.

India has raised with Russia the issue of the latter's participation in a joint military exercise with Pakistan days after the Uri attack.

On the trade front, PM Modi said both countries continue to expand, diversify and deepen economic engagement. Businesses and industry between our two countries are connected more deeply today. Trade and investment ties are on the upswing. And, with president Putin's backing, we hope to fast track India's association with Eurasian Economic Union Free Trade Agreement, Modi said.

India and Russia signed several major agreements, including two key defence deals following a bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the 8th BRICS summit in Goa.

After their nearly two-hour long talks, which began with a warm handshake this morning, the two leaders witnessed the signing of a Rs 39,000 crore defence deal to procure Moscow's most advanced anti-aircraft defence system — S 400 Triumph, which will provide India a ballistic missile shield.

In another key deal that is being seen as a huge boost for the Modi government's Make in India initiative, India will initially import and then manufacture Russian Ka-226 T light utility helicopters.*India and Russia will also collaborate to jointly manufacture four state of art Admiral Grigorovich-class (Project 11356) guided-missile stealth frigates.

Even as India’s options have increased today, Russia will remain our most important defence partner, Modi said. The two leaders discussed how to align our defence relations, he added. The PM stated that the importance of this relationship and its unique relations in India’s foreign policy will not change.

They also lay the foundations for deeper defence and economic ties for the years ahead. The agreements on manufacturing of Kamov 226T helicopters; constructions of frigates; and acquisition and building of other defence platforms are in synergy with India's technology and security priorities, the PM said.

India is the world's top defence importer and is undergoing a $100-billion upgrade of its mostly Soviet-era military equipment. India was the erstwhile Soviet Union's closest military ally during the Cold War and a major importer of its military hardware. But in the recent years, Delhi has turned to the United States for supplies, as the two nations forge stronger ties.

Moscow-based OAO Rosneft signed a preliminary agreement to ship by sea as much as 10 million tonnes of oil per year to India’s Essar Group, Rosneft chairman Igor Ivanovich Sechin told reporters in New Delhi.

Russia has sought new markets for its oil and natural gas as the nation’s deteriorating relations with the US and Europe amid the Ukraine conflict prod it toward a recession. Gas exporter OAO Gazprom reached a $400 billion deal with China in May to build a pipeline and start supplies after more than a decade of talks.

The two countries have also agreed to conduct an annual military conference. PM Modi said the "highly productive" outcomes of the meeting clearly establish the special and privileged nature of strategic partnership between the two countries.Analysts suggest that India's big Russian push once again should also be seen in the context of the recent joint military exercises that Russia had with the Pakistani forces.

A joint venture to build Russian Kamov helicopters in India. The plan is to build at least 200 helicopters that the defence forces need, and is part of Modi's drive to build a defence industrial base in India. The two countries have signed a joint agreement on shipbuilding and specialist training in Andhra Pradesh.

The two leaders also dedicated the unit two of Kudankulum nuclear power plant and witnessed the foundation laying of its Unit 3 Modi said the dedication of Kudankulum 2 and laying of foundation concrete were examples of tangible results of India-Russia cooperation in the field.

India has raised with Russia the issue of the latter's participation in a joint military exercise with Pakistan days after the Uri attack in which Pakistani terrorists killed 19 Indian soldiers.

India is likely to insist on the strong condemnation of international terrorism, if not cross-border terrorism, at the BRICS summit.Putin said BRICS is determined to fight the menace. For our five countries' leaders, this meeting (in Goa) will be a good opportunity to harmonise our positions on key issues on the international agenda.
We are determined to cooperate in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and corruption, Putin said. Announcements were also made to boost ties in sectors like trade and investment, hydrocarbons, space and smart cities — Modi said this will help advanced infrastructure partnership.

Both nations agreed to a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism and the setting up of a science and technology commission. Other important agreements include:

A memorandum of understanding to develop transport logistics system
An agreement on education and training
An MoU on urban development and smart city projects
A pact on cooperation between Indian and Russian railways
Space cooperation between Russian space Corporation and ISRO

Reading out a statement to the media in the presence of Putin, the prime minister appreciated Russia's understanding and support of India's actions to fight cross-border terrorism, an obliquely referring to India's surgical strike across the LoC targeting terror launch pads. Modi said the success of the India-Russia bilateral summit has brought the abiding strength of India-Russia strategic partnership into the spotlight.

It also highlights our strong convergence of views and positions on pressing international and regional issues, he added. We also agreed to work closely to respond to the challenges posed by the unsettled nature of the global economic and financial markets. Our close collaboration at the United Nations, BRICS, East Asia Summit, G-20 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation makes our partnership truly global, both in its scope and coverage, the PM added.

The proof of the pudding is in bold print in the*many defence and trade agreements signed between the two countries in the past two days. It infuses a new spirit and a great thrust that India needs at this important moment in the history of its reform and development.


Also Read

Sultan Shahin
@SultanShahin
Islamic theology needs to be rethought to fight jihadism

DailyO

#China fathered #Pakistan’s primary strategic asset, its nuclear weapons programme. By blocking moves to designate #MasoodAzhar a terrorist, it is shielding its other strategic asset.
41 m

DailyO
India has raised with #Russia the issue of the latter's participation in a joint military exercise with #Pakistan days after the #Uri attack.
1 h

Omair Ahmad
@OmairTAhmad
China's new Silk Road will lose to India-Pakistan hostilities

#India-Russia Ties, #BRICS summit Goa, #Vladimir Putin

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of DailyO.in or the India Today Group. The writers are solely responsible for any claims arising out of the contents of this article.

Writer
K Srinivasan*@KrishSri59
The author is a GST reader and writes on macroeconomics and indirect tax laws.

 

[Housecarl]

Though this also belongs in a "POL" thread, the impact of this IMHO also makes it pertinent here as well....HC

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...pan-over-‘nationalist-pressures-’-hacked-emai

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...st-pressures-hacked-emails-show/#.WAJUloWcHmI

Asia Pacific

Clinton blasted China over North Korea, slammed Japan over ‘nationalist pressures,’ hacked emails show

by Jesse Johnson
Staff Writer

Oct 15, 2016
Article history

Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said in a private speech to bankers three years ago that she would “ring China with missile defense” if Beijing failed to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, while also blasting “nationalist forces” in Japan for stoking the Senkaku row, a hacked email has shown.

The excerpts from a 2013 speech were part of a trove of documents from the hacked email account of the Clinton campaign chairman released by anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks earlier this month.

It was not possible to confirm the authenticity of the leaked email, which contained a number of excerpts from Clinton’s private speeches — including several focusing on China and Japan. The former secretary of state’s campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of hacked emails.

China has ripped into a plan by Washington and Seoul to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system to South Korea to protect against North Korean threats. Beijing says the powerful system will harm its security and do nothing to lower the temperature on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test last month, and experts say it is making steady progress toward developing a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile.

According to an excerpt of a speech delivered after Clinton left her post as secretary of state, she told an audience at a Goldman Sachs conference that allowing the North to get such a weapon is not something Washington can accept.

“Because they could not only do damage to our treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea, but they could actually reach Hawaii and the West Coast,” Clinton said in a speech dated June 2013, according to the email.

If the North gets such a weapon, she added, “We’re going to ring China with missile defense. We’re going to put more of our fleet in the area. So China, come on. You either control them or we’re going to have to defend against them.”

China is widely seen as the closest thing North Korea has to an ally. Beijing provides Pyongyang with an economic lifeline and has been roundly criticized by Washington for not doing enough to rein in the North’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

For its part, China says that curbing its neighbor’s atomic push is not solely its duty. It has also said that it lacks influence with the North’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, who has yet to visit China.

The leaked email also saw Clinton recount in a speech conversations she had with top Chinese officials about Beijing’s relationship with wartime enemy Japan.

“In my last year, year and a half of meetings with the highest officials in China the rhetoric about the Japanese was vicious,” she said. “I had high Chinese officials in their 60s and 50s say to me: We all know somebody who was killed by the Japanese during the war. We cannot let them resume their nationalistic ways. You Americans are naive. You don’t see what is happening below the surface of Japan society.”

In a separate section headlined “Japan,” Clinton also apparently had words about “nationalist pressures” in the country and leaders in gubernatorial and mayoral posts who she called “quite far out there.”

Clinton said the actions of these forces had moved the formerly shelved dispute over the Senkaku Islands — which she referred to as “the Senkakians” — to the forefront of the Sino-Japanese relationship.

“Part of the reason we’re in the mess on the Senkakians is because it had been privately owned,” she said. “And then the governor of Tokyo wanted to buy them, which would have been a direct provocation to China because it was kind of like: You don’t do anything. We don’t do anything. Just leave them where they are and don’t pay much attention to them.”

Located in the East China Sea, the Senkakus are administered by Japan but claimed by China, where they are known as the Diaoyu Islands, and Taiwan, which calls them the Tiaoyutai Islands.

Japan purchased three of the five islets from a private owner in September 2012 after Shintaro Ishihara, Tokyo’s right-wing governor at the time, slammed the central government’s handling of the issue and announced a plan for the metropolitan government to buy the islands.

In another hacked speech excerpt, this one from October 2013, Clinton criticized Beijing’s stance on the disputed South China Sea.

“China basically wants to control” the strategic waterway, she said. “You can’t hold that against them. They have the right to assert themselves. But if nobody’s there to push back to create a balance, then they’re going to have a chokehold on the sea lanes.”

In another excerpt, apparently taken from the same speech, Clinton slammed Beijing’s claims to the waters, saying that by China’s logic, the U.S. should have claimed all of the Pacific.

“We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific,” she said. “And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines.”

China has used a massive land-reclamation program to create several outposts in the South China Sea, building military-grade airstrips, radar facilities and hangers for Chinese fighter jets on some of the islets.

In July, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued a ruling invalidating China’s claims to the waters, a decision Beijing has lambasted as “waste paper.”
The hacked document also detailed that Clinton had heaped praise and scorn on China’s current and former leaders.

Referring to current Chinese President Xi Jinping, Clinton called him “a more sophisticated, more effective public leader” than his predecessor, Hu Jintao.

The emails also appeared to highlight U.S. concerns that the Hu-led government had been unable to effectively control the military.

“One of the biggest concerns I had over the last four years was the concern that was manifested several different ways that the … People’s Liberation Army was acting somewhat independently … that in effect (they) were making some foreign policy” decisions, an excerpt of Clinton speech read.

Hu, she went on, had failed to assert authority over the military. But Xi, she said at the time, “is doing much more to try to assert his authority, and I think that is also good news.”

Under Xi’s leadership, China has embarked on a plan to transform the world’s biggest military into a leaner, more capable fighting force. Xi has also embarked on a campaign to stamp out rampant corruption in the military’s ranks.

 

[almost ready]

HC, I think we are experiencing the really, really big black swan event that had been expected on different fronts.

Not surprisingly, it came in on different wings than Deutsch Bank derivatives. It is the wikileaks/Judicial Watch and other outlets bringing in the news bombs. On top of this was the outlandishly foolish publicity of the alt-right and infowars by Hillary in a major speech. Suddenly, as reported by Watson of Infowars, hundreds of thousands of new viewers showed up at their site. More viewed his video response on various outlets.

From Taleb's the Black Swan of Cairo

"Why is surprise the permanent condition of the U.S. political and economic elite? In 2007-8, when the global financial system imploded, the cry that no one could have seen this coming was heard everywhere, despite the existence of numerous analyses showing that a crisis was unavoidable. It is no surprise that one hears precisely the same response today regarding the current turmoil in the Middle East. The critical issue in both cases is the artificial suppression of volatility -- the ups and downs of life -- in the name of stability. ....

Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. In fact, they tend to be too calm and exhibit minimal variability as silent risks accumulate beneath the surface. Although the stated intention of political leaders and economic policymakers is to stabilize the system by inhibiting fluctuations, the result tends to be the opposite. These artificially constrained systems become prone to "Black Swans" -- that is, they become extremely vulnerable to large-scale events that lie far from the statistical norm and were largely unpredictable to a given set of observers.

Such environments eventually experience massive blowups, catching everyone off-guard and undoing years of stability or, in some cases, ending up far worse than they were in their initial volatile state. Indeed, the longer it takes for the blowup to occur, the worse the resulting harm in both economic and political systems. "

Well, here we are. The elite are still in denial. The polls are still being rigged. The democrats are still pounding out their long-planned attacks on Trump. The election will likely be pre-ordained as well as the Bush and Obama's, where I recall the final numbers for Bush/Gore were released in one California town at noon. Whoops. That was retracted, but again published that night after the polls closed.

The black swan might not bring this system down in three weeks, but three years is an easy bet. Probably sooner than later.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/egypt/2011-04-15/black-swan-cairo

While you've probably thought about this yourself, would like it to be part of our overall understanding and recognition. Nobody expected the MSM to be toppled and their narrative to be crushed before the financial system imploded.

Best,
AR

 

[Possible Impact]

Gregor Peter ‏@L0gg0l 4m
BREAKING - MOSUL OFFENSIVE TO RETAKE CITY FROM ISIS HAS BEGUN,
HEAVY U.S AIR STRIKES REPORTED -- IRAQI TV


The Intel Crab ‏@IntelCrab 5m
Intense bombardment of #Mosul now underway.
US aerial support is intense.


Gregor Peter ‏@L0gg0l 2m
U.S ARTILLERY HAS STARTED POUNDING EASTERN SECTOR OF MOSUL,
KURDISH COMMANDER SAYS (via @taylieli ) h/t @MarQs__


The Intel Crab ‏@IntelCrab 2m
Mosul time: 11:14 PM.



Gregor Peter ‏@L0gg0l 2m
ISIS FORCES START BURNING OIL WELLS NEAR MOSUL
TO BLUR VISION OF FIGHTER JETS -- KURDISH SOURCES


The Intel Crab ‏@IntelCrab 28s
Aerial flares are illuminating the night sky over #Mosul.
Oil fields are burnt, as militants scramble to defend their positions.

 

[Possible Impact]

The Intel Crab ‏@IntelCrab 2m
First images of the Mosul offensive.
Intense bombardment that we have not seen in a long time.

 

[almost ready]

Possible Impact et al,

Have you seen any indication that ISIS has taken the administration up on the reported safe/free passage to Syria from Mosul? supposedly 9000 troops were made the offer.

Haven't seen any reports of such movement, and in the past ISIS has been quick to kill anyone who flinched from a battle. Just curious.

Heard that they have the oil tankers surrounding the city on fire, to make it very difficult to enter. Also moats and underground tunnels. Will be a higher level urban battle than most, if it's not a feint and they've skedaddled.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/world/asia/north-korean-missile-test.html?_r=0

ASIA PACIFIC

North Korean Missile Tested Again but Fails, South Says

By CHOE SANG-HUN
OCT. 15, 2016

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile, but the test failed as the projectile exploded shortly after liftoff, the South Korean military said on Sunday.

The North’s Hwasong-10 missile, also known as the Musudan, took off at 12:33 p.m. on Saturday near an airfield in the northwestern city of Kusong, the South said in a statement.

The test was the first involving the Hwasong-10 since North Korea successfully launched the same missile in June. North Korea has had a spotty record with Hwasong-10 test flights.

The June launch was the first successful test after five failures. The projectile flew about 250 miles over the sea between North Korea and Japan, reaching an altitude of 878 miles.

That test alarmed the United States and its allies in the region. Their defense officials said the missile was launched at a sharp angle so it would avoid falling too close to Japan but would still demonstrate its potential to reach an estimated range of more than 2,000 miles.

The Hwasong-10 is the North’s only tested missile with a range long enough to reach American military bases in Guam in the Pacific, and in South Korea and Japan.

After the June test, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, boasted that his country had the capability to strike those bases. But the failure on Saturday indicated that North Korea has yet to perfect its Hwasong-10 system.

The Hwasong-10 is a road-mobile missile, so it can be moved around the country and hidden in tunnels, making it more difficult to target in a pre-emptive strike. North Korea has vowed to build a ballistic missile capable of striking the continental United States with a nuclear warhead.

The North has never conducted a test flight for such a long-range missile. It conducted its fifth underground nuclear test on Sept. 9.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.abc17news.com/news/galle...ional-powers-hold-talks-on-conflict/119601786

Syria: US, Russia, regional powers fail to reach breakthrough in talks on conflict

International outcry mounts

By: LAURA SMITH-SPARK
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 10:41 AM CDT
Updated: Oct 15, 2016 07:26 PM CDT

(CNN) - Talks in Switzerland on the crisis in Syria have ended with no apparent breakthrough.

The Lausanne meeting only included regional powers with influence on battlefield outcomes in Syria, alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry and UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Despite the lack of a breakthrough, Kerry said the parties reached a consensus on a "broad agreement" on a number of important points, specifically a "desired outcome on ending conflict," in his remarks to the press.

The US State Department said that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan were among the regional powers represented.

Lavrov had previously said he had no special expectations for an outcome, while Kerry emphasized the need for an end to the fighting in Aleppo and the delivery of humanitarian aid.

International outcry has mounted over the plight of some quarter of a million civilians trapped in the Syrian city of Aleppo as the Syrian military, backed by Russian warplanes, pounds its streets into rubble.

The talks were only the latest in a long series that have, so far at least, done little to alleviate the suffering of those caught up in Syria's civil war of 5?????? years.

It is debatable whether the meeting ever had the potential to become -- as some diplomats suggested -- a turning point in the intractable conflict.

CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson, in Lausanne, said ahead of the talks it was unclear whether a pause in hostilities to allow access for humanitarian aid into Aleppo was even on the table.

"But if you compare that with the ratcheting up of rhetoric and the increase in tensions between the United States and Russia over the issue of Syria, specifically over Aleppo, over the past couple of weeks, this does give Lavrov and Kerry a chance to reset that rhetoric and perhaps get back to some discussion," he said.

Washington called off bilateral talks with Russia over Syria this month following the collapse of a short-lived, US-Russia-brokered ceasefire in Aleppo and Syria's renewed offensive against the city's rebel-held east.

Ahead of the talks, the Russian foreign minister did little to boost hopes of a positive outcome.

Russian state news agency Tass quoted Lavrov as saying he had "no special expectations" for the meeting and that he wanted to "see first to what degree our partners are prepared to comply with UN Security Council resolutions."

However, he said, Russia will propose "concrete moves" to implement past Security Council resolutions on Syria and the earlier approved Russian-American agreements. Lavrov added that Western partners weren't engaging in "reciprocal steps" to settle the Syrian crisis.

There was also little optimism on show on the US side.

"I certainly don't want to overplay or underplay our expectations for Lausanne," State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Friday, adding that "the urgent need right now in front of us is some kind of cessation of hostilities, at least a significant reduction in the level of violence, certainly in and around Aleppo, and that's going to be a primary focus."

"I would just say that we're looking to get this multilateral effort and approach to Syria up and running," Toner said.

Kerry will go on to London for further talks Sunday with "key regional and international partners" on ending the violence in Syria and the resumption of humanitarian aid deliveries, the State Department said.

The United States, France and Britain are among Western powers to suggest in recent days that the Syrian regime and its Russian backers could be guilty of war crimes in Aleppo.

For his part, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told a Russian newspaper Thursday there was no other option but "to clean" Aleppo and use it as a "springboard" to push rebel forces out of Syria.

 

[Housecarl]

Can we say "land grap".....And that doesn't even get into the reports of cooperation between IS and the Turkish AKP.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-turkey-idUSKBN12F0CY

WORLD NEWS | Sat Oct 15, 2016 | 9:08pm EDT

Turkey's Erdogan says Iraq cannot handle Mosul assault alone

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday that Iraq could not deal alone with driving Islamic State from the city of Mosul and that the presence of Turkish forces in a nearby military camp was an insurance against attacks on Turkey.

Turkey has been locked in a row with Iraq's central government about the presence of Turkish troops at the Bashiqa camp in northern Iraq, and over who should take part in the planned U.S.-backed assault on Mosul.

"We won't let Mosul be given to Daesh (Islamic State) or any other terrorist organization. They say Iraq's central government needs to approve this but the Iraqi central government should first deal with their own problems," Erdogan said.

"Why did you let Daesh enter Iraq? Why did you let Daesh enter Mosul? They were almost going to come to Baghdad. Where are you, the central government of Iraq?" he said in a speech at a ceremony in the Black Sea town of Rize, broadcast live on TV.

Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi reiterated on Saturday that the Turkish troops have deployed in Iraq without the authorization of the government.

"I won't allow the Turkish forces to take part in the operations to liberate Mosul in any possible way," he added in comments aired on Iraqi state TV.

Turkey fears that Shi'ite militias, which the Iraqi army has relied on in the past, will be used in the planned Mosul offensive, expected to start this month, stoking sectarian unrest and triggering an exodus of refugees.

Turkish soldiers have been training Sunni Muslim and allied Kurdish peshmerga units at the Bashiqa camp near Mosul, and want them to be involved in the assault.

"Nobody should talk about our Bashiqa base. We will stay there. Bashiqa is our insurance against any kind of terrorist activities in Turkey," Erdogan said.

The United States has said any foreign forces in Iraq should have the approval of Baghdad.

(Reporting by Nick Tattersall in Istanbul and Maher Chmaytelli in Baghdad; Editing by Andrew Bolton and Hugh Lawson)

RELATED COVERAGE

VIDEO: Iraq prepares for Mosul push

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-bomb-suspect-idUSKBN12F07R

WORLD NEWS | Sat Oct 15, 2016 | 6:00pm EDT

Syrian bombing suspect in Germany spoke to IS contact about attack plans: newspaper

By Michelle Martin | BERLIN
A Syrian refugee arrested on suspicion of planning a major attack in Berlin spoke to a member of Islamic State in Syria by telephone about a possible target a day before German police discovered explosives in his apartment, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

Jaber Albakr was detained on Monday, two days after police discovered about 1.5 kg of explosives in his apartment. He was found dead in prison on Wednesday. Authorities said he had committed suicide.

Germany's Welt am Sonntag (WamS) cited investigation sources as saying U.S. intelligence had provided a tip-off about Albakr after tapping several phone calls between him and an Islamic State member in Syria. During the calls, 22-year-old Albakr spoke about his attack plans, the newspaper said.

In a call on Oct. 7, Albakr told his contact that 2 kg of explosives were ready and he named a possible target, saying a "big airport in Berlin" was "better than trains", WamS reported.

In July, the militant group claimed responsibility for two attacks in the German state of Bavaria - one on a train near Wuerzburg and the other at a music festival in Ansbach that wounded 20 people.

WamS said federal prosecutors investigating the case assumed that Albakr wanted to make a vest packed with explosives for an attack.

The head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency (BfV) has said Albakr was building a bomb and probably planned to attack one of the airports in Berlin.

Investigators said on Monday they believed Albakr was close to staging an attack comparable to those that killed 130 people in Paris last November and 32 in Belgium in March. They suspect he was inspired by the Islamic State militant group.

Albakr arrived in Germany in February 2015 during a migrant influx into the country and was granted temporary asylum four months later.

The man who rented the flat in the eastern city of Chemnitz in which Albakr last lived - a 33-year-old Syrian who WamS named as Khalil A. - is in custody and is being investigated on suspicion of helping Albakr, the newspaper said.

Separately, German broadcaster ARD said Tegel airport in Berlin was possibly Albakr's attack target. Without naming its sources, ARD said Albakr went to Berlin one weekend in the second half of September to spy out Tegel.

Bus tickets, among other things, proved that, the broadcaster said.

The Berliner Morgenpost newspaper and the regional broadcaster rbb cited federal security sources as saying Albakr met a contact in Berlin while he was in the capital.

The newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (F.A.S.) said train tickets that investigators found in Albakr's possessions were key to uncovering the Berlin trip.

The federal prosecutor's office declined to comment on media reports when contacted by Reuters.

F.A.S. cited a spokesman for the federal prosecutor's office as saying there were not yet "enough links to IS that could be used in court".

German security sources told Reuters that Albakr had traveled to Turkey after receiving asylum in Germany and spent several months there this summer.

F.A.S. said Albakr landed in the eastern German city of Leipzig at the end of August on his return from Turkey. The newspaper cited investigators as saying Albakr had already planned an attack at that point.

(Reporting by Michelle Martin; Editing by Andrew Bolton and Mary Milliken)

 

[Possible Impact]

Sa'ka ‏@BTelawy 3h
Egypt is set to receive the last batchs of the S-300VM
surface-to-air missile systems by the end of 2016. Russia.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-brics-idUSKBN12G080

WORLD NEWS | Sun Oct 16, 2016 | 12:53pm EDT

India's Modi, at summit, calls Pakistan 'mother-ship of terrorism'

By Douglas Busvine and Denis Pinchuk | GOA, INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi branded Pakistan a "mother-ship of terrorism" at a summit of the BRICS nations on Sunday, testing the cohesion of a group whose heavyweight member China is a close ally of India's arch-rival.

Modi's remarks to a meeting of leaders from the BRICS - which include Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa - escalated his diplomatic drive to isolate Pakistan, which India accuses of sponsoring cross-border terrorism.

Tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors have been running high since a Sept. 18 attack on an army base in Kashmir, near the disputed frontier with Pakistan, killed 19 Indian soldiers in the worst such assault in 14 years.

India later said it had carried out retaliatory "surgical strikes" across the de facto border that inflicted significant casualties. Pakistan denied any role in the attack on the Uri army base, and said the Indian operation had not even happened, dismissing it as typical cross-border firing.

"In our own region, terrorism poses a grave threat to peace, security and development," Modi said in remarks to BRICS leaders who met at a resort hotel in the western state of Goa.

"Tragically, the mother-ship of terrorism is a country in India's neighborhood," the 66-year-old prime minister said, without directly naming Pakistan, in a series of tweets of his remarks issued by the foreign ministry.

Pakistan accused Modi of misleading his summit partners and of seeking to conceal what it alleged was India's own brutality in the part of Kashmir that it rules, where dozens have died since separatist protests broke out in July.

"The people of Indian Occupied Kashmir are being subjected to genocide by India for demanding their fundamental right to self determination," said Sartaj Aziz, foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Modi's hostile comments were not reflected in the closing summit statement he made to reporters, but still made it possible for him to present himself at home as being tough on national security.

"Modi is aware that such language wouldn't get the consensus necessary to make it into the final communique. Including it in his speech ensures it gets wide circulation anyway," said South Asia expert Shashank Joshi.

The summit achievements were incremental, and included establishing an agricultural research institute and speeding up work on creating a joint credit ratings agency.

Also on Sunday's program was an outreach session with leaders from a little-known group of countries from the Bay of Bengal region whose key attribute, from India's point of view, is that Pakistan is not a member.

LACK OF STRATEGIC RESTRAINT

Modi's hard line on Pakistan marks a departure from India's tradition of strategic restraint, and New Delhi has won expressions of support from both the West and Russia over the army base attack.

Yet China, a longstanding ally of Pakistan that plans to build a $46 billion export corridor to the Arabian Sea coast, has been cautious in its comments.

Modi and President Xi Jinping held a bilateral meeting on Saturday evening and accounts of their conversation emerging from both sides pointed to clear differences of opinion.

In one remark reported by the state Xinhua news agency, Xi said that China and India should "support each other in participating in regional affairs and enhance cooperation within multilateral frameworks".

The dispatch went on to refer to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). This grouping includes Pakistan, which was to have hosted a summit in November that collapsed after India and other members pulled out.

The final summit declaration repeated earlier condemnations of "terrorism in all its forms" and devoted several paragraphs to joint effort to fight terrorism. It did not, however, level any blame over the tensions between India and Pakistan.

"So far, we haven't seen any indication at all that China is softening its public support for Pakistan. India did not expect differently," said Joshi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

(Additional reporting by Drazen Jorgic in Islamabad; Editing by Clarence Fernandez, Keith Weir, Greg Mahlich)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-throws-old-nuclear-rules-181229476.html

Putin Throws Out the Old Nuclear Rules, Rattling Washington

Dan De Luce and Reid Standish
October 16, 2016

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling and military brinksmanship have upended the rules that long governed relations between Moscow and Washington, presenting the United States with a dangerous dilemma.

The next U.S. president will inherit an increasingly fraught relationship with Russia in which Washington’s attempts to deter Putin have mostly failed. Moscow’s decision this month to pull out of a landmark agreement on disposing tons of weapons-grade plutonium, coupled with reports last week that Russia deployed new nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea, underscore how Putin is flexing Russia’s power in new and often unpredictable ways.

U.S. and European officials are increasingly alarmed over Putin’s willingness to risk military confrontation and threaten to use his country’s nuclear arsenal over issues the West sees as unrelated and separate. That makes it devilishly difficult for the United States and its European allies to find an effective response to Putin’s audacious tactics that in recent years range from Russia’s annexation of Crimea, to its air war in support of the Syrian regime, to Moscow’s suspected hacking of America’s presidential election.

“It very much feels like we are entering a very troubled and dangerous phase in this bilateral relationship,“ said Julianne Smith, a former senior Pentagon official who oversaw NATO policy and a former senior advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. “The next president will face some big strategic choices,” said Smith, who now advises Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Europe and Russia.

President Barack Obama’s successor will have to choose from a range of unpleasant and risky options when it comes to handling a resurgent Russia, current and former officials said. A more conciliatory stance, aimed at cutting a grand bargain with Russia focused on Ukraine, would defuse tensions in the short term but at the cost of ultimately emboldening Putin. A more hawkish line — like the one championed by Clinton, who is leading nationwide polls — would risk escalation, with the chance of a military showdown in Syria or the Baltics.

Following the failure of the Obama administration’s bid to “reset” policy with the Kremlin and capped by Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012, Russia has increasingly insisted on linking disparate issues, refusing to cooperate even on areas of common interest in order to pressure Washington on other disputes. That’s the opposite of how things worked in the era of superpower detente in the 1970s, when both countries obeyed clear boundaries and unwritten rules. Decisions on nuclear weapons, in particular, were kept apart from other issues and disputes around the globe.

The Kremlin jettisoned that approach after its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in Syria in 2015, marking a definitive departure for Moscow and Washington, which had managed to wall off areas of disagreement from arms control cooperation.

In the Kremlin’s decree this month declaring Russia would no longer cooperate with the United States on a 2009 agreement to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, Moscow said it would consider reviving the agreement only if the United States scaled back its military presence near Russia’s border, lifted all sanctions against Russia, and paid Moscow compensation for the economic losses caused by the sanctions.

U.S. officials said they were disappointed by Moscow’s decision and dismayed at what they consider a worrisome pattern of behavior.

The reports of the Iskander missile deployment to the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad “represent the latest in a series of announcements and actions from Russia that call into question Russia’s commitment to minimizing the world’s most dangerous nuclear materials, and undermine the long path toward disarmament,” a senior administration official told Foreign Policy.

Russia in recent years has adopted a more aggressive doctrine on nuclear weapons, expanding the scenarios in which the arsenal could be used and employing threatening language when referring to its nuclear force. While running for election in 2012, Putin elevated the role of nuclear weapons in Russia’s strategic doctrine in an op-ed for the state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper, even implying that they could be used in a conventional war. After taking office again as president, Putin announced a plan to modernize all three legs of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.

In March, Putin said he had been ready to place nuclear forces on alert over the fate of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. Asked if Russia was prepared to bring its nuclear weapons into the conflict, Putin told state television: “We were ready to do it. I talked with colleagues and told them that this (Crimea) is our historic territory. Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them.”

The United States says Russia has flouted a 1987 arms control treaty, negotiated by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which called for the elimination of all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty helped bring an end to the Cold War and served as a crucial foundation for arms control efforts.

After signing the New START arms control accord in 2010, Russia has rebuffed overtures from Obama during the past six years to negotiate further reductions in nuclear weapons. The treaty expires in 2021, and without a new deal, the gains in arms control over the last 25 years would be endangered. Putin’s government also has backed away from mutual efforts launched in the 1990s to secure nuclear material. In March, Russia declined to attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.

Moscow is coupling that harsher atomic rhetoric with an increasingly aggressive maneuvering of its conventional forces. Russia has repeatedly sent its fighter jets and nuclear-capable bombers to skirt the boundaries of NATO and U.S. airspace since the Ukraine crisis and buzzed American planes and warships at close range. Russian planes have also routinely breached the airspace of non-NATO countries such as Finland and Sweden that joined the European Union’s sanctions against Moscow. In March 2015, Russia’s ambassador in Copenhagen said Danish warships would be “targets for Russian nuclear missiles” if they installed advanced radar equipment.

While the United States and NATO allies portray Russia as a provocative actor on the world stage, Moscow accuses the United States of fomenting “coups” in its backyard by supporting pro-democracy movements and destabilizing the nuclear balance with missile defense weaponry.

The United States for its part, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Russian officials have called the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe provocative and blamed the weaponry for derailing arms control talks.

Moscow has accused NATO and the United States of behaving recklessly, citing the deployment of more U.S. tanks and troops to NATO states bordering Russia and the use of B-2 bombers in drills close to the Russian border.

Searching for a way to manage relations, the Obama administration has opted to steer a middle course between confrontation and compromise, arguing that deterring Russia requires strategic patience. Economic sanctions, not arms, were the weapon of choice after the Ukraine invasion and Crimean annexation, for example. But sanctions, which have divided Europe and carry a cost, haven’t pushed out Russia’s “little green men” or restored Crimea to Ukraine.

“We have to come up with a coherent policy on Russia,” one Western diplomat said.

Against the sharp deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations, finding a new way to moderate mounting tensions between the two countries will be left to the next U.S. administration. In Syria, Russia’s deployment of fighter aircraft squadrons and artillery in 2015 blindsided the Obama administration, and has succeeded in shifting the tide of the war in favor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The intervention has enabled Russia to set the agenda in Syria, reducing Washington’s influence and drastically limiting U.S. options for any military action.

When lawmakers last month asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, about the possibility of the United States setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, he said it “would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia.”

Throughout her campaign, Clinton has repeatedly called for a no-fly or “safe zone” for Syrian civilians, without providing a detailed explanation as to what that would entail. But her advisors have suggested that it could involve the United States shooting down Syrian aircraft, forcing Russia to choose between defending Assad or working with Washington. In discussing the no-fly-zone idea, Clinton has not acknowledged the presence of an advanced Russian S-400 air defense system in Syria, which potentially could be used against U.S. aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone.

The Kremlin probably would view the prospect of a no-fly zone as a direct threat to its forces in Syria, particularly given how events unfolded in Libya when Clinton was secretary of state. In 2011, then-President Dmitry Medvedev had Russia abstain from a U.N. Security Council vote backing a no-fly zone in Libya. Clinton reportedly assured Moscow that the operation did not intend to bring about regime change in Libya and overthrow President Muammar al-Qaddafi. However, after NATO airpower allowed Libyan rebels to make gains on the ground and video emerged of Clinton joking, “We came, we saw, he died,” about the death of Qaddafi, the Kremlin believed it was deceived by the Americans. Experts say the intervention and Qaddafi’s death drove Putin to seek a return to the presidency.

In contrast with Clinton’s tough talk against Putin on the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has struck a friendly tone on Russia. His opponent has questioned his business ties to Russian investors and accused his aides of parroting Moscow’s propaganda. In a commentary published Thursday in the pro-Russian Sputnik website, Trump’s former foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, criticized the United States for “interference” in the domestic affairs of countries neighboring Russia, including Ukraine, and that Washington had shown a “complete disregard for Russia’s interests.” Trump has repeatedly called for closer cooperation with the Kremlin in combating the Islamic State in Syria, but otherwise has offered few specifics about how he would handle Russia. However, Trump’s campaign is imploding in the wake of sexual-assault allegations and Clinton is increasingly seen as the likely victor.

The Democratic nominee would bring her experience as secretary of state, four years that left her wary of Putin and skeptical that Moscow could be persuaded by diplomatic overtures or concessions. The Kremlin similarly views a Clinton presidency with apprehension over the hawkish policy positions she has outlined in Syria and Ukraine. But it remains unclear how far Clinton would be willing to go when it comes to asserting U.S. resolve and pushing back against Russia’s aggressive tactics, especially given Moscow’s willingness to link the conflicts to the wider issue of nuclear security.

Some of the current challenges carry echoes of the 1970s. Then, however, the two sides had a common understanding that circumscribed their competition. According to Henry Kissinger, the architect of detente under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, “a conception of strategic stability developed that the two countries could implement even as their rivalry continued in other areas.”

That “strategic stability” — and the equilibrium it brought — unraveled with the demise of the Soviet Union. Russia felt threatened and humiliated by the expansion of NATO and the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe. It also was outraged by U.S.-led military interventions in Serbia and later in Iraq — without full authorization from the U.N. Security Council.

Experts on Russia disagree about how to handle Putin, and no Western government appears to have a clear idea as to how the former KGB agent would respond to different attempts at deterrence, or in what direction he intends to lead his country.

“We can see the tactics he’s using, and how he’s inserting himself in various global crises,” Smith said. “We’re not sure how far he wants to take this.”

Photo credit: ALEXEY PANOV/AFP/Getty Images

View Comments (329)

 

[vestige]

“We can see the tactics he’s using, and how he’s inserting himself in various global crises,” Smith said. “We’re not sure how far he wants to take this.”

It is my humble opinion that he will see it through.

(He is 64 years old and has never blinked)

bump

 

[Housecarl]

The Battle for Mosul
Started by*Bogey‎,*10-15-2016*07:33 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?502662-The-Battle-for-Mosul


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN12G0Z1

World News | Mon Oct 17, 2016 | 3:51am EDT

Iraq launches Mosul offensive to drive out Islamic State

By Babak Dehghanpisheh and Maher Chmaytelli | BAGHDAD

Iraqi government forces, with air and ground support from the U.S.-led coalition, launched an offensive on Monday to drive Islamic State from the northern city of Mosul, the militants' last major stronghold in the country.

Helicopters released flares overhead and explosions could be heard on the city's eastern front, where Kurdish fighters moved forward to take outlying villages, a Reuters correspondent said.

The United States predicted Islamic State would suffer "a lasting defeat" as Iraqi forces mounted their biggest operation since the U.S. withdrew its own troops in 2011.

Some 30,000 Iraqi soliders, Kurdish Peshmerga militia and Sunni tribal fighters were expected to take part in the offensive to drive an estimated 4,000 to 8,000 Islamic State militants from Mosul, a city of 1.5 million people.

"I announce today the start of the heroic operations to free you from the terror and the oppression of Daesh," Prime Minister Haider Abadi said in a speech on state TV, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

"We will meet soon on the ground of Mosul to celebrate liberation and your salvation," he said, surrounded by the armed forces' top commanders.

Qatar-based al-Jazeera television aired video of what it said was a bombardment of Mosul that started after Abadi's speech, showing rockets and bursts of tracer bullets across the night sky and loud sounds of gunfire.

"This operation to regain control of Iraq's second-largest city will likely continue for weeks, possibly longer," said the commander of the coalition, U.S. Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, in a statement.

The Mosul offensive is one of the biggest military operations in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

"This is a decisive moment in the campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat," U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement, using an acronym for Islamic State.

"We are confident our Iraqi partners will prevail against our common enemy and free Mosul and the rest of Iraq from ISIL's hatred and brutality." [nL1N1CN01O]
In 2014, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed from Mosul's Grand Mosque a "caliphate" in Iraq and neighbouring Syria.

If Mosul falls, Raqqa in Syria will be Islamic State's last city stronghold.

KURDISH FIGHTERS

Islamic State has been retreating since the end of last year in Iraq, where it is battling U.S-backed government and Kurdish forces as well as Iranian-backed Iraqi Shi'ite militias.

The Iraqi Kurdish military command said 4,000 Peshmerga were taking part in an operation to clear several villages held by Islamic State to the east of Mosul, in an attack coordinated with a push by Iraqi army units from the southern front.

In its first statement on the Mosul operations, the Iraqi army media office said the advancing troops destroyed a number of Islamic State defence lines.

Strikes carried out by the Iraqi and coalition jets hit an unspecified number of the militants positions, it said.

A column of black smoke was rising from one of the insurgents' positions on the eastern front, the Reuters correspondent said, and seemed to be from burning oil being used to block the path of the Kurds and obstruct the jets' view.

"We are the real Muslims, Daesh are not Muslims, no religion does what they did," said a young Kurdish fighter in battle dress as he scanned the plain east of Mosul from his position on the heights of Mount Zertik.

As he spoke a Humvee drove by with the word Rojava, or Syria's Kurdistan, painted on the protection plate of the machine gun turret.

"This is all Kurdistan," Major Shiban Saleh, one of the fighters onboard, said. "When we’re done here, we will chase them to Raqqa or wherever they go," he said.

He said about 450 Syrian Peshmerga fighters were involved in the offensive east of Mosul, which aims to take back nine villages during the day.

HUMANITARIAN CRISIS FEARED

Early on Monday, Abadi sought to allay fears that the operation would provoke sectarian bloodletting, saying that only the Iraqi army and police would be allowed to enter the mainly Sunni city. He asked Mosul's residents to cooperate with them.

Local Sunni politicians and regional Sunni-majority states including Turkey and Saudi Arabia warned that letting Shi'ite militias take part in assault could spark sectarian violence. [nL8N1CJ47I]

The Iraqi army had dropped tens of thousands of leaflets over Mosul before dawn on Sunday, warning residents that the offensive was imminent. The leaflets carried several messages, one of them assuring the population that advancing army units and air strikes "will not target civilians" and another telling them to avoid known locations of Islamic State militants.

Reflecting authorities' concerns over a mass exodus that would complicate the offensive and worsen the humanitarian situation, the leaflets told residents "to stay at home and not to believe rumours spread by Daesh" that could cause panic.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday he hoped the United States and its allies would do their best to avoid civilian casualties in an attack on Mosul.

The United Nations last week said it was bracing for the world's biggest and most complex humanitarian effort in the battle for the city, which could make up to 1 million people homeless and see civilians used as human shields or even gassed. [nL4N1CJ3YA]

There are already more than 3 million people displaced in Iraq as a result of conflicts involving Islamic State. Medicine is in short supply in Mosul, and food prices have risen sharply. [nL5N1CA1Q5]

(With additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed in Baghdad and Michael Georgy in Erbil; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Related Coverage
VIDEO: Iraqi army drops leaflets over Mosul ahead of offensive
Fears of abuse as Iraq Shi'ite fighters set to storm city
Some 1,500 Turkey-trained Iraqi forces taking part in Mosul operation: sources
FACT BOX Once-tolerant Mosul site of Iraq push against Islamic State

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/losing-the-peace-is-still-losing/

LOSING THE PEACE IS STILL LOSING

Adversaries are exploiting gaps in the American peace-war paradigm.

PAUL SCHARRE
OCTOBER 17, 2016
Comments 6

Editor’s Note: This article is the second in a series in which thinkers from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) will explore the U.S. military’s phasing construct and the line between war and peace. Be sure to read the first installment, “American Strategy and the Six Phases of Grief.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford has expressed frustration with the U.S. military’s phasing construct, saying he doesn’t find it “particularly useful” for addressing today’s challenges, such as “gray zone” conflicts. This disconnect between the phasing construct and present-day challenges is merely the latest symptom of a deeper problem in how the U.S. defense establishment thinks about war. For the past quarter century, U.S. defense thinkers have used terms such as “asymmetric warfare,” “hybrid warfare,” “irregular warfare,” “unconventional warfare,” “unrestricted warfare,” “ambiguous warfare,” “gray zones,” and “military operations other than war” to describe adversary approaches and military operations that don’t fit within the narrow box of traditional or conventional “war.”

At a certain point, it is worth asking whether the traditional U.S. concept of war is too narrow or even if it is “conventional.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that war does not fit into “neat, tidy boxes.” There are many ways to use violence or the threat of violence to achieve political aims. Perhaps it’s time to drop the qualifiers and expand the default concept for what constitutes war. The U.S. military acts like a team playing a game for which it wrote the rules. Unfortunately, the other teams never agreed to play by them. Instead of annotating each deviation the other team makes of our “rules,” maybe it’s time to burn the rulebook.

It all comes, perhaps, from watching too many World War II movies. This conflict infuses American culture as the archetype of what war is and, more importantly, what war should be. Politics is set to the side as militaries clash in total war, with unconditional surrender as the aim. This is a type of war, of course, but it is a historical anomaly. It does not describe the American experience in almost any other war, from the Revolutionary War to the current conflict in Afghanistan. Grenada and Panama might fit the bill, brief though they were, but the War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, World War I, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, and Iraq War all did not. Some of these were messy guerrilla conflicts, but even those that were fought against nation-states defied the paradigm of unconditional surrender and total victory. When the wars ended, the adversaries still remained. In some cases, this meant that the peace that ensued was only temporary. Disagreements over the balance of power persisted, and before long conflict flared again. Unresolved issues in the Revolutionary War led to the War of 1812; the Spanish-American War was followed by the Philippine-American War; World War I was followed by World War II; the Persian Gulf War was followed by 25 years of continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq; and militarized confrontation on the Korean peninsula persists to this day.

The U.S. military’s six-phase planning construct affords no space for the fact that conflict and competition does not always end when the fighting ceases, that the struggle for power and dominance continues. Sometimes the end of fighting means total victory, but sometimes it means a return to something like the gray zone conditions the United States faces today, a space comprised of military competition and coercion short of outright war. Similarly, the phasing construct ignores the possibility that crises may not lead to total war. It views the day-to-day jockeying for position and brinksmanship that nations engage in only through the lens of a prelude to full-scale war, a major blind spot in addressing today’s “gray zones.” In these spaces, Schelling is a better touchstone than Clausewitz.

Limited war has gotten a bad rap since Vietnam. The U.S. military’s response after Vietnam was to go the other way, with the Powell Doctrine as the logical reaction. The Powell Doctrine, however, is of no use for countering tactics that hover below U.S. thresholds for escalation. It seeks clarity — military operations with overwhelming force, a clear exit strategy, and only when diplomacy has failed. Military operations should have clear objectives — and the muddled incrementalism of Vietnam isn’t a playbook to follow either — but the Powell Doctrine assumes a sharp peace-war divide that is not always realistic.

In many situations, military force is diplomacy, through violence or the threat of violence. Moreover, securing political aims requires persistent engagement. Long-term competition may be punctuated by periods of sharp crises or violence, but military power must persist to be relevant. The extended (and taxing) no-fly zone operations following the Persian Gulf War were a logical and unsurprising aftermath to a conflict that shifted the balance of power in the Middle East, but left Saddam Hussein standing. This reality is fundamentally at odds with the Powell Doctrine’s desire for rapid, decisive action followed by equally rapid American withdrawal. This is not because military power was misapplied in the Persian Gulf War and its aftermath, but because the nature of competition and conflict is such that achieving one’s aims requires more than simply the application of violence. It requires resetting the table after the shooting ends to build a peace on your terms, and building that peace often requires years or decades of intense military efforts.

Even when initially decisive military victory is swift, as it was in the defeat of the Taliban in 2002 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, securing American political objectives in the aftermath can prove long and difficult. American military thinking favors the decisive battle, however, and shortchanges the necessary but messy crafting of a new political order in the resettling after a conflict. Phase IV “stabilize” operations — even despite nearly 15 years of struggling through them — still take a backseat to Phase III “dominate” operations in terms of force planning, doctrine, training, resource allocation, and risk mitigation. This is a problem, because crafting a new political order that is in America’s interests after a conflict is the only reason for going to war in the first place. “Winning the war and losing the peace” doesn’t count as a “win.” It’s like fumbling the ball at the goal line — it doesn’t count. Colin Gray has noted:

Stability operations must be approached as being integral to strategy, not as behavior that follows the “war proper.” War is only about the peace that follows. It should be waged in such a style that the subsequent peace is not fatally mortgaged. With respect to irregular conflict, the current focus of most attention, stability operations, are, or should be, part and parcel of the U.S. strategy from the very outset.

Gray’s critique is a challenge to expand the American military concept of war. War is more than simply the decisive battle. It is about the use of military force to achieve political aims, which includes limited war, deterrence, gray zones, and stability operations. Ironically, this broader paradigm is the ultimate Clausewitzian approach, one that places the pursuit of political aims first. If military force can be used to achieve one’s political aims short of resort to outright war — as America’s adversaries are trying to do with gray zone tactics — then all the better. Force is a tool that can be used in many ways to achieve political aims.

The obstacles to thinking this way about war predate Vietnam and even Clausewitz. They stem from the very origins of Western civilization and the advent of a “Western way of war.” In his sweeping tome, A History of Warfare, military historian John Keegan places the origins of the Western way of war and the desire for the decisive battle in the invention of the Greek phalanx:

The battles of earlier and other peoples … had continued to be marked by elements that had characterized warfare since its primitive beginnings — tentativeness, preference for fights at a distance, reliance on missiles and reluctance to close to arm’s length until victory looked assured. The Greeks discarded these hesitations and created for themselves a new warfare that turned on the function of battle as a decisive act, fought within the dramatic unities of time, place and action and dedicated to securing victory, even at the risk of suffering bloody defeat, in a single test of skill and courage.

The phalanx was not only a revolutionary tactic but, more consequentially, a revolutionary conception of warfare. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with comrades and pressing against the enemy in a wall of flesh and shield was a dramatic departure from the skirmishing and individualized combat that characterized warfare for millennia. It required a surrender of the self to the group and a level of courage —a recklessness for one’s own life — that would be familiar to modern militaries, but was deeply at odds with other highly individualized warrior cultures.

In the ensuing centuries, Western militaries came to be organized predominantly around the decisive battle, a form of warfare that requires highly regimented and disciplined formations. From the formations of Swiss pikemen to the rows of musketeers reloading and firing at each other without flinching, the Western way of war has revolved around men stoically facing death en masse, trusting in the organization’s ultimate victory even as they are mowed down by the impersonal machinery of war. When Western militaries have faced adversaries unwilling to confront them head-on, they have often struggled, always seeking to draw their ghostly opponents out of the shadows and into decisive battles. Yet tactics of “evasion, delay, and indirectness” — what Keegan describes as “Oriental warmaking,” with roots in the horse warriors of the Eurasian steppe — can also be highly effective. Napoleon’s advance into Russia wasn’t defeated with a decisive battle. The United States wasn’t defeated in Vietnam with a decisive battle. There were no decisive battles in the Iraq and Afghanistan counterinsurgency wars. China isn’t securing the South China Sea today with a decisive battle. The Western way of war is a way of fighting, but it isn’t the only way.

This bias toward the decisive battle is pervasive not just in the U.S. military, but across Western culture. The game of chess, for example, stands in stark contrast to the Chinese game of Go as a metaphor for conflict and competition. In chess, opponents square off on a field of battle, advancing forward under protection and eventually killing one another in a relentless bloodletting until only a few pieces remain. In Go, by contrast, players place stones on an open playing field to secure positions with the goal of encircling one’s opponent. Both games are elegant and strategically complex abstractions of competition, but they embody different philosophies of victory. In chess, winning consists of killing the opponent’s army and capturing the king. In Go, winning consists of outmaneuvering the opponent and encircling him. In chess, pieces are either dead or alive. In Go, the balance of power tilts slowly like the shifting of sands — or like the dredging of sand into artificial islands.

The Defense Department’s planning, as reflected in its war games, operational plans, planning scenarios, and resource decisions, rarely captures the full breadth and diversity of the various modes of competition and conflict. Instead, they revolve around phase III operations — the decisive battle. This reflects a narrow concept of “war” the United States is comfortable with, but other operations are given short shrift.

Phase III “dominate” operations are important. If the United States is to remain a global power, it must be able to dominate adversaries in the decisive battle. The United States must also be able to leverage military power to secure American interests in situations short of major combat operations as well. U.S. dominance in phase III is likely to continue to drive adversaries to avoid the decisive battle and compete in other ways, making other forms of warfare equally important. Weakness in phase III can cause the United States to lose a war, but dominance in phase III alone is not enough to win one.

The United States doesn’t get to pick the type of wars it fights. The enemy gets a vote. The U.S. military desires “full-spectrum” capabilities — being able to fight across the spectrum of conflict — but more often than not, that results in a focus on Phase III operations with the assumption that other activities are “lesser includeds.” Yet the character of warfare is different at different points along the spectrum of conflict, and it requires different forces, training, and doctrine. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have painfully demonstrated, a military suited for conventional force-on-force conflict is ill-prepared for counterinsurgency or peace enforcement. “Lesser includeds” is a myth that should die.

The six-phase planning construct isn’t the root of the problem. It is a symptom of the true problem, which is an overly narrow concept of war and peace. The United States struggles in gray zones and stability operations not because the phasing construct requires the military to pay less attention in these phases, but because in the American mind these activities aren’t “war.” Joint Publication 1 states, “The ultimate purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces is to fight and win the Nation’s wars.” This is either an incomplete statement or the concept of what constitutes war needs to expand. The United States today faces areas of militarized competition that aren’t war as we traditionally conceive of it, but aren’t peace either. To compete effectively in this space, the United States needs a more fluid understanding of the spectrum between war and peace and of the military’s role in securing America’s interests. A revised phasing construct — or an entirely new replacement — should facilitate this more expansive view of thinking about competition and conflict, not reinforce existing predilections toward the decisive battle. As this series progresses, we’ll begin to explore new paradigms that aim to broaden the understanding of competition and war.


Paul Scharre is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Future of Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security. He is a former infantryman in the 75th Ranger Regiment with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2016/10/jschilling101716/

Musudan Could Be Operational Sooner Than Expected

By John Schilling
17 October 2016
Comments 2

North Korea seems to have tested its Musudan missile seven times this year, with only a single clear success to show for it. But the North Koreans aren’t simply repeating old failures. And they aren’t taking the slow path to developing a reliable system, with a year or so between each test to analyze the data and make improvements. That has been their practice in the past, and it is what we expected this time once they had one successful flight for the cameras. Instead, they are continuing with an aggressive test schedule that involves, at least this time, demonstrating new operational capabilities. That increases the probability of individual tests failing, but it means they will learn more with each test even if it does result in failure. If they continue at this rate, the Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile could enter operational service sometime next year–much sooner than had previously been expected.

2016-1017-musudan-2
The Musudan (also called Hwasong-10) pictured during a test on June 23, 2016. (Photo: Rodong Sinmun)


There are still many unanswered questions about Friday’s test. The US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) reported that the launch had occurred near the city of Kusong and “exploded immediately after launch.” The North Koreans have not broadcast the sort of propaganda imagery that follows their successful tests, so a failed test of some sort is likely. But STRATCOM has been wrong before about exactly what sort of missile is being tested–misidentifying last month’s Scud-ER test as a trio of Nodong missiles. The Musudan is distinctive enough that it’s unlikely anyone with STRATCOM’s capabilities would mistake it for anything else, but we should still treat this report as unconfirmed.

Assuming it is a Musudan, the noteworthy difference for this test is the location. North Korea’s previous Musudan launches have been from sites associated with their Musudan-ri test facility – that’s not a coincidence; “Musudan” is our name for the missile, not theirs, given because we first saw it at Musudan-ri and didn’t have anything better to call it (the DPRK has referred to this missile as “Hwasong-10″). Musudan-ri is where North Korea keeps the engineers and technicians who built these missiles, with all of their laboratories and workshops. These are the people who figured out how to put grid fins on the Musudan when the first four tests tumbled out of control. People you want looking over your shoulder when you are launching an experimental rocket, but can’t count on being available in wartime.

Moving to a roadside near Kusong is like taking the training wheels off the bicycle, seeing if you really have mastered something new. But Kusong is on North Korea’s west coast, near Pyongyang–why such a long move? One possibility is that a west coast launch allows the North Koreans to achieve a longer range without overflying other countries. Previous tests from Musudan-ri were limited to 400 kilometers or so to avoid Japanese airspace; the North Koreans were able to partially compensate for this by using a lofted trajectory, but probably did not demonstrate the missile’s full performance in an operationally realistic manner. From the west coast, launching south, a North Korean missile could fly 3000 kilometers or more before splashing down in the Philippine Sea.

Another possibility is security. Kusong is home to several secure military sites in the province of Pyongyang, the most heavily guarded territory and airspace in North Korea. It is as close to the Musudan’s likely targets as North Korea can get while still remaining safely north of the DMZ, and so well suited to serve as the Musudan’s operational basing area. If the North Koreans were hoping to hide this test from prying eyes, moving from the east coast to the west clearly didn’t do the job for them–STRATCOM watches the whole country by satellite. But we may have just been given a clue as to where North Korea intends to base its operational Musudan force, once the field crews demonstrate that they can launch the things without factory tech support close at hand.

There is a saying in our military that amateurs practice until they get it right, but professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong. The North Koreans have just shown that they can still get it wrong, but they are still practicing. Let’s review the scorecard. Four tests of the original Musudan configuration, all failed. Two tests of a new configuration with stabilizing grid fins, conducted with full engineering support from Musudan-ri, with one success and one partial success. And now one test in the field, a complete failure. Seven launches in seven months–a rate greater than most US strategic missile programs. After a decade of keeping it on the back burner, the North Koreans are clearly committed to the Musudan. Another seven months of training and practice could bring them to a real initial operational capability. We, and STRATCOM, will be watching closely to see when and where the next tests occur.

Found in section: Military Affairs, WMD
Tags: ballistic missiles, Hwasong-10, john schilling, missile test, musudan, musudan-ri, WMD

Previous Topic: Details, Details: History Lessons from Negotiating with North KoreaNext Topic: Activity at North Korea’s Sohae Launch Facility: Continued Infrastructure Improvements
Reader Feedback

2 Responses to “Musudan Could Be Operational Sooner Than Expected”

Markus Schiller says:
October 17, 2016 at 11:21 am
John, how do you know that the first four tests lacked the grid fins, and they started using them at the fifth? Unfortunately, I have not seen any footage from these tests.

Steven M Hayden says:
October 17, 2016 at 10:47 am
There are still many unanswered questions about Friday’s test. Last Friday Musudan test occurred while US and SK forces attempted to intimidate DPRK with naval joint operation occurring just a few hundred miles away. The DPRK chose to launch the Musudan from Yongbyon near the symbol of their resistance their nuclear reactor that mass produces lithium deuteride for nuclear weapons. It was intended to be demonstration that they are not intimidated. They possess enough nuclear material and completed missiles that they would provoke the US to attack during a US decapitation drill. The point was to prove that neither the nuclear nor missile program will stop. They are well prepared to keep their promises for nuclear annihilation. They have enough missiles to use some on sending a message. They do not tremble. The launch triggered initial US response which will be studied by DPRK for future attack against US. After missile was launched and purposes served it was self destructed. The DPRK proved that intimidation with US naval group was counterproductive. Both the missile program and nuclear weapons program are full steam ahead.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1202068/pakistans-choice-2/

PAKISTAN’S CHOICE
by Michael Krepon | October 16, 2016 | 4 Comments

Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has lost while India has gained regional and international standing. Pakistan has also become less confident of its national security as the United States has gravitated toward India and as Pakistan’s own ties with states in the region have frayed. This wasn’t supposed to happen: Pakistan tested nuclear devices and has expanded its nuclear stockpile to improve its security and profile. Understanding why these objectives are receding is crucial to Pakistan’s well-being and to figuring out why Islamabad’s talking points have fallen on deaf ears in foreign capitals. Blaming misfortune on the lure of India’s market is too convenient an excuse. India most certainly gains sway because of its market, but the profit motive does not explain why Pakistan has lost the benefit of the doubt abroad.

Let’s begin the search for an explanation with a minor, but indicative example. A standard Pakistani talking point is that it tested nuclear devices for national security, while India tested for prestige. This unassailable truth within Pakistan is widely dismissed by those who follow the nuclear competition in southern Asia. In actuality, Pakistan was ahead of India in 1998 in terms of operationalizing its nuclear capabilities, thanks to help from China. New Delhi felt compelled to test to deal with its nuclear-armed neighbors, and because doors were closing with the indefinite extension of the Nonproliferation Treaty and the negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In other words, New Delhi tested nuclear devices for reasons of national security – just like Pakistan, which quickly tested after India did. And yes, pride and prestige factored into New Delhi’s decision, as authors like George Perkovich (India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation, 1999) have written. But pride and prestige factored into Pakistan’s calculus of decision as well.

This is a minor matter, but it speaks to the first principle of trying to influence outsiders: know your audience. People who work on these issues figuratively roll their eyes when they hear this Pakistani talking point. And then discount the other messages they hear – even when the speaker has legitimate, important points to make.

Now extrapolate this dynamic to more important issues, like the activities of groups with links to Pakistan’s military and intelligence services that have engaged in acts of violence against India and Afghanistan. Foreign capitals view Pakistan through the prism of these groups and the actions they have taken. Pakistan’s talking points about being the victim of violent extremism and paying penalties for going to war against the Pakistani Taliban are completely true. But they are eroded with every additional attack against an Indian military outpost and with every firefight launched by the Haqqani network in Afghanistan. These actions belie Pakistan’s talking point that it does not differentiate between good and bad groups that engage in militancy.

Now let’s back up a bit: Pakistan has very good reasons for possessing a nuclear deterrent. It lost its eastern wing after a war with India in 1971, and it has no way to compete with India’s economic dynamism. So why do foreign capitals raise concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent while saying so little about India’s? Primarily because Pakistan combines nuclear deterrence with providing safe havens for groups that engage in cross-border violence.

When Pakistan crossed the nuclear threshold, Rawalpindi had the choice of shutting down militant, anti-India groups because they were no longer needed to keep India at bay – or using its deterrent as a backdrop to step up a campaign to change the status quo in Kashmir. Rawalpindi chose poorly. Until Pakistan reverses this choice, it will continue to lose traction.

Much of the external criticism of Pakistan’s nuclear posture now focuses on its embrace of very short-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and perhaps other types of nuclear weapons that must be located very close to the forward edge of battle to have any deterrent or military effect. These types of nuclear weapons are inherently the hardest to keep safe and secure. If Pakistan’s political and military leaders were to act in tandem against anti-India militant groups, war-fighting scenarios would become superfluous, and international attention would shift from critiquing to helping Pakistan. This happened when Rawalpindi turned against the Pakistani Taliban, and it can happen again.

As long as this choice is postponed, Pakistan will not receive sympathy for its security dilemmas. Every crisis on the subcontinent since the 1998 tests, starting with the Kargil War, has been triggered by events that can be traced back to Pakistan, or to the Pakistani side of the Kashmir divide. After the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai attack, Islamabad promised to shut down militant anti-India groups. These promises were not kept. There was plentiful evidence in both cases that the perpetrators maintained ties with Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. Judicial prosecution didn’t happen after the Parliament attack and was half-hearted and unsuccessful after the 2008 Mumbai attack. Pakistan blamed this failure on India’s not handing over more evidence – evidence that wasn’t admissible in Pakistani courts. Pakistan’s talking point that it needs more help collecting evidence from India might usefully be retired.

Because of this recent history, foreign capitals reached the conclusion that Pakistan’s decision-makers were unwilling or unable to bring the militant wings of anti-India groups to heel. This impression was reinforced when the perpetrators remained free to give speeches, gain recruits, and collect money.

Nuclear-tinged crises on the subcontinent override Pakistan’s talking points about the unfairness of Partition and the need to address the Kashmir dispute. Major powers understand that India has made a mess for itself in the Kashmir Valley. But the UN Security Council has shown little or no interest in entering this fray. It has not passed a resolution on Kashmir to Pakistan’s liking since 1957.

There are much bigger messes in this war-torn world, and the international community has not tried to clean them up, either. The UN and key foreign capitals care more about the prospect of a clash between India and Pakistan than about Kashmir. The UN Security Council will react with alacrity to the prospect of another war between India and Pakistan, but it will not react to India’s poor record of governance in Kashmir – just as it will not react to Pakistan’s poor record of governance in Baluchistan. Both are now deemed to be internal matters, which is one reason why Pakistani calls for a plebiscite in Kashmir have fallen on deaf ears. Every time major powers have gotten involved to prevent a clash between India and Pakistan over the past quarter-century, they have sought to reaffirm the status quo in Kashmir, not change it more to Pakistan’s liking.

Whenever there is an attack on an Indian military post, Islamabad argues that there is insufficient proof that the usual suspects are guilty. This talking point has no traction. In the court of international public opinion, the burden of proof shifted from New Delhi to Islamabad after the Kargil War, the 2001-02 “Twin Peaks” crisis, and the 2008 Mumbai crisis. Until Pakistan takes long-promised steps to shut down the militant wings of anti-India groups, Islamabad will not regain the benefit of the doubt abroad.

The usual suspects were presumed guilty abroad after the Uri attack because alternative explanations for who was to blame were not persuasive beyond Pakistan’s borders. The explanation that disaffected Kashmiris carried out these attacks without help from Pakistan had few takers. Disaffected Kashmiris need help to carry out sophisticated attacks against Indian military installations. Homegrown Kashmiri disaffection is now very much a reality, but is taking other forms. Perhaps the modus operandi of Kashmiris will change in the future, but as of now, they are not the primary suspects.

Another talking point, widely shared in Pakistan, is that Indian forces killed their own comrades to change the subject away from human-rights abuses in Kashmir and pin the blame on Pakistan. When Pakistanis advance this argument, foreign capitals react in utter disbelief.

The most plausible explanation abroad for attacks on Indian military outposts is the most obvious one: that these attacks are carried out by groups based in the Punjab that hate India and are incensed by what is happening in the Kashmir Valley. These groups have cadres on the Pakistani side of the Kashmir divide. When these cadres cross the Line of Control to carry out attacks, they do so with the knowledge, if not the active support, of Pakistani military and intelligence personnel. Indeed, if local commanders do not know about the presence of these cadres and their preparations to cross the Kashmir divide, they are unfit to hold these positions.

Rawalpindi has received high marks for the counterinsurgency campaign waged against the Pakistani Taliban, overriding foot-dragging by political leaders. Because of this campaign, deadly explosions on Pakistani soil have been greatly reduced. Groups active in attacks across the Kashmir divide and in Afghanistan have been outside the ambit of this campaign. Turning against these groups will mean more explosions, but not turning against these groups will also increase internal-security concerns, while compounding Pakistan’s international woes.

This choice is obviously a lose-lose proposition, but postponing this choice even longer won’t make it any easier. Pakistan will lose more by pursuing the same policies and by relying on the same old talking points than by changing course. The hard, unavoidable truth is that Pakistan can only achieve internal security and international credibility by taking overt steps against the usual suspects.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
Tagged With: India, Kashmir, militant groups, Pakistan, Punjab
COMMENTS
El Chapo (History)
October 17, 2016 at 8:39 am
Biased reporting. One sided view. Ignoring Pakistan challenges created by US war on terror. Pakistan sacrificed all and India gets to eat the cake. This is what happened.

Reply
J_kies (History)
October 17, 2016 at 12:58 pm
Extremely moderate reporting.
In the US its a common belief that Osama Bin Laden could not have resided within a couple of kilometers of the Pakistani military academy without knowledge and active support of the Pakistani Military especially the ISI. Be glad we ignore our common beliefs.

Michael Krepon (History)
October 17, 2016 at 9:05 am
Would you say people are biased against North Korea?
What accounts for bias?
MK

Reply
Gurmeet Kanwal (History)
October 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm
A very perceptive article by Michael Krepon. I hope the military leaders of Pakistan will heed the advice given: “Pakistan will lose more by pursuing the same policies and by relying on the same old talking points than by changing course. The hard, unavoidable truth is that Pakistan can only achieve internal security and international credibility by taking overt steps against the usual suspects.”

Reply

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/64719/china-confirms-plans-to-export-eight-submarines-to-pakistan

Sea Platforms

China confirms plans to export eight submarines to Pakistan

Gabriel Dominguez, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
18 October 2016

The China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation has confirmed a project to export eight attack submarines to the Pakistan Navy (PN).

The corporation held a conference to discuss the details of the arrangement, the People's Daily Online news site reported on 16 October quoting China Shipbuilding Online.

According to previous media reports, four of the submarines will be built in China and supplied to the PN between mid-2022 and 2023.

The remaining four boats will be built at the Karachi Shipbuilding and Engineering Works (KSEW) following a technology transfer programme and handed over to the PN by 2028.

(96 words)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...s_answer_to_the_russian_challenge_110219.html

NATO’s Combined Arms Answer to the Russian Challenge

By Maj Nathan Jennings
October 18, 2016

In February of 2014, just six years after Russia invaded Georgia with heavy tanks, the world watched aghast as it brazenly occupied Crimea with light armored infantry. Though relatively few in number, the sudden act of aggression effectively allowed Moscow to seize key terrain on the Black Sea with ominous strategic implications before the West could intervene. Since then the former Soviet empire has continued to destabilize Ukraine with an insidious, hybrid military campaign as NATO has, at times, appeared unable to prevent the expansion.

However, over the past two years, the United States and Europe have been responding with increasing decisiveness as they deploy a series of combined arms task forces — in concert with ongoing strategies to politically and economically isolate the aggressor — to partner in former Eastern-bloc countries. As directed in the 2014 Army Operating Concept, this positioning is allowing operational potential to maneuver “dispersed over wide areas” and “develop situational understanding through action while possessing the mobility to concentrate rapidly.”1 If the Russians initially gained the military-political initiative through preemptive positioning of imposing forces in Crimea, the West is responding with similar boldness across Eastern Europe on a larger scale.

Called Operation Atlantic Resolve, the resulting power projection has evolved truly combined arms in nature with intentional emphasis on the unique combination of mobile-protected firepower that only diverse armored forces possess. The deployment of task forces comprising mechanized, Stryker, and light infantry, main battle tanks, armored cavalry, tracked artillery, and heavy engineers to threatened countries like Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania decisively empowers broader coalition efforts to deter Russian advances. As declared by the commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade during the operation’s initial stages, the scheme will likely result in an “operation that stretches from the Baltics all the way down to the Black Sea.”2

More graduated than unrealistic threats of massive aerial bombardment, less transitory than naval presence, and complementary to intervention by special operations forces, the positioning of heavily armed teams in proximity to Russian borders offers viable strategic deterrence. This unique capacity to respond to Soviet-style intimidation stems from the proven tactical value of well-trained and resourced combined arms forces when synergized with lighter units. According to U.S. Army doctrine, such units are optimized to excel at “sustained and large-scale actions in full spectrum operations” while their “combination of firepower, tactical mobility, and organic reconnaissance assets” makes them “invaluable to a higher headquarters commander in combat operations.”3

Brigades containing a versatile panoply of mechanized battalions — all armed with large-caliber weapons, protected by armored hulls, and propelled through difficult landscapes by tracked mobility — wield combinations of lethality, survivability, and maneuverability unmatched in land warfare.*Even as they hold immense capacity to defend against enemy attacks, armor-centric task forces possess an ability to unleash devastating firepower against opponents as they synergize efforts with wheeled, airborne, and light infantry components. It is no coincidence that the very territories that were once the scene of epic armored clashes between Nazi and Soviet armies during World War II, including Crimea, have again emerged as sites of relative maneuvering by NATO and Russian heavy forces as they jockey for positional advantage.

These singular qualities justify why the United States’ decision to deploy highly lethal combined arms and coalition contingents not just to Germany, but across Eastern Europe, has served as an effective and enabling military component to NATO’s larger political strategy to block Russia. It empowers allied commanders with capacity to, as required by U.S. Army doctrine, “prevent conflict, shape the security environment, and win wars” through “joint combined arms operations.”4 Moving beyond tactical equations, the messaging to both allies and opponents is clear: America has rejoined the game. Reversing recent trends of reducing the U.S. Army’s fighting ground presence in Europe to less destructive wheeled and airborne units, the return of American mechanized forces to the former theater of Cold War confrontation definitively communicates strength of national will.

This tangible statement of martial resolve — when employed to encourage political and economic unity amongst NATO participants — holds immediate potential to bolster allies and intimidate opponents. Falling under the Army competency of wide area security, it is defined as “the application of the elements of combat power to protect populations, forces, infrastructure, and activities to deny the enemy positions of advantage and to consolidate gains in order to retain the initiative” while providing “the joint force commander with reaction time and maneuver space.”5 On one hand, large countries like England, Germany, and Poland — in addition to other smaller and more vulnerable states in Eastern Europe — will be reassured by America’s deliberate stand against Moscow’s subversive designs. On the other, the revanchist Russian empire will find itself strategically frustrated, or at the very least operationally blocked, from further military expansion without a risk of greater cost.

The effect of this armored network, symbolically dropping a cordon of NATO steel in place of the old Soviet iron curtain, holds potential to dissuade Moscow while synergistically enhancing diverse elements of allied coercive power. LTG H.R. McMaster, former commander of the Maneuver Center of Excellence and ardent champion for maintaining a robust American mechanized corps, has perhaps best articulated the rationale behind Atlantic Resolve and the importance of synergizing armored units with equally vital combined arms and joint forces. In an influential Military Review article that is now required reading at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officers Course, the veteran commander wrote that “the forward positioning of capable ground forces elevates the cost of aggression to a level that the aggressor is unwilling to pay and prevents the aggressor from doing what Russia has in Ukraine — posing to the international community a fait accompli and then portraying its reactions as escalatory.”6

This combined arms positioning consequently offers both risk and reward for the NATO coalition as it projects forces into once unthinkable arenas. While the Russian government will not openly assault American capital assets lest they provoke a major conflict, hybrid attacks or non-state interference will likewise fail to achieve meaningful impact so long as partnered forces avoid compromising exposure in peacekeeping operations. Though no operation is ultimately predictable — and it is possible that Moscow will respond by socially, economically, and politically destabilizing partnered nations by inciting ethnic Russians or other disaffected populations — Atlantic Resolve is emerging as the most serious, but scalable, option for facilitating Western military involvement without provoking kinetic confrontation.
America’s leading role in NATO’s plan to establish contingents across Eastern Europe contains additional nuance. By dispersing only limited U.S. forces with relatively small “activity sets,” European host nations and Western contributors are compelled to contribute significant ground units to each coalition task force instead of relying on American largess. Never intended to match the much larger Russian army tank-for-tank or threaten massive invasion, the concept allows an economized and invested alliance to physically and physiologically secure territory in a chess match of strategic posturing. By proactively occupying ground, just as Russia did with Crimea, allied forward positioning severely limits opposing military options without risking expensive escalation with all of the involved nations.

Despite the United States’ laudable decision to place coalition detachments across Eastern Europe on a rotational basis, the current operation may prove only an initial step towards countering the Russian challenge. If interference in Ukraine continues, further action may be warranted and justified. To that end, the United States should consider a highly visible and publicized return of permanent mechanized forces to Europe. At a minimum, this should include re-stationing a full division headquarters and an armored brigade combat team of approximately 4,500 Soldiers and heavy equipment in Germany. Resourced to “execute operations with shock and speed” while providing “tremendous striking power,” as defined by FM 3-90.6, Brigade Combat Team, the ABCT’s complement of mechanized infantry, main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, heavy cavalry, and tracked engineers make it the premier forcible entry formation for joint forces in potential major combat operations in Europe.

This type of enduring deployment to a forward theater would incur both controversy and applause. While the decision would markedly increase fiscal costs and compel difficult domestic political choices when choosing which Army post in the United States would produce the required structure, the potential arrival of units like the 1st Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division, and 3rd Infantry Division —storied commands who famously defended Europe during the Cold War — would offer both practical and nostalgic appeal. Similar to deterrent effects won by the U.S. Army’s long-term, if slowly dwindling, commitment of permanent forces in the Republic of Korea, this partnership would reflect a normative and historically successful option in American foreign policy.

While stationing heavier forces in Germany offers a familiar and proven approach, it still may not be enough. If Russian belligerence continues, America and NATO should consider the heretofore unthinkable: the establishment of a larger and semi-permanent joint combined arms task force in Poland under legally sanctioned status. While such a force would inevitably be centered on combined arms battalions of mechanized infantry and tanks with unmatched capacity for mobile protected firepower, it would also include, in order to possess maximal combined arms potential, task-organized lighter infantry, special operations forces, and attack aviation assets.

This forward positioning, which would complement smaller rotational NATO contingents along Moscow’s periphery, would enable a highly mobile and potent allied force to foster enhanced partnership with a sovereign ally in acute proximity to Russian territory. More importantly, the logistical footprint required to support a robust combat unit with their uniquely diverse armament of Infantrymen and heavy weaponry would facilitate, and telegraph, the possibility of follow-on NATO forces should further involvement or scalable strategic maneuvering be required. Despite these implications, the presence of a brigade-sized task force would not threaten territorial invasion of Russia and thus communicate only defensive intentions.

A robust and enduring partnership between American and Polish armies would also yield immediate political dividends. The establishment of a long-term Status of Forces Agreement — along with coalition training and wargames — would unmistakably signal America’s commitment to defending allies in Europe. Representing high stakes geo-political brinksmanship, the move would compel Russia to choose between suffering an uncomfortable NATO build-up near their borders, halting, or at least lessening, its interference in Ukraine and elsewhere, or resorting to highly problematic escalatory measures. Were the Russians to cease provocations, the United States could then simply announce an eventual staged withdrawal to reward desirable behavior.

Positioning robust and permanent American combined arms forces in Poland would finally capture acute historical significance. For Russians with long memories, Poland represents the pathway that German invaders marched through with panzer corps to nearly annihilate their nation. For Poles who remember the brutality of Nazi and Soviet occupation during the Second World War, resolute reinforcement by the U.S. military would conversely provide strategic reassurance. If the former nation could not abide a robust U.S. Army presence in such emotionally significant territory, the latter democracy would certainly welcome it.

Whether pursing the planned rotational system or more substantial and long-term posturing, America must respond to the Russian threat decisively. As famously declared by Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “the hand of the aggressor is stayed by strength — and strength alone.”7 Russia proved the truth of this axiom in 2014 when it forcefully seized Crimea and continues to prove it as it fosters proxy wars in Ukraine and Syria. Given such belligerence, America should continue Atlantic Resolve but be prepared to complement allied political and economic isolation of Moscow with a larger, permanent, and symbolic military presence in Germany or even near Warsaw. If Russia chooses to destabilize European borders, let them find NATO fighting vehicles and riflemen resolutely overwatching theirs. For the United States and the free world, armored combined arms task forces offer the only message that will deter the aggressor.

Notes:
1 TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World, 31 October 2014, iii.

2 Joe Gould, “U.S. Army Official: Atlantic Resolve May Expand,” Defense News, 4 March 2015.

3 FM 3-90.6, Brigade Combat Team, September 2010, 1-9.

4 TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, 18.

5 Ibid, 23.

6 H.R. McMaster, “Continuity and Change: The Army Operating Concept and Clear Thinking About Future War,” Military Review, March-April 2015, 14-15.

7 Monument, Eisenhower Hall, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. MAJ Nathan Jennings is currently a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. His previous assignments include serving as an assistant professor of history, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Troop and C Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas and Kirkuk, Iraq; platoon leader, Company B, 1st Battalion, 34th Armored Regiment, 1st BCT, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. and Baghdad; and 19D Cavalry Scout, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), Fort Polk, La. MAJ Jennings earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of the new book, Riding for the Lone Star: Frontier Cavalry and the Texas Way of War, 1822-1865. Editor’s Note: As with all Infantry Magazine articles, the views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Department of Defense or any element of it.

MAJ Nathan Jennings is currently a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. His previous assignments include serving as an assistant professor of history, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Troop and C Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas and Kirkuk, Iraq; platoon leader, Company B, 1st Battalion, 34th Armored Regiment, 1st BCT, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. and Baghdad; and 19D Cavalry Scout, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), Fort Polk, La. MAJ Jennings earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of the new book, Riding for the Lone Star: Frontier Cavalry and the Texas Way of War, 1822-1865.

Editor’s Note: As with all Infantry Magazine articles, the views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Department of Defense or any element of it.


This article originally appeared at Infantry Magazine Online.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...mical-weapons-as-forces-advance-on-mosul.html

Middle East

US expects Islamic State to use chemical weapons as forces advance on Mosul

Published October 19, 2016 FoxNews.com

U.S. officials expect Islamic State to use crude chemical weapons as it tries to defend Mosul from an assault from Iraqi and Kurdish forces, though the terror group’s ability to develop such weapons are limited.

One official told Reuters that U.S. forces have gathered ISIS shell fragments to test for chemical weapons because the group has been known to use mustard gas in the past.

U.S. officials said in a previously undisclosed statement that it had confirmed the presence of a sulfur mustard agent on ISIS munitions on Oct. 5. The terror group has targeted local forces, not the U.S.

"Given ISIL's reprehensible behavior and flagrant disregard for international standards and norms, this event is not surprising," a second U.S. official told Reuters.

Officials don’t believe Islamic State has been successful in fully developing chemical weapons with lethal effects. Conventional weapons were still the most dangerous threat as Iraqi and Kurdish forces advance.

More than 100 U.S. troops are assisting Iraqi and Kurdish forces involved in the assault. They’re tasked with advising commanders and helping ensure the coalition’s air campaign hit the right targets, officials said.

Meanwhile, as the fight for Mosul ramps up, the U.S. said it believes Islamic State fighters are using civilians as human shields as coalition forces move to the group’s stronghold in Mosul.

Around 700,000 civilians are believed to be living in Mosul. President Barack Obama said there are plans in place for dealing with a potential humanitarian crisis as the offensive wears on.

The U.S.-backed coalition said they have driven Islamic State out of at least 10 villages surrounding the city. Iraqi forces are still believed to be at least 12 miles outside of Mosul.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://qz.com/813179/beijing-loyali...ing-and-baggio-leung-from-taking-their-oaths/

Beijing loyalists blocked Hong Kong’s pro-independence lawmakers from taking their oaths by walking out

Written by Isabella Steger
Obsession: The Future of Hong Kong
2 hours ago

After winning a spot in Hong Kong’s legislature via election last month, two young, pro-independence lawmakers have been blocked from assuming their new roles.

Pro-Beijing legislators walked out of the Legislative Council (LegCo) chamber this morning (Oct. 19) to block Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung, members of the Youngspiration political party from swearing in a second time. Their first attempts last week, which contained a racial slur against China used by Japan early last century, were nullified by LegCo’s president. The two, along with three others who had their oaths also nullified—one read her oath at an ultra-slow speed as a show of defiance, for example—were due to re-take them today.

The LegCo drama signals a tumultuous year ahead in Hong Kong politics amid increasing polarisation in the legislature, even as the city prepares for a new leader in 2017. Beijing has warned that it will not tolerate pro-independence talk in Hong Kong, and the city’s government has taken a hard line on it, pressuring schools to quash discussion of the topic among students.

The walk-out comes after the Hong Kong government abruptly filed a judicial review application last night (Oct. 18) to prevent Yau and Leung from swearing in a second time. In a late night hearing, the High Court ruled that Leung and Yau would be allowed to re-take their oaths. But the court allowed the government to proceed with its judicial review application, with a hearing set for Nov. 3.

Before Yau and Leung could take their oaths again, pro-Beijing lawmakers, who make up a majority in the legislature, walked out. Their absence meant that quorum was not met and the session had to be adjourned.

Venus Wu @wu_venus
Chaos in HK #Legco after pro Beijing lawmakers walk out of meeting & deprive it of quorum. Pro-independence lawmakers fail to take oath
9:18 PM - 18 Oct 2016
10
10 Retweets
4
4 likes

Pro-Beijing lawmakers are demanding an apology from Yau and Leung for insulting the feelings of Chinese people, but the two have said they will not apologize.

Tom Grundy
✔
@tomgrundy
Holden Chow: Someone unable to respect themselves, their country & cannot acknowledge the Basic Law is not qualified to become a lawmaker.
9:38 PM - 18 Oct 2016 · Hong Kong, Hong Kong
2
2 Retweets
likes

Outside the LegCo building, there were chaotic scenes as hundreds of Beijing supporters protested against Yau and Leung, calling them “traitors” and comparing them to Japanese imperialists.

Nash Jenkins
✔
@pnashjenkins
a single pro-democracy demonstrator attacked by mirthful pro-Beijing mob. His umbrella is in tatters. I feel sick pic.twitter.com/tjmIu8vb3G
Follow

Nash Jenkins
✔
@pnashjenkins
Effigies outside Legco. pic.twitter.com/RXk48JvdTn
9:11 PM - 18 Oct 2016

Opposition lawmakers jointly condemned the walk-out, and said it was an attempt to undermine Hong Kong’s rule of law by challenging a court order to allow Yau and Leung to retake their oaths.

LegCo president Andrew Leung, himself a pro-Beijing lawmaker, defended the rights of Yau and Leung to retake their oaths, though he did not agree with their actions during the first swearing-in ceremony.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/pakistani-mecca-terror/

The Pakistani Mecca of terror

17 Oct 2016|Brahma Chellaney

Almost seven decades after it was created as the first Islamic republic of the postcolonial era, Pakistan is teetering on the edge of an abyss. The economy is stagnant, unemployment is high, and resources are scarce. The government is unstable, ineffective, and plagued by debt. The military—along with its rogue Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, comprising the country’s spies and secret policemen—is exempt from civilian oversight, enabling it to maintain and deepen its terrorist ties.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is now at risk of becoming a failed state. But even if it doesn’t fail, the nexus between terrorist groups and Pakistan’s powerful military raises the spectre of nuclear terrorism—a menace so large that the United States has prepared a contingency plan to take out the country’s fast-growing nuclear arsenal should the need arise.

Make no mistake: Pakistan is ‘ground zero’ for the terrorist threat the world faces. The footprints of many terrorist attacks in the West have been traced to Pakistan, including the 2005 London bombings and the 2015 San Bernardino killings. Two key actors behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States—Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed—were found ensconced in Pakistan. In the recent Manhattan and New Jersey bombings, the arrested suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, was radicalised in a Pakistan seminary located near the Pakistani military’s hideout for the Afghan Taliban leadership.

But it’s Pakistan’s neighbours that are bearing the brunt of its state-sponsored terrorism. Major terrorist attacks in South Asia, like the 2008 Mumbai strikes and the 2008 and 2011 assaults on the Indian and US embassies in Afghanistan, respectively, were apparently orchestrated by the ISI, which has reared terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and the Haqqani network to do its bidding. This is no hearsay; former Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf has largely acknowledged it.

In India, in particular, the Pakistani military—which, despite being the world’s sixth largest, would have little chance of winning a conventional war against its giant neighbour—uses its terrorist proxies to wage a clandestine war. This year alone, Pakistani military-backed terrorists have crossed the border twice to carry out attacks on Indian military bases.

In January, Jaish-e-Mohammad struck India’s Pathankot air base, initiating days of fighting that left seven Indian soldiers dead. Last month, members of the same group crossed the border again to strike the Indian army base at Uri, killing 19 soldiers and prompting India to carry out a retaliatory surgical strike against militant staging areas across the line of control in disputed and divided Kashmir.

Afghanistan and Bangladesh also accuse ISI of undermining their security through terrorist surrogates. They blame Pakistan for the recent grisly attacks in their respective capitals, Kabul and Dhaka, in which a university and a café were among the targets.

Such activities have left Pakistan isolated. Just recently, its regional neighbours—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka—pulled the plug on a South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit that was scheduled for early next month in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Sri Lanka’s prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, has warned that ‘cross-border terrorism’ imperils the very future of SAARC.

But diminished international standing and growing regional isolation have been insufficient to induce Pakistan’s dominant military to rethink its stance on terrorism. One reason is that Pakistan retains some powerful patrons. Beyond receiving financial support from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has, in some ways, become a client of China, which provides political protection—even for Pakistan-based terrorists—at the United Nations Security Council.

This month, China torpedoed, for the fifth time in two years, proposed UN sanctions on Masood Azhar, the Pakistan-based head of Jaish-e-Mohammed, which the UN designated as a terrorist outfit years ago. The sanctions were backed by all other members of the Security Council’s anti-terror committee, not least because India had presented evidence linking Azhar to the terrorist killings at its two military bases.

In terms of financial aid, however, it’s the US that serves as Pakistan’s biggest benefactor. Yes, even after finding the likes of Bin Laden on Pakistani soil, the US—the country that has spearheaded the so-called War on Terror—not only continues to deliver billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, but also supplies it with large amounts of lethal weapons. US President Barack Obama’s administration also opposes a move in Congress that would officially brand Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.

This approach reflects Obama’s commitment to using inducements to coax the Pakistani military to persuade the Taliban to agree to a peace deal in Afghanistan. But that policy has failed. The US remains stuck in the longest war in its history, as a resurgent Taliban carries out increasingly daring attacks in Afghanistan with the aid of their command-and-control structure in—you guessed it—Pakistan. No counterterrorism campaign has ever succeeded when militants have enjoyed such cross-border havens.

Achieving peace in Afghanistan, like stemming the spread of international terrorism, will be impossible without making the Pakistani military accountable to the country’s civilian government. The US has a lot of leverage: Pakistan has one of the world’s lowest tax-to-GDP ratios, and is highly dependent on American and other foreign aid. It should use that leverage to ensure that the Pakistani military is brought to heel—and held to account.

Author
Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of nine books, including Asian Juggernaut, Water: Asia’s New Battleground, and Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis. This article is presented in partnership with Project Syndicate © 2016. Image courtesy of Flickr user*bm1632.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...xtremist-(Siezed-for-quot-unreliability-quot-)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/19/germany-4-police-wounded-in-raid-on-anti-govt-extremist.html

Europe

Germany: 4 police wounded in raid on anti-gov't extremist

Published October 19, 2016 Associated Press

BERLIN – *German police say four officers have been shot and wounded during a raid in which they had planned to confiscate the weapons of an anti-government extremist.

Police said that the 49-year-old man in the Bavarian town of Georgensgmuend legally possessed weapons but that officers had planned to seize them due to his "unreliability."

They say that the man immediately opened fire and four officers were wounded, some of them seriously. He was arrested.

Police said the man, whom they didn't identify, was as a member of the Reich Citizens' Movement, an extremist group that refuses to acknowledge the authority of the post-war Federal Republic of Germany. The group has been compared to the U.S. sovereign citizen movement.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKCN12J0LT

13 Nigerian soldiers wounded, others missing after Boko Haram clashes

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:01am GMT

ABUJA (Reuters) - Thirteen Nigerian soldiers were wounded in clashes with the Islamist militant group Boko Haram and others are missing, the army said on Tuesday.

Army spokesman Sani Usman said the clashes took place at Gashigar, a town in the northeast's Borno state, near the border with Niger.

"The troops did their best to defend the location in vain. In the process, 13 soldiers sustained injuries while some are still missing in action," said Usman. He did not say how many were missing.

Islamic State (IS), to which the Nigerian jihadists have pledged allegiance, said on Twitter that a total of 20 soldiers from Nigeria and neighbouring Niger had been killed and many others were wounded. Usman denied this.

Boko Haram has waged a seven-year insurgency in a bid to create a caliphate in the northeast where a strict interpretation of Islamic laws would be observed. During that time 15,000 people have been killed and two million displaced.

It controlled a swathe of land in northeast Nigeria about the size of Belgium at the end of 2014.

The Nigerian army, aided by troops from neighbouring countries, has, since early last year recaptured most of that territory. But the group still stages suicide bombings in the northeast, as well as in neighbouring Niger and Cameroon.

Divisions within Boko Haram were exposed in August when a new leader of the group was announced by IS only for Abubakar Shekau, the Nigerian jihadist's traditional figurehead, to reject the move in statements circulated on social media.

Two factions of Boko Haram -- one loyal to IS and the other loyal to Shekau -- are based in northeast Nigeria.


(Reporting by Camillus Eboh, Alexis Akwagyiram and Mostafa Hashem, in Cairo; Writing by Alexis Akwagyiram, Editing by Angus MacSwan)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ee-risks-campaign-retake-mosul-islamic-state/

World

Damascus, allies see risks in campaign to retake Mosul from Islamic State

Reuters
Oct 19, 2016
Article history

BEIRUT/AMMAN – The Syrian Army and its allies see a risk that Islamic State will regroup in eastern Syria as it is forced from the Iraqi city of Mosul in a U.S.-backed operation, posing new risks for President Bashar Assad.

Both the Syrian Army and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah have warned of what they have called a U.S. plan to open a path of retreat for Islamic State from Iraq into Syria. A Pentagon spokesman called the claim “ludicrous.”

The Iraqi government launched the campaign to drive the jihadi group from its last stronghold in Iraq this week. Iraqi government and Kurdish forces on Tuesday announced progress in the first 24 hours of the offensive, backed by air and ground support from the U.S.-led coalition.

A senior official in the alliance fighting in support of Assad said the arrival of large numbers of extra IS fighters in Syria from Iraq would present new dangers to Syrian government-held pockets of territory in Deir al-Zor, to the ancient city of Palmyra, and to other areas further west.

IS would also be able to reinforce the Syrian city of Raqqa, its main other urban center after Mosul.

“There is a danger that Iraq will witness a victory and Syria a crisis — a victory in Iraq will be a the expense of a new crisis in Syria,” said the official, a non-Syrian, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Though it has lost ground in Syria, Islamic State still controls parts of the country’s east, including nearly all of Deir al-Zor province, which borders Iraq, and links the Iraqi and Syrian halves of its self-declared “caliphate.”

The jihadi group is being fought in Syria separately by the U.S.-backed coalition and the Russian-backed Syrian Army and its allies, which are also battling other armed groups in western Syria including rebel forces in eastern Aleppo.

Islamic State has lost swathes of territory in Syria to U.S.-backed Syrian forces including the Kurdish YPG over the last year, and more recently to Turkey-backed Syrian Arab ‘Free Syrian Army’ rebel groups near the Turkish border.

The Syrian government and their allies, while focusing much of their firepower on rebels battling to topple Assad, have also fought IS, driving it from Palmyra earlier this year.

The Syrian government has also fought to maintain a precarious foothold in Deir al-Zor city, besieged by IS.

In a statement on Tuesday, the Syrian Army command in Damascus said Washington and Riyadh had drawn up a plan whereby roads would be secured to allow the militants to create “new battleground realities” in eastern Syria.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United States support rebels fighting Assad.

“Any attempt to cross the border is an attack on the sovereignty of Syria … and would be dealt with all forces available,” the army statement said.

The Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, said the assertion was not correct. “These claims are ludicrous,” he said.

The assault on Mosul has been in preparation since July, and at stake for U.S. President Barack Obama is his hoped-for legacy of seizing back as much territory as he can from the jihadis before he leaves office in January.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that with militants likely to retreat to their Syrian bastion Raqqa, it was vital to seriously consider how to also retake that city.

“We can’t let Islamic State reconstitute itself or strengthen to create an even more dangerous hub. We have to prepare ourselves,” he said.


Keywords
Barack Obama, conflict, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, military, religion, Syria, Syrian civil war, terrorism, U.S., violence

Related
Mosul civilians report new atrocities as Islamic State girds for onslaught, goes underground
U.S. says Islamic State likely to use chemical weapons in Mosul fight




*

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopo...-what-southeast-asia-has-fear-if-iraq-retakes

WHY ARE MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE NERVOUS AS IRAQ LOOKS TO RETAKE MOSUL FROM ISLAMIC STATE?

BY BHAVAN JAIPRAGAS
18 OCT 2016

Malaysia on Tuesday led calls for Southeast Asian governments to tighten anti-terror measures amid fears Iraq’s sweeping offensive to retake the Islamic State (IS) stronghold of Mosul will trigger an influx of fleeing foreign fighters seeking safe haven in their home countries.

Trapped Mosul residents brace themselves as Islamic State digs in for fight: ‘Anyone who flees is shot dead’

Baghdad with the support of US advisers and Kurdish fighters this week launched a long-awaited military campaign to retake the city of over one million people two years after the militant group seized control and declared it the centrepiece of a new Islamic caliphate.

There is a mix of around 8,000 homegrown and foreign fighters in the northern Iraqi city, which straddles IS-controlled areas in north-western Iraq and neighbouring parts of eastern Syria.

Malaysia’s deputy prime minister and interior minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Tuesday said the country’s border and airport security had been enhanced.

“We exchange information with intelligence agencies and we have a list of suspects. Our enforcement agencies are always at the ready not only at the airports but also at the rat tunnels,” Zahid Hamidi said.

The country’s defence minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, on Monday said he had instructed the military to “keep an eye on the development in Iraq and Syria because we are worried that [IS fighters] might come here and it won’t be a small number”.

Islamic State’s young recruits

“It will be thousands of them. This is why it’s important for us to have a trilateral relationship with Indonesia and the Philippines. We need to ensure we can get as [much] intel as possible to strengthen and to protect our region,” Hishammuddin was quoted as saying in the New Straits Times newspaper.

The deputy prime minister of Singapore, Teo Chee Hean, said on Tuesday following the country’s largest ever anti-terror drill – planned prior to the Mosul offensive – that the battle was “likely to increase the threat in our region”.

Since 2013, around 90 Malaysians have joined the militant group also known by the Arabic term Daesh, according to an official count. There is no official figure in neighbouring Indonesia, but Jakarta-based experts put the figure at around 500.

Terrorism experts told This Week in Asia the Mosul offensive would heighten the security risk faced by Southeast Asia as the slow trickle of returning fighters became an influx.

The region last saw a spike in fleeing militants in the aftermath of the United States’ invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks. Prior to that, homegrown veterans of the war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s were recruited to the regional militant group Jemaah Islamiah.

Retaking Iraq’s Mosul, an Islamic State stronghold, will be a complex offensive

“I think this is going to be an imminent threat. When the fighters return to countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, they will build a kind of alumni network, like the fighters from Afghanistan nearly two decades ago,” said Ridlwan Habib, a counterterrorism expert at the University of Indonesia.

Ridlwan said the returning fighters would bring with them “new strategies and skillsets”.

“They will have exposure and training in things like cyberterrorism, and ‘lone wolf’ attacks with very soft weaponry,” Ridlwan said.

“With new low explosive forms and ‘lone wolf’ attacks, we can’t predict where and when they will strike,” he added.

IS established a regional affiliate in Southeast Asia called the Katibah Nusantara. Comprising Syria and Iraq-based fighters from Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, it is allegedly led by Indonesian Muhammad Bahrun Naim.

Naim, who is based in IS-controlled territory, is seen as the mastermind of a coordinated attack in Jakarta in January that killed seven people.

In Malaysia, a grenade thrown into a bar on the outskirts of the capital Kuala Lumpur in June heralded the first successful IS-linked attack in the country.

Battle for Mosul begins: Iraq announces long-awaited thrust to liberate key city from Islamic State

Eight people were injured. Police said the two men arrested in the aftermath of the attack had received instructions from Malaysian IS fighter Muhammad Wanndy Mohamed Jedi.

Rohan Gunaratna, a Singapore-based international terrorism expert, said the return of foreign fighters like Naim and Wandy would have “major security implications for Southeast Asia, South Asia and northeast Asia.”

“With the IS heartland in Iraq and Syria coming under increasing threat from the coalition forces, it is inevitable for the foreign fighters to disperse,” said Gunaratna, a co-editor of the recently released book Handbook of Terrorism in the Asia-Pacific.

He said regional governments should “track each and every foreign fighter whether they have directly participated in violence or in support activities”.

Islamic State fighters reportedly target French commandos with new weapon in Iraq: an exploding drone

Ridlwan, the Indonesia-based expert, said Southeast Asian countries – Indonesia in particular – faced challenges in rigorously monitoring returnees because of porous borders. Indonesia is the world’s biggest archipelago, with over 17,000 islands.

“There are so many immigration entry and exit points and not all are monitored…there will inevitably be some who slip back into society without the government noticing,” Ridlwan said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20161019-yemen-ceasefire-comes-effect-under-un-plan

19 October 2016 - 23H25

Yemen ceasefire comes into effect under UN plan

ADEN (AFP) - A ceasefire took effect in war-ravaged Yemen late on Wednesday under a United Nations plan.

The UN special envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, had announced on Monday that the cessation of hostilities would take effect "at 23:59 Yemen time (2059 GMT) on 19 October 2016, for an initial period of 72 hours, subject to renewal".

It is the sixth ceasefire attempt between rebels and pro-government forces since a Saudi-led coalition intervened in March last year to support President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-shooter-idUSKCN12J1KB

WORLD NEWS | Wed Oct 19, 2016 | 2:11pm EDT

Gunman kills two American advisers, wounds three in Afghan capital

By Josh Smith | KABUL

A gunman, reportedly in an Afghan army uniform, shot dead two American advisers and wounded three on Wednesday near a base outside the Afghan capital before being killed himself, officials said.

The American deaths included one soldier and one civilian, while one soldier and two civilians were injured and in stable condition, the U.S. military command in Kabul said.

"The two individuals were killed during an attack near a coalition base by an unknown assailant, who was later killed," it said in a statement. "They were conducting duties as part of the larger NATO mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security services."

About 13,000 international troops and thousands of civilian contractors remain in Afghanistan to train and assist government forces battling Taliban insurgents who seek to reimpose fundamentalist Islamic rule 15 years after they lost power in a U.S.-led military intervention.

The lone gunman opened fire while the Americans were at the gate of an Afghan military ammunition supply depot near Camp Moreshead outside Kabul, said a U.S. official.

The shooting took place at about 11 a.m., while the international troops were visiting a base in Kabul, said Dawlat Waziri, an Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman.

While the suspected attacker remains unidentified, reports indicate he was wearing an Afghan army uniform, he said. U.S. officials said they were investigating the incident.

(Additional reporting by Idrees Ali in Washington; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Mark Heinrich)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN12J29W

WORLD NEWS | Wed Oct 19, 2016 | 5:58pm EDT

U.S. vows all-out defense against 'grave' North Korean threat

By David Brunnstrom and Arshad Mohammed | WASHINGTON

The United States and South Korea agreed on Wednesday to step up military and diplomatic efforts to counter North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, saying they posed a "grave" security threat following repeated tests this year.

After talks in Washington between their foreign and defense ministers, the countries said they had agreed to set up a high-level Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group to leverage "the full breadth of national power – including diplomacy, information, military coordination, and economic elements" in the face of the North Korean threat.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States would do "whatever is necessary" to defend itself, South Korea and other allies against North Korea.

Kerry and U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter reaffirmed that any attack by North Korea would be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons "met with an effective and overwhelming response," a joint statement said.

It said Kerry and Carter reiterated the "ironclad and unwavering" U.S. commitment "to draw on the full range of its military capabilities, including the U.S. nuclear umbrella, conventional strike, and missile defense capabilities, to provide extended deterrence" to South Korea.

Asked what the United States could do to prevent North Korea conducting more nuclear tests after those in January and September, Kerry told a news conference:

“We will up and energize those three things that we have already been doing and put greater pressure, put greater diplomacy to work, and put greater deterrence to work so that in every case we will underscore the futility of what Kim Jong-un and North Korea are pursuing.”

He said the military option was a last resort and Washington was working to tighten sanctions, including by trying to close a loophole in U.N. steps that allowed North Korea to export coal for "livelihood" purposes.

Kerry said this was "obviously being abused ... because the greatest amount of coal, and the greatest amount of revenue, historically, has just passed between China and North Korea."

As part of the military effort, Kerry said the United States would deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system to South Korea "as soon as possible."

China strongly opposes deployment of the U.S. system, saying it would impinge on its own strategic deterrence.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said North Korea was nearing the "final stage of nuclear weaponization" and the allies would mobilize "all tools in the toolkit" to defend themselves.

“What is most important is to continuously demonstrate our capability and deterrence with our commitment and actions so that Pyongyang can feel the panic under their skins,” he said.


ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Abandoned villages on road to Mosul rigged with tunnels and bombs
Kerry plays down Syria deal hopes as Russia joins Geneva talks


South Korea's Yonhap news agency said "extended deterrence" could include permanent deployment of U.S. "strategic assets" in South Korea, such as nuclear-capable B-52 and B-1B bombers, F-22 stealth fighter jets and nuclear-powered submarines.

Yun said he understood this would be discussed in talks between Han and Carter at the Pentagon on Thursday, but declined to elaborate.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond when asked about the possibility of such deployments, but Carter said earlier that Washington and Seoul would "continue to modernize our alliance, seize new opportunities and address evolving threats.”

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom, Arshad Mohammed and Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Chris Reese and Tom Brown)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-germany-poroshenko-idUSKCN12J2R7

WORLD NEWS | Wed Oct 19, 2016 | 7:10pm EDT

Ukraine, Russia agree to more troop withdrawals, work on road map to peace

By Natalia Zinets and Andreas Rinke | BERLIN
Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia agreed to draw up a road map in November on how to implement a stalled ceasefire deal for eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said after five hours of talks among the leaders of the four countries.

The sides also agreed to withdrawals of Ukrainian troops and Russian-backed separatists from four new areas at the frontline of the fighting in the Donbass region, he said after the first meeting of the "Normandy Format" leaders in over a year.

They also agreed that monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) could be armed and that their activities in monitoring the so-called Minsk peace process would not be impeded.

"There is no alternative to the Normandy Format," Poroshenko said. "This roadmap should have the sequence of the implementation of the Minsk agreements and guarantee their implementation."

Separatist violence erupted in eastern Ukraine in 2014 and has killed 9,600 people so far. It continues despite a ceasefire made in the Belarussian capital Minsk last year. Both Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of perpetuating the violence.

The meeting took place against the backdrop of heightened tensions between Russia and the West about Moscow's military support for Syria, and news that Russian warships off the coast of Norway were preparing to reinforce a brutal assault on the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo.

Local elections remained a matter of debate, with Ukraine insisting it would only hold elections in the Donbass region after foreign forces withdrew, Poroshenko told reporters.

After the Ukraine meeting ended, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande met separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin to voice their concerns about Russia's support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Merkel and Hollande will fly to Brussels on Thursday, where the European Union is due to debate its relations with Russia.

"It was always clear to the chancellor and the German government that if such a (Ukraine) meeting occurred, that there would have to be discussion about Syria," Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters earlier Wednesday.

"We have a catastrophic situation there. Don't expect more from the meeting today than these conditions and an assessment of who is responsible will be clearly named."

Officials had sought to lower expectations in the run-up to the Ukraine talks, saying their main aim was to carry out a candid assessment of the situation and identify obstacles to implementing the Minsk peace deal for Ukraine.

A ceasefire agreed by the four countries in the Belarussian capital Minsk in February 2015 stemmed heavy fighting between Ukrainian troops and Russian-backed rebels, but violence routinely flares along a demarcation line.

Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko met at the German chancellery separately before Putin's arrival and the start of the formal four-way talks, where they were joined by the foreign ministers and experts of all four countries.

(Reporting by Natalia Zinets, Denis Pinchuk, Andreas Rinke, Andrea Shalal and Paul Carrel in Berlin, and Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Lisa Shumaker)

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ogram-That-Violates-Treaty-U.S.-Officials-Say

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ials-say/ar-AAj8WKC?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp

Russia Is Moving Ahead With Missile Program That Violates Treaty, U.S. Officials Say

The New York Times
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
8 hrs ago

Russia appears to be moving ahead with a program to produce a ground-launched cruise missile despite the Obama administration’s protests that the weapon violates a landmark arms control agreement, according to American officials and lawmakers.

The concern goes beyond those raised by the United States in July 2014, when the Obama administration said that Russia had violated the 1987 treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces by conducting flight tests of the missile.

The I.N.F. accord, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, bans the two nations from testing, producing and possessing ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles that are capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles.

American officials are now expressing concerns that Russia is producing more missiles than are needed to sustain a flight-test program, spurring fears that the Kremlin is moving to build a force that could ultimately be deployed.

Information about the Russian program was provided by American officials on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified intelligence assessments.

Two prominent Republican lawmakers have also sent a letter to the White House asserting a deepening violation by Russia, but without providing details.

“The I.N.F. Treaty is the only arms control treaty that succeeded in eliminating a class of nuclear arms,” wrote Representatives Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “It has become apparent to us that the situation regarding Russia’s violation has worsened and Russia is now in material breach of the treaty.”

The State Department declined to discuss specifics of the issue. “We do not comment on intelligence matters,” said John Kirby, the State Department spokesman.

After the charge was leveled two years ago, the Russians insisted that the United States provide more information about the allegation, and also responded with their own allegations — including charges that American armed drones violate the I.N.F. treaty.

To focus attention on the issue, the United States has called for a rare meeting of the Special Verification Commission, a body that was established by the I.N.F. treaty to deal with compliance.

Russia inherited the treaty obligations of the Soviet Union. Other former Soviet states that also are a party to the treaty — Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan — will also send representatives to the meeting of the commission, its first since 2003.

The arms control dispute comes against the background of steadily deteriorating relations, which are already strained over Russian airstrikes on Aleppo, Syria, as well as its seizure of portions of Ukraine. A range of American officials also have accused Russia of meddling in the presidential election by hacking into the email accounts of Democratic Party figures.

But the arms control issues are important in their own right. The I.N.F. treaty is regarded as one of the accords that brought an end to the Cold War. The question of Russian compliance threatens to tarnish the White House’s arms control legacy and President Obama’s vision of a world in which there would be fewer nuclear weapons.

Since the I.N.F. treaty was signed, some Russian officials appear to have had buyer’s remorse, arguing that Moscow needs more ways to respond to the potential array of threats around its periphery. During the George W. Bush administration, Russia’s defense minister suggested that the two sides drop the treaty.

The Obama administration says that the treaty is in the overall interest of the United States even if some of its provisions are being violated. When the United States charged Russia with violating the accord two years ago, Mr. Obama sent a letter to President Vladimir V. Putin stressing his interest in a high-level dialogue to preserve the treaty and bring the Kremlin back into compliance.

American military officials, for their part, have said that a move by Russia to actually deploy the new missile system, which is small, mobile and easily concealed, would be significant. When he served as NATO’s top commander in 2014, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove said that “a weapons capability” that violates the I.N.F. treaty “can’t go unanswered.”

How best to persuade the Russians to rectify the alleged violation is also a subject of debate.

The Pentagon has produced a list of military steps that could be taken in response, but the White House has yet to approve them. Two years ago, the State Department’s senior arms control official raised the idea of imposing “economic measures,” but sanctions do not appear to be under consideration.

It is unlikely that the verification commission will make progress in resolving the allegation, since the Russians have never acknowledged the existence of the missile, even though American officials say test flights may have begun as early as 2008.

This month, Mr. Putin also suspended his country’s participation in an accord that was concluded in 2000 on the disposal of plutonium. That agreement does not affect the number of nuclear warheads the United States and Russia have, but the suspension of the accord will deprive each side of the opportunity to verify what the other is doing to dispose of plutonium.

Mr. Putin said the step was taken because the deterioration of American-Russian relations had led to a “radically changed environment.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...elming-response-to-north-korean-nuke-use.html

Secretary of Defense

US warns of 'overwhelming' response to North Korean nuke use

Published October 19, 2016 Associated Press

WASHINGTON – *The United States warned Wednesday that any attack on American allies or use of nuclear weapons by North Korea would be met with an "overwhelming" U.S. response as it sought to reassure close ally South Korea that the U.S. has its back.

The statement by Defense Secretary Ash Carter came as top U.S. and South Korean diplomats and military officials met, weeks after North Korea's most powerful nuclear test explosion to date, and days after its failed test launch of a ballistic missile — one of more than 20 such tests this year alone.

The flurry of activity has deepened concern over the North's progress toward having a nuclear warhead it can mount on a long-range missile.

The two sides discussed steps to strengthen the so-called "extended deterrence" provided by U.S. nuclear forces in defending South Korea and agreed to begin a high-level dialogue about it. Seoul is looking to allay calls from conservatives at home who want South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

"The U.S. commitment to the defense of South Korea is unwavering. This includes our commitment to provide extended deterrence, guaranteed by the full spectrum of U.S. defense capabilities," Carter said in opening remarks.

"Make no mistake, any attack on America or our allies will not only be defeated, but any use of nuclear weapons will be met with an overwhelming and effective response," he said.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said the threat posed by North Korea is "more grave than ever" and that the North is "nearing the final stage of nuclear weaponization."

"North Korea's threat is no longer confined to the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. It's now a direct threat to the mainland U.S.," he said after the talks. "The next few years will be the tipping point."

He said defense officials on Thursday would discuss the possibility of deploying U.S. "strategic assets" to the South — an apparent reference to permanently basing nuclear-capable planes or vessels there.

Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated the U.S. will deploy "as soon as possible" a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, a missile defense system intended to protect South Korea and the nearly 30,000 U.S. forces based there.

The plans for THAAD have angered China and Russia, which see it as a threat to their own defense.

Kerry called for every country to rigorously enforce U.N. sanctions on North Korea, which are intended — but have failed — to prevent its development of weapons of mass destruction. He said the international community needs to cooperate so the North "pays a price for its dangerous actions."

The U.S. and China, which is the North's traditional ally and main trading partner, are currently negotiating at the U.N. Security Council on tightening sanctions in response to the Sept. 9 nuclear test. The U.S., South Korea and Japan are considering additional sanctions of their own.

Kerry said the U.S. wants to close a loophole in the current U.N. sanctions allowing coal exports from North Korea to support the livelihood of its people. Kerry said that provision was being abused and the "greatest amount" of coal and revenue has just passed between China and North Korea.

The U.S. hopes that tighter sanctions can force impoverished North Korea to return to long-stalled negotiations on providing aid in exchange for denuclearization, but there appears to be little prospect of their resumption because of Pyongyang's determination to have nuclear weapons.

North Korea's state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper on Wednesday said the North would strengthen its nuclear capabilities in quantity and quality in response to the threat from its enemies.

"We have warned that South Korea will be engulfed in a sea of fire and the U.S. military units in the Pacific region and the mainland will be in chaos if the U.S. wages nuclear strikes against us," the newspaper said. "Our warning is not an empty word."

Kerry said claims from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that he needs nuclear weapons to defend against the U.S. defy common sense.

"The United States has had the power to wipe out North Korea for years, for years. And if indeed that was out goal, we wouldn't be sitting around waiting" while they get additional nuclear weapons, he said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/south-korea-getting-ready-build-nuclear-submarines-18100

The Buzz

Is South Korea Getting Ready to Build Nuclear Submarines?

It might not be so easy.*

Dave Majumdar [2]
October 19, 2016

With North Korea developing a nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine, South Korea is contemplating the development of a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN). However, the Republic of Korea faces a long, difficult and expensive path to acquiring such a capability should Seoul choose to embark on such a journey.

“The party stressed that securing a nuclear sub is an urgent task to overcome the North's asymmetric capabilities and strengthen self-defense,” Rep. Kim Gwang-lim, chief policymaker for the ruling Saenuri Party told*reporters according to Korea Times. [3] “The government vowed to seriously consider the suggestion.”

The South Korean government believes that it needs an SSN to counter Pyongyang’s nascent ballistic missile submarine program. The reasoning in Seoul is that a conventional diesel-electric—or even one with Air Independent Propulsion—would not have the persistence to maintain continuous tracking of the North Korean boomers.

However, while South Koreans might want a nuclear attack submarine, such vessels are extremely expensive and technically challenging to develop and build. It is highly unlikely that the United States would sell a Virginia-class attack submarine [4] to South Korea, nor is it likely that Seoul could afford to operate such vessels. Thus, the mostly likely option would be for South Korea to develop its own indigenous SSNs.

But to accomplish such a feat, Seoul would almost certainly require technical assistance from the United States, which might not be willing to transfer extremely sensitive submarine technology to South Korea. But even with American technical assistance, developing an SSN is extremely expensive and difficult in the best of times. Even Great Britain, which had previous nuclear submarine experience, required American help to develop the Astute-class SSN and the*Successor-class [5] SSBN.

A further challenge is that Washington effectively controls most uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing for South Korea. The current agreement between Seoul and Washington does not allow for South Korea to use American-sources of uranium for military purposes. “The two countries have yet to review whether or not the revision would allow South Korea to secure uranium necessary for a nuclear submarine,” a Korean defense ministry official told the Korea Times on the condition of anonymity.

Another potential option for South Korea would be to approach France for help in developing a nuclear submarine. The French are generally more open in sharing their submarine technology. Indeed, France had offered to develop a conventionally-powered version of their*Barracuda [6]-class SSN for Australia. However, French SSNs are not quite up to par with American or British attack submarines. Meanwhile, neither Russia nor China are likely to offer their SSN technology to Seoul even if South Korea were so inclined.

Indeed, one of the potential complications arising from South Korean-owned nuclear attack submarines would be the reaction from China, Russia and, potentially, Japan. Moscow and*especially Beijing [7] are likely to react with fury over the prospect of Korean SSNs roaming in the Western Pacific.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter:*@davemajumdar [8].
Tags
South Korea [9]Nuclear Submarines [10]submarines [11]North Korea [12]China [13]Technology [14]
Topics
Security [15]
Regions
Asia [16]

Source URL (retrieved on October 20, 2016): http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/south-korea-getting-ready-build-nuclear-submarines-18100
Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/south-korea-getting-ready-build-nuclear-submarines-18100
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/dave-majumdar
[3] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/116_216315.html
[4] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-americas-virginia-class-submarines-are-17835
[5] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...essor-class-the-largest-submarines-ever-18064
[6] http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/the-...ason-australia-picked-the-shortfin-barracuda/
[7] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-thaad-save-south-korea-18047
[8] https://twitter.com/DaveMajumdar?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/south-korea
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/nuclear-submarines
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/submarines
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/north-korea
[13] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/china
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/technology
[15] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[16] http://nationalinterest.org/region/aisa