WAR 12-19-2015-to-12-25-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

Sorry folks, I had some meat world issues to deal with today. Was only able to drop in occasionally on my phone.....

(194) 11-28-2015-to-12-04-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...04-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(195) 12-05-2015-to-12-11-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...11-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(196) 12-12-2015-to-12-18-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...18-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
_____



For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/china-deploys-first-nuclear-deterrence-patrol/

China Deploys First Nuclear Deterrence Patrol

China reportedly deployed its first-ever submarine nuclear deterrence patrol. What does it mean?

By Benjamin David Baker
December 19, 2015

1.4k Shares
16 Comments

During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was ultimately perceived to be an effective way of keeping tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO from exploding into war. Although much of the rhetoric surrounding Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) disappeared along with the Soviet Union, nuclear states still keep sizable arsenals to dissuade others from attacking them.

A central part of having a credible nuclear response option is to develop a so-called “nuclear triad.” This consists of having ground-, air- and sea-based nuclear capabilities, in order to retain a “second strike” capability in case an opponent launches its nukes first. Submarines and small, mobile land-based launch platforms armed with nuclear ballistic and so-called Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) are crucial to a second strike capability, since they are difficult to detect and target.

China has recently achieved some important milestones with regards to both these capabilities. According to IHS Jane’s, U.S. military officials confirmed that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has deployed a Type-094 Jin-class nuclear-powered ballistic submarine on a nuclear deterrence patrol. If true, this represents the first time that China has deployed a sub on this kind of mission.

Due to the secrecy surrounding China’s military in general, it is impossible to confirm whether this boat is actually armed with nuclear-tipped missiles. However, U.S. four-star Admiral Cecil Haney is assuming so: “Have they put the missile we’ve seen them test, in for a package that is doing strategic deterrent patrols? I have to consider them today that they are on strategic patrol.”

If this were to be the case, it would represent a new development for Beijing’s nuclear strategy. As previously reported by Tong Zhao for The Diplomat, Chinese nuclear warheads have usually been kept apart from their missiles during peacetime. A part of the reason for this is to demonstrate what China calls its policy of “no first use” — that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict and would use them only in retaliation for hostile nuclear attacks.

Another reason warheads are kept separate is the Chinese Communist Party’s need for political control over its strategic military assets. Separating warheads from missiles allows for a greater centralized control over the nuclear arsenal, which is estimated to number around 300 warheads. Chinese authorities fear giving a submarine commander control over the launch of nuclear missiles and worry that one of the military’s hawks could ignore the party’s nuclear chain of command and order a nuclear strike on his own. Although keeping the warhead and missile separated on a submarine nuclear deterrence patrol is rather impractical, this deployment also shows a new level of trust given by Beijing to its naval commanders.

The missiles in question are in all likelihood the Julang-2 (CSS-NX-5,) the sea-based version of the Dongfeng-34 (CSS-9.) The JL-2 has been under development since at least 1983 and has a reported maximum range of 8,000 – 9,000 kilometers, according to Globalsecurity.

Furthermore, China also recently tested one of its land-based ICBMs. According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Second Artillery Corps successfully fired a long-range Dongfeng-41 ICBM on December 4. The latest flight test demonstrated the use of MIRVs. The missile launch and dummy warheads were tracked by satellites to an impact range in western China.

It was the second flight test this year of the DF-41 and the fifth since 2012, when the missile was tested for the first time. U.S. intelligence assessments suggest that the missile will be capable of carrying between three and 10 warheads. The two most recent missile flight tests took place August 6, also with two dummy warheads, and just over a year ago, on December 13. As Franz-Stefan Gady has previously reported, the DF-41 has a reported range of between 12,000-15,000 kilometers, which covers all of the United States and most of Russia. Gady notes,“The most recent U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report notes that the missile could be already deployed this year; however, a 2018-2020 time frame appears much more likely, according to independent experts.”

As Zachary Keck over at The National Interest has written, there are plenty of reasons to worry about China’s nuclear development (click here and here.) The new Jin-class nuclear patrol necessarily has a nuclear-armed coastal state in mind (India or the United States, most likely) while the MIRV-armed DF-41 might trouble Russia. While Russia is trying to modernize its conventional forces, it is still dependent on its massive nuclear arsenal to deter NATO and China from infringing on its interests. Beijing’s development and testing of its MIRV-armed DF-41 probably isn’t winning any points in Moscow.

Ironically, today’s situation is similar to the Cold War, when China was desperately attempting to acquire nukes to dissuade the Soviet Union and the United States from any military adventurism.

How does that old saying go again? “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201512180036

Japan, Indonesia pursue military partnership at first '2+2' meeting

December 18, 2015
By ISAMU NIKAIDO/ Staff Writer

Japan moved a step forward in plans to sell defense equipment to Indonesia and enhance military cooperation at sea during the nations’ first “2+2” security talks in Tokyo on Dec. 17.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani represented Japan at the meeting with their respective Indonesian counterparts, Retno Marsudi and Ryamizard Ryacudu.

They agreed to begin talks on an agreement to transfer defense equipment and technology that will allow Japan to export military equipment to the Southeast Asian nation.

Japan will also bolster capacity-building projects that aim to strengthen the Indonesian army through exchanges with Japan’s Self-Defense Forces.

The Indonesian side showed interest in the US-2, the Japanese-made amphibious aircraft for the Maritime SDF’s rescue work, because it is “distinguished not only as a flying boat but also as an aircraft.”

The Japanese side also agreed that Japan will support the enhancement of maritime security. The SDF, for example, will join Komodo, the Indonesian navy-hosted multilateral naval exercise, in 2016.

Indonesia is the sixth nation and the first ASEAN member to enter “2+2” talks with Japan, following the United States, Britain, France, Australia and Russia.

By ISAMU NIKAIDO/ Staff Writer

___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201512170024

Japan caves in to U.S. demands over ‘sympathy budget’ for military

December 17, 2015
By RYUTARO ABE/ Staff Writer

Bowing to pressure from Washington, Japan agreed to increase host-nation support for U.S. forces stationed here over the next five years to 946.5 billion yen ($7.73 billion), the government said Dec. 16.

Compromising on its initial outlay objections, Tokyo agreed to increase the outlay known as “omoiyari yosan” (sympathy budget) by 13.3 billion yen for the period compared with the five years through March 2016.

The spending increase, which reverses the downward trend since fiscal 2000, owes much to an arrangement for Japan to shoulder expenses for 553 more personnel.

The maximum number of aircraft maintenance workers and clerks whose personnel expenses are covered by Japan will be raised from 18,217 to 19,285, while the maximum number of such workers at restaurants, shops and recreational facilities inside U.S. bases will be reduced from 4,408 to 3,893.

Japan will cover 61 percent of utility expenses at U.S. military facilities, down from the current 72 percent, with annual spending capped at 24.9 billion yen.

“These arrangements symbolize our policy to increase contributions for workers who directly support the functions of U.S. forces while reducing spending for benefits-related facilities,” said a Defense Ministry official.

Japan initially sought to cut the annual outlay from the current level by several tens of billions of yen during its negotiations with Washington.

Budget constraints and the expanding roles of the Self-Defense Forces to support the U.S. military under the new national security legislation enacted in September were cited.

The United States, however, insisted the budget be increased in exchange for the additional deployment in Japan of advanced destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile-interceptor system as part of its rebalance policy to Asia.

Japan first provided host-nation support for the U.S. forces in 1978 to cover personnel expenses for workers at U.S. military installations and other spending due to the rising value of the yen and the U.S. government’s growing budget deficit.

The arrangement was later expanded to cover utility expenses and construction and maintenance costs of housing and other facilities. The annual budget reached 275.6 billion yen in the peak year of fiscal 1999 and had been falling ever since.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ar_will_require_all_hands_on_deck_108816.html

December 19, 2015

Ending Syria's War Will Require All Hands on Deck

By Ashish Kumar Sen

“To deal with the Syrian situation and stability in Iraq you need to have US-Russian engagement, Arab-Iranian engagement, and Turkish engagement in the political process,” Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s former Foreign Minister, said in an interview with the New Atlanticist on December 18. (Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh)

Nabil Fahmy served as Egypt’s Foreign Minister from 2013 to 2014. In this interview with the New Atlanticist’s Ashish Kumar Sen, Fahmy makes the point that the United States, Russia, the Arab states, Iran and Turkey will all need to work together to end the conflict in Syria. Here are excerpts from our interview.

Q: What is your assessment of Russia’s actions in Syria?

Fahmy: It is too early to say. What they did was not surprising at all. They filled a vacuum that was there. There was really no significant success in dealing with ISIS on the one hand. Secondly, there was a political vacuum, almost a dormancy, and they jumped in.

As a result of that the anti-ISIS coalition with a Western base has become a bit more active. The United States itself has committed more support and the Vienna process has started. In that sense I see some positive reaction.

Now, is it enough to determine that the step itself was good step or a bad step—for me the judgment comes on its implications on the political process, not on how many ISIS fighters they killed or not.

The problem, frankly, for the West or for that matter Russia hasn’t been who can bomb more effectively. It is actually who can control the territory after the bombing and how does that change the landscape. That is political much more than just air bombing.

Q: You have mentioned that the US-led coalition cannot defeat ISIS without Russia’s help. What factors can help put all actors on the same page? Do you believe, fro example, that the longer Russia’s military role in Syria drags on the greater will be the opportunity for a meeting of minds in Washington and Moscow?

Fahmy: The ISIS problem is a terrorist problem and also a socio-economic problem because they feed on the frustrations of people who feel marginalized. It goes beyond the Arab world into the West and into Russia. It is not only about bullets, it is about how do you deal with the political and socio-economic problems. Therefore, it can’t be done only by a foreigner, it needs cooperation.

For that reason, I think we are looking at a three-step approach. First, terrorists have to be combated robustly. Armed force is something I support. Second, this ISIS issue is Syria and Iraq, it is not only Syria, so it reflects on regional security. We need to address the regional security concerns that exist to create the stability after the bombing. And, thirdly, unless you move the Syrian agenda and stabilize the situation in Iraq it will continue to fuel ISIS’ mushrooming.

To deal with the Syrian situation and stability in Iraq you need to have US-Russian engagement, Arab-Iranian engagement, and Turkish engagement in the political process. These three flanks are enough reason to understand that this cannot be solved by any one party alone and it cannot be solved by one source of action, in other words military, political, or a Marshall Plan for development alone.

Q: Is there now a greater understanding of this opinion and do you see this reflected in the Vienna process?

Fahmy: Yes and no. I see the optics clearly indicate that the parties understand that they need to talk to each other. The indication was not only the Russian and American participation in Vienna, but also the Saudi and Iranian participation in Vienna, among other countries. This was the first time the Iranians came to the table. But many of those coming to the table still distrust the other parties and still believe that the Vienna process, or the New York process today [December 18], is simply buying time for other steps or other interests rather than a sincere effort to solve the Syrian problem.

I actually think it is both. There is no question it is buying time, but it also serves to deal with the Syrian problem. That’s why engagement is important because the trust factor will not be resolved in one meeting. It is going to have to be resolved through an intensive, multidimensional, multi-state diplomatic process.

Q: Are Arab states doing enough in the war against ISIS, especially when it comes to addressing the ideological root of this problem? What more should they be doing?

Fahmy: Obviously the answer is no. If it was enough it would have solved the problem, but they have realized that you need to deal with the intellectual, the societal, the political background, and the frustration that exists.

[Egyptian] President Sisi, for example, has repeatedly said we need to change the Islamic dialogue. He has actually called on Al-Azhar in Cairo to play the leading role on this. You saw the Saudis announce the Islamic coalition against terrorism. And, of course, the Egyptians had their initiative on the Arab rapid deployment force in the Arab League, which still hasn’t happened.

So is there an understanding now that the Arab world needs to do more? Yes, I think so. But there is also a realization that the problem has become so complicated that one we don’t have the resources to do it alone, and second, if we don’t do it in coordination with the foreign parties they may actually work against this process.

I’ll give you a quick example. In Egypt, we have repeatedly said that the issue of terrorism is not only in the Syrian theater or only in the Iraqi theater, it is throughout the region. Up until very recently that was not a vision that the Western world accepted. But after Paris, after the problems in London, and after hearing of possible Daesh infiltration into Libya it has become more accepted now.

Part of the ISIS problem was created by false and faulty Western and for that matter foreign policies in the Middle East. Not all of it, but part of it. So foreign countries need to engage, one, because they have the political influence, two, because they have the hard resources to do that, and third out of responsibility for their former policies. Arabs can’t do it alone, nor can the foreigners.

Q: Is the Saudi anti-terrorism force, which excludes Iran, Iraq, and Syria, an anti-Iran force as [former Iraqi National Security Advisor] Mowaffak Rubaei suggested in an interview with the New Atlanticist?

Fahmy: First of all, the announcement came quickly so I at least am not fully versed on the scope of that. Secondly, I don’t think that the membership is closed. Thirdly, they talk about it more as a coalition. But you are right. Even this initiative comes in the context of what is happening in the region and there is strong sensitivity between the Saudis and the Iranians in particular.

None of these initiatives are solutions to the problems. They are simply attempts to move things forward. So lets wait and see before we either consider that this is the ultimate answer that nobody could think of before, or that it is a failure even before it starts.

Q: Syria President Bashar al-Assad’s future has been a key point of disagreement between Washington and Moscow. Is it a mistake to let this issue come in the way of finding a solution to the war?

Fahmy: It was a mistake on both sides from the very beginning of the process. What they should have discussed was the strategic issues that relate to Syria and the region rather than the tactical issues or the modalities for who governs. It has become a main issue therefore it is not going to be taken off the table at this point. But to get to an answer, rather than waste time only on the question, we need to develop a landscape instead of guarantees on what Syria will look like post-solution and then walk back and develop a roadmap on how to get to that objective. So we respond to the concerns of the different parties about the day after and then you can get a more reasonable discussion on “OK, how do I get to that day?”

Q: Given the fact that the war in Syria has dragged on for almost five years is there today a viable Plan B?

Fahmy: No.

Q: What is your assessment of President Obama’s Middle East strategy, but more specifically his strategy in Syria?

Fahmy: I’m not sure exactly what it is. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense. It is clearly shifting and I’m not sure he actually has enough time to have a strategy. This is not a problem that will be resolved in the next six months, but if he is able to lay the foundation for a solution by a serious engagement in geopolitics at the global level and at the regional level in the Middle East, he may lay the foundation of success toward the end of his term or the beginning of the next administration.

This is going to take a serious Russian-US dialogue, a serious dialogue between Arabs and Iran and Turkey about their politics but also about the Syrian issue. We cannot afford to delay that, but it would be naïve to think that it is all going to happen very quickly.

Q: The Iran nuclear deal has been one of the key accomplishments of the Obama administration. What are its implications for Egypt and the greater Middle East region?

Fahmy: I think the deal is a step forward. However, it is either a step forward toward a more tumultuous Middle East with a much more substantial arms race or it’s a step forward toward a new political and security paradigm in the Middle East. Which result will be determined not by the deal itself, but by what we do after the deal.

Specifically, on the disarmament component, this is about extending the breakout time. It is not about ending Iran’s nuclear capacity. If we use the fifteen odd years to negotiate and implement a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East then this deal will be a very positive step towards erasing the nuclear threat, and that would include the Israeli threat.

Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not an NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) member, so the zone free of nuclear weapons will have to include Israel as a non-nuclear member. I encourage them to engage in the negotiations. If we do that then this deal has opened the door for serious negotiations on this issue. If we end up wasting time and after fifteen years or so all we have done is postponed the breakout time for a while and then allowed it to continue again you would have expanded the asymmetry between the nuclear capacity of Israel, Iran, and the Arab world. That is going to lead to an arms race.

The other aspect of that are the political implications of the deal beyond arms control. The deal removes sanctions against Iran and provides them with tremendous economic resource in exchange for the delay of the breakout time. If that is used in an aggressive foreign policy it leads to much more instability in the Middle East and there are implications in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and throughout the region. So the deal would actually have catastrophic implications.

If, on the other hand, this opening leads Iran to be a more constructive player in the Middle East then this deal will have had a positive effect. Again, on this political track it depends on what we do post-deal rather than on the deal itself.

Q: President Sisi’s critics say that Egypt today is looking a lot like the Egyptof late 2010—the final months of Hosni Mubarak’s regime. What is your assessment?

Fahmy: The two revolutions we had in 2011 and 2013 created a tremendous desire for social and political engagement by the Egyptian people. That desire was legitimate. I think expectations were probably exaggerated that this could happen so quickly and therefore there are a significant amount of Egyptians who feel more could have been done. More openness in the political system and all that.

Frankly, I also don’t think that you can put the genie in the box again. You can slow the pace of progress but you can’t take the knowledge and the desire of people to engage away from them, especially with the communications revolution that exists.

I don’t see it as a pre-2011 retake, if you want, but I recognize that a lot of Egyptians thought that we would be farther off than we are now and we need to keep working on it.

Ashish Kumar Sen is a staff writer at the Atlantic Council.

This article originally appeared at Atlantic Council.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151219/ml-yemen-62d5d5921b.html

Fierce fighting in northern Yemen kills at least 75

Dec 19, 6:34 PM (ET)
By AHMED AL-HAJ

(AP) Map locates Hajjah province, Yemen; 1c x 3 inches; 46.5 mm x 76 mm;
Full Image

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Fierce fighting and airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition pounded northern Yemen on Saturday, as the two main parties in the country's conflict continued to violate a ceasefire agreement and undermine already tenuous peace talks in Switzerland.

The clashes in Hajjah Province near the Saudi border between rebel-allied units and pro-government Yemeni forces have killed more than 75 over the past three days, Yemeni security officials and witnesses said. The dead included more than 40 rebels and 35 government troops, with 50 wounded on the rebel side and dozens wounded on the government side. Dozens of tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed, according to the witnesses and security officials, who remain neutral in the conflict that has splintered the Arab world's poorest country.

The government troops advanced across the border from Saudi territory after training there for months, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to brief reporters.

Yemen's fighting pits the internationally recognized government backed by a Saudi-led, U.S.-supported coalition against the rebels, known as Houthis, who are allied with a former president and backed by Iran. Local affiliates of al-Qaida and the Islamic State group have exploited the chaos to grab land and exercise influence.

According to U.N. figures, the war in Yemen has killed at least 5,884 people since March, when fighting escalated after the Saudi-led coalition began launching airstrikes targeting the rebels.

Fighting in Yemen has continued despite a weeklong cease-fire agreement that went into effect on Tuesday. By Wednesday, at least 42 people had been killed in clashes along several front lines, underscoring the difficulties of achieving progress at the U.N.-brokered peace talks in the Swiss village of Macolin.

On Friday, the Yemeni rebel delegation suspended meetings with the internationally recognized government in protest over its cease-fire violations. The Houthis said they would not resume talks unless the U.N. condemned breaches by government forces, delegates at the talks told AP.

A member of the Houthi delegation said U.N. special envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed had "promised to condemn the government and then he did not."

A government delegate said: "They are using the ceasefire as an excuse although they were the first to break it." Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The U.N. has urged all factions in the conflict to end the violence and is pressing to keep the talks going.

By late Saturday night, the continued combat was already impacting the negotiations. The Houthis had earlier agreed to permit humanitarian aid deliveries into the besieged city of Taiz as well as the cities of Saada and also Hajjah, the capital of the province where the fresh fighting was taking place.

But the rebels then canceled a planned release of five high-profile prisoners they had agreed to earlier in the day as a measure of good will, as well as their decision to lift the siege of Taix, Houthi and pro-government officials at the talks said.

The five prisoners, including Defense Minister Mahmoud Subaihi and Gen. Nasser Mansour Hadi, brother of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, were to have been handed over to the Red Cross on Saturday.

But officials at the talks from the Houthi delegation as well as from the government side said the Houthis would not release the prisoners unless the U.N. consolidates the cease-fire. The participants spoke anonymously since they were not authorized to brief reporters.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151219/as--pakistan-us-75ee07130f.html

US Embassy in Pakistan warns of possible terror attacks

Dec 19, 12:15 PM (ET)
By ZARAR KHAN

ISLAMABAD (AP) — The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said it has received information on possible terrorist attacks in the Pakistani capital in late December, warning Americans to avoid busy public places during the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

"Possible targets include places of worship and shopping centers," the US embassy said in a statement, without giving specifics of the information that led it to issue the warning on Friday.

Pakistani police and other officials were not available Saturday to comment on the warning. However, a Pakistani intelligence official said there is a "general threat perception" but no specific threats. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

American citizens should "minimize the number and duration of trips" to crowded places such as markets, restaurants, hotels and places of worship and other locations where large numbers of people congregate, the warning said. American government personnel are under additional movement restrictions in coming weeks, including religious venues and large shopping centers.

In August, the U.S. State Department warned Americans against all non-essential travel to Pakistan, citing the threat of foreign and domestic terrorist groups operating throughout the country.

In July this year, gunmen shot and killed a local employee of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. Iqbal Baig was working for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

Also Saturday, authorities in Karachi said they arrested four suspects in the massacre of over 50 minority Shiites on a bus in May.

The four allegedly provided financial support to the perpetrators of the attack on members of the Ismaili Shiite branch, said Raja Umar Khattab, head of the city's counterterrorism department. One of the suspects, Adil Masood Butt, studied at Indiana University and New York's Fordham University from the mid-1980s to 1992, he said.

The suspected mastermind and several gunmen involved in the assault were previously arrested.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151219/as--afghanistan-islamic_state-516ef8b5ff.html

Islamic State expands Afghan footprint with terror campaign

Dec 19, 2:53 AM (ET)
By LYNNE O'DONNELL and HUMAYOON BABUR

(AP) In this Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015 photo, Rahman Wali, an internally displaced man speaks...
Full Image

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AP) — Rahman Wali's younger brother was one of 10 Afghan men forced by Islamic State militants to kneel over bombs buried in the soil in a lush green valley in eastern Nangarhar province. The extremists then detonated the bombs, turning the pastoral countryside into a scene of horror.

The August killings were recorded on camera and posted on social media like so many IS atrocities across the Mideast — reflecting how the Islamic State is exporting its particular brand of cruelty as the group seeks to enlarge its footprint in Afghanistan.

It was through the macabre video that 44-year-old Wali learned the fate of his brother, Rahman Gul, an imam in their remote Shinwar district bordering Pakistan. Gul had been kidnapped weeks earlier, together with his wife and six children who were quickly set free.

After his brother's death, Wali and his family fled to the provincial capital of Jalalabad, seeking refuge in a makeshift camp with thousands of others who left their homes in the valleys hugging the border to escape what is turning out to be an increasingly vicious war for control of the region between the Taliban and fighters of Afghanistan's IS affiliate.

(AP) In this Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015 photo, an internally displaced girl carries firewood...
Full Image

Reports of an IS presence in Afghanistan first emerged early this year in southern Helmand province, where recruiters believed to have links to the IS leadership in Syria were killed by a U.S. drone strike in February.

In the summer, extremists pledging allegiance to IS also surfaced in Nangarhar, where they challenged the Taliban in border clashes. After see-sawing between the two groups, four districts — Achin, Nazyan, Bati Kot and Spin Gar — fell under IS control, according to Gen. John F. Campbell, the U.S. commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Campbell told The Associated Press in an interview this week that IS loyalists in Afghanistan are now trying to consolidate links to the mothership — the so-called "caliphate" proclaimed on territory IS seized in Syria and Iraq after its blitz there in the summer of 2014.

For the present, IS ambitions for Afghanistan seem focused on setting up what it calls "Khorasan Province," taking the name of an ancient province of the Persian Empire that included territories in today's Afghanistan, Iran and some Central Asian states. It parallels names for affiliates elsewhere, such as the IS branch in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, which is known as "Sinai Province."

"I think ISIL is really trying to establish a base in Nangarhar ... and establish Jalalabad as the base of the Khorasan Province," Campbell said, using an alternative acronym for IS.

(AP) In this Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015 photo, an internally displaced girl peeks from a tent...
Full Image

Several residents who fled the four Nangarhar districts say IS's "reign of terror" there includes extortions, evictions, arbitrary imprisonment and forced marriage for young women. Beheadings and killings with "buried bombs" — such as the gruesome slaying of Wali's brother — are filmed and posted on social media to instill fear, they said. Some spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals for relatives back in the districts.

Mimicking IS's media outreach in Syria and Iraq, the Afghan branch also set up a radio station in Nangarhar, "Radio Caliphate," broadcasting at least one hour a day to attract young Afghan men disenchanted by dim job prospects in a war-torn country with an overall 24 percent unemployment rate. The joblessness is even higher among youths targeted in the IS recruitment drive.

Meanwhile, the Afghan government forces, busy fighting the Taliban elsewhere, left the two militant groups to battle it out.

And battle they did. Hundreds of Taliban fighters — disillusioned with the 14-year war to overthrow the Kabul government — switched allegiance to IS.

Though estimates say that IS fighters number a few thousand nationwide, they are still far outnumbered by the Taliban, who have anywhere between 20,000 to 30,000 in their ranks, according to Afghan political analyst Waheed Muzhdah, who worked in the Taliban foreign ministry during their 1996-2001 rule.

(AP) In this Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015 photo, an internally displaced girl peers through the...
Full Image

Still, many admit the IS Afghan branch could pose a serious threat to the unstable nation.

In a report released this week, the Pentagon referred to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Khorasan Province" as an "emergent competitor to other violent extremist groups that have traditionally operated in Afghanistan."

"This may result in increased violence among the various extremist groups in 2016," the Dec. 16 report said.

Campbell said some foreign IS fighters have joined the Afghans from Iraq and Syria. Former residents said they spotted gunmen from Pakistan and Uzbekistan, as well as Arabic speakers flush with money and apparently better armed than the Taliban.

Nangarhar is attractive to IS for its mix of insurgent groups, some of which are based across the border in Pakistan, and criminal gangs involved in lucrative drugs and minerals smuggling.

(AP) In this Monday, Nov. 30, 2015 photo, internally displaced girls hold babies after...
Full Image

Alarm bells rang when students at the prestigious Nangarhar University staged a pro-IS demonstration on campus in August, sparking arrests by the Afghan intelligence agency and a crackdown on universities nationwide.

Governor Salim Kunduzi put IS's battleground strength in Nangarhar at around 400 fighters. The province's mountainous terrain provides perfect ground for an insurgency, and militants can easily resupply from Pakistan, he said. The province can also serve as a staging ground for a push north, along the eastern border and eventually on to Kabul, just 125 kilometers (77.5 miles) to the west, he added.

Both Campbell and Kunduzi agree IS may see Jalalabad as its base for expansion in Afghanistan.

"I do not think Daesh will focus only on the east," Kunduzi said, using the Arabic language acronym for the Islamic State group.

Nangarhar's chief refugee official, Ghulam Haidar Faqirzai, said that at least 25,200 families — or more than 170,000 people — have been displaced across the province, either directly by IS or by perceived threats from the group. As the winter sets in, needs of the displaced are intensifying, he warned.

(AP) In this Monday, Nov. 30, 2015 photo, Salim Kunduzi, governor of Nangarhar province,...
Full Image

In a camp on Jalalabad's eastern outskirts, 70-year-old Yaqub, who like many Afghan men uses only one name, said he left his village in Maamand Valley in Achin district six months ago, after "fighters of the black flag" — the Islamic State's banner — dragged him and his son into prison where they were beaten and tortured. He said he still does not know why.

"They covered my head with a black bag so I couldn't breathe while they beat me for a whole day, and every day they said they were going to kill me," he said.

Yaqub and his son were released after the family paid their captors 200,000 Pakistani rupees, or almost $2,000 — a fortune in Afghanistan, where the average annual income is around $700.

"Anything is better than going back there," said Yaqub.

---

O'Donnell reported from Kabul, Afghanistan.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/untangling-the-turkey-isil-connection/

Opinion

Untangling Turkey’s Middle East allegiances

Turkey, in a sticky web of allegiances, shares mutual enemies with the Islamic State.

By Behlül Özkan | 12/19/15, 12:41 PM CET

ISTANBUL — The northwestern corner of Syria is home to a dizzying spectrum of anti-Assad forces. Weapons — and fighters — have amassed in the area in large part thanks to Turkey’s “open door” policy, which makes the passage relatively painless. When Turkey’s ethnic brethren, the Turkmen, recently became the targets of Russian air strikes — prompting, perhaps, Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian fighter jet on November 24 — the incident brought Turkey’s murky relationship with a tangled web of jihadist groups to the fore.

Ankara’s ties with the extremists are anything but straightforward. What’s clear is that Turkey has taken clear sides in the civil war in Syria, took a laissez-faire approach to the frontier with Syria and more recently felt the terrorist blowback from Syria.

Turkey differs with its allies on which opposition forces to support in Syria, a thorny issue further complicated by the emergence of ISIL. Apart from ISIL, jihadist groups in Syria include al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch), Ahrar al-Sham, and various more loosely formed militias from the Caucasus and elsewhere.

Former U.S. ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone rebuked the Turks, saying “we will not work with them, and we’d rather you not work with them, and we think they need to be blocked from transiting your borders.”

Vice President Joe Biden took a similar position, criticizing “the Turks, the Saudis, the Emiratis” for supporting “anyone who would fight against Assad,” a category which came to include al-Nusra and other extremists. Despite these statements, radicals in Syria have regularly received military supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar via Turkey, with the full knowledge of the CIA.

Turkey is at odds with three of ISIL’s rivals, namely the Kurds, Shiite Arabs and the Assad regime. Since the beginning of the Arab Spring in 2011, Ankara has done everything in its power to topple Assad. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) — which has fought ISIL over cities like Kobane and Haseke for months — is the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against which Turkey has waged its own 30-year war. Ankara is not happy to see a Shiite government in power in Baghdad either, and has misgivings about Iran’s growing influence in southern Iraq.

Turkey and ISIL now share regional enemies.

* * *

ISIL’s rise goes hand in hand with the failure of the Turkish project to create a “Muslim Brotherhood belt” stretching from Tunisia to Syria under Ankara’s leadership. Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE consider democratically elected Islamists threats to their monarchies, and have opposed Muslim Brotherhood parties in the region since 2013, much to Turkey’s chagrin.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia openly supported the coup against Mohamed Morsi, partly out of a wish to counteract the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Sahwa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Awakening), which also has a presence in Saudi Arabia.

While the Muslim Brotherhood was an important part of the opposition to Assad in 2011, the ensuing civil war soon brought radical Salafist groups to the forefront. Across the Middle East, Brotherhood-affiliated parties that four years ago seemed poised to become counterparts to the AKP are now on the ropes. They have given way to radical Salafist groups — influenced by the Saudi-bred ideology of Wahhabism — that amass power undemocratically, through violence.

In the competition for prestige between the Sunni-majority nations of the Middle East, Turkey has lost ground to Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi ideology — the most radical proponent of this ideology being ISIL itself.

Ankara has adapted its rhetoric to this changing landscape. Though Turkey calls ISIL a terrorist organization, it never misses a chance to point to the fact that the plight of Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis contributes to its presence in the region. Sunnis oppressed by the Shiite government in Baghdad and by the Assad regime in Damascus, so the argument goes, come to see ISIL as their only hope for salvation.

In August 2014, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu said ISIL came to power as the result of Sunnis’ “discontent, anger, marginalization, and humiliation,” and that “if Iraq’s Sunni Arabs had not been excluded from the [electoral] process, there would not now be such pent-up anger in provinces of the Sunni heartland like Mosul and Anbar.”

Notably, just two months before Davutoðlu made his remarks, ISIL captured Mosul and took 49 diplomats from the Turkish consulate, which Ankara had persistently refused to evacuate, as hostages. When ISIL released them three months later, rumors that Turkey had freed a number of ISIL militants in exchange ran wild.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoðan did not confirm or deny the claims, and merely stated, “Even if such an exchange took place, as president I regard these 49 citizens of mine as irreplaceable.”

* * *



World Leaders Address The UN General Assmebly


Also On Politico

Putin to Turkey: I’m not finished with you yet

Hans von der Burchard


The most outspoken critic of Turkey’s ISIL policy is Russian President Vladimir Putin who, as soon as the Russian jet went down November 24, remarked, “The loss we have suffered today is a stab in the back delivered by terrorists’ accomplices.” He also hinted that ISIL had been selling its smuggled petrol in Turkey.

While Putin accused Turkey of allowing ISIL to smuggle oil across its border, the U.S. Treasury Department said that the Assad regime — which is supported by Russia — has been buying oil from ISIL, and imposed sanctions on the Syrian, Cypriot, and Russian businessmen allegedly at the center of the oil trade between Damascus and the Islamic State.

“
ISIL is selling a great deal of oil to the Assad regime, some is coming across the border into Turkey — Adam Szubin

Recently U.S. Treasury Department official Adam Szubin said “ISIL is selling a great deal of oil to the Assad regime,” but also added “some is coming across the border into Turkey.”

It has long been claimed that ISIL has taken advantage of Iraq and Syria’s porous borders, as well as the black market economy created by the ongoing conflicts there, to sell its oil in Turkey and other neighboring countries.

In a 2014 speech, the American Secretary of State John Kerry called out Turkey, along with Lebanon, as the main destination for ISIL’s black-market petrol. Similarly, an OECD report titled “Financing of the Terrorist Organization Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” states: “Following capture of oil fields by ISIL by summer 2014, the seizures of smuggled oil increased sharply, reaching 20 million liters at the seven Turkish provinces bordering Iraq and Syria.”

The Turkish press has also made many allegations concerning human trafficking and smuggling along Turkey’s border with ISIL. According to their reports, the criminal activity takes place with the tacit consent of local security forces, who are bribed to look the other way.

* * *

Sympathy for ISIL militants among Turkish Islamists is another cause for concern. Official figures put the number of ISIL militants of Turkish origin at approximately 1,300. The New York Times described how ISIL had set up a recruitment center in the Ankara slum of Hacýbayram, where considerable numbers of local people have already joined the organization.

In July, pro-ISIL groups gathered in Istanbul to celebrate the end of Ramadan, without any intervention from the police. ISIL fighters wounded in battle are said to have received treatment in Turkish hospitals — to which Turkey’s Minister of Health responded, “Our duty is to treat patients, not interrogate them. We have no way of knowing if a wounded person belongs to ISIL.”

Things took a serious turn for the worse in June, when ISIL began using Turkish citizens to carry out suicide bombings on Turkish soil. When two ISIL suicide bombers struck Ankara in October, they killed 102 people in the deadliest terror attack in Turkish history. The bombings occurred just a few kilometers from the Turkish Parliament, the prime minister’s office, the office of the Turkish armed forces’ chief of staff, and the country’s National Intelligence Organization — a clear sign of ISIL’s potential to inflict harm at the very core of the country.

It is probably no coincidence that ISIL’s chief targets in its most recent attacks in Turkey have been Kurdish and leftist, secular groups. Over the past 13 years, Turkish society has witnessed rising polarization between secularists and Islamists, and — more recently — between Turks and Kurds as well. Thus ISIL’s attacks seem calculated to increase pressure on the country’s main social and ethnic fault lines.

Though ISIL was the sole party responsible for the attacks, the Turkish government has bizarrely insisted on describing it as part of a so-called “terrorism cocktail” which includes the PKK/PYD and other leftist groups. Not surprisingly, Turkish society has failed to unite in the aftermath of these deadly attacks.

If the Turkish government resolves to take a tougher stance against ISIL, how will the group retaliate? At the very least, further terrorist attacks in Turkey would harm the country’s tourist industry, which brings in $35 billion in annual revenues. Given the havoc ISIL was able to wreak in Paris, thousands of kilometers away, it could turn neighboring Turkey into a war zone. And yet the Turkish government insists that ISIL is a symptom, not the main problem.

In the eyes of AKP leaders, toppling the Assad regime will facilitate the task of dealing with ISIL. However, Ankara’s game plan is supported by none of the key regional and global powers in this conflict — Iran, Russia, even Turkey’s allies like the U.S. and France — which are mainly concerned with eliminating ISIL, not Assad.

Turkey has no choice but to go along with this strategy, even if — as the sole NATO country to share a border with ISIL — it may have to pay a heavy price indeed. Whatever the future holds for Turkey, there is little doubt that its leadership is anxiously brooding over how to untangle itself from ISIL.

Behlül Özkan is assistant professor at Marmara University and author of the book “From the Abode of Islam to the Turkish Vatan: The Making of a National Homeland in Turkey” (Yale University Press, 2012).

This article was updated to correct the death toll of the Ankara bomb attacks from 128 to 102.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-turkey-nato-idINKBN0U128K20151218

World | Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:28am IST
Related: World, Aerospace & Defence, Syria

Exclusive - NATO agrees Turkey air defence package, seeks 'predictability'

BRUSSELS | By Robin Emmott

NATO allies agreed on Friday to send aircraft and ships to Turkey to strengthen Ankara's air defences on its border with Syria, the alliance's chief said.

Diplomats said the package is partly designed to avoid more shoot-downs of Russian planes.

Envoys to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation approved the plan and must now decide what military assets to send to Turkey, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told Reuters, stressing that it was a defensive measure.

"We have agreed on a package of assurance measures for Turkey in view of the volatile situation in the region," Stoltenberg said, although he avoided any reference to Russia's military involvement in Syria and its air incursions.

Given that Turkey already has a formidable air force, NATO diplomats and military experts say the alliance's involvement is to minimise the risk of any repeat of Turkey's Nov. 24 shooting down of a Russian warplane that flew into Turkish airspace.

That was the first known incident of its kind since the Cold War and the most serious of several air incursions since early October, leaving relations between Turkey and Russia at their lowest ebb in recent memory. Moscow has retaliated with sanctions and called it a "hostile act".

Due to be assembled in the coming weeks, the package will include NATO's AWACS surveillance planes and what Stoltenberg described as "enhanced air policing, and increased naval presence including maritime patrol aircraft."

The ships will be provided by Germany and Denmark, which are exercising in the eastern Mediterranean.

AWACS monitor airspace within a radius of more than 400 km (250 miles) and exchange information via digital data links, with ground-based, sea-based and airborne commanders.

Asked if this was about managing Turkey's airspace with more caution than Ankara has shown in the past, Stoltenberg said: "This will give us a better situational awareness ... more transparency, more predictability and that will contribute to stabilising the situation in the region and also calm tensions," Stoltenberg said.


AWKWARD POSITION

Spain has also agreed to extend its Patriot surface-to-air missiles along Turkey's border to shoot down any missiles from Syria's conflict fired into Turkish territory. Germany and the United States recently removed their batteries from the area.

NATO diplomats worry Ankara is too aggressive and that further incidents could escalate the situation after Russia moved its modern S-400 air defence system into Syria that can hit missiles and aircraft from up to 400 km.

It has also upgraded its strike aircraft with SU-34 fighters.

While NATO allies do not dispute Ankara's version of the facts, they also are keen to engage Russia in talks to avoid incidents that could flare from Moscow's aggressive patrolling of alliance air borders around Turkey, the Baltic states and the North Sea.

Diplomats said the United States and European allies are in the awkward position of urging Ankara to do more against Islamic State in Syria - including sealing a section of the border crossed by fighters and oil smugglers - while encouraging it to avoid further incidents with Russia and to keep alive a peace process with the Kurds in southeastern Turkey.

"We are concerned about the military build-up in the region," Stoltenberg said, and said he hoped NATO could repeat the same kind of air policing done in the Baltics, "without incidents and accidents".


(Reporting by Robin Emmott; Editing by Alison Williams and Paul Taylor)

 

[Ishah]

Thanks for the ongoing leg work.

 

[Housecarl]

Thanks for the ongoing leg work.

On behalf of the other News Hounds here at TB2K, you're welcome. As always, if anyone wants to contribute to this thread please feel free to do so....Housecarl


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151220/eu-paris-attacks-troubled-neighborhood--ef1df9c686.html

In Belgian district, many feel a dead end fuels militancy

Dec 20, 7:51 AM (ET)
By HAMZA HENDAWI

(AP) In this Monday, June 2, 2014 file photo, a man stops to pay his respects...
Full Image

BRUSSELS (AP) — Brahim Abdeslam seemed no different from his peers in Molenbeek, one of Belgium's poorest districts, where drug use is rife and many of the young men are unemployed. One November evening, he passed the time smoking pot in a parked car with two of his friends.

But the next day, Abdeslam drove to Paris, and on Nov. 13 he blew himself up outside a cafe on Boulevard Voltaire, part of the wave of attacks claimed by the Islamic State group that killed 130 people.

The Molenbeek district of Brussels was home to a core number of the participants in the Paris attacks: its reported architect, Abdelhamid Abaood; Abdeslam; his brother, Salah, who escaped and remains at large; and three others. Another suicide bomber in the attacks, Bilal Hadfi, hailed from a similar district in the Belgian capital. Moreover, those involved in at least two previous attacks — the foiled shooting on a French train and an attack on the Jewish Museum in Belgium that killed four — had links to Molenbeek.

Home to generations of immigrants and Belgians of North African descent, Molenbeek feels like a dead end for many of its youth, residents say. With few opportunities, they feel neglected by authorities and rejected by the rest of Belgian society — giving an opening for radicals to seek recruits.

(AP) In this Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2015 file photo, women speak on the street in...
Full Image

"We are now well into the fourth generation of migrants," said Sheikh Mohammed Tojgani, the imam of Molenbeek's main mosque, al-Khalil. "Now even children realize one way or another that they are marginalized and that they are encountering racism. And when older ones look for work, they are not given many opportunities."

"That is what makes recruiting them easy, because they all have accumulated hatred."

Militant recruits have mostly been small-time criminals, young idealists and young women from broken homes looking for men who would make reliable husbands, said Johan Leman, an anthropologist who heads Foyer, a volunteer agency in the district.

Molenbeek's youth speak of bearded men who talk to them about "helping your brothers in Syria," trying to recruit them to join jihadis fighting in that country's civil war. A total of 30 Molenbeek residents have left for Syria since 2011, according to Mayor Francoise Schepmans. But youth in the neighborhood say the figure may be much higher.

Zaid, a 24-year-old of Moroccan descent, was with Abdeslam in the car that night. He had known Abdeslam for years in a friendship built over countless nights smoking pot, playing cards or hanging out at the cafe Abdeslam owned in Molenbeek — which police closed down not long before the attacks on suspicion of drug dealing there.

(AP) In this photo taken on Friday, Dec. 4, 2015, local children run during a practice...
Full Image

Abdeslam never talked about politics, never spoke in favor of IS or other militants, Zaid told The Associated Press. He also drank beer and gambled — both forbidden in Islam. Zaid showed a short video on his phone showing Brahim and his brother Salah dancing with women in a nightclub in May.

"Like almost everyone from Molenbeek, he was full of contradictions," said Zaid. "He did not see, or chose not to see, a clash between drinking beer, gambling and praying. He has done all of them simultaneously." Like many of those who knew the Paris attackers, Zaid spoke to the AP on condition he only be identified by his first name to avoid police attention.

In recent months, Abdeslam dropped some of those habits and started to pray more regularly, but that was hardly unusual. He continued to smoke pot, which is frowned upon in Islam but not explicitly banned.

Molenbeek, separated by a canal from a trendy part of Brussels filled with cafes and restaurants, is the second poorest of Belgium's 589 municipalities, and in its older quarters, population density reaches four times the Brussels average, with 27,000 people crammed into each square kilometer. A third of students drop out before graduation from its overwhelmed middle schools and high schools. Unemployment runs at 50 percent among its youth. Around 40 percent of residents under 18 live in a household where neither parent works.

When seeking jobs, they confront the stigma of being from Molenbeek, a stigma that has only grown since the attacks. They struggle with questions of identity in a country where they still don't feel accepted as real citizens.

(AP) In this Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2015 file photo, people walk during a candlelight...
Full Image

Shaimaa Belaraby, an 18-year-old who was born in Belgium, says she is proud of being Belgian and feels like a foreigner when she visits her family's homeland, Morocco. But the teen, who wears a Muslim headscarf, says she feels her Moroccan identity when she steps out of Molenbeek. "They always used to give looks out of the corner of their eye," she said. "But since the Paris attacks, the looks have gotten more frequent and harsh."

She told of how one evening not long after the attacks, she went out with friends to the cafe district across the canal. A man walking his dog passed, and when the dog barked, one of her friends screamed.

The man said it was crazy to fear a dog. When she protested, the man said: "You're right, it's us who are crazy to have allowed you to come to Belgium."

Molenbeek's mayor, Schepmans, acknowledges more must be done for the district.

"Before, we were not careful enough and we did not ask ourselves many questions about the best way to work with the people here," she told the AP. "Now, we all have to work together to help people here have a better life, but we also have to take security measures."

(AP) In this Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2015 file photo, the Abaaoud name is shown on the...
Full Image

Still, there is less money these days to help the poor; in April, the mayor announced a 10 percent cut in spending after the local government racked up a 13.7 million euro ($14.5 million) operating deficit in 2014.

Hadfi, at 20 the youngest of the Paris suicide bombers, grew up in the low-income housing projects of Neder-Over-Heempeek, another district with a sizable immigrant community. The area is home to gangs; graffiti on the walls curse the police; many of the young men have had run-ins with the law.

Samir Youssef Ali, a friend of Hadfi, said he knew three others who went to Syria — one who was killed there, another jailed in Turkey and a third detained in Belgium after returning home. Smoking a joint outside one of Heempeek's housing projects, the 30-year-old denounced the Paris attacks, but said the young men who join the jihadis are victims as well.

"When authorities say one of us is a terrorist, we say he is the tail and not the head of the serpent — people brainwashed him," Ali said. "I don't hate the so-called 'terrorists' ... and won't allow anything negative to be said about them."

Another of Hadfi's friends, 20-year-old Hakim, said the world of Belgium's Muslims is bleak.

(AP) In this Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2015, file photo, a shopkeeper walks past a sign...
Full Image

"In this country, we have no dreams," he said. "The government does nothing to help us. We want to work, pay taxes and earn an income, but we aren't offered the chance because we're Muslims."

Hakim grew up with Hadfi. "We all shoplifted and committed other petty crimes," Hakim said.

But Hadfi was the good kid in their crowd. He told his friends not to steal, and they turned to him for help in schoolwork, Hakim said. He prayed regularly but never displayed any sign of radicalism.

In early 2015, Hadfi disappeared, running off to Syria. Hakim and several other friends told the AP they never saw him again, only learning after the attacks that he'd blown himself up outside the Stade de France, killing only himself.

Hakim doesn't know exactly what led Hadfi to do what he did. But he believes he was drawn out of anger over the victims of Syria's civil war.

"Trust me, it is not reading the Quran that radicalizes young men here," he said. "It is the images of dead Syrian children."

---

Associated Press reporter John-Thor Dahlburg contributed to this report from Brussels.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Post-WWII-Reconciliation-Failed-in-East-Asia

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/why-post-wwii-reconciliation-failed-in-east-asia/

Why Post-WWII Reconciliation Failed in East Asia

The legacy of the war endures, impacting modern regional relations.

By Robert Farley
December 19, 2015

779 Shares
51 Comments

The legacy of World War II continues to loom over East Asian politics, as claims and counterclaims about Japanese culpability and punishment dominate the popular conversation between China, Korea, and Japan.

It’s fair to say that the victors of World War II, mindful of the lessons of World War I, had hoped to avoid this outcome. In both Europe and Asia, the Allies established war crimes tribunals intended to properly attribute responsibility to the guilty parties, and to provide a sense of justice for the victims. These tribunals came to Asia some years after its application in Europe. The Nuremberg Tribunals in Germany provided a useful test case for the work of pursuing justice against Japanese officials. Unfortunately, even as the tribunals began, the order established by Allied victory was in full collapse.

A new book by Barak Kushner (reviewed here by Jeanne Guillemin) details some of these issues, taking advantage of newfound access to original records in Chinese and Japanese. Both the victorious Communists and defeated Nationalists had claims against the Japanese, but each also had charges against the other. The United States, which had decided to give its political (if not military) backing to the Nationalist regime, was left in a quandary.

The U.S. desire to reconstruct and rehabilitate Japan exacerbated these difficulties. No one had much of an interest in a remilitarized Japan, but Washington certainly saw Japan as an economic bulwark against Communist expansion in East Asia. Japan could also provide valuable bases to the United States. Consequently, the United States had good reason, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor, to take it easy on the Japanese. As Kushner and Guillemin note, the collapse of the Japanese empire turned out far more messy on the mainland and in Southeast Asia than in Japan itself, which insulated the United States from some of the uglier fallout.

Broadly speaking, both Chinese factions sought to demonstrate their commitment to the new international order by appearing magnanimous towards the defeated Japanese. For their part, the Japanese government voluntarily complied with most of the international demands, but the government never engaged in a thorough effort to explain the proceedings to the Japanese public, with the result that many Japanese never grappled with the reality of the war crimes.

The victory of the Communists in China, and the establishment of revolutionary or anti-colonial regimes in North Vietnam, North Korea, and Indonesia, put the notion of regional reconciliation to bed. Beijing and the rest no longer had much reason to accept Japanese rehabilitation, and Washington suddenly had very good reason to support conservative, establishment forces in Japan. And thus, the legacy of the war endures.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...pe-s-year-from-hell-may-presage-worse-to-come

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/europes-hell-may-presage-worse-come-091219811--business.html

Europe's year from hell may presage worse to come

By Paul Taylor
Reuters
December 20, 2015
Comments 27

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - By any measure, it has been a year from hell for the European Union. And if Britons vote to leave the bloc, next year could be worse.

Not since 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell and communism crumbled across eastern Europe, has the continent's geopolitical kaleidoscope been shaken up so vigorously.

But unlike that year of joyous turmoil, which paved the way for a leap forward in European integration, the crises of 2015 have threatened to tear the Union apart and left it battered, bruised, despondent and littered with new barriers.

The collapse of the Iron Curtain led within two years to the agreement to create a single European currency and, over the following 15 years, to the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO up to the borders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

That appeared to confirm founding father Jean Monnet's prediction that a united Europe would be built out of crises.

In contrast, this year's political and economic shocks over an influx of migrants, Greek debt, Islamist violence and Russian military action have led to the return of border controls in many places, the rise of populist anti-EU political forces and recrimination among EU governments.

Jean-Claude Juncker, who describes his EU executive as the "last chance Commission", warned that the EU's open-border Schengen area of passport-free travel was in danger and the euro itself would be unlikely to survive if internal borders were shut.

Juncker resorted to gallows humor after the last of 12 EU summits this year, most devoted to last-gasp crisis management: "The crises that are with us will remain and others will come."

His gloomy tone was a reality check on the "we can do it" spirit that German Chancellor Angela Merkel - Europe's pre-eminent leader - has sought to apply to the absorption of hundreds of thousands of mostly Syrian refugees.

Merkel has received little support from her EU partners in sharing the migrant burden. Most have insisted the priority is sealing Europe's external borders rather than welcoming more than a token number of refugees in their own countries.

This is partly due to latent resentment of German dominance of the EU and payback for its reluctance to share more financial risks in the euro zone.

Some partners also accuse Berlin of hypocrisy over its energy ties with Russia, while friends such as France, the Netherlands and Denmark are simply petrified by the rise of right-wing anti-immigration populists at home.

One of the sharpest rebuffs to sharing more of the refugee burden came from close ally Paris. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said of Merkel's open door policy toward Syrian refugees: "It was not France that said 'Come!'."

Merkel's critics rounded on her at an end-of-year EU summit. Italy's Matteo Renzi, backed by Portugal and Greece, attacked her refusal to accept a euro zone bank deposit guarantee scheme.

The Baltic states, Bulgaria and Italy denounced her support for a direct gas pipeline from Russia to Germany at a time when the EU is sanctioning Moscow over its military action in Ukraine and has forced the cancellation of a pipeline to southern Europe.

"It was pretty much everyone against Merkel in the room," a diplomat who heard the exchanges said.

One problem likely to worsen in 2016 is that Europe's main leaders are politically weak and so preoccupied by domestic challenges that they are unable to take the necessary collective action.

The conservative Merkel's survival in the chancellery hinges on her ability to bring down the number of refugees flooding into Germany next year and show she has migration under control.

Without "Mutti" (Mummy), as she is affectionately known back home, the EU would be in even more dire straits.

French President Francois Hollande's year has been bracketed by militant attacks on the streets of Paris in January and November that caused Europe-wide shock over the Islamist threat from within and over failures in European police and intelligence cooperation.

France's influence in Europe is diminished by its economic weakness as Hollande struggles for re-election in 2017 against rising far-right populist Marine Le Pen and conservative predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy.

British Prime Minister David Cameron cares only about finding a face-saving deal on changes in Britain's EU membership terms in February to win a knife-edge referendum which he has hinted he hopes to hold sometime next year.

Cameron has effectively mortgaged Britain's future to an attempt to deprive immigrants from eastern EU countries of the same in-work benefits that low-paid British workers get, which many EU partners say would be illegal.

Given British public alarm over immigration, an anti-elite mood and age-old suspicion of Europe fanned by skeptical media, the referendum is an accident waiting to happen.

If Europe's second-biggest economy and one of its two main military powers became the first member state ever to vote to leave the EU, it would be a shattering blow to the bloc's confidence and international standing.

Die-hard European federalists like to believe a "Brexit" would unshackle the remaining members to move ahead in a much closer union built on the euro zone.

But that is to ignore the myriad east versus west, north versus south, free-market versus protectionist, socialist versus conservative and sovereignist versus integrationist divisions among the other 27 member states.

More likely, a Brexit vote would prompt demands for referendums elsewhere, from Poland to Denmark, amid acrimonious negotiations between London and Brussels over the terms of Britain's departure and future relationship with the bloc.

Denmark has just shown the political risk when governments anywhere in Europe ask voters whether they want even a tiny bit closer EU cooperation. The answer was "Nej tak" - no thanks.

If Cameron wins and Britain stays in on improved terms, some fear political contagion, with other national leaders tempted to emulate his tactic of taking Brussels hostage for domestic ends.

"Unfortunately, we need a victory for Cameron," one senior EU official said. "But it is full of risk for Europe as a whole."

(Writing by Paul Taylor; Editing by Susan Fenton)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151220/ml--syria-2bd3a4109c.html

Notorious Lebanese militant killed in Syria airstrike

Dec 20, 1:49 PM (ET)
By BASSEM MROUE and JOSEF FEDERMAN

(AP) In this Jan. 29, 2009, file photo, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,...
Full Image

BEIRUT (AP) — A Lebanese man convicted of one of the most notorious attacks in Israel's history and who spent nearly three decades in an Israeli prison has been killed by an Israeli airstrike near the Syrian capital, the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah group said Sunday.

Hezbollah officials have pledged to avenge the killing of Samir Kantar, sparking fears of escalation in an already volatile region. In a possible first response, three rockets were fired into Israel from Lebanon late Sunday.

Kantar had said that he had been working, with the backing of Hezbollah, to set up "the Syrian resistance" to liberate the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and annexed 14 years later.

Hezbollah said Kantar was killed along with eight others in an airstrike in Jaramana, a suburb of the Syrian capital Damascus, on Saturday night. According to Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV, two Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace and fired four long-range missiles at the residential building in Jaramana. It aired footage of what it said was the building, which appeared to be destroyed. Kantar's brother, Bassam, confirmed his "martyrdom" in a Facebook post on Sunday.

(AP) In this July 16, 2008, file photo, Samir Kantar, one of five prisoners...
Full Image

In Lebanon Kantar is known as "the dean of Lebanese prisoners," a reference to his long jail sentence.

In Israel, he gained notoriety for the kidnapping and grisly killing of a man named Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter, in the coastal town of Nahariya. Kantar was 16 at the time, and a member of the Palestinian militant group the Palestine Liberation Front.

He also killed a policeman during the attack, and is alleged to have beaten the four-year-old to death with a rifle butt. As the attack unfolded, the girl's mother hid inside a crawl space inside their home and accidentally smothered their crying two-year-old daughter, fearing Kantar would find them.

Kantar was imprisoned in 1979 in Israel and sentenced to three life terms, but was released as part of a prisoner swap with Hezbollah in 2008. While many in Israel were outraged at his release, in Lebanon he received a hero's welcome and the following year he was awarded Syria's highest medal by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Israel and Hezbollah are bitter enemies. The two countries battled to a stalemate during a monthlong war in 2006 during which Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel and Israel's air force destroyed wide areas in Lebanon. Since then, Israeli military officials say Hezbollah has upgraded its capabilities and now possesses tens of thousands of rockets and missiles capable of striking anywhere in the country.

(AP) This photo released Sunday, Dec. 20, 2015, by the Syrian official news agency SANA...
Full Image

Many Israeli officials believe Hezbollah is currently in no position to open a new front with Israel, as it is bogged down aiding its close ally, President Assad, in the Syrian civil war.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah legislator Ali Ammar vowed to avenge Kantar's killing, saying the militant group will not allow his blood to go "betrayed." Ammar said the group's military arm would determine the timing and methods chosen "to punish the killers, specifically the Israeli enemy."

In January, the Lebanese group accused Israel of carrying out an airstrike on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, which killed several Hezbollah members and a prominent Iranian general. Around ten days later, Hezbollah militants fired a salvo of missiles at an Israeli military convoy in a disputed border area, killing two soldiers and triggering deadly clashes that marked the most serious escalation since the 2006 war.

Gil Rabinovich, the former head of the Israeli military intelligence's counterterrorism unit, said it was impossible to predict how Hezbollah would respond, in part because Israel has not claimed responsibility for Kantar's killing. He noted however that Kantar was not a member of Hezbollah's "inner circle," reducing the probability that the group would open a new front against Israel.

"He's important, but not so important to endanger them in a situation where they might be in direct conflict with Israel," Rabinovich said.

(AP) In this July 16, 2008, file photo, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, right,...
Full Image

Israel has previously said it would engage in the Syria conflict for two reasons only: to stop the transfer of game-changing weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to disrupt preparations for attacks on Israel. The country is believed to have intercepted and destroyed a number of arms shipments headed toward the militant group and Israeli warplanes have struck targets inside Syria several times during the country's nearly five-year conflict, although it has rarely confirmed its involvement.

Retired Israeli Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror, former National Security Adviser and a Senior Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies said that Kantar was seen as "a pivot in the efforts of Hezbollah to prepare the Golan Heights for another front against Israel."

Israeli Cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz said he was not sorry about Kantar's death but could not comment on the accusations that Israel was behind the killing. It is not unusual for Israel to decline to comment on such operations.

Kantar's killing would mark the first Israeli assassination of a senior figure inside Syria since Russia launched its military operations in Syria on Sept. 30 in support of President Bashar Assad.

Israel and Russia have set up a communications channel to make sure their air forces do not clash with each other, though it was not known whether the alleged Israeli strike on Kantar had been announced to the Russians ahead of time. The Russian Defense Ministry declined comment.

(AP) In this photo released Sunday, Dec. 20, 2015, by the Syrian official news agency...
Full Image

An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under briefing guidelines, said Hezbollah has a limited presence on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and its efforts there have been focused primarily on aiding Assad's forces against the advances of various rebel groups. He noted, however, that several attacks along the Israeli-Syrian frontier in the Golan in recent years were believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah or its allies.

On Sunday evening, Lebanese security officials speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, said militants fired three rockets into northern Israel. No one claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks.

---

Associated Press writers Aron Heller in Jerusalem, Zeina Karam in Beirut, Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria and Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this report.

---

This story has been corrected to show that the Lebanese militant group accused Israel of killing Hezbollah commanders in Golan Heights in January 2015, not January 2014.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.waow.com/story/30796002/putin-russia-will-develop-not-use-nuclear-weapons

Putin: Russia will develop, not use, nuclear weapons

Dec 20, 2:48 PM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin says Russia will continue to develop nuclear weapons but doesn't intend to use them.

The Russian leader made the comment in a documentary called "World Order" that was aired on state television Sunday night.

"Russia as a leading nuclear country will be improving this weapon as a containment factor; the nuclear triad is the basis of our nuclear security polices," he said, referring to the three main delivery systems for nuclear warheads - bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ICBMs.

"We have never brandished or will brandish this nuclear club, but our military doctrine allocates it a place and role," he said, according to excerpts reported by the state news agency Tass.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...IN-and-the-Failure-of-American-Foreign-Policy

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://havokjournal.com/nation/a-legacy-of-ash/

A Legacy of Ash: COIN and the Failure of American Foreign Policy

December 20, 2015 by Special Guest ~ Leave A Comment
By Joshua Hood
Comments 3

COIN, an examination: Hidden amidst the media scrutiny following the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino is an interesting aside. In January, David Petraeus, co-author of the Counter Insurgency manual, and disgraced director of the CIA, is going to testify before the special house subcommittee on the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.

While our political betters will no doubt use hearing as an opportunity to make political hay, Petraeus is one of the few people who can answer a question he posed in 2003.

The Legend is Born

David Petraeus is an interesting character. He has many admirers, and even more detractors. He goes by many names: the man who saved Iraq, General Betray Us, and my personal favorite, the Perfumed Prince. But where did he come from?

Iraq Burning Fire Flag War Conflict Night 3DIn 2003, Major General David Petraeus deployed with the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq. Up until that time he was just another officer, but when he famously asked Rick Atkinson, an embedded reporter from Washington Post, “tell me how this ends,” a legend was born.

This quote, brilliant in its simplicity, would later become the cornerstone of an altar built for the unknown general. It was the first seed planted in the mind of the collective consciousness that Petraeus had a preternatural ability to answer a question that no one had yet to ask.

Peter Bergen of CNN would later say “General Petraeus is the most effective American military commander since Eisenhower,” a fact that he was soon to “prove” by running a “textbook” counter insurgency strategy in Mosul.

He ended his first tour on a high, earning a Bronze Star with Valor device, and a Combat Actions Badge, despite the fact that he never came under direct fire. Newsweek would later laud that, “it is widely accepted that no unit did more to win the hearts and minds in Iraq than the 101st under the leadership of General Petraeus.” His mantra at the time was, “money is ammunition,” an idea he later would repeat over and over.

Six months later, now Lt. General Petraeus was put in charge of the Multi National Security Transition Team. His job was to set up a security force in Iraq, and lay the foundation for nation building.

However, when put to the test, both the illusion he’d created in Mosul, and the 11 billion dollars he spent on the Iraqi security force faded like smoke in the wind when the insurgency in Iraq burst on the scene. Violence slithered into Mosul, which was now being held by a Stryker Brigade roughly one quarter of the size of Petraeus’ force, and in no time the enemy Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, referred to as “political dead enders” began stacking bodies.

By this time Petraeus had been in Iraq for 14 months and was assigned to Ft. Leavenworth where he began crafting what was to become FM 3-24, the manual for Counterinsurgency or COIN.

The document he released in 2006 begins with, “this manual is designed to fill a doctrinal gap… and provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations. This manual takes a general approach to counterinsurgency operations (Petraeus FM 3-24). These guidelines were quickly dubbed the Petraeus doctrine when he took command of Iraq in 2007.

Look What I Did

At the heart of FM 3-24, we find a magical bait and switch. For those who have taken the time to read the manual, it becomes abundantly clear that at its core, COIN simply offers a new yardstick to measure success.

America was tired of the endless footage of dead and dying soldiers, and quickly lost faith in the White House’s strategy. It was becoming evident that the old days of enemy-centric warfare didn’t fit. Holding ground and calculating body count, meant nothing in this war, and President Bush looked to Petraeus for a new path.

Where his predecessors were rebuffed in their attempts to get additional troops, General Petraeus’ request was granted, and in 2007, 20,000 additional troops were sent to Iraq. But, this was no longer the war Petraeus had seen in 2004. The fragile nation was locked in a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni, and there was no end in sight.

With deployments extended from 12 months to 15, Petraeus threw away the concepts he’d created in FM 3-24, mainly the long-term commitment to the local government he’d help stand up. Instead, he began paying off the Sunnis to fight a war by proxy.

The people in al Anbar were tired of the sectarian violence and had grown weary of the coalition’s empty promises. Local emirs had begun fielding their own militias, in what was later dubbed the “Anbar awakening.” Sensing an opportunity, Petraeus used coalition forces to shore up a weak government and armed over 100,000 Sunni fighters to do his fighting for him. It didn’t matter that the majority of the fighters were known insurgents, all that mattered was the result.

The Beginning of the End

In his 1987 Princeton dissertation, David Petraeus wrote“What policy makers believe to have taken place in any particular case is what matters — more than what actually happened.” Perception is reality. The perception in Washington was that General Petraeus had saved Iraq, and after a Rolling Stone article condemned General McChrystal, President Obama wanted Petraeus to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

In reality, all Petraeus had done was create, arm, and train a massive militia, and got the hell out of dodge before the vacuum created by the coalition’s early withdrawal from Iraq went high order.

COIN never had a chance in Afghanistan. The shifts in ROE, or rules of engagement, and partnership General McChrystal made with Hamid Karzai came to nothing. Not even the vaunted Petraeus could work out the failures embedded in the tribal centric country, but before he got called on the carpet, he was selected as the Director of the CIA.

Petraeus was sworn in as the Director of the CIA, and there was even talk that he had the juice to become the next President of the United States. But then a little thing called ethics got in the way. In 2012, the FBI accused Director Petraeus of having an affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell. To add insult to injury, Petraeus was accused of giving her access to classified information, which he denied.

When the proof came out, Petraeus made a deal and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “mishandling classified information.” His punishment: two years of probation, and he was forced to pay a $100,000 fine. No big deal to a man who is reported to have a net worth of two mil.

So What Now?

In 2008, Andrew Bacevich wrote in the Atlantic Monthly, that “Iraq represents a harbinger of things to come.” It is sad to find that he was right.

The Petraeus doctrine, much like the man himself, is a thing of smoke and mirrors —a parlor trick that dazzles, but has little substance. The doctrines were replaced when not convenient, and the only lesson that was ever put into use was the concept of “cash for cooperation,” which Petraeus reinforced when he pushed Congress to arm Syrian rebels against the Assad regime.

COIN widened the gap between the troops on the ground and the policy makers. Ideas became the primary machines in this new warfare, and money replaced the hearts and minds. Nation building will never work when the heavy lifters don’t believe in the end state, but that is the result of war by proxy.

The security forces set up by Petraeus in 2004 fled before the ISIS onslaught, leaving money, weapons and material behind. In Libya, guns and money provided by the United States were used in the Benghazi attack, and in Syria our arms, training and money fuel a never-ending cycle of violence.

In retrospect the only doctrine that Petraeus really follows is selling himself to the media. His ability to influence military conditions by using his press relations set a dangerous precedent amongst the fellow officers. Some would say that his actions in Iraq weakened the chain of command, and provided a fragmented narrative of omissions and distorted interpretations that have been accepted as fact. FM 3-24 has become the antidote that contained the disease, and it has infected our country’s foreign policy. The current administration, loath to actually finish a war that has been going on since 2001, seems to be content with letting the violence in Syria and Iraq spread to the United States and Europe.

Most likely there will be no answers coming from Petraeus’ testimony before congress. ISIS and other radical jihadists will continue planning and conducting attacks, and any response we have will be another attempt to put lipstick on the pig. Maybe in another ten years someone will be able to answer the question posed so long ago.

“How does this end?”


Joshua Hood is a combat veteran and former member of the 82nd Airborne Division. He is also the author of “Clear by Fire,” a military adventure novel published by Simon and Schuster and available on Amazon.com.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151221/ml--israel-lebanon-c08d38d60e.html

3 rockets from Lebanon hit northern Israel, no injuries

Dec 20, 8:02 PM (ET)

JERUSALEM (AP) — Three rockets fired from southern Lebanon landed in northern Israel on Sunday and the Israeli military responded with "targeted artillery fire," Israeli officials said. No injuries or damage was reported.

Sirens wailed in northern Israel where the rockets hit and the Israeli army said it "holds the Lebanese Army responsible for attacks emanating from its territory."

Lebanese security officials said the rockets were fired from an area south of the Lebanese port city of Tyre. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters.

The rocket fire came amid tensions on the border after Samir Kantar, a fighter from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah who carried out a notorious attack in Israel, was killed in Syria in an airstrike. Hezbollah blamed Israel for the airstrike and said it would avenge his death. There was no confirmation that the rocket attacks were linked to the Hezbollah threat.

Kantar spent nearly 30 years in an Israeli prison after being convicted of the 1979 killing an Israeli policeman along with a father and his 4-year-old daughter. He was returned to Lebanon in a controversial prisoner exchange.

 

[Housecarl]

Here we go again.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151221/as--afghanistan-6a9551af65.html

Afghan official: Taliban overrun district in Helmand

Dec 21, 2:15 AM (ET)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) — Taliban gunmen have overrun a strategic district in the southern province of Helmand, delivering a serious blow to government forces, Afghan officials said on Monday.

Fierce fighting in the Sangin district was continuing after the insurgents took control late Sunday, said Mohammad Jan Rasulyar, Helmand's deputy governor.

Only Afghan army facilities in the district had not been taken by the insurgents, he said. Casualties among Afghan security forces were high, he added, though he gave no figures.

Rasulyar on Sunday took the unusual step of using his Facebook page to warn President Ashraf Ghani that Helmand was in danger of falling if central authorities failed to send help.

More than 90 members of the Afghan security forces died fighting in the past month, with hundreds killed in the past six months, he said in his open letter to Ghani.

Helmand is an important Taliban base as it produces most of the world's opium, a crop that helps fund the insurgency.

The head of Helmand's provincial council, Muhammad Kareem Atal, said that 28 members of the Afghan security forces — usually a reference to army and police who also fight on the front lines across the country — were killed fighting on Sunday. Another 15 were critically wounded, he said.

"Around 65 percent of Helmand is now under Taliban control," Atal said.

"In every district either we are stepping back or we are handing territory over to Taliban, but still, until now, no serious action has been taken," he said, echoing Rasulyar's plea to the central authorities for help.

He said more than 2,000 members of the security forces had been killed fighting in Helmand in 2015.

 

[mzkitty]

More dead Americans:


19m
All 6 killed in suicide attack on NATO troops near Afghanistan airbase were Americans, says US military official - @NBCNews, @Reuters

Dec 21 2015, 12:32 pm ET

Six American service members were killed in a suicide attack in Afghanistan on Monday, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Two other Americans and an interpreter were wounded, the officials said.

The service members were on a routine security patrol around Bagram Airfield when an attacker rode up on a motorcycle and detonated his suicide bomb, the officials said.

U.S. officials did not specify the total number of Americans involved in the incident.

Bagram is a large U.S. military base north of Kabul, the Afghan capital.

Parwan provincial police chief Gen. Zaman Mamozai told NBC News that a suicide bomber on a motorcycle attacked a convoy of Afghan and Western forces at around 1 p.m. local time.

The Taliban posted a message on Twitter claiming responsibility for the attack.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/a...ato-troops-killed-near-bagram-airbase-n483706

 

[Housecarl]

So Putin is keeping his Beijing SCO "partners" in "check"......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busin...-billion-worth-of-russian-weapons/553442.html

India to Buy $7 Billion Worth of Russian Weapons

The Moscow Times
Dec. 21 2015 15:50
Last edited 15:50

India is set to buy weapons from Russia worth more than $7 billion, the Kommersant newspaper reported Monday, citing unidentified sources in Delhi close to the government.

The deal on supplies of military equipment is due to be signed on Dec. 24-25, during the first visit of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Moscow.

Military and technical cooperation will be a key issue during Modi's visit, Kommersant reported.

Last week, India's Defense Acquisition Council approved the purchase of Russia's S-400 air-defense missile systems.

India, which is planning to purchase at least five of the systems, according to several top-managers of Russian defense enterprises cited by Kommersant, will become Russia's second foreign buyer of S-400 after China.

The value of the deal is estimated at $2.5 billion, the newspaper reported.

In addition, Russia and India are expected to discuss the agreements on the purchase of two Varshavyanka-class diesel-electric submarines, 48 Mi-17V-5 military transport helicopters, 150 BMP-2/2K armored fighting vehicles and three Project 11356 frigates.

“We are also waiting for the decision on leasing the second nuclear Project 971 submarine,” an unidentified source in the military-technical cooperation sphere told the newspaper.

The total value of contracts is estimated at more than $7 billion, the newspaper reported.

India is Russia's biggest buyer of military hardware. In 2014, India purchased military hardware from Russia worth $4.7 billion, which accounted for 28 percent of Russia's total arms exports, according to Kommersant.


See also:

India to Buy 48 More Russian Mi-17 Military Helicopters

Russia's Rosneft Inks Major Deal With Indian Oil Company in Bid to Counter Sanctions

Russia and India Negotiating Modernization of Aging Russian Fighter Jets

_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/india-cleared-purchase-of-russian-s-400-missile-defense-system/

India Cleared Purchase of Russian S-400 Missile Defense System

The Defense Acquisition Council has approved the purchase of five units of the advanced missile defense system.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
December 21, 2015

1.0k Shares
1 Comment

The Indian government has cleared the procurement of five regimental units of Russian-made S-400 Triumf advanced Air Defense Systems (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) at an estimated price of $ 4.5 billion, Defense News reports.

The Defense Acquisition Council (DCA), a government body charged with approving Indian defense purchases and chaired by the defense minister, Manohar Parrikar, approved the order on December 17.

According to a Ministry of Defense (MOD) official, an advance team left for Moscow on December 17 to negotiate details of the largest-ever defense deal between India and Russia. The DCA approval is an “acceptance of necessity” for the team to formally negotiate the government-to-government deal.

A contract could be signed during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Moscow on December 24-25. According to Defense News, however, the MOD source characterized the Russian reaction to India’s desire to purchase the new weapon system as “lukewarm.”

One of the reason for Russia’s hesitancy is that a collaboration contract for joint work and delivery of 154 Perspective Multirole Fighters (PMF), the derivative Indian version of the PAK FA T-50 fifth generation fighter jet, has still not yet been signed between the two countries (See: “Will India Purchase 154 Fighter Jets From Russia?”).

If the S-400 deal goes through, India would become the second buyer of the advanced missile defense system after China, which will purchase four to six units, with the first S-400 system set to be delivered within the next 12 to 18 months.

As my colleague, Ankit Panda, noted recently, the “S-400 is presumably also capable of intercepting most medium- and short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The system can engage up to 36 targets simultaneously within a range of 400 km.”

It is unclear, however, whether the S-400 batteries will be equipped with the 40N6 or 48N6 missile series. The 40N6 missile allegedly has an operational range of 400 kilometers (248.5 miles), although it is unclear whether the weapon is operational in Russia yet. The range of the 48N6 missile is more limited at 250 kilometers (155 miles). The S-400 can purportedly fire three types of missiles at a rate 2.5 times faster than its predecessor the S-300.

The delivery schedule for India’s S-400 batteries is unclear. According to a MOD source interviewed by The Times of India, “t will take a few years for the S-400 systems to be actually inducted. The plan is to deploy three in the west (read Pakistan) and two in the east (read China) to seriously bolster the nation’s air defense capability.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/vietnam-to-get-fifth-kilo-submarine-from-russia-in-early-2016/

Vietnam to Get Fifth Kilo Submarine from Russia in Early 2016

Another one of Hanoi’s Kilo-class subs is expected to arrive soon.

By Prashanth Parameswaran
December 22, 2015

9 Shares
0 Comments

The fifth of the six Kilo-class submarines that Vietnam bought from Russia left a Danish port on Sunday heading for Vietnam, local media outlets reported December 21.

According to Thanh Nien News, the HQ-186, delivered by Dutch-registered cargo ship Rolldock Star, left from Russia’s St. Petersburg and arrived at the Port of Skagen in northern Denmark on December 19. It is scheduled to arrive in Singapore on January 29, 2016 before arriving in Vietnam, with the journey taking one and a half months.

As I reported for The Diplomat earlier this year, the HQ-186 had undergone a trial run in the Baltic Sea on June 8 and was expected to arrive in early 2016. The fourth submarine, codenamed HQ-185 Da Nang, had arrived at Cam Ranh Port back in July (See: “Vietnam Gets Fourth Submarine From Russia Amid South China Sea Tensions”).

The submarines are part of a deal Vietnam reached with Russia’s Admiralty Shipyards for six Project 636 Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines for $2 billion back in 2009. Under the agreement, signed during Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung’s visit to Moscow that year, Russia agreed to provide the submarines, train Vietnamese crews, and supply necessary spare parts.

The latest delivery comes amidst simmering disputes in the South China Sea, where both Vietnam and China are claimants alongside the Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Just last week, Vietnam protested China’s building of a filling station and schools on Woody Island, part of the Paracel Islands which Beijing seized from Hanoi back in 1974. Separately, Reuters reported last week that Vietnamese officials had said that the first Kilo-class submarine had begun patrolling the South China Seam, which it billed the first confirmation of their involvement there.

As I had reported earlier, the Kilo-class submarines are some considered to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world, and are designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface-ship warfare. Several analysts, including Carlyle Thayer at The Diplomat, have explored how Vietnam People’s Navy (VPN) may use them to counter Chinese naval capabilities in the South China Sea.

 

[Housecarl]

Sorry a bit late in posting this one but it is pertinent with recent events.....

Russian Cruise Missiles
December 15, 2015 Audio Player
41:41
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1200684/russian-cruise-missiles/

Russian cruise missiles are in the news lately, from allegations from strikes in Syria to ongoing allegations that Russia is violating the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Why are the Russians so nutty for cruise missiles? Jeffrey talks to Tom Moore, a former professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to discuss Russia new air, sea and ground-launch cruise missiles.

 

[Housecarl]

Spanish election thread (general election is Sunday, Dec. 20th)
Started by tanstaaflý, 12-18-2015 11:29 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-thread-(general-election-is-Sunday-Dec.-20th)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2015/12/what_happens_now_in_spain_111635.html

What Happens Now in Spain?

Posted by Kaj Leers on December 21, 2015

Spanish voters on Sunday delivered not one, but two striking novelties in the electoral history of the fourth-biggest economy of the European Union. For one, the two-party system was brought to an end; but the vote also delivered a hung parliament. The first outcome was widely expected, but the second certainly was not. The four main parties now must somehow find the common ground needed to form a government made up not of two, but three parties -- or else push for new elections.

Spanish politics was thrown into chaos on Sunday evening when results showed that neither the right-wing Partido Popular (PP) and liberal Ciudadanos, nor the new far-left Podemos party and the Socialists (PSOE) could form a two-party government based on holding a majority of seats in parliament. Both mainstream parties - PP and PSOE - lost big, and the new parties Podemos and Ciudadanos entered Parliament.


It was expected that the old two-party system, with power alternating between either the PP or the PSOE, would be buried on Sunday. The only question was which party the PP or the PSOE could turn to in order to form a government. Far-left newcomer Podemos had already ruled out governing with the conservative PP, while the reformist centrists of Ciudadanos made a point of fundamental reforms to the Spanish electoral system, requiring the Constitution to be amended. This is strongly opposed by the PP.

Confounding the political gridlock is that the Partido Popular seems to have held on to its absolute majority in the Senate. Amending the Constitution requires absolute majorities in both chambers of parliament, a prospect that seems highly unlikely.

Moderate revolutionaries Ciudadanos win, but also disappoint

Ciudadanos is a new party established in the Catalonia region in 2006. Ciudadanos positions itself as a reformist pro-business party at the political center, and polls in the months leading up to the election showed it would probably become the second party in the lower chamber of deputies in the Cortes, the Spanish Parliament, behind the incumbent Partido Popular. Yet that did not materialize. Instead, it came in fourth, below the PP, PSOE and left-wing Podemos.

Political analysts in Spanish media were quick to point out that Ciudadanos started shedding support in the polls after the party's leader showed willingness in the last days before the election to support a Partido Popular-led government. This seemed to contradict the party's earlier stance it took against the PP.

Podemos wins in the cities, PSOE holds on to rural areas

The party of charismatic Pablo Iglesias made strong gains in urban areas where the moderate socialists of the PSOE lost seats to its new, leftist rival. Podemos was born out of the nationwide movement opposing tough austerity policies levied upon Spain by its lenders following the economic crash of 2008-2009, when Spain's main banks were hit by the implosion of the country's housing market bubble. With unemployment among the young at record levels and voters in the cities hit hard by the economic downturn - and disappointed with the mainstream parties' inability to solve problems - Podemos quickly attracted a large share of the urban vote in many of the bigger cities with its promise of more government intervention in the economy.

Options

The election result offers the parties only a few options, none of which is attractive to the parties involved.

One would see the PP and the PSOE putting their age-old rivalry aside and forming a government of national unity - like for instance their sister parties in Germany, where the Christian-democrats of the CDU rule with the social-democratic SPD. This is however seen as highly unlikely. The chasm between the PP and PSOE runs deep in a country that was torn apart by civil war between left and right, and then ruled by Francisco Franco's fascist dictate until 1978, when democracy was restored in Spain.

Since Podemos has already ruled out governing with the PP, a three-way government of PP, Podemos, and Ciudadanos also seems out of the question.

That leaves the option of a three-way government comprising either PSOE, Podemos and Ciudadanos, or PSOE, Podemos, and a smaller party such as the Esquerra Republicana, a left-wing, separatist Catalonian party. The latter would attach a hefty price tag to any deal, demanding more autonomy for Catalonia. This is unpalatable to unionists in the PSOE.

Any three-way government without the PP would however lack a majority in the Senate. While the combination of PSOE, Podemos, and Ciudadanos would have a comfortable majority in the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, any policy proposals toward fundamental change, such as amendments to the Constitution that are sought by Ciudadanos, would have a very hard time passing in the Senate.

Still, the lower chamber may overrule Senate votes on proposals that do not amend the Constitution, so a government could function. The question is whether Ciudadanos especially would be willing to swallow its ambitious designs to reform the Spanish political system.

Of course all this is based on the assumption that the PSOE, Podemos, and Ciudadanos would set aside some major differences and agree to cooperate, which is far from certain. Ciudadanos late on Sunday evening came out saying it would not support the leader of either the Partido Popular or the PSOE as prime minister, deepening the political crisis.

In the Spanish electoral system, the king appoints a party leader to take the lead in trying to form a government. The appointee must then gain the backing of a majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies. There are two votes; the second is a confirmation vote, to be held 48 hours after the king's appointment. So the parties have two days at maximum to hash out a deal. If this fails, the king may appoint another party to have a go. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement after two months, parliament will be dissolved and new elections held.

Consequences for the European Union

The election's outcome is unlikely to alter much in the way Spain operates in the European Union. A clear majority of Spaniards supports remaining in the European Union, and of all four parties contending for a seat at the government table, only left-wing Podemos has ideas concerning European cooperation that clearly diverge from the mainstream.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?481135-The-year-2015-marks-the-end-of-the-old-oil-era.

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markpmi...pitulates-on-price-and-opec-blinks/?ss=energy

12/21/2015 @ 6:30AM 21,584 views

Shale Wars Round Two: Congress Acts On Exports. Russia Capitulates On Price. And OPEC Blinks.

The year 2015 marks the end of the old oil era.

Last week the U.S. Congress finally repealed the four-decade-old legislation that, until now, prohibited American firms from selling their product, crude oil, to willing buyers overseas. No other oil-producing nation had such a self-inflicted ban.

It was finally rescinded in the face of overwhelming evidence that America’s situation is precisely the inverse of that which inspired the misguided legislation back in 1975: America was gripped with the fear of limited oil supplies, shortages and ever-escalating prices. The new era is defined by oil gluts, price collapses and a limit on how fast and high prices can increase.

Just one week before the Congressional vote, Russia’s deputy finance minister said that his nation foresees oil staying cheap for at least the forthcoming decade. He went on to say that while Russia could weather this “different reality,” other oil producers would have a tougher time.

Although OPEC is far from dead, the cartel did blink at its most recent meeting this past December 4th. This “blink” was evident in its failure to try and raise prices, despite the fact that OPEC members are hemorrhaging hundreds of billions of dollars.

OPEC used to have the power to control prices by either cutting back or increasing production because the marginal supply of a commodity like oil determines the overall price. It only takes one or two million barrels per day of over- or under-supply to swing prices wildly.

In that context, consider recent history. By last summer the boom in American shale led to a several million barrel per day world over-supply sending prices down 35% by the time OPEC met in November 2014. Instead of cutting production to try and boost prices, Saudi Arabia actually increased output. Adding yet more oil to glutted markets ensured a longer and deeper period of over-supply, driving prices even lower. Prices dropped another 35% by the time OPEC met this past December 5th, 2015, when they again declined to cut production to try and raise prices.

What is Saudi Arabia doing? After all, oil exports are the primary source of revenues for OPEC economies – all of them need prices over $80 to meet domestic budgets. (Saudi Arabia, for its part has $700 billion of cash reserves to fund budget shortfalls.) One explanation on offer is that Saudi Arabia wants prices low enough to destroy as many producers as possible, and thus ensure future market share for OPEC. That theory is certainly plausible.

But there is another possibility. Saudi Arabia is likely afraid to find out how quickly U.S. shale output will rise when oil prices creep up. And now that U.S. exports are in play, everyone wonders how quickly American entrepreneurs will capture markets that, until now, have seen little competition. For OPEC, it’s better to put the day of reckoning off as long as possible.

But the radically different characteristic of the new oil era is not so much that America has emerged as a big source of swing supply. That of course was a surprise to many, and the central fact animating Congressional action. The single difference that really frightens OPEC and Russia the most can be captured in a single word: velocity.

Shale technology allows astonishingly fast increases in production and at volumes that can move global markets; furthermore, U.S. capital markets are inherently flexible, fast and have plenty of capacity to fuel shale expansion almost overnight if prices, and profits, creep back up.

In addition, in the shale fields of America, drillers can get permits in weeks on private and state lands, as opposed to years for both U.S. federal lands and those of other nations. Then, shale wells can be drilled and completed in weeks not years.

Every single metric associated with shale drilling and production has not only improved radically in the past half-dozen years, but continues to do so at stunning speeds. The combination of experience (it is, after all, a very new industry) and technology progress (which is propelled by pressures on profit margins) is yielding ever more efficiency gains.

The Energy Information Administration tracks some of this in its relatively new shale productivity report. Overall efficiency—oil produced per rig—has improved some 400% in the past half-decade, and improved about 40% in the last year alone. And the rigs are getting cheaper not more expensive.

And the story is far from over. Shale entrepreneurs will now benefit from the rapid maturation of new techniques and tools infusing the entire industrial sector, from big data analytics, to automation, robotics and advanced materials. (For a more on the next shale tech boom, see my earlier Shale 2.0 paper.)

Then there is the velocity of decision-making associated with shale. The old oil era was characterized by long-cycle mega-projects and utterly dominated by political considerations made by nation-state monopolists or oil oligarchs. In the shale era, each well is a micro-economic decision. There are a myriad of profit-seeking decision-makers in the shale ecosystem. We already know what happens when thousands of companies make hundreds of thousands of “micro decisions” to drill in shale.

The speed with which a four million barrels per day rise in U.S. production happened—about a half-dozen years—is unprecedented in the history of the oil industry. And there are no technical, capital or resource constraints that prohibit the same from happening again, as long as there are profits to be made.

And oil prices will rise because petroleum is a cyclical commodity. There is no evidence that cycles are over. With every cycle, the only question is how long it lasts and how high, or low, each peak or bottom.

In the global petroleum price wars now underway, OPEC is hoping to extend the cycle to ensure a big swath of the U.S. shale industry doesn’t survive before prices rise and spark a second American shale boom.

We have some idea as to the price needed to cause another shale land rush. While year-end 2015 data won’t be available until the first quarter of 2016, industry experts at RBN Energy estimate that many shale fields are still (marginally) profitable at $40 per barrel assuming that drilling costs have dropped 25% since 2014. Data already show that costs have dropped from 20% to 30%, and more efficiencies are still coming. Thus the magic number that could spark a new boom is something not too far north of $45.

The Russians think that $40 to $60 per barrel is the new normal for the next decade for a good reason.

The global oil market is undergoing a once-in-a-generation transformation. The future is now destined to be one of serial gluts with prices capped by the rapid addition of thousands of shale wells that can over-supply markets every time prices rise a little bit (by historic standards) for only a short time.

There is no doubt that the world will use more oil; it is vital for modern societies and for all practical purposes nearly irreplaceable. And there is no longer any impediment to America competing in world oil markets.

What is in dispute now is who determines the maximum price. OPEC’s ministers may have the appetite and capacity to drive prices down. But America’s multitude of shale entrepreneurs now control how high and how long prices can rise.

In military parlance, this is a form of asymmetric warfare. A handful of big nation-owned oil companies versus a multitude of private American businesses. Monopolies vs. markets. And technology progress vs. old-school price-fixing.

We are entering uncharted territory. It is one in which two questions now need to be asked. So far neither appears part of any serious policy discussion:

Have strategists in the State Department, CIA and the Department of Defense considered how all this reshapes the geopolitical landscape? And, what can the United States do now in order to take advantage of this new-found power? <>

 

[Housecarl]

Merde.........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://qz.com/579334/pakistans-army...ny-nuclear-weapons-and-its-going-to-backfire/

TROUBLE BREWING

Pakistan’s army is building an arsenal of ”tiny” nuclear weapons—and it’s going to backfire

Written byC. Christine Fair
December 21, 2015 Quartz india

Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal and, within the next five to ten years, it is likely to double that of India, and exceed those of France, the United Kingdom, and China. Only the arsenals of the United States and Russia will be larger.

In recent years, Pakistan has boasted of developing “tactical nuclear weapons” to protect itself against potential offensive actions by India. In fact, Pakistan is the only country currently boasting of making increasingly tiny nuclear weapons (link in Urdu).

Pakistanis overwhelmingly support their army and its various misadventures. And the pursuit of tactical weapons is no exception. However, there is every reason why Pakistanis should be resisting—not welcoming—this development. The most readily identifiable reason is that, in the event of conflict between the two South Asian countries, this kind of weaponization will likely result in tens of thousands of dead Pakistanis, rather than Indians. And things will only go downhill from there.

Why would Pakistan want “the world’s smallest nuclear weapons”?

In late 1999, Pakistan’s general Pervez Musharraf (who took power of Pakistan through a military coup in Oct. 1999 and remained in power until 2008), along with a tight cabal of fellow military officials began a limited incursion into the Kargil-Dras area of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. While planning for this began in the fall of 1998, by the time Pakistani troops were discovered there in May of 1999 Pakistani forces had taken territory that was several miles into India-administered Kashmir.

Because the Pakistanis had the tactical advantage of occupying the ridge line, India took heavy losses in recovering the area from the invaders. The so-called Kargil War was the first conventional conflict between India and Pakistan since the two conducted nuclear tests in May 1998. International observers were wary that the conflict would escalate either in territory or aims, with the potential for nuclear exchange.

Fearing such escalation, then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif sought support from China and the United States. Both were adamant that Pakistan respect the line of control, which separated the portions of Jammu-Kashmir administered by India and Pakistan.

Under international pressure and branded an irresponsible state, Pakistan withdrew its forces from Kashmir. It initially claimed that the intruders were mujahedeen—but this was later found to be pure fiction. While Pakistan was isolated internationally, the international community widely applauded India’s restraint. The Kargil War provided the United States with the opportunity to reorient its relations away from Pakistan towards India, while at the same time, demonstrated to India that the United States would not reflexively side with Pakistan.

In retrospect, the Kargil war catalyzed the deepening security cooperation between the United States and India. It also galvanized a serious rethink in India about its domestic security apparatus, intelligence agencies’ capabilities, and overall military doctrine.

Crucially, India learned from this conflict that limited war is indeed possible under the nuclear umbrella. In Oct. 2000, air commodore Jasjit Singh, who retired as the director of operations of India’s air force and headed India’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses until 2001, laid out the lineaments of an India’s limited war doctrine. However, no apparent effort was made to make this a viable military concept immediately and India persisted with its defensive posture. In late Dec. 2001, Pakistani terrorists from the Pakistan-backed military group Jaish-e-Mohammad attacked India’s parliament in New Delhi.

In response, India’s government began the largest military mobilization since the 1971 war, which resulted in the liberation of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan. Just as the crisis was subsiding, another group of Pakistani terrorists, Lashkar-e-Taiba, attacked the wives and children of Indian military personnel in Kaluchak, Kashmir. India again seemed poised to take military action but ultimately backed down. The crisis was officially defused after India held elections in Kashmir later that fall. Pakistan concluded that its nuclear arsenal had successfully deterred India from attacking.

As Walter Ladwig has written, analysts identified several problems with India’s posture during that crisis. First, the Indian army took a long time to mobilize which gave Pakistan time to internationalize the conflict and to bring international pressure to bare upon India. Second, the mobilization of India’s strike corps had no element of surprise. Even Pakistan’s modest surveillance capabilities could easily detect their movements, and given their “lumbering composition,” could quickly discern their destination. Third, according to Ladwig, India’s holding corps’ were forward deployed to the border but lacked offensive power and could only conduct limited offensive tasks.

In response to these collective inadequacies, and the prospects of enduring threats from Pakistan, the Indian defense community began formalizing what came to be known as “Cold Start.” Ladwig, who wrote the first comprehensive account, claims that the doctrine aimed to pivot India away from its traditional defensive posture, and towards a more offensive one. It involved developing eight division-sized “integrated battle groups” that combined infantry, artillery, and armor which would be prepared to launch into Pakistani territory on short notice along several axes of advance.

These groups would also be closely integrated with support from the navy and air force. With this force posture, India could quickly mobilize these battle groups and seize limited Pakistani territory before the international community could raise objections.

India could then use this seized territory to force Pakistan into accepting the status quo in Kashmir. While Indians insist that this doctrine never existed, other analysts discount Indian demurrals and note slow—but steady—progress in developing these offensive capabilities. Irrespective of India’s protestations, Pakistanis take “Cold Start” to be a matter of Quranic fact.

Worried that its primary tools of using terrorism fortified by the specter of nuclear war, and fearing that India would be able to force acquiescence, Pakistan concluded that it could vitiate “Cold Start” by developing tactical nuclear weapons. As Pakistan’s former ambassador the United States and current ambassador to the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, explained, the basis of Pakistan’s fascination with tactical nuclear weapons is “to counterbalance India’s move to bring conventional military offensives to a tactical level.’’

Pakistani military and civilians often boast of their fast growing arsenal of the world’s smallest nuclear weapons and routinely update the world on the progress of the short-range missile, the Nasr, that would deliver this ever-shrinking payload.

Why should ordinary Pakistanis care?

While Pakistanis overwhelmingly applaud their army’s continued efforts to harass India in pursuit of Kashmir—a territory that Pakistan was never entitled to but fought three wars to acquire by force—there are numerous reasons why Pakistanis should be more sanguine, or even alarmed by Pakistan’s development of tactical nuclear weapons.

The first reality that should discomfit ordinary Pakistanis is that there is really no such thing as a “tactical nuclear weapon.” Even the smallest so-called tactical nuclear weapon will have strategic consequences. (Simply calling them “battlefield nuclear weapons” does not obviate this serious problem.) If Pakistan should use such weapons on India, there is virtually no chance that India will be left responding alone. The international community will most certainly rally around India. The response to Pakistan breaking a nuclear taboo that formed after the Americans used atomic bombs on Japan will most certainly be swift and devastating.

Second, as Shashank Joshi, a war studies researcher at the University of Oxford, has argued, these weapons do not have the military benefits that Pakistan’s military boasts, yet they exacerbate the enormous command and control challenges, including the possibility that nefarious elements may pilfer them once they are forward deployed. For one thing, tactical nuclear weapons do not have significant battlefield effects on enemy targets. For another, it is not evident that these weapons are in fact capable of deterring an Indian incursion into Pakistan.

Third, while Naeem Salik, a former director for arms control at Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Directorate, has said that Pakistan has shifted away from merely doctrinal thinking towards “actual nuclear war fighting,” such thinking is hardly viable for the simple reason of faulty math.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one assumes that Pakistan deploys its one hundred odd weapons of 15 to 30 kilotons at India’s major cities, it is unlikely that Pakistan would be able to deploy all of these weapons to conduct a “splendid first strike,” by which Indian capabilities are completely destroyed.

Moreover, it takes considerably fewer weapons of similar magnitude to utterly destroy Pakistan. Pakistan has thoughtfully concentrated all but three corps in central the Punjab region, which is also its most populous province and the country’s industrial and agricultural center. In short, Pakistan will cease to be a viable political entity while India, though grievously hurt, will survive as a state. Even if Pakistan obtains a functioning triad and retains launch capabilities from submarines, they will be launched in defense of a state that, simply put, no longer exists.

There is a fourth problem that should disquiet Pakistanis perhaps even more than the triggering of the destruction of their country through the deliberate or inadvertent use of their micro-weapons—these tactical nuclear weapons are intended to be used first against Indian troops on Pakistani soil. According to a conference report by the Naval Post School, which hosted Pakistan’s military and diplomatic officials, one Pakistani luminary opined that the “Nasr creates a balancing dynamic that frustrates and makes futile the power-maximizing strategy of India.”

He envisages the Nasr’s shells being used to carry atomic explosives that would annihilate advancing Indian armored thrusts in the southern deserts and blunt Indian advances toward major Pakistani cities, such as Lahore. Retired military general S. F. S. Lodhi, in the April 1999 issue of the Pakistan Defence Journal, laid out four stages of escalation in Pakistan’s use of tactical nuclear weapons which aligns with this view as well.

The consequences of Pakistan nuking itself to keep the Indians out should disturb Pakistanis. According to calculations by Jaganath Sankaran, Pakistan would have to use a 30-kiloton weapon on its own soil, as this is the minimum required to render ineffective fifty percent of an armored unit.

Using Lahore as an example, a 30-kiloton weapon used on the outskirts of the city could kill over 52,000 persons. As Indian troops move closer to Lahore and as the population increases, such a weapon could kill nearly 380,000. Sankaran notes, as an aside, that this would “genuinely destroy a larger battalion or brigade.” Consequently, many more Pakistanis would be likely to die than these horrendous figures suggest.

All of sudden, Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons don’t look so fun for any Pakistani who thinks through the math.

Fifth, Pakistanis should be derisive of this new weapon in the national arsenal because it cannot do what the army promises: protect Pakistan from an Indian offensive. Would any Indian military planner take seriously Pakistan’s threat to use nuclear weapons on its own soil when the casualties are so high? Pakistan may have been willing to eat grass to get its nuclear weapons, but is it willing destroy its own center of gravity to maintain its ability to harass India with terrorism over territory to which it never had any legal claim? If the Indians do not take this threat seriously, how is it a deterrent against them? What additional deterrent capability do these weapons afford Pakistan that its strategic assets do not that compensates for the enormous risks they convey?

Finally, if India took Pakistan’s threats seriously, it does not have to invade Pakistan to coerce the country’s leaders to detonate one of these weapons on its own soil. Presumably simply looking adequately likely to cross the international border and threaten a major Punjabi city could provoke a “demonstration detonation.”

I am not encouraging a nuclear Armageddon upon Pakistan; rather expositing the limited utility that these weapons confer upon Pakistan.

Even if Pakistan fully inducts these weapons in its arsenal, it still has an army that can’t win a conventional war against India and nuclear weapons it cannot use. This leaves only an industrial farm of terrorists as the only efficacious tool at its disposal. And given the logic of the above scenario, India and the international community should consider seriously calling Pakistan’s bluff. The only logical Pakistani response to a limited offensive incursion is to accept the fait accompli and acquiesce.

So far, the West has seen Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a proliferation threat rather than a security threat. The implications of this has largely been appeasement. The United States, worried that Pakistan’s weapons may fall into the hands of non-state actors or that Pakistan will once again reopen its nuclear weapons bazaar to aspirant nuclear powers, perpetually argues for engaging Pakistan diplomatically, militarily, politically, and financially. In essence, Pakistan has effectively blackmailed the United States and the international community for an array of assistance exploiting the collective fears of what may happen should Pakistan collapse.

In recent months, some US White House officials have even argued for a potential nuclear deal to reward Pakistan for making concessions in fissile material production, limiting the development and deployment of its nuclear weapons among other activates to address Washington’s proliferation concerns. Unfortunately, Washington has yet to seriously formulate punishments rather than allurements to achieve these ends, even though Pakistan has shown no interest in making such concessions.

There are reasons why the United States and the international community should begin to see Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a direct security threat. For one thing, these nuclear weapons have always been intended to allow Pakistan to harass India through the use of militant proxies. Consequently, Pakistan has become an epicenter of Islamist terrorism.

Had Pakistan not had these nuclear capabilities, India could have sorted out Pakistan some time ago. Moreover, the critical time period for Pakistan’s nuclear program was in the late 1970s, when Pakistan was on the threshold of obtaining a crude weapon. (We now know that Pakistan had a crude nuclear weapon by 1984 if not somewhat earlier.) The United States even sanctioned Pakistan in 1979 for advances in its program.

The United States relented in its nonproliferation policy with respect to Pakistan after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Reagan, after getting sanctions waived in 1982, began supporting the so-called mujahedeen produced by Pakistan for use in Afghanistan. (Pakistan actually began its own jihad policy in 1974 on its dime without US assistance.)

Saudi Arabia matched America’s contributions. While al-Qaeda is not truly the direct descendent of the Afghan mujahedeen, there can be little doubt that the structures built to wage this jihad gave birth to the group. Had the United States remained focused on nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and used a different strategy in Afghanistan, a wholly different future could have been realized.

As tensions between the United States and Pakistan deepen, and as Pakistan’s arsenal expands and permits it to target US assets in South, Central, and Southwest Asia, the United States should begin considering Pakistan’s proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles as a direct threat to its security, rather than merely a proliferation problem to be managed.


We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/south-china-...nese-ships-patrolling-senkaku-islands-2236290

South China Sea Dispute: Japan Spots Armed Chinese Ships Patrolling Senkaku Islands

By Christopher Harress †y@Charress On 12/22/15 AT 9:30 AM

Japanese ships patrolling the disputed South China Sea reported Tuesday seeing Chinese coast guard ships armed with what officials described as cannonlike weapons. The sighting is likely to add tension to the already strained Tokyo-Beijing diplomatic relationship, which has suffered as a result of China's claims over island chains and territorial waters in the region.

"The ship is seen carrying four pieces of equipment, two at the front and another set of two at the rear, which each seem to have something similar to a cannon," the spokeswoman told Agence France-Presse, according to a Daily Mail report.

Japan reported seeing four Chinese coast guard ships entering its contiguous waters near to the disputed Senkaku Island chain, officials in the report said. While the islands are uninhabited, both countries have claimed them, with China naming them the Diaoyu Islands.

The dispute over the islands is just one of many between China and other countries that have a South China Sea coastline. Disputes over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands have received the most press in recent years, as Beijing has been building islands on top of submerged reefs in order to make territorial claims. Under the United Nations Convention of the Law of Sea, China's claims are deemed illegal and the region it occupies remains international waters.

But the dispute has had a ripple effect on the region, with the U.S. and allies claiming that China's building of the artificial islands and its military buildup in the region were preventing legal access to international waters and shipping lanes. In an apparent test of China's resolve over the region, the U.S. sailed a warship directly into the region in late October. China objected through diplomatic channels only.

While China and Japan have historically had a difficult relationship, both countries have made efforts in recent years to improve ties. Ahead of a summit in November last year in Beijing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, both countries issued carefully worded statements on the South China Sea situation.

Both acknowledged they had different views on tensions emanating from the region but agreed on the need for keeping them under control.

 

[Housecarl]

From the Jerusalem Post Op-Ed section..........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-Islamic-State-nuclear-doomsday-438002

Opinion

By FARHAD REZAEI \ 12/21/2015 21:10

The Islamic State nuclear doomsday


The emergence of jihadists known to be searching for nuclear and radiological (NR) material has lent a tone of urgency to the debate about ways to prevent nuclear terrorism. At the same time, the supply side of the equation has grown from inchoate attempts at smuggling to a more organized market in NR material. This combination of factors has arguably increased the probability of spectacular attack in the not so distant future. The reason for this assessment is based on a straightforward calculation: a nuclear or radiological device is the ultimate force multiplier and a NR attack is considered “spectacular” enough for jihadists to fulfill their divine mission.

Though not publicized, anxiety about the threat of individuals acquiring sufficient materials to perpetuate such an attack intensified after September 11, 2001. When immediately after the attack, a source codenamed “Dragonfly” informed American intelligence that al-Qaida had smuggled a nuclear device into the United States, National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice described it as a “problem from hell,” evoking a previous comment referring to the “sum of all our fears.”

Producing nuclear weapons, including the required materials – plutonium and uranium – is beyond the skills of terrorist groups. The level of skills needed for the fabrication of a sophisticated weapon are judged to pose a barrier for terrorists. However, terrorists may seek to weaponize radiological materials in other ways.

Though there is a large selection of radioactive isotopes, only a few are good candidates for terrorism: cobalt-60, strontium-90, yttrium-90, cesium-137, iridium-192, radium-226 and plutonium-238.

Two types of radiological attack are possible. First, the Simple Radiological Device (SRD) involves placing a radioactive material in a public place to create an aerosol or burning it to trigger vaporization. Second, a “dirty bomb” uses conventional explosives to disperse radiological material.

While the problem has been well articulated, preventing terrorists from shopping for illicit material has been difficult. In spite of decades of US effort to institute safeguards, the supply side of the terrorism equation has actually expanded. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a haphazard business in stolen nuclear materials emerged.

The IAEA data represents only about 20 percent of all probable illicit traffic; the true number is impossible to calculate.

More worrisome, the decline in the number of cases reported may merely indicate more sophisticated operations of a maturing market. In the past two decades, criminal gangs have incorporated terrorist supplies into their traditional business such as narcotics and human trafficking.

In the realm of NR smuggling, these global networks bring together “suppliers, intermediaries and end-users.”

While the terrorism-crime nexus is global in scope, certain regional hubs hold a particular attraction for the Islamists.

The Pakistani node plays an important role for terrorists. Pakistan boasts one of the world’s fastest-growing arsenals, with weapons stored at bases spread across the country. In addition, Pakistan had embarked on the production of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW), highly prized by terrorists because of their compact size and sophisticated assembly. The prospect of an “inside job” within the nuclear establishment cannot be ruled out and is high on the list of dangers.

Next in line are the conflict zones of Chechnya, Abkhazia and North Ossetia where conditions for the terrorism- crime nexus are particularly fertile. Geographical proximity to the Russian Mafia turned the region into a high-profile route in NR trade.

Criminal organizations have established sophisticated mechanisms for smuggling narcotics that could be simply adapted to trafficking NR material. Experience in avoiding detection, knowledge of safe routes and protection by corrupt officials would all assist them in the smuggling of radiological material.

Finally, with its well-established drug smuggling networks, the Turkish node offers easy access to NR shoppers. In the years up to 2009, Turkish authorities recorded 75 seizures of radioactive materials, including weapon-grade uranium (HEU), cesium-137, americium, antinomy, bismuth and scandium.

Theft of radiological material provides another opportunity. According to the IAEA, as of 2013, 2,477 incidents were reported to the agency, of which 664 involved the theft of NR material. Although stockpiles of HEU are better guarded today, they are not beyond reach of terrorist organizations.

The record of the Islamist terrorist groups demonstrates their deep commitment to creating an doomsday- style event. In this sense, terrorist organizations can be conceptualized as rational players akin to state proliferators.

On the one hand, Islamists can carry out a NR attack to cause mass casualties, create widespread economic havoc and inflict profound psychological trauma on the target population. On the other hand, jihadists consider such an attack an ideal way to precipitate Armageddon.

Abu Musab al-Suri, strategist of the jihadist movement, offered a similar postulate to establish a caliphate.

Al-Suri wanted to bring about the largest number of human casualties possible for America and its allies, a plan that involved obtaining WMD.

Influenced by al-Suri, Abu al-Harith al-Sawahiri, a member of al-Qaida in Yemen, published step-by-step instructions on a do-it-yourself plan to make a dirty bomb on the group’s Internet site.

Under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State moved closer to fulfilling its plan of a spectacular NR attack. At the theological level, through Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Baghdadi was in tune with the Islamist revivalists who sought to create a caliphate and who proclaimed the coming apocalypse.

Apocalypse aside, violence against the West is considered an essential part of IS strategic thinking, an idea first articulated by Abu Bakr Naji who provided a strategy that jihadists could follow to create a new Islamic caliphate. Naji also advised al-Baghdadi to attack the West to draw it into a counteroffensive in a wide swath of Muslim land, a conflagration expected to generate masses of jihadi volunteers.

But al-Baghdadi was under no illusion that small-scale terrorism would provoke the West, since even 9/11 was not big enough to trigger war between the civilizations. In any event, al-Baghdadi became convinced that nothing short of a NR attack would befit the caliphate.

Writings in the IS magazine Dabiq reflected this thinking. The article “The Perfect Storm,” apparently written by the captive journalist John Cantlie, declared that IS had every intention of striking the United States using a nuclear device, surpassing all past attacks. Indeed, Abdullah Ahmed al-Meshedani, a member of IS’s highly secretive six-man war cabinet, issued a manifesto proclaiming WMD to be a high priority for the group. The document, seized by an Iraqi special forces unit, was apparently distributed among top commanders to familiarize them with the IS’s NR doctrine.

Compared to its “sister” organizations, IS is well positioned to implement its apocalyptic plans. After occupying Mosul, IS confiscated 40 kg. of low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Mosul University. While LEU is not suitable for an SRD per se, IS claimed that the group had used it to construct a dirty bomb.

Whatever strategy IS uses to obtain its doomsday weapon, “The Perfect Storm” article and other sources indicate that the organization has amassed a considerable fortune of approximately 2 billion dollars.

According to Cantlie, IS has more than enough resources to purchase NR materials from traffickers or corrupt officials in Pakistan or elsewhere.

The author is a Middle East and Iran analyst at University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

 

[Housecarl]

12/22 BREAKING: Armenia Accuses Azerbaijan of Starting All Out War
Started by JohnGaltflaý, Yesterday 06:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ia-Accuses-Azerbaijan-of-Starting-All-Out-War


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://arka.am/en/news/politics/un_...refrain_from_any_actions_that_may_result_in_/

UN secretary-general calls on Armenia and Azerbaijan to refrain from any actions that may result in further violence

YEREVAN, December 23. /ARKA/. The UN Secretary-General has taken note of the summit held between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan on 19 December 2015 in Bern, Switzerland, organized under the auspices of the Co-Chairs of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group,” spokesperson for the Secretary General Fahran Haq told a briefing on December 22.

“UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has commended the efforts of the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group to organize this meeting and their ongoing work to de-escalate the current tensions along the Line of Contact and the Armenia-Azerbaijani border,” the spokesman said.

“He trusts that the summit offered the two sides the opportunity to discuss the practical steps to reduce the ceasefire violations and the civilian casualties and to agree on ways to move the peace process forward,” he added.

The Secretary-General also noted the expressed support of both Presidents to the Co-Chairs’ efforts with regard to measures aimed at reducing the risk of violence.

The Secretary-General called on the sides to work closely with the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group to de-escalate the current tensions and to refrain from any actions that may result in further violence.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict erupted into armed clashes after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s as the predominantly Armenian-populated enclave of Azerbaijan sought to secede from Azerbaijan and declared its independence backed by a successful referendum. A truce was brokered by Russia in 1994, although no permanent peace agreement has been signed.

Since then, Nagorno-Karabakh and several adjacent regions have been under the control of Armenian forces of Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is the longest-running post-Soviet era conflict and has continued to simmer despite the relative peace of the past two decades, with snipers causing tens of deaths a year. -0-


18:43 23.12.2015

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...s-are-flying-and-fighting-in-the-middle-east/

For the First Time, Chinese UAVs Are Flying and Fighting in the Middle East

Although not as good as their American counterparts, they can be purchased quicker and with fewer strings.

By Kyle Mizokami
Dec 22, 2015

Chinese drones are being used on two fronts in the Middle East, the first time modern, high-tech weaponry by the People's Republic has been used on the battlefield. The Predator-type drones will likely bolster demand for Chinese weapons, which have previously had a reputation for being unsophisticated and unreliable.

After the success of American Predator and Reaper drones post-9/11, China quickly jumped on the unmanned aerial vehicle bandwagon. One result is the CH (Cai Hong, or Rainbow)-4, a medium-altitude, long endurance armed drone. The CH-4 entered service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force in 2014.

Looking very much like a MQ-9 Reaper drone, the CH-4 has similar characteristics. Built for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance, it is also armed to permit precision-guided air strikes. With maximum payload and fuel, it can remain aloft for up to 14 hours.

For armament, the CH-4 can carry 4-6 AR-1 laser guided anti-tank missiles, each capable of penetrating up to 1,000 millimeters of armored plate and hitting targets at ranges of up to 8 kilometers. The CH-4 can also carry 100 pound laser-guided bombs.

An electro-optical turret incorporating an imaging infrared sensor and laser can spot and designate targets, and a synthetic aperture radar can three-dimensionally image targets and terrain on the ground.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Egypt have all purchased the CH-4. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are using them in their campaign against Yemen's Houthi rebels, while Iraq has used them in action against ISIS forces operating in the country. Earlier this month, as part of an operation to retake the city, a CH-4 drone was used against an ISIS position in Ramadi.

The use of these drones in combat will bolster China's credibility as a supplier of high-tech weapons. Chinese weapons have previously had the reputation of being crude and inexpensive, but companies such as Chinese Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, which produces the CH-4 drone, have been catching up.

Critics charge that China's four Middle Eastern customers for the CH-4 would rather have American equipment, but that Washington's arms export approval process is painfully slow. Chinese arms exports are approved quickly and are increasingly turning out to be an affordable alternative.

Another likely factor in selection: Chinese weapons likely come with fewer political strings, as U.S. and other Western countries look more closely at civilian deaths in air strikes and possible human rights violations. Human rights groups have accused Saudi Arabia in particular of targeting civilians in the war with Yemen.

Here's a video of Iraqi Ministry of Defense officials visiting the Iraqi Army's CH-4 drones.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/eu--kosovo-serbia-deal-31f740c511.html

Kosovo court approves deal with Serbia

Dec 23, 2:35 PM (ET)

PRISTINA, Kosovo (AP) — Kosovo's Constitutional Court has approved a contested government deal on giving more powers to ethnic Serbs in Kosovo.

In its ruling Wednesday, the court also asked the government to complete some legal aspects of the deal, saying some of its principles are not in line with the constitution.

The deal on Serb minority rights, and another one on border demarcation with Montenegro have sparked ferocious protests by the opposition which has tried to block work in Kosovo's Parliament with tear gas, pepper spray, whistles and water bottles.

The opposition has called for a referendum or fresh elections if the government doesn't halt the deals and opposition supporters have held violent protests in Pristina.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, an act that Serbia still rejects.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/eu--turkey-plane_blast-e18645b187.html

Airplane cleaner killed in blast at Istanbul airport

Dec 23, 6:29 AM (ET)

ISTANBUL (AP) — An airplane cleaner at Istanbul's Sabiha Gokcen airport has died of injuries suffered Wednesday in an explosion near a parked aircraft, a Turkish news agency said.

The cause of the blast, which also injured a second cleaner, was not clear.

The private Dogan news agency reported the death of the female cleaner.

Pegasus Airlines, a Turkish carrier, said the blast occurred at 2:05 a.m. Wednesday (7:05 p.m. EST Tuesday) when no passengers were aboard the plane.

Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency said police armed with rifles and wearing protective vests imposed tight security at entrances to the airport after the blast, searching vehicles in the area.

The airport operator says the cause of the explosion is under investigation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/ml--syria-73eb20b55e.html

Heavy clashes, attacks in town southwest of Syrian capital

Dec 23, 2:16 PM (ET)
By ZEINA KARAM

(AP) This image made from video made available by the Media Centre in Moadamiyat al-Sham...
Full Image

BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian government forces on Wednesday attacked a rebel-held town southwest of Damascus with artillery fire and helicopters dropped barrel bombs as opposition groups accused the government of using poison gas in an assault there the previous night.

Five people, among them one civilian, died of suffocation following a missile attack Tuesday night, according to a media activist based in the town of Moadamiyeh. He said four missiles were fired from the nearby Mezze Air Base and struck at the same time as a barrel bomb attack, adding to the confusion. No other people have since been reported killed.

Amateur videos from a town clinic, made available Wednesday, show medics intubating apparently unconscious patients. They did not appear to have suffered traumatic injuries.

Washington could not confirm the attacks.

(AP) This image made from video made available by the Media Centre in Moadamiyat al-Sham...
Full Image

"The initial reports appear to be credible but we cannot confirm them," said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. He added that it will be up to U.N. experts to validate the claims.

The claim of a poison gas attack could not be independently verified. It was also reported by the Local Coordination Committees group and the main Western-backed Syrian National Coalition opposition group.

The activist in Moadamiyeh, who identifies himself by his first name, Ahmad, said helicopters dropped more than 40 barrel bombs on the town and its surrounding areas Wednesday.

A video shared on social media shows a helicopter dropping four barrels in quick succession over what is purported to be the town area, while another shows a tank advancing on a scorched plain outside the town.

"The goal is to sever the road between Moamadiyeh and Daraya, to completely besiege and separate the two areas," said Ahmad. He said the assault continued into the evening.

The two towns have been under siege by government forces since 2013. Government and opposition forces struck a truce to allow food into Moadamiyeh that December, but it has been broken many times. The latest bout of fighting began last week.

Moadamiyeh was the site of a 2013 chemical attack on rebel-held areas outside Damascus that killed hundreds of people.

---

Associated Press writers Phillip Issa in Beirut and Mathew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/eu--turkey_journalists-77cc239ead.html

Media watchdog urges Turkey to halt press crackdown, free 3

Dec 23, 8:27 AM (ET)

ISTANBUL (AP) — The Committee to Protect Journalists is urging Turkey to end its crackdown on the press and has called for the release of three journalists working for Kurdish outlets who were arrested this month on terrorism-related charges. ½a0}

The arrests bring the number of journalists imprisoned in Turkey to 17, cementing its position as½a0}the leading jailer of journalists in Europe and Central Asia,½a0}the media rights group said. The arrests coincide with a surge in violence and security operations in predominantly Kurdish areas of southeast Turkey.

"The Turkish government is never going to overcome its many complex challenges by throwing journalists in jail. Silencing news and opinion will only lead to a dangerous information vacuum,"½a0}CPJ½a0}Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova said in a statement late Tuesday.½a0}

On Dec. 1, Zeki Karakus, owner of the pro-Kurdish news website Nusaybin Haber, was arrested for "making propaganda for a terrorist organization," the media watchdog said quoting his lawyer, Gulistan Duran. He is being held in a prison in the southeastern city of Mardin.

Deniz Babir of the Kurdish-language daily Azadiya Welat was arrested Dec. 15 in the city of Diyarbakir, reportedly on charges of "belonging to a banned group." He had been covering clashes between Turkish security forces and the youth wing of the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Plainclothes policemen in Diyarbakir arrested Beritan Canozer, a reporter for the women's news agency Jinha, while covering protests against security operations.½a0}

Ognianova urged Turkish authorities to release the trio, drop all charges against them and allow them to continue reporting in southeastern Turkey. The media group also noted that four other journalists had been rounded up for questioning and stripped of their equipment in Diyarbakir.

The Turkish government on Wednesday defended its actions.

"Working for a press institution doesn't mean people can violate laws and get away with it," a senior Turkish official said in response to the report. "The arrests of said individuals had nothing to do with their journalistic activities."

The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government rules.

Among those arrested by Turkey this year is Mohammed Rasool, a journalist who has worked for The Associated Press and other media organizations. He was arrested in August in Diyarbakir while reporting for Vice News.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/as--turkmenistan-new_pipeline-6ce6fa83bd.html

Turkmenistan launches new gas pipeline

Dec 23, 2:21 PM (ET)

ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan (AP) — Turkmenistan has launched a new $2.5 billion natural gas pipeline that would boost the energy-rich nation's export capacity.

The 773-kilometer (480-mile) pipeline links gas fields in the east of the country to its Caspian Sea coast.

Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov on Wednesday said the new pipeline would create a "powerful basis" for exporting Turkmen gas and help develop energy cooperation with Russia and Kazakhstan.

The three countries have discussed a prospective gas pipeline that would lead north to Russia along the Caspian coast, and Berdymukhamedov said the future of the project depends on "political will" of their leaders.

In the future, the new Turkmen pipeline could also open the possibility of shipping Turkmen gas to Western markets via a prospective Trans-Caspian pipeline.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/as--afghanistan-730ea9f607.html

Afghan troops rushed to area under Taliban attack

Dec 23, 1:11 PM (ET)
By HUMAYOON BABUR

(AP) U.S. service members pay their respects during a memorial ceremony for six Airmen...
Full Image

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Afghan military has rushed reinforcements to a southern district threatened for days with takeover by the Taliban, the country's defense minister said Wednesday as he appealed for stepped-up NATO assistance and military support.

In a besieged army base in the embattled district of Sangin, an Afghan soldier described a dire situation, saying a handful of Afghan troops inside were fighting to the last, trying to keep the Taliban out.

Meanwhile, at an air base outside of Kabul, U.S. troops saluted fallen comrades during a memorial ceremony Wednesday for six American soldiers killed in a Taliban attack this week.

The six died when a suicide bomber drove his explosives-laden motorcycle into a joint NATO-Afghan patrol near the Bagram Air Field on Monday. Two U.S. troops and an Afghan were also wounded in that attack — the deadliest day for American troops in Afghanistan since May 2013.

(AP) Map locates the Sangin district; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101 mm;
Full Image

As fighting in the Sangin district of southern Helmand province continued Wednesday, Afghan army and police arrived to help security forces pinned down for days in the besieged area, said the minister, Masoom Stanekzai.

Speaking to reporters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, Stanekzai said that the country's overstretched security forces need the international military coalition's help, especially air support, which would help reduce casualties.

Sangin is an important poppy-growing district in Helmand, which borders Pakistan and sits on transport routes for drugs, arms and other lucrative contraband.

The Taliban, whose intensified war against Afghan forces has not slowed down with the colder season, have been besieging it for days and have nearly completely run over the district.

"The Helmand battle is not easy because the province has a long border, is a core of opium production, and our enemies are well-equipped and deeply involved in the smuggling of drugs," he said. "These factors complicate the battle for Sangin."

(AP) Afghan security forces stand guard around two arrested so-called IS fighters in...
Full Image

By mid-afternoon Wednesday, the Taliban spokesman for southern Afghanistan, Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, tweeted that "Sangin district has completely collapsed to the Taliban" and that insurgents have captured Afghan soldiers and ammunition.

The insurgents are prone to exaggerating its battlefield successes, and Kabul officials denied that Sangin had fallen.

However, Helmand's deputy governor Mohammad Jan Rasulyar said all lines of communication with Sangin had been cut and there was no immediate information available on the situation there.

"We already said that our forces are weak and need backup but because we have no communication with our forces, we don't know whether the Taliban have captured Sangin or not," Rasulyar added.

An Afghan army soldier, Yaseen Zamarai, reached by The Associated Press over the phone inside the besieged base in Sangin said the Taliban were outside the building and had been pushed back after entering once earlier in the day.

(AP) Map looks at opium poppy cultivation in Helmand and other provinces across...
Full Image

"We need help, we can't hold them for much longer," Zamarai said, his voice cracking. "It's not that we are afraid of death, but we didn't think that our brothers would leave us like this."

Britain has sent a small contingent of soldiers to Helmand as advisers under the new NATO mandate to train the Afghan forces. The return of British troops is poignant, as they suffered more than 100 of their 456 fatalities during Britain's 13-year Afghanistan combat mission in Sangin.

Afghanistan's security forces have been taking on the Taliban alone, following the end of the international combat mission last year. The U.S. and NATO have around 13,000 troops in the country, most of them operating under the training mandate.

Districts across Helmand have been threatened by the Taliban in recent months. The fight for Sangin has been particularly ferocious, with officials saying that only the army base was still in government hands until Tuesday.

Supply lines were cut, preventing ammunition and food from reaching government forces, and roads around the district center mined, officials have said.

Stanekzai said that with the arrival of new troops to the area, the battle would be reinvigorated and "this should help cut the number of casualties, and provide much-needed logistical support."

The Taliban have fought hard across the country this year, stretching Afghan forces as they have taken hold of some districts, if only for a few hours or, in the case of the northern city of Kunduz, three days that sent waves of concern through Afghans who had believed the insurgency was not strong enough to take major urban centers.

---

Associated Press writers Mirwais Khan in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Amir Shah in Kabul, contributed to this story.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151223/af--ethiopia-deadly_protests-1bc8872932.html

Ethiopia opposition: 80 killed in protests against land plan

Dec 23, 10:58 AM (ET)
By ELIAS MESERET

(AP) From left to right, Gebru Gebremariam.Secretary General of the Ethiopian Federal...
Full Image

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) — Ethiopian government forces have killed more than 80 people in the past four weeks in protests in the country's Oromia region, an Ethiopian opposition party charged Wednesday.

The killings should be investigated, said the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Unity Forum, a coalition of four opposition parties, at a press conference.

"Trigger-happy government forces have killed more than 80 peaceful protesters in Ethiopia during the past four weeks," Beyene Petros, president of the party told reporters, adding that hundreds of others were wounded and arrested. "We are still discovering disfigured bodies in various locations. The government has continued its brutal killings so we call on the international community and donors to step in and force the government to stop these inhumane actions."

Party officials provided names of the alleged victims to The Associated Press.

(AP) President of the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Unity Forum Beyene Petros during...
Full Image

The government has rejected, for the second time, the opposition party's request to hold a public demonstration on Dec. 27 to protest the controversial Addis Ababa Master Plan, the opposition leader said.

The opposition party's charge comes after a report last week by Human Rights Watch that said government forces killed at least 75 people protesting the government plan to incorporate some rural areas into the capital city, Addis Ababa.

Violent clashes between protesters and security forces have spread across Ethiopia's Oromia Region, the biggest and most populous of Ethiopia's federal states. Oromo students have led protests against the government's plan which they charge will take lands from their region and displace thousands of farmers.

The government charges that the protesters are working with "terrorists." It claims that only five protesters have been killed and that the development plan for Addis Ababa will not deprive farmers of land. Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn warned that the government "will take merciless legitimate action against any force bent on destabilizing the area," speaking on Ethiopian state television.

But the protests have continued.

"This is the biggest demonstration in the region's history. The immediate cause is the so-called Addis Ababa Master Plan that will rob Oromo farmers of their land and rights, the main reason is that people are fed up with cadres and politicians of the ruling party," said Merara Gudina, a prominent Oromo opposition figure, told the Associated Press.

Many of the areas of Oromia are now under military control, said Gudina, vice-chairman of the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Unity Forum.

Amnesty International urged officials not to use draconian anti-terrorism measures to quell protests.

"The suggestion that these Oromo — protesting against a real threat to their livelihoods — are aligned to terrorists will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression for rights activists," Muthoni Wanyeki, Amnesty International's Regional Director for East Africa said.

The U.S. State Department has expressed concern over the clashes. "The United States is deeply concerned by the recent clashes in the Oromia region of Ethiopia that reportedly have resulted in the deaths of numerous protesters," said spokesman Mark Toner in a statement. "We urge the government of Ethiopia to permit peaceful protest and commit to a constructive dialogue to address legitimate grievances. We also urge those protesting to refrain from violence and to be open to dialogue."

The situation in and around the Woliso University campus seems calm but all the entrances to the Woliso town are guarded by soldiers, Seyoum Teshome, a professor at school, which was one of the protest sites, told the Associated Press by phone: "The situation seems calm at the moment but you could feel the tense atmosphere."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-talks-idUSKBN0U61RL20151223

World | Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:15pm EST
Related: World, Russia, United Nations, Syria

Syrian government ready to join U.N. talks to end conflict: Assad aide

BEIRUT

A close adviser to Syrian President Bashar al Assad said on Wednesday Damascus was ready to join U.N.-sponsored peace talks with its position bolstered by both Russian backing and the West's retreat from a hardline anti-Assad approach.

Bouthaina Shaaban said her government approved of U.N. resolutions passed last week endorsing an international road map for a Syria peace process, a rare display of unity among global powers on a conflict that has killed more than 250,000 people.

"We accept these resolutions," she told Beirut-based al Mayadeen television in the first official Syrian remarks on the matter.

The resolutions gave U.N. blessing to a plan negotiated earlier in Vienna that calls for a ceasefire, talks between the Syrian government and opposition, and a roughly two-year timeline to create a unity government and hold elections.

Shaaban said Damascus perceived a softening of the West's stance on Assad driven by a spillover of Islamic State militant attacks into its own communities - most recently in Paris on Nov. 13 when shootings and suicide bombings killed 130 people.

Islamic State is the strongest insurgent force in Syria and Assad has said that ousting him would clear the way for Islamist militants to take over the country and endanger the wider world.

Western powers have demanded that Assad quit power as part of any peace settlement. Damascus has rejected such calls.

"It was not easy for the West to retreat. This is the first time that the West's word has been defeated over Syria ... The Russian strategy in getting these (diplomatic) understandings is successful and clever and will bear fruit," Shaaban said.

"The Russian intervention has had great importance in the Syrian crisis," she told al-Mayadeen television.

Russia and Iran have been Assad's main allies in the almost five-year-old conflict, while Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Arab states and Western powers have supported insurgents fighting to overthrow him.

Three months of Russian air strikes twinned with army ground offensives backed by Iranian forces and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters have shored up Assad in his western Syrian heartland.

"We are now in a much better position that we were in... There is real international partnership to combat terror, a big understanding of (our) position and the turnaround that started a year ago is now coming to a full circle," Shaaban said.

She dismissed a Saudi-backed opposition body formed from some of the major fighting groups and a wide spectrum of political organizations that will lead its negotiating team at the U.N.-backed talks.

Shaaban said it was "shameful" that the West backed a Saudi- based body that supposedly "wants to create democracy in Syria" with the help of "a country that has no parliament or elections".

A senior U.N. official said on Tuesday the United Nations envoy on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, planned to convene peace talks in Geneva in about a month's time.


(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/admir...ghanistan-steps-we-should-take_b_8865452.html

Admiral Jim Stavridis (Ret.) Become a fan
Supreme Commander of NATO (2009-2013); Dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
Email

Recent News From Afghanistan Is Grim but All Is Not Lost. 5 Steps We Should Take

Posted: 12/23/2015 1:45 pm EST Updated: 2 hours ago

There is no shortage of bad news from Afghanistan over the past several months. The brief occupation of Kunduz, a small city in northern Afghanistan, started a cycle of negative events: the accidental bombing by allied forces of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz; a series of car bombs in the capital, Kabul; a revived Taliban campaign to retake portions of southern Afghanistan; a deputy district governor of Sangin district in Helmand province taking to Facebook to alert President Ashraf Ghani of the danger in the south.

As Oprah would say, how do you feel about Afghanistan today? Most would say pretty discouraged. But let's take a deep breath and put a couple of things in perspective.

In 2009, when I became the overall NATO operational commander with responsibility for Afghanistan (along with operations in the Balkans, off East Africa for counter-piracy and Iraq), essentially all of southern Afghanistan was under Taliban control. The Taliban flag flew proudly in most of the district capitals. Schools were under Taliban control. The new on-the-ground commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, U.S. General Stan McChrystal, briefed me and the North Atlantic Council and said bluntly that "we were losing Afghanistan" and called Marjah "a bleeding ulcer."

By 2010-2011, we had increased our allied troop presence in country to over 150,000 troops from 50+ nations. At one point, we were losing hundreds of troops monthly, both killed and grievously wounded, and over the course of my time as the NATO Commander, I personally signed over 2,000 letters of condolence to those killed in action. Total Killed in Action (KIA) for the allies in 2010 was 710 and in 2011 it was 566. We lost. It was a hard time.

But we wrested control of the country back from the Taliban and set ourselves the task of creating, training and fielding over 300,000 Afghan security forces, both police and army. Over the next few years, we did just that, and we turned the vast majority of combat operations over to the Afghans.

In 2014, for example, the allied forces -- cut back by 90 percent -- lost only 75 KIA: this year we will probably end the year with under 30 KIA. The 300,000+ Afghan police and army both have approval ratings of over 80 percent, according to the recent and well-regarded annual survey of the Afghan people by the Asia Foundation. Today there are fewer than 15,000 allied troops in Afghanistan, mainly in training and advising roles.

Alongside security gains, there have been significant improvements in civil society: health care access, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational access (especially to girls), democratic process and portions of the economy have all improved.

Yet alongside all of that are troubling storm warnings: in addition to the specific events of the past weeks, there continue to be high levels of corruption, an economy that struggles as the bulk of NATO troops withdraw, a fractious government split between President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and an increasing threat from the so-called Islamic State. The Asian Foundation Survey showed a high level of anxiety among the people of Afghanistan. It would be easy to finally shrug our collective shoulders and walk away, leaving Afghanistan to its own frustrating dynamic.

Yet beyond the headlines is a situation that still provides a reasonable chance at a successful outcome. A "reasonably successful" outcome, of course, means different things to different people, but a baseline would include: a functioning democratic government that is addressing corruption challenges; basic border control; capable security forces that minimize both Taliban and ISIS ability to hold and control territory; an economy growing at around 5-7 percent annually; good metrics in terms of education, life expectancy and infrastructure.

How do we get there, working with the Afghan people and the international community? Here are a handful of ideas:

1. Continue to invest in the Afghan security forces.


While not inexpensive at around $4 billion per year, this is a tiny fraction of the cost we faced in maintaining 150,000 troops in Afghanistan five years ago. With over 300,000 billets, the Afghan Security Forces conduct well over 90 percent of all military operations, with limited support and mentorship from the allies. This will ensure casualty levels will remain very low as they are today and that responsibility for security remains with the Afghans. This bill should be shared among the 40 or so contributors, with the U.S. paying no more than 60 percent of the total.

2. Maintain 15,000 allied troops at four distributed bases in country for the foreseeable future.


Afghanistan is not fully ready to be left to its own devices in a security context. We saw what happened in Iraq when we withdrew the 15,000 trainers recommended by the Pentagon -- chaos followed and ISIS rose up to fill the vacuum. We still have troops in Korea, Germany, the UK and Japan decades after wars there -- maintaining 15,000 troops in Afghanistan is sustainable and reasonable. Their role should not include direct combat but instead focus on intelligence, planning, advising, mentoring and logistics. We'll also need robust special forces for some time to come, especially given the potential presence of ISIS.

3. Marshall international support for economic development.


This should be a private-public mix, with the principle objective being exploitation of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan, estimated to be over $1 trillion. Organizations like the World Bank, the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the U.S. Overseas Private International Corporation can help. Other sectors that show promise in Afghanistan are telecommunications and construction, and the nation's potential as a trading crossroads is also reasonably high.

4. Address corruption.


One of the top dis-satisfiers and something that drives the people toward the Taliban, is a sense of corruption that permeates from the cop on the street to the highest levels of the government. It also discourages international investment and aid, much of which is siphoned off to private hands. This has been highlighted again and again, most cogently in the recent past by journalist and scholar Sarah Chayes in her superb (and chilling) book, "Thieves of State." Attacking corruption must be given impetus by the international community and results inspected regularly.

5. Exploit Taliban weaknesses.


Despite some tactical successes of late, the Taliban are facing a series of fundamental challenges. The succession following the death of their legendary one-eyed leader, Mullah Omar, has been fractious, with a new leader, Mullah Omar trying to consolidate power with mixed results. In the seam, ISIS is attempting to gain traction. The good news is that this will produce a weaker, more decentralized Taliban; but the bad news is that it will be unpredictable and more difficult to collect intelligence against. It may allow creative diplomacy to peal off segments of the Taliban and bring them to the negotiating table, or even find common cause against the ISIS threat.

The deaths earlier this week of six brave U.S. soldiers has shown a spotlight on the worrisome situation in Afghanistan -- but we still have cards to play and all is not lost. By taking an international, interagency and private-public approach to the significant challenges, we have our best chance at creating an imperfect but reasonably successful outcome. We must not lose hope.

As Supreme Allied Commander at NATO from 2009-2013, Admiral Stavridis was in command of operations in Afghanistan. He is currently Dean of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...0d7c5bc?cps=gravity_2684_-1270708233187357781

Suspect In French Factory Beheading Commits Suicide

12/23/2015 12:38 pm ET
Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — French authorities say a man suspected of beheading a businessman at a French gas factory in June has killed himself in his prison cell.

Deputy Prosecutor Jean-Michel Bourles in Evry, a Paris suburb, said Wednesday that Yassin Salhi hanged himself with an electric cable Tuesday night in Fleury-Merogis prison. The former delivery driver faced preliminary murder and terrorism charges and was suspected of ties to Islamic State extremists.

The attack in France's southeast put the country back on high alert after January's deadly extremist attacks against satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher market.

French prosecutors said Salhi lured his boss into a van, knocked him unconscious and beheaded him. Salhi allegedly carried a long-bladed knife, a gun and two brand-new flags emblazoned with the Muslim declaration of faith.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/12/montenegro-will-join-nato-and-matters/124733/

Montenegro Will Join NATO — and That Matters

December 23, 2015 By Evelyn N. Farkas

The move shows NATO and Montenegro are denying Russia a veto while progressing towards greater stability in the Balkans.
Commentary / NATO / Russia

There are six reasons Americans should feel good that Montenegro — a tiny state of little over 600,000 inhabitants with a military of about 2,000 — will become the 29th NATO ally, as ratified by alliance foreign ministers earlier this month.

First, and most obvious: with tension between Russia and the West at center stage, NATO and Montenegro are denying Russia a veto over their policy. We are standing strong in the face of Russian intimidation. Last fall, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov declared NATO’s expansion to include Montenegro “a mistake, even a provocation” and an “irresponsible policy.” And after Russia invaded Ukraine, when Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic visited Washington and took a public stand with the United States and European Union, Russian officials poured vitriol on him personally, while offering bribes for military access to Montenegro’s ports, providing financial and other support to opposition groups against NATO membership, and imposing counter-sanctions on Montenegrin agricultural products. Last week, Russia declared that they would cancel cooperative “projects” with Montenegro; it is unclear what Moscow meant since the two governments have no current notable joint projects.

But Montenegro is standing firm. Some major Russian private investors, such as oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who invested in Montenegro’s aluminum industry, have been forced out of Montenegro. Its Ministry of Defense is moving to modernize its military with U.S. or European equipment — for example, gradually ditching aircraft that require Russian spare parts and maintenance. Montenegro’s determination and NATO’s decision stand in defense of the sovereign right of states to determine their political, military and economic associations and as a counter to Russian bullying.

Second, this is another step in the U.S.-launched effort to bring stability to the Balkans, going back 20 years to the signing of the Dayton agreement, which brought peace to Bosnia. This work is far from complete. Bosnia remains a weak state, wrought with ethnic political tension. Serbia has yet to recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state. Macedonia is politically and ethnically polarized. But there has been no war in the Balkans since the Kosovo war, which NATO brought to a finish after about three and a half months in 1999. Montenegro becomes the third former Yugoslav state to join after Slovenia (2002) and Croatia (2009 with Albania). As the Balkan state that prides itself on positive relations with its neighbors, NATO membership acknowledges the significance of that achievement for the youngest Balkan state, founded only in 2006 in a peaceful split with Serbia. And this will only serve to encourage Serbia in its EU-led normalization with Kosovo, since Belgrade’s motivation is also obtaining membership, albeit in the EU, not NATO (for the moment; this will likely change).

Third, this NATO expansion, the first since 2009 (and the first for the Obama administration) will provide much-needed encouragement and pressure on the remaining three formally acknowledged NATO aspirants Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Macedonia (with Ukraine as a longer-shot aspirant). The seven-year lapse after the expansionary burst of the 2000s left many in the Balkans and Georgia wondering whether NATO’s so-called “Open Door” had not quietly been closed. Last week’s decision proves this is not the case. Bosnia and Macedonia still have much work to do in order to be ready for NATO membership and the latter has the formal requirement to come to an agreement with Greece over the name of the country (this is the sole stated requirement, but given political dynamics in Macedonia, NATO may also demand more reform). Georgia is ready in many ways for membership; the chief obstacle is Russia’s military occupation of 20 percent of its territory.

Fourth, including Montenegro seals off the entire Adriatic coast for NATO and prevents — in the words of one senior NATO military official — “Kaliningrad on the Mediterranean.” While NATO faces Russian air defenses and missiles in its Baltic Sea enclave, we can now avoid this in the Adriatic; Montenegro will no longer be vulnerable to subtle Russian military occupation, exercised through access to bases and stationing of Russian personnel and equipment.

Fifth, this is good news for Montenegro. As result of NATO requirements, and in support of their membership bid, they professionalized their military. Among other things, the government revamped military education and training and established a military intelligence agency separate from domestic intelligence services. Since 2010, their forces have deployed with U.S. troops to Afghanistan, where they gained valuable military interoperability with NATO. And they were forced to take some action against corruption and to strengthen rule of law. Here, this is only a start; much more will need to be done, perhaps in a more secure post-accession political environment.

Sixth, and finally, as Damon Wilson, Executive Director of the Atlantic Council has pointed out elsewhere, NATO has demonstrated and boosted its own confidence through its invitation to Montenegro: “You don’t enlarge if you don’t have a sense of confidence in your institution.”

This December 2 brought — along with the horrific San Bernardino attacks — some good news for Americans: we have another formal ally in our war against radical Islamic terrorism and another demonstration of the appeal of free-market capitalism, democracy and collective security built on sovereignty and consensus.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5f3fa0-a4d2-11e5-8318-bd8caed8c588_story.html

2,000 miles from Syria, ISIS is trying to lure recruits in Somalia

By Kevin Sieff December 24 at 1:00 AM 
Comments 13

NAIROBI — Two thousand miles from Syria, the Islamic State is trying to expand its territory by establishing a branch in what its fighters call the “little emirate”: the war-torn country of Somalia.

Winning ground there won’t be easy. Al-Shabab, a Somali group linked to al-Qaeda, has a long-standing presence in the country at Africa’s eastern edge and has threatened those who join the Islamic State with death. But that hasn’t stopped a trickle of fighters — likely a few dozen — from switching sides, raising concerns among U.S. officials, who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of aid in a new Somali government and a regional military campaign against Islamist extremists.

Somalia holds potentially huge rewards for the extremist group: It is a marginally governed nation with the continent’s longest coastline and borders three U.S. allies — Ethi*o*pia, Djibouti and Kenya.

“Looking at Somalia, ISIL is trying to insert itself and then may threaten to move into Kenya,” Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, said at a roundtable in Johannesburg this month. ISIL is an acronym for the Islamic State.

[Inside the surreal world of the Islamic State’s propaganda machine]



The Islamic State has already expanded its footprint well beyond Syria and Iraq, with militants in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria and other countries pledging allegiance to the extremists and their “caliphate.” While the Islamic State’s presence in Somalia appears to be small, its bid for followers there shows its ambitions.

A months-long Islamic State recruiting campaign in Somalia has already paid some dividends. In October, an influential Muslim cleric, Abdiqadir Mumin, announced that he had joined the group and was bringing at least 20 of his followers with him. Over the past two months, a U.S. citizen and a person with U.S. permanent resident status were apprehended in Somalia after apparently leaving al-Shabab for the Islamic State. So far, the group has not sent fighters or resources into Somalia. But the Islamic State’s image appears to have grown among militants.

“Right now, it’s the best propaganda machine going,” said Matt Bryden, a Somalia expert and director of Sahan Research, a Nairobi-based think tank.

Al-Shabab began its insurgency after Ethi*o*pia invaded Somalia in 2006. In 2012, the group declared allegiance to al-Qaeda, gaining access to a range of technical experts and theological advisers.

With al-Qaeda’s help, al-Shabab appeared to expand its ambitions. In 2013, a group of its gunmen attacked an upscale mall in Nairobi, killing 63 people. In April of this year, al-Shabab sent fighters to Garissa University in northeast Kenya, where they killed 148 people. But even as al-Shabab conducted spectacular attacks, it lost much of the territory it once administered in Somalia as African Union forces pushed back its fighters and a U.S. drone campaign targeted its top figures, killing two consecutive al-Shabab leaders in 2008 and 2014.

The United States and other Western nations have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to an embattled Somali government that took power in 2012 and has tried to rebuild public institutions.

The Islamic State’s outreach

Several armed groups in North Africa and South Asia have declared allegiance to the Islamic State since it announced the creation of a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014. But their connections with the central Islamic State organization vary.


View Graphic 
Map: What a year of Islamic State terror looks like
In Nigeria, for example, Boko Haram has received negligible assistance from the Islamic State since it pledged allegiance to the group in March, intelligence experts say.

[War-torn Ni*ger*ian town shows devastating legacy of Boko Haram]

In Afghanistan, the Islamic State has emerged as an alternative for fighters disaffected with the Taliban. They initially appeared to have few contacts with the caliphate in the Mideast, experts say. But this month, Gen. John Campbell, the U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan, said Islamic State fighters from Iraq and Syria were arriving in Nangahar province, where the Afghan branch of the group is most active.

Earlier this year, the Islamic State set its sights on Somalia. It released a series of videos that aimed to win recruits, particularly from within al-Shabab. The videos feature heavily armed men who appear to be of Somali ethnicity. One of the videos is titled “From the Land of Ash-Sham to the Mujahideen of Somalia.” (Sham is an old name for the Levant.) The video features a bearded young man who appears to be Somali listing the successes of the Islamic State.

“Establishing a caliphate in Somalia will not only benefit you, but it will benefit the Muslims in Somalia and in East Africa,” he says in English.

A U.S. intelligence official said that fighters attracted to the Islamic State “probably look to the group as an inspiration to fight for a cause that goes beyond local issues, and we believe that’s the case in Somalia.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

Uncertain presence

So far, Mumin is the most significant of the Islamic State’s recruits in Somalia. A cleric with an international following, he was seen as one of al-Shabab’s most significant religious figures and a leader in his native Puntland province, which is considered to be outside of al-Shabab’s heartland.

“He had more heft than other sheiks with al-Shabab in terms of being a properly trained imam,” said Cedric Barnes, the Horn of Africa project director at the International Crisis Group.

A radical Kenyan cleric named Hussein Hassan, once aligned with al-Shabab, has also recorded an audio message suggesting that al-Shabab join the Islamic State.

But much about the presence of the Islamic State in Somalia is unknown. Several Somali media outlets have reported that a man known only as Duliadueyne, who helped orchestrate the Garissa University attack and has strong ties to northeastern Kenya, switched sides to the Islamic State in the fall. Experts say that would be significant, but it has not been confirmed.

“It would give ISIS entry to Kenya without lifting a finger,” Bryden said.

Underscoring the risk, Kenya’s police chief told the Associated Press on Thursday that about 200 al-Shabab fighers had joined the Islamic State and that the group was operating near Kenya’s border.

There are still broader questions about what an Islamic State group in Somalia would even mean. Would former al-Shabab fighters change their tactics or ambitions after joining, or would the new group merely be a means of waging war on rival clans or jihadist groups? It is very likely, experts say, that whatever form the Islamic State takes in Somalia, it will have far more local ambitions than its Syrian counterpart.




“They don’t really have enough of a presence or much to offer local Somalis,” said Alexander Hitchens, a researcher at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization in London.

“A lot depends on whether ISIS is able to reward these defections. It has encouraged them, but this is where we need to wait and see,” Bryden said.

Even before the Islamic State recruitment campaign began this year, there had been fractures within al-Shabab. In particular, the group’s foreign recruits, especially those from Kenya and the United States, have been viewed as likely spies. In addition, tensions between clans have diminished al-Shabab’s support in much of the country, making the group’s members even more vulnerable to the Islamic State’s recruitment drive.

Al-Shabab’s leadership has warned its members that joining the Islamic State would represent “Bid’ah,” or misguidance, which would be punished by death. Senior al-Qaeda members are also infuriated by the Islamic State effort in Somalia. Speaking in an audio message in September about the push to recruit al-Shabab members, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s leader, said the Islamic State’s caliphate wasn’t built based on the “prophetic method.”

Then he offered his condolences over the death of al-Shabab’s most recent leader, Ahmed Abdi Godane, who was killed by a U.S. airstrike about a year earlier — a somewhat desperate show of solidarity with a partner now tempted by rival entreaties.