WAR 2-25-2017-to-03-03-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(258) 2-18-2017-to-02-24-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...24-2017_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/25/world/heidelberg-germany-car-hits-pedestrians/

Germany: Man drives vehicle into pedestrians, shot by police

By Nadine Schmidt and Kelly McCleary, CNN
Updated 2:02 PM ET, Sat February 25, 2017

(CNN)A man armed with a knife was shot and injured by police Saturday after he drove a car into a group of pedestrians in Heidelberg, Germany, local police said.

Three people were injured, one seriously, Mannheim police said. After driving his car into the group, the suspect tried to flee the scene and was then shot by officers. The suspect was seriously injured and taken to the hospital.

No motive is known, and the suspect has not been identified.

The crash occurred near a bakery stand in a central square of Heidelberg, police said.

The Mannheim police are leading the investigation since its police district merged with that of nearby Heidelberg.

Heidelberg sits along the Neckar River in southwest Germany about 88 kilometers (54 miles) south of Frankfurt. It is home to Heidelberg University, the oldest university in Germany.

Saturday's incident comes less than three months after a tractor-trailer barreled into a crowded Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 48.

The driver of that truck, Anis Amri, was later killed in a shootout with police in Milan, Italy.

Amri had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a video posted by the ISIS-affiliated website Amaq.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN16405J

World News | Sat Feb 25, 2017 | 2:19pm EST

Bombings, air strikes in Syria rattle Geneva peace talks

By Tom Miles and Angus McDowall | GENEVA/BEIRUT
Syrian government and opposition delegates to peace talks in Geneva on Saturday warned of the impact on negotiations after a day of violence in Syria that included jihadist suicide bombings and missile strikes by the air force.

The United Nations opened the peace talks with a symbolic ceremony on Thursday in Geneva, attended by representatives of the warring sides. But there has been no further direct contact with U.N. mediator Staffan de Mistura, who is still trying to get agreement on how the talks should be arranged.

With tensions palpable among participants, the United Nations is treading carefully in its efforts to revive negotiations after a 10-month hiatus.

"Every time we have talks, or negotiations, there is always someone who tries to spoil," de Mistura told reporters before meeting the government delegation. "I am expecting (it)," he said.

A ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey with Iran's support is increasingly violated with groups opposed to the truce and the Geneva process also attempting to force their collapse.

Suicide bombers stormed two Syrian security offices in Homs on Saturday, killing dozens with gunfire and explosions including the head of military security, prompting airstrikes against the last rebel-held enclave in the western city. [L8N1GA03U]

The jihadist rebel alliance Tahrir al-Sham, which opposes the talks - although it has fought alongside factions that are represented there - said that five suicide bombers had carried out the attack. It celebrated with the words "thanks be to God" but stopped short of explicitly claiming responsibility.

Tahrir al-Sham was formed this year from several groups including Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which was formerly known as the Nusra Front and was al Qaeda's Syrian branch until it broke formal allegiance to the global jihadist movement in 2016.

Warplanes also carried out six raids on Douma in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, resulting in six deaths, and earlier, an air raid in Hama killed four people from the same family, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

COMMITMENT
Speaking to Reuters, Basma Kodmani, a negotiator from the opposition High Negotiations Committee (HNC), said groups backing the talks had abided by the ceasefire, but questioned the government's commitment and whether Russia, a key Assad ally, was ready to pressure it to curb the violence. [L8N1GA0B1]

"The ceasefire...is violated today in the most horrible way," she said. "The use of napalm yesterday and today massive air bombings on the suburb of Waer of homs city. That is giving us very negative intentions about what the regime’s intentions are," she said.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry said it had written to the United Nations demanding condemnation for Saturday's attack and what it called other terrorist acts. Damascus regards all the groups fighting against it as terrorists.

"The terrorist explosions that hit Homs city are a message to Geneva from sponsors of terrorism, and we tell everyone that the message is received and this crime won't pass unnoticed," the government's chief negotiator Bashar Ja'afari told reporters.

Although Assad's government has controlled most of Homs since 2014, rebels still control its al-Waer district, which warplanes bombed on Saturday, wounding 50, the Observatory said.

"If it (ceasefire)is not credible, if nothing is happening here in Geneva, I fear that the ceasefire even for the opposition is going to collapse," Kodmani said.

"Where is Russia to get compliance again from the regime so that the talks in Geneva can take place?"

De Mistura handed a working paper on procedural issues to delegations at the talks on Friday, but there appeared little prospect of them meeting directly soon. Further bilateral talks are scheduled for later on Saturday.

The envoy is looking to lay the foundations for negotiations to end the six-year-old conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

"It may be good not to have too high expectations but it also reflects the state of things," said a Western diplomat.

"To get them in the room is symbolic. But there is no way you can get anything out of that at the moment unless you have the beginning of an agreement between the backers."

(Additional reporting by John Irish, Stephanie Nebehay, Yara Abi Nader, Laila Bassam in Geneva, John Davison in Beirut, Ahmed Tolba in Cairo and Kinda Makieh in Damascus, writing by John Irish, Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Related Coverage
Syria government demands opposition condemn Homs attack
U.N. Syria envoys warns of 'spoilers' after Homs attack
Syrian opposition impatient for talks, wants Russian pressure
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...nuclear-option-make-sense-japan/#.WLHfnIWcHIU

Commentary | COUNTERPOINT

Does the nuclear option make sense for Japan?

by Jeff Kingston
Special To The Japan Times
Feb 25, 2017
Article history

Last March, in an interview with The New York Times, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested it might not be a “bad thing” if Japan and South Korea developed nuclear weapons.

Really? In my view, this was a reckless suggestion, like so much else that Trump has proposed. He presents half-baked ideas while ignoring the negative consequences and sound advice on whatever subject he happens to be ricocheting off at the time.

Since becoming president, Trump hasn’t broached the subject, but conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer thinks that North Korean actions warrant Japan playing the nuclear card.

Going nuclear, however, won’t make Japan safer and won’t lighten the American security burden. Corey Wallace, a postdoctoral researcher at the Free University in Berlin, notes, “It all comes down to whether whatever option Japan chooses would actually buy more deterrence than it does provoke others to implement more aggressive military postures or actions.”

Alessio Patalano, a senior lecturer in war studies at King’s College London, points out: “Northeast Asia remains the single most nuclearized region in the world. This leaves the ROK and Japan in a difficult position if nuclear deterrence is not guaranteed by the alliance with the United States.”

As Wallace explains, “Over the years Japanese policymakers have analyzed this issue and have concluded that Japan having its own weapons would not necessarily buy the deterrent effect needed, and have taken the option off the table.” Such an assessment might change if Japanese analysts conclude that national survival is at stake, involving scenarios such as an invasion of the Japanese mainland or a military blockade.

Patalano doesn’t believe “that developing nuclear weapons is currently a better option for Japanese security than the umbrella offered by the United States. On the other hand,” he says, “it depends on the cost that the United States intends to impose for Japan to retain the current situation.”

Wallace suggests that “the most likely justification for acquiring them is as a second-strike capability to deter such a nuclear first strike, or more realistically, to prevent nuclear coercion.” Yet, he says, “here the problem is whether Japan can realistically implement a survivable and credible second-strike posture that would actually deter more than it provokes.”

Japan’s most likely option would be a second-strike capability centered on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

“Japan possesses already a good submarine force and, in principle, acquiring boats for the launch of nuclear missiles is not impossible,” Patalano says. “But the costs to maintain such a force and to develop it in a way to be an effective deterrent are, as the British experience proves, very high and demand a depth in the political debate that is currently absent.” A 2016 Genron poll found only 5 percent of Japanese support their nation possessing nuclear arms.

“Japan could produce a handful of rudimentary nuclear devices in probably a matter of months,” Wallace believes, but “the question then becomes whether the others would allow Japan to go about implementing such capabilities. One assumes that tensions would have to be quite significant for Japan to consider this option — and precisely because they are high, others may not sit quietly.”

China would surely not accept reassurances that the nuclear weapons were only to counter the North Korean threat.

Overall, Wallace argues, “the escalation dynamics surrounding Japan implementing a nuclear posture are not in Japan’s favor, and I expect that Japan will remain entrenched within the framework of U.S. extended deterrence.”

It is also problematic that Japan going nuclear independently would be the death knell for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty system, “meaning a whole range of other nations, including unstable ones, may end up acquiring their own arsenals,” Wallace adds.

Robert Jacobs, a professor at Hiroshima City University’s Peace Institute, also thinks that playing the nuclear card would be counterproductive, arguing that “no country is safer with nuclear weapons.” Nuclear weapons also carry wider implications in terms of committing Japan “to maintaining nuclear technologies (in part to produce weapons) that radically increase the amount of high-level and long-term nuclear waste they eventuate.” This, Jacobs says, “will plague these societies for millennia.”
Nuclear waste storage is already a growing problem for countries operating reactors, but Jacobs warns that “countries with military nuclear production face far larger and more intractable ecological disasters than those with only nuclear power.”

Jacobs asserts that the government is now promoting the use of MOX fuel — the mixed-oxide type developed from plutoniium and uranium — in nuclear reactors, even though it is one of the priciest options and not cost-effective, because this deflects international concerns about Japan’s large plutonium stockpile. In his view, the government maintains this stockpile partly to retain the nuclear weapon option.

On Jan. 24, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation’s Daniel Bob posted a compelling essay on the website 38 North about why encouraging Japan to play the nuclear card would not advance denuclearization of North Korea. Using “the threat of Japan going nuclear to compel China to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons would almost certainly fail,” he says — and reinforce “North Korea’s determination to keep its nuclear weapons as the key to its survival.” Moreover, Bob argues, there is no pressing need for such arms.

“Large numbers of American troops in both Japan and South Korea reinforce the U.S. commitment that an attack on either country would meet the same response as an attack on the United States. Theater missile defenses in Northeast Asia, the U.S. national missile defense system and an American nuclear arsenal that dwarfs that of North Korea provide further surety against the DPRK threat,” Bob says. “The proliferation of nuclear weapons would not only increase the chance of catastrophic war in the context of regional tensions, but also of loose nukes falling into the wrong hands.”

Patalano concludes: “A more viable alternative would be for Japan to focus on developing missile defense to make it operational at the earliest convenience, reinforce its Aegis destroyers component so as to have regular patrols for missile defense, and complement that with conventional striking capabilities to reduce the possibility of a first use. Such an option,” he says, “whilst still controversial, would be both financially and technically more feasible than any other course of action.”

Jeff Kingston is the director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan.

Keywords
China, weapons, nuclear weapons, Nuclear energy, North Korea nuclear crisis, U.S.-Japan relations
Commentary
Depressed by politics? Stop staring at phones
Trump’s China challenge
Deepening Japan-India ties in an uncertain age
Lessons Japan Inc. must learn from Ghosn
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-britain-idUSKBN1650DW

WORLD NEWS | Sun Feb 26, 2017 | 6:20am EST

Islamic State planning attacks in Britain: anti-terrorism lawyer

Islamic State militants are planning "indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians" in Britain on a scale similar to those staged by the Irish Republican Army 40 years ago, the head of the country's new terrorism watchdog said.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph published on Sunday, Max Hill, the lawyer tasked with overseeing British laws on terrorism, said the militants were targeting cities and posed "an enormous ongoing risk which none of us can ignore".

"In terms of the threat that's represented, I think the intensity and the potential frequency of serious plot planning – with a view to indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians of whatever race or color in metropolitan areas – represents an enormous ongoing risk that none of us can ignore," he said.

"So I think that there is undoubtedly significant ongoing risk which is at least as great as the threat to London in the 70s when the IRA were active on the mainland."

The IRA abandoned its armed struggle for an end to British control of Northern Ireland and unification with Ireland in a 1998 peace deal. More than 3,600 people were killed, including more than 1,000 members of the British security forces, during a sectarian conflict that began in the late 1960s.

British security officials have repeatedly said that Islamic State militants, who are losing ground in Iraq and Syria, will target Britain.

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Dominic Evans)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-navy-wargames-idUSKBN165094

WORLD NEWS | Sun Feb 26, 2017 | 4:30am EST

Iran holds naval war games amid rising tensions with U.S.

Iran launched naval drills at the mouth of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean on Sunday, a naval commander said, as tensions with the United States escalated after U.S President Donald Trump put Tehran "on notice".

Since taking office last month, Trump has pledged to get tough with Iran, warning the Islamic Republic after its ballistic missile test on Jan. 29 that it was playing with fire and all U.S. options were on the table.

Iran's annual exercises will be held in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, the Bab el-Mandab and northern parts of the Indian Ocean, to train in the fight against terrorism and piracy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to state media.

Millions of barrels of oil are transported daily to Europe, the United States and Asia through the Bab el-Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways that run along the coasts of Yemen and Iran.

Navy ships, submarines and helicopters will take part in the drills across an area of about 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) and marines will showcase their skills along Iran's southeastern coast, the state news agency IRNA said.

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is based in the region and protects shipping lanes in the Gulf and nearby waters.

Last month, a U.S. Navy destroyer fired warning shots at four Iranian fast-attack vessels near the Strait of Hormuz after they closed in at high speed. The vessels belonged to Iran's Revolutionary Guards which are not participating in the current war games.

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Wary of Trump unpredictability, China ramps up naval abilities
Islamic State planning attacks in Britain: anti-terrorism lawyer

Trump said earlier this month that "Iran has been put formally put on notice" for firing a ballistic missile, and later imposed new sanctions on Tehran.

(Reporting by Dubai newsroom; Editing by Sami Aboudi/Keith Weir)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKBN1650AI

WORLD NEWS | Sun Feb 26, 2017 | 5:03am EST

Syrian army advances against Islamic State near Aleppo: monitor

The Syrian army and its allies made a sudden advance on Saturday and Sunday into areas held by Islamic State in northwest Syria, a war monitor said, as the jihadist group retreated after losing the city of al-Bab to Turkey-backed rebels on Thursday.

The eastwards advance in an area south of al-Bab has extended Syrian army control across 14 villages and brought it within 25km (15 miles) of Lake Assad, the stretch of the Euphrates above the Tabqa dam.

Islamic State's holdings in northwest Syria have been eviscerated over recent months by successive advances by three different, rival forces: Syrian Kurdish groups backed by the United States, the Turkey-backed rebels, and the army.

By taking Islamic State territory south of al-Bab, the army is preventing any possible move by Turkey and the rebel groups it supports to expand southwards, and is moving closer to regaining control of water supplies for Aleppo.

Fighting in the area is continuing as the army and its allies advance, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor, said on Sunday.

Islamic State's loss of al-Bab after weeks of bitter street fighting marks the group's effective departure from northwest Syria, once one of its most fearsome strongholds, and an area of importance because of its location on the Turkish border.

Steady advances since 2015 by the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-led alliance of armed groups, had already pushed Islamic State from much of the frontier by the middle of last year and have since then threatened its stronghold in Raqqa.

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Wary of Trump unpredictability, China ramps up naval abilities
Iran holds naval war games amid rising tensions with U.S.

Turkey's entry into Syria's civil war via the Euphrates Shield campaign in support of rebel groups fighting under the banner of the Free Syrian Army was intended both to push Islamic State from the border and to stop Kurdish expansion there.

(Reporting by Angus McDowall; Editing by Mark Potter)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/25/north_koreas_chemical_weapons_110864.html

North Korea's Chemical Weapons

By Hyung-Jin Kim & Kim Tong-Hyung
February 25, 2017

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea may have found a new use for its large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, which are meant to attack South Korean and U.S. troops in case of another war.

Malaysian police said Friday that a chemical weapon — the toxic VX nerve agent — was used to kill the estranged half brother of Pyongyang's absolute leader at the Kuala Lumpur airport on Feb. 13. If North Korea's involvement is confirmed, this would be an unusual and extremely high-profile use of its chemicals in an assassination.

Much like its secretive nuclear program, outsiders struggle to nail down exact details about the North's chemical and biological weapons programs. Here's what's known about North Korean chemical and biological weapons:

ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST STOCKPILES

North Korea is not a signatory to the international Chemical Weapons Convention. It has been producing chemical weapons since the 1980s and is now estimated to have as many as 5,000 tons, according to a biennial South Korean defense white paper. Its stockpile, one of the world's largest, reportedly has 25 types of agents, including sarin, mustard, tabun and hydrogen cyanide. It also is thought to have nerve agents, such as the VX allegedly used by two women — one Vietnamese and the other Indonesian — to kill the North Korean leader's half brother, Kim Jong Nam. North Korea also has 12-13 types of biological weapons, said Lee Illwoo, a Seoul-based commentator on military issues. It can likely produce anthrax, smallpox and plague, the South Korean defense paper said. If war breaks out, North Korea would likely target Seoul's defenses with chemical and biological weapons dropped from aircraft or delivered via missiles, artillery and grenades, experts say.

NEW LEVEL OF SOPHISTICATION

VX, which Malaysian police said was detected on Kim Jong Nam's eyes and face, was used by Saddam Hussein's forces in a 1988 poison gas attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in northern Iraq that killed thousands. If North Korea really did use VX to assassinate Kim Jong Nam, it would show a new level of sophistication in its handling and use of chemical weapons, said Kim Dae Young, a military expert at South Korea's Korea Defense and Security Forum. "They probably conducted a lot of tests to come up with a perfect amount that would kill Kim Jong Nam, but not harm the assailants or anyone else nearby in a crowded airport," Kim said. It's still unclear how the suspects allegedly handled the VX, but analysts say that North Korea is probably capable of producing VX as a binary agent, where two chemicals that are separately harmless become a nerve agent when mixed together.

HEAVY PRODUCTION

Making chemical weapons isn't extremely difficult, and the North likely uses chemical fertilizer plants to manufacture its weapons, according to South Korean experts. The military information website GlobalSecurity.org said that North Korea has at least eight industrial facilities that can produce chemical agents. "The biggest weakness of chemical weapons is that their effectiveness expires soon and new supplies need to be made constantly, so North Korea maintaining a stockpile of up to 5,000 tons indicates a very strong production capability," said Kim, the analyst. Some defectors from the North have claimed that the authoritarian country tested chemical agents on political prisoners. The North is also thought to have some 17 microbiological labs and other places to nurture and produce germs to be used as weapons. The North can argue that such places are meant to study how to prevent epidemic diseases. But analyst Lee said the North has already placed those germs in storage facilities in military units, which means Pyongyang intends to use them as weapons.

PAST ASSASSINATIONS

Seoul has blamed Pyongyang for using poison in past assassinations or failed assassination attempts. When South Korean officials squashed what they said was a North Korean attempt to kill North Korean defector-turned-anti-Pyongyang activist Park Sang-hak in 2011, they unveiled a pen-liked weapon carried by the would-be assailant that hid a needle dipped in neostigmine bromide, a chemical that attacks the nervous system. South Korea also suspects the North was involved in the killing of Choi Duk-kun, a South Korean diplomat stationed in the Russian city of Vladivostok, who was found dead in front of his apartment in October 1996. Investigators later found neostigmine bromide in Choi's body.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
November Sierra Batman.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/a/officials-...creasingly-linked-afghan-taliban/3739937.html

EXTREMISM WATCH

Officials: Pakistani Religious Schools Increasingly Linked to Afghan Taliban

February 25, 2017 3:42 PM
Naseer Ahmad Kakar

WASHINGTON —
When Afghan intelligence officials, assisted by international investigators, probed a terror attack last month that killed five Emirati diplomats in Kandahar, they traced the suspects to a conservative religious seminary in Pakistan.

"The attack was planned in Mawlawi Ahmad Madrassa in Chaman, Quetta," said Sediq Seddiqi, a spokesperson for the Afghan Ministry of Interior.

The investigation shed light on the increasing links of some madrassas — Islamic seminaries — in Pakistan with Afghan Taliban who are fighting the Afghan government and U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan.

Thirty thousand madrassas operate across Pakistan, most of them legal and adhering strictly to religious teaching. But thousands of them are not registered with the government and are teaching grounds and recruiting points for militants and Taliban, according to Pakistan and Afghan intelligence officials.

Much of the militant activity is centered in Balochistan, where 5,500 madrassas operate as boarding schools. Many of them are kept from government scrutiny and are breeding points for terror.

"There are many seminaries where Afghan Taliban are studying, and many are owned by the Afghan Taliban group," Balochistan's minister for home and tribal affairs, Sarfaraz Bugti, told VOA's Deewa service.

Unregistered madrassas

Experts say the abundance of unregistered madrassas across the country has led to an increase in militancy in the Afghan-Pakistan region. The schools nurture militants' ideology and provide foot soldiers for the Taliban, who have been engaged in a bloody insurgency with the U.S.-backed Afghan government for more than a decade.

"You can see madrassas in every street, and they are spreading extremism to every house, community and village of Pakistan," Khadim Hussain, a Pakistani security analyst, told VOA.

According to Balochistan provincial government estimates, more than 5,000 Afghans are studying at madrassas in the province. The Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah, reportedly operated a madrassa in Kuchlak, near the provincial capital, Quetta.

The Afghan Taliban's influence over the unregulated madrassa network is most visible in the Pashto-speaking belt of Baluchistan, where Afghan militants can easily travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials say.

"There are 191 madrassas in my district, 21 of them unregistered, and some 20 percent of the enrolled students are Afghans," said Qaisar Khan Nasir, a provincial official in Qilla Abdullah district, which has a Pashtun majority population and borders Afghanistan's Kandahar province.

Washington and Kabul accuse Pakistan of harboring armed opponents of the Afghan government, including the Taliban's Quetta Council, which is composed of Taliban leadership and the Haqqani Network — a U.S.-designated terror organization.

Extremist groups who support militancy in Afghanistan and are U.S.-designated terrorist groups run countrywide networks of madrassas, according to American intelligence reports. Though banned in Pakistan, the groups operate under different names while supporting the Afghan Taliban.

Last year, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government was scathingly criticized for a $3 million grant it allocated to the Darul Uloom Haqqania madrassa, a controversial Islamic seminary that some critics call the "University of Jihad."

Headed by former senator Samiul Haq, the madrassa houses about 4,000 students and is widely known for links to, and has publicly expressed sympathies for, the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan. That association has won the Islamic cleric the title of "Father of the Taliban."

Funding connections

Both Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani — founders of Afghanistan's Taliban and the lethal Haqqani Network, respectively — are believed to have studied in the Haqqania madrassa. Taliban leader Mullah Akthar Mansoor, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in May, also may have been a former student.

Pakistani officials say they are investigating funding connections of madrassas associated with the Taliban.

"The funding these madrassas receive usually originates from Arab and some other countries, and we're aware of it," Amin-ul-Hasnat Shah, Pakistan's state minister for religious affairs, told VOA. "The government is monitoring the money trail and how this money is spent and utilized by the madrassas. We want to ensure that these funds are not used for any suspicious activity or to promote extremism through Islamic seminaries in Pakistan."

The Pakistani government says a new national counterextremism policy is being formed, which includes reforming the madrassa system, according to Ihsan Ghani, chief of the National Counter Terrorism Authority. The government vows to register all unregistered madrassas.

"The government has pledged to reform these madrassas through registration, change of syllabus, and to keep an eye on any extremism-related activities or links in these madrassas," Shah said.

Muhammad Mir, a madrassa principal and member of a madrassa committee in Baluchistan, said he hoped the government would keep its promise to clean up radical religious schools.

"We're in touch with the government and have requested them to look into the matter on urgent basis," he told VOA. "If there are extremist elements within any madrassas in Baluchistan, the government should take strict action against it."

VOA's Noor Zahid and Madeeha Anwar contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/26...ser-to-the-fight-in-mosul/?platform=hootsuite

Report

U.S. Forces Push Artillery, Rockets, and Helicopters Closer to the Fight in Mosul

Special operations forces, artillery, rockets, and airpower are working overtime to back up thousands of Iraqi troops fighting to eject ISIS from the city.

By Paul McLeary
February 26, 2017
paul.mcleary
@paulmcleary

HAMMAN*AL-ALIL, Iraq—Twenty four hours a day, American artillery booms from dug-in positions outside of this small town on the banks of the Tigris River, providing Iraqi troops pushing into western Mosul with accurate firepower within minutes of relaying the request through their American advisors.

The guns, U.S. Army Paladin mobile howitzers, can fire GPS-guided rounds anywhere in Mosul, about twelve miles to the north. Capt. Geoff Ross, who deployed with his battery here earlier this month, said that the targets have included everything from weapons caches pointed out by the Iraqis to specific Islamic State positions.

But the pace of the fighting has surprised his crews, who sleep inside the cramped vehicles each night so they can fire as soon as a call comes in.

“We’re firing a lot more than we thought we would be,” Ross said, as U.S. Apache helicopters roared overhead on their way to hunt ISIS positions within the city.
The Paladins make up just one piece of what looks to be a growing U.S. presence around Mosul, the scene of a months-long effort by Iraqi forces to wrest control of Iraq’s second-biggest city from ISIS.

At the nearby American Qayyara West airfield — long known as Q-West from when it was a much larger U.S. base several years ago — the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division has settled in behind acres of new blast walls to protect its Apaches and RQ-7 Shadow surveillance drones, which buzz constantly over Mosul and its surrounding villages. Rows of heavily armored vehicles dot the base as hundreds of U.S. troops, part of the 5,000 in Iraq and Syria, construct new buildings and ferry in supplies for themselves and their Iraqi allies, all calling to mind the massive forward operating bases during the height of the American involvement in Iraq.

In a far corner of the base are two platoons of HIMARS guided rockets, which have fired several hundred rounds into Mosul in the past few weeks, said First Lieutenant Mary Floyd, who commands one of the platoons. She touted the rockets’ accuracy and minimal collateral damage; the HIMARS have GPS-guided rounds that drop straight down on target.

Meanwhile, U.S. special operations forces have pushed closer to the fight for Mosul in recent weeks, working with small groups of Iraqi soldiers to identify targets and call in air and artillery strikes, all while keeping ground units from getting tangled up with one another.

The two guns Ross commands sit in a muddy, gnat-infested field just behind the Iraqi Federal Police’s forward headquarters, where U.S. Central Command chief U.S. Gen. Joseph Votel landed by helicopter on Saturday to huddle with his Iraqi allies. The general received a briefing from commanders of the Iraqi police and Army units who punched their way into the contested western half of the city last week.

One U.S. military official in Iraq said that fighting over the weekend has been “rough,” and on Saturday alone, four Iraqi soldiers were killed and 53 others wounded. Earlier in the week, Gen. Votel told a group of American troops he was visiting in the region that the fight to take the eastern half of Mosul cost Iraqi forces 500 dead, with another 3,000 wounded in three months of fighting.

The Iraqis are taking “deliberate, small bites” out of the densely-packed city, said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the ongoing battle. But he cautioned that the east side of Mosul — declared cleared in January after a three-month battle — remains “fragile and it has to be defended” against counter attack from ISIS fighters.

In Western Mosul, Iraqi forces are making real, if slow, progress. The official said that Gen. Abdul Amir, who was put in charge of wrangling the often parochial interests of the police, army, and counterterrorism forces, is “holding the coalition together” as they attack ISIS positions from multiple fronts.

Backing them up are many of the U.S. soldiers who had been located at other American outposts across the country. Iraq has thrown several elite units into the fight for Mosul, including the 9th Army division and all 14 battalions of U.S.-trained counterterrorism troops, but they need plenty of logistical support. Many U.S. troops are now at Q-West to help ferry ammunition and other supplies needed to keep the Iraqi forces advancing from three different directions.

The plan to push so many troops into the city from several different angles is meant to force ISIS into choosing where it can fight and what positions to abandon, the official said. ISIS “only has so much capacity” to mass fighters, he said, and when they gather in force, American planes, helicopters, and guided rockets strike them.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/arti...il&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-aa70aadc8a-122460921

The Future of Transatlantic Defense: More Europe

February 26, 2017 | Kaitlin Lavinder

Europe faced a wave of ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks last year, from Brussels to Nice to Berlin. As ISIS-occupied territories in Iraq and Syria continue to shrink under the bombardment of U.S. and coalition forces, former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin told The Cipher Brief, “I would anticipate the greatest post-caliphate danger is likely to be in Europe.”

Europe also faces threats from Russia, not the least of which is potential cyber hacking in planned elections. The Netherlands, France, and Germany will hold national elections this year, and all of them have expressed concern over Russian intervention, particularly because of the determination by the U.S. Intelligence Community that Russia was behind the hacking operation intended to influence last year’s U.S. presidential election. The head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, Hans-Georg Maassen, warned in December of “growing evidence for attempts to influence the federal election.”

Then there’s the persistent issue of mass migration to Europe, which has roiled many Europeans and widened internal political divisions, culminating in the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the European Union.

To make matters worse for European unity, President Donald Trump “doesn’t seem to think Europe integration is all that valuable,” Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, former Deputy Secretary General of NATO, tells The Cipher Brief – although Trump recently told Reuters the European Union is “wonderful” and that he is “totally in favor of it.” * *

At this month’s Munich Security Conference, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence both expressed the U.S. commitment to the transatlantic security alliance. Nevertheless, “many folks in the audience were skeptical that that message truly came from the President himself,” Julianne Smith, who is Director of the Strategy and Statecraft Program at the Center for a New American Security and who attended the conference, tells The Cipher Brief.

The U.S. team in Munich also reiterated that all NATO members must pay their fair share to the alliance – 2 percent of GDP on defense spending, and 20 percent of that on equipment procurement and upgrading.

This was a consistent call from the United States under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Yet Trump seems ready to enforce this demand, implying on the campaign trail that the U.S. does not have to abide by NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause if members do not meet the defense spending target.

This has somewhat spurred Europeans to take more responsibility for their own defense and increase spending.

Lithuanian Ambassador to the U.S. Rolandas*Kriðèiûnas*told The Cipher Brief, “as the new American President steps into office and I imagine demands that we all need to contribute 2 percent, I could not agree more. If everyone contributes 2 percent, it will make NATO stronger.”

Lithuania is on track to hit 2 percent by 2018.

Latvian State Secretary for Defense Jânis Garisons told The Cipher Brief Latvia will also meet the 2 percent mark by next year.

Even Germany, one of Europe’s largest economies but a country that spent only 1.19 percent of GDP on defense last year, is stepping up to the plate. “German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke and the Defense Minister from Germany spoke [at the Munich Security Conference], and they both talked about how important it is for Germany to move toward that [2 percent] target,” Smith says. But she notes that “their Foreign Minister, who’s from a different political party, seemed more skeptical.”

Of the 26 European NATO members, four spent at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2015 and were expected to maintain that spending through 2016. Seven European NATO states, including Turkey, spent at least 20 percent of defense spending on equipment, and nine were expected to reach that mark last year.

In addition to more defense spending, there is talk of either creating a European pillar of integrated command within NATO – which is already in the beginning stages with NATO’s Framework Nations Concept, in which one country leads a multinational unit – or developing a stronger EU defense apparatus, beyond the European Defence Agency.

German Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Wittig told a press briefing the Framework Nations Concept has a “good future” and will probably be enlarged.

At the same time, he said, Europe can do a lot more to beef up its defense, which would complement NATO.

Germany and France recently wrote a joint letter to the European Commission, calling for greater EU security cooperation, including better border control and increased efforts to prevent radicalization in Europe.

Vershbow, now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, says more EU cooperation means the EU could lead a peacekeeping mission in North Africa, for example, or work on defense capacity building in Tunisia – anywhere the EU has capacity, “where you don’t necessarily need to use big robust NATO.”*

The EU has recently made moves toward advancing joint defense procurement, which Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations Nick Witney notes is “easier to develop” within the EU than within NATO.

The European Commission revealed a plan in November for a €5 billion-per-year European Defence Fund to “support investment in joint research and the joint development of defence equipment and technologies.”

Europeans also have some bilateral integrated command structures, such as one between Germany and the Netherlands.

An overarching EU command structure, however, the so-called “EU Army” idea, is a long way off and, according to The Cipher Brief sources, more of a political idea than a military proposal.

While the EU works on unifying and strengthening its defense system, NATO also has restructuring to do to sufficiently face 21st century external and internal threats. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis told The Cipher Brief NATO must concentrate on cyber and cybersecurity, partnerships with non-NATO nations in coalition-type activities, and the Arctic in coming years.

The Arctic, he said, is an area where Russia will continue to push. “Across the Arctic Ocean we see Russia, which is conducting a military buildup in the region,” said Stavridis.

“Just as we deter Russia on our eastern border … we need to think a bit more about the High North,” he said. Deterring Russian aggression was thrown into the spotlight as a NATO priority after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, and Moscow’s continued support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Arguably the most pressing security concern for Europe is combatting violent extremism, though, which is Trump’s top national security objective, and one area in which Vershbow believes NATO can play an even more significant role now than it has in the past.

As NATO and the EU work on strengthening European security in the near future, Vershbow says that the role of the United States in transatlantic defense is “indispensable.” NATO is “a unique organization, where the U.S. is the first among equals and accepted as the leader but at the same time, respected because it listens,” he says.*

Kaitlin Lavinder is a reporter at The Cipher Brief. Follow her on Twitter @KaitLavinder.

Related Articles

Poland: Strong Defense Partner But Taking Undemocratic Steps
Kaitlin Lavinder

Cracks in the Union: Europe and the World in 2016
Kaitlin Lavinder

At the Crossroads Between East and West: Turkey and the World in 2016
Fritz Lodge
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-defence-navy-idUSKBN16500P

World News | Sat Feb 25, 2017 | 8:04pm EST

Wary of Trump unpredictability, China ramps up naval abilities

By Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina | BEIJING

The PLA Navy is likely to secure significant new funding in China's upcoming defense budget as Beijing seeks to check U.S. dominance of the high seas and step up its own projection of power around the globe.

China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places.

Now, with President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy.

"It's opportunity in crisis," said a Beijing-based Asian diplomat, of China's recent naval moves. "China fears Trump will turn on them eventually as he's so unpredictable and it's getting ready."

Beijing does not give a breakdown for how much it spends on the navy, and the overall official defense spending figures it gives - 954.35 billion yuan ($139 billion) for 2016 - likely understates its investment, according to diplomats.

China unveils the defense budget for this year at next month's annual meeting of parliament, a closely watched figure around the region and in Washington, for clues to China's intentions.

China surprised last year with its lowest increase in six years, 7.6 percent, the first single-digit rise since 2010, following a nearly unbroken two-decade run of double-digit jumps.

"Certainly, the PLA Navy has really been the beneficiary of a lot of this new spending in the past 15 years," said Richard Bitzinger, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Military Transformations Programme at the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

"We don't how much they spend on the navy, but simply extrapolating from the quantity and the quality of things that are coming out of their shipyards, it's pretty amazing."

RAPID DEVELOPMENT
The Chinese navy, once generally limited to coastal operations, has developed rapidly under President Xi Jinping's ambitious military modernization.

It commissioned 18 ships in 2016, including missile destroyers, corvettes and guided missile frigates, according to state media.

Barely a week goes by without an announcement of some new piece of equipment, including an electronic reconnaissance ship put into service in January.

Still, the PLA Navy significantly lags the United States, which operates 10 aircraft carriers to China's one, the Soviet-era Liaoning.

Xu Guangyu, a retired major general in the People's Liberation Army now senior adviser to the government-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said China was keenly aware of the U.S. ability to project power at sea.

"It's like a marathon and we're falling behind. We need to step on the gas," Xu said.
Trump has vowed to increase the U.S. Navy to 350 ships from the current 290 as part of "one of the "greatest military buildups in American history", a move aides say is needed to counter China's rise as a military power.

"We’ve known this is a 15-20 year project and every year they*get closer to being a blue-water navy with global aspirations," said a U.S. administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"What you have seen this last year and what I think you will see with the new budget is that they are moving ahead with the short-term goal of being the premier naval force in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, with the mid-term goal, of extending all the way to the Indian Ocean."

In January, China appointed new navy chief, Shen Jinlong, to lead that push.

Also In World News
Iraqi forces seize Mosul bridge as thousands of civilians flee
Turkey-backed Syrian rebels clash with army in north

Shen has enjoyed a meteoric rise and is close to Xi, diplomatic and leadership sources say.

"The navy has gotten very lucky with Shen," said a Chinese official close to the military, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Now they know for certain their support goes all the way to the top."

Recent PLA Navy missions have included visits to Gulf states, where the United States has traditionally protected sea lanes, and to the South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, in what the state-run website StrongChina called Shen's "first show of force against the United States, Japan and Taiwan".

Last month, a Chinese submarine docked at a port in Malaysia's Sabah state, which lies on the South China Sea, only the second confirmed visit of a Chinese submarine to a foreign port, according to state media.

The submarine had come from supporting anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, where China has been learning valuable lessons about overseas naval operations since 2008.

Chinese warships have also been calling at ports in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, unnerving regional rival India.

"It's power projection," said a Beijing-based Western diplomat, of China's navy.


(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom and Adrees Ali in WASHINGTON; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

Next In World News

Philippines condemns 'barbaric beheading' of German hostage
MANILA The Philippines and Germany condemned on Monday the beheading of an elderly German captive by Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf militants who posted a video of the killing after a deadline for a $600,000 ransom passed.

Israeli aircraft attack Hamas targets after rocket fired from Gaza
GAZA Israeli aircraft carried out a series of strikes in Gaza on Monday, wounding at least four people, witnesses said, after a rocket fired from the Palestinian territory hit an empty area in southern Israel.

South Korea calls for action against North Korean leadership
GENEVA South Korea called on Monday for major powers to criminally pursue North Korea's leadership before its "ever-worsening" human rights record including mass executions and forced labor threatened world peace.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
DOT....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-thaad-lotte-idUSKBN1660P6

World News | Mon Feb 27, 2017 | 4:02am EST

South Korea's Lotte approves land swap for missile defence: ministry

The board of an affiliate of South Korea's Lotte Group approved a land swap with the government on Monday that will enable authorities to deploy a controversial U.S. missile defence system, the defence ministry said.

The government decided last year to deploy the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system in response to the North Korean missile threat, on land that is part of a golf course owned by Lotte in the Seongju region, southeast of Seoul.

The board of unlisted Lotte International Co Ltd approved the deal with the government, and the ministry and Lotte were due to sign an agreement as early as Tuesday, the ministry said.

Lotte could not be immediately reached for comment.

South Korea has said it and the United States aim to make the system operational by the end of the year. A South Korean military official said last week the deployment could be completed by August.

But China objects to the deployment in South Korea of the THAAD, which has a powerful radar capable of penetrating Chinese territory.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang repeated China's opposition it on Monday, saying it would not help peace and stability of the Korean peninsula, and called on South Korea and the United States not go to go ahead.

China will take necessary steps to protect its security interests, Geng said, without giving details.

"All the consequences of that are the responsibility of South Korea and the United States," he told a daily news briefing in Beijing.

Chinese state media recently warned the Lotte Group, South Korea's fifth-largest conglomerate, that it would face severe consequences if it allowed its land to be used for the missile system.

Also In World News
Iraqi forces seize Mosul bridge as thousands of civilians flee
Turkey-backed Syrian rebels clash with army in north

The Lotte Group said on Feb. 8 Chinese authorities had stopped construction at a multi-billion dollar real estate project in China after a fire inspection, adding to concern in South Korea about damage to commercial relations with the world's second-largest economy.

South Korea's central bank said this month the number of Chinese tourists visiting the tourist island of Jeju had fallen 6.7 percent over the Lunar New Year holiday from last year, partly because of China's "anti-South Korea measures due to the THAAD deployment decision".

Earlier, South Korean officials said they suspected a Chinese decision in December to deny applications from South Korean airlines to expand charter flights was "indirect" retaliation for deployment of the missile system.

But Finance Minister Yoo Il-ho later said China had not taken any retaliatory measures over the missile system that merited official response, though adding South Korea was ready to complain about any "unfair" action.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park and Joyce Lee; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Writing by Se Young Lee; Editing by Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/27/farewell_to_an_arms_treaty_110873.html

Farewell to an Arms Treaty

By Stratfor
February 27, 2017

Summary
A long-embattled arms control pact signed by Moscow and Washington in 1987 took its biggest hit yet this month. On Feb. 14, allegations emerged that the Russians had*deployed operational units equipped with missiles*that violate the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). In response, three U.S. senators introduced the INF Preservation Act, which among other measures calls for the United States to develop its own prohibited missiles. The precarious state of the treaty adds urgency to questions about the potential consequences of its demise, particularly since both countries have growing incentives to abandon the pact. Withdrawal by either Moscow or Washington would compel a rapid build-up of short- and medium-range missiles by both militaries, a surge of investment in missile defense, and a boost to U.S. capabilities in the Western Pacific.

Analysis
When the Soviet Union and the United States signed the INF treaty, it effectively ended a destabilizing build up of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with short to intermediate ranges, defined as 500-5,500 kilometers (311-3,418 miles). Since then, nearly 3,000 missiles have been eliminated — most of which would have been deployed on the European continent — making the INF a foundational arms control agreement credited with slowing the arms race between Russia and the United States. Outright withdrawal from the treaty by either government would severely hamper future arms control efforts and accelerate an already-intensifying arms race focused on nuclear modernization.*

The Treaty Hampers Russia More
For all the problems that would arise with the treaty's demise, Russian and U.S. defense planners have some reasons to look forward to its end. For example, a build-up of land-based intermediate-range missiles would enhance Russian defenses against an increasingly powerful Chinese military on the China-Russia border. It would also give Russia options in the event that the United States expands its already substantial advantage in the development of hypersonic weapons, which travel at least five times the speed of sound. Perhaps most important, boosting its arsenal of short- to intermediate-range missiles based on land could help Russia redress its considerable airpower disadvantage relative to the United States and NATO.
*
Indeed, the INF has hampered Russia's long-range conventional strike capabilities more than the United States'. This is because Washington has built up a sizable arsenal of long-range land-attack missiles over the past decades. These air- and sea-launched missiles, when combined with the U.S. stealth bomber and fighter advantages, give Washington a much greater capability to conduct long-range strikes, including deep inside Russian territory. Development of land-based intermediate-range missiles would help Russia narrow this imbalance. For example, given the range and punching power of the missiles, Russia could threaten NATO air bases across Europe — just as China's missile program has given it the ability to strike U.S. bases in the Western Pacific.
*
Withdrawal from the INF would also boost Russia's nuclear deterrence capabilities. Ever since Washington withdrew from the U.S.-Russia Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, Moscow has become increasingly concerned about U.S. missile defense development. Building an arsenal of nuclear-tipped intermediate-range missiles would allow the Russians to retarget practically all their intercontinental ballistic missiles — which are limited in number by New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) — against the continental United States. This would help guarantee Russia's ability to respond in the event of a nuclear strike.
*
However, any surge in Russian and U.S. development of land-based intermediate range missiles would be accompanied by greater investment in missile defense. With an eye on potential threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea, the United States has already been pouring substantial resources into the development of systems including*the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missile system (THAAD)*and various variants of the SM-3 interceptor missiles. This would intensify if Russia began a rapid build-up of short- and intermediate-range missiles — especially since ballistic missile defenses are significantly more effective against shorter-range weapons.

The U.S. Eyes the Western Pacific
Though the INF treaty limits Russia more than the United States, Washington has its own problems with the pact — particularly in the Western Pacific. Long-range land-attack cruise and ballistic missiles are critical to any U.S. war-fighting scenario in East Asia, particularly given the vast distances that would be involved in regional operations. While the INF treaty has limited the United States to fielding air- and sea-launched missiles of short to intermediate range, the Chinese have been free to build up a vast arsenal of land-based versions of the missiles. From launching points across the Chinese mainland, Beijing could concentrate crippling strikes on the sparse number of available U.S. airfields in the region — an asymmetric advantage the Chinese have focused heavily on exploiting over the past decades to make up for U.S. superiority in other areas. If the INF treaty were to be abandoned, the United States would likely move quickly to build up its own land-based missile batteries to redress this disadvantage.
*
The fate of the INF treaty has not yet been sealed. In fact, the United States and Russia could leverage the arms control portfolio to further talks on other issues, as they have done with arms control talks in the past. But the factors threatening the treaty have been gaining strength in both countries for decades.
*
Today, Washington is unlikely to seriously consider halting its ballistic missile development, and the U.S. Congress will not easily agree to curtail ongoing nuclear modernization programs*— two areas where continued U.S. progress will heighten Moscow's interest in abandoning the INF treaty. Meanwhile, the rise of China has similarly complicated the fate of a treaty, which was designed with a bipolar Cold War framework in mind. Beijing will be exceedingly reluctant to limit development of its own land-based short- and intermediate-range missiles, given its heavy reliance on the arsenal.
*
Thus, at minimum, the INF treaty will be violated more frequently, but*its demise is a very real possibility. The consequences would be vast, affecting everything from future arms control efforts to technological investments and weapons buildups.


This article appeared originally at Stratfor.

Related Topics: South China Sea, Western Pacific, Indo-Pacific, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, New START, New Start Treaty, NATO, China, Russia, INF Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Arms Control Pact
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/201...idance-system-production-order/7641488204476/

Home / Defense News

U.S. Navy places Trident II guidance system production order

By Ryan Maass **|** Feb. 27, 2017 at 9:34 AM

Feb. 27 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy awarded Charles Stark Draper Laboratory a $59.6 million contract modification for Trident MK 6 guidance system production work.
Under the agreement, the contractor is tasked with providing failure verification, test, repair and recertification services. The company will also provide electronic assemblies and modules.

The Trident II is a submarine-launched ballistic missile often referred to as the Fleet Ballistic Missile. The weapon is directed toward its targets with a MK 6 astro-inertial guidance system, which is designed to receive GPS updates.

The U.S. Department of Defense says work on the contract will be performed in Minneapolis, Minn.; Clearwarter, Fla.; and two locations in Massachusetts. Work is expected to be complete by January 2021.

The contract includes options which, if exercised, raise its total value to $370 million.

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory received $47 million in Fiscal 2017 weapons procurement funds and an additional $12 million from Britain at the time of the modification award. The Strategic Systems Programs is the contracting activity.


Related UPI Stories
Raytheon gets $1 billion radar contract for Qatar
Guided-missile destroyer USS Hue City conducts live-fire exercise
Jenoptik contracted for Patriot missile components
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-i...lected-navigational-and-overflight-challenges

Asia Pacific Security

Southeast Asia’s neglected navigational and overflight challenges

By Euan Graham@graham_euan
27th February, 2017
11:35 AEDT

As the new US administration considers how to respond to China’s strategic challenge in the South China Sea, it must also grapple with the legal, political and operational complexities to the freedom of navigation issue. A strategic focus on China should not obscure significant differences among Southeast Asian countries on military navigation and overflight, limiting their potential support. These factors are also important for Australia to consider.

China’s harassment and close interception of US ships and aircraft undertaking surveillance operations within 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) has been a longstanding friction point in US-China relations, one that pre-dates Beijing’s island construction campaign in the South China Sea. Beijing does not recognise such surveillance as lawful, although the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) permits it.

More recently, Beijing has vociferously protested freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) conducted by the US Navy in the South China Sea aimed at challenging excessive maritime claims in the Spratly and Paracel micro-archipelagos. These surface operations, four in all since October 2015, were not aimed at contesting sovereignty per se, and were ineffective in reversing China’s artificial island-building. The Obama administration’s fitful, somewhat haphazard approach to asserting freedom of navigation attracted criticism from the start, and growing consternation since.

China is reported to be considering amendments to domestic legislation that would further deter foreign warships from entering 'Chinese waters' uninvited. The geographical scope of China’s claims in the South China Sea remains ambiguous, notwithstanding a sweeping legal defeat at the Hague arbitral tribunal court last July. Concerns remain that China could declare an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea.

While a continuing focus on China is understandable, excessive claims and passage restrictions by Southeast Asian coastal states have received insufficient attention as a result. This, despite the fact that US FONOPs in the South China Sea were expressly meant to challenge Southeast Asian claimants as well as China.

In Southeast Asia only Singapore and Brunei, both small states with limited maritime jurisdictional claims, take a position on freedom of navigational that closely resembles Western maritime states. Singapore is conspicuously outspoken, identifying freedom of navigation as an 'existential issue', though it has stopped short of engaging in operational demonstrations along US lines. Elsewhere, the record is mixed including those states embroiled in territorial disputes with China.

First, Vietnam’s practice of drawing strait baselines (where a state’s 12 nautical mile territorial sea is measured from) is among the most egregious in Southeast Asia, pushing its territorial sea out well beyond the coastline in places. Vietnam has previously insisted on prior notification for innocent passage within its territorial sea. However, Hanoi is trending in the right direction, progressively aligning its domestic maritime statutes with international law. Vietnam has not protested US FONOPs and upholds the right of innocent passage within the territorial sea.

Second, Indonesia, together with the Philippines, was a major beneficiary of UNCLOS. Both won recognition as archipelagic states that allowed them to draw straight baselines between their outermost islands and enclose these waters as territorial seas. The quid pro quo in UNCLOS was that archipelagic states should grant unrestricted access to ships and aircraft through designated sea lanes, a process that both Jakarta and Manila have only partially completed.

Indonesia’s initial reaction to the recent US FONOPs was frosty, influenced by a deep angst about foreign military activities within the archipelago. President Joko Widodo’s recently reported willingness to discuss joint South China Sea patrols with Prime Minister Turnbull belies a deeper ambivalence. Jakarta’s attitude towards overflight of its airspace is if anything pricklier, as demonstrated by repeated intercepts, including of non-military aircraft, and a festering dispute with Singapore over control of the Flight Information Region that regulates civilian passenger flights east of Changi airport.

Indonesia is believed to have drawn up high-level plans for its own ADIZ last year. ADIZs carry no international legal force, being originally designed as a Cold War early-warning measure to discriminate between benign and hostile aircraft approaching national airspace. The Philippines is the only country in Southeast Asia to have a formal ADIZ, but for years has lacked aircraft to enforce it. Capacity constraints would similarly limit the practical effect of an Indonesia-wide ADIZ, even if Jakarta were to announce one. But the political consequences would still be serious, since an ADIZ declaration would perturb Indonesia’s neighbours, including Australia, and probably upset the US given its increasing interest in operating combat aircraft from Northern Australia. Worst of all, China would be gifted a golden opportunity to react in kind by declaring its own ADIZ in the South China Sea, with more obvious strategic overtones.

Third, Singapore is among those worried about potential restrictions on military navigation and overflight reportedly under consideration by Malaysia. Since ratifying UNCLOS, Kuala Lumpur has claimed a dubious authority to restrict military activities within its EEZ, while maintaining straight baselines that it is not entitled to. Malaysia, to be fair, has responsibly and consistently upheld international navigation and safety in the Malacca Strait. But there are concerns that Kuala Lumpur plans to illegitimately restrict the transit of submarines within its EEZ and to limit military access to surrounding airspace. This should be concerning not only for Singapore, but Malaysia’s other partners within the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). These include Australia, which stages maritime surveillance flights out of the Peninsula and participates in regular FPDA exercises that extend into the South China Sea.

The US and its partners therefore face an uphill challenge if they aim to garner support for a regional order that enshrines navigational access and overflight for foreign militaries across Southeast Asia. The vast majority of the region’s maritime domain is already subject to some form of jurisdictional claim, including overlapping and excessive claims.

Concern not to incur China’s wrath reinforces caution on the South China Sea in particular. Yet creeping jurisdiction is a broader coastal-state phenomenon, driven by security and economic nationalist imperatives. It is the case that maritime Southeast Asian states increasingly fear Chinese encroachment from the South China Sea, but appetite to cooperate on freedom of navigation is still inhibited by local distrust of immediate neighbours, as well lingering unease about intervention by Western maritime powers.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
DOT....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/...ficers-warrants-who-want-to-go-on-active-duty

The Army is seeking Guard and Reserve officers, warrants who want to go on active duty

By: Kathleen Curthoys, February 26, 2017
Comments 381

Reserve component officers and warrant officers can go on active duty if they apply to be considered within the next few weeks.

The Army is expanding the Regular Army Call to Active Duty program this year to include officers and warrant officers in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.

The CAD program is part of the Army's effort to reach the end strength growth called for in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. The service is slated to grow the active Army by 16,000 for an end strength of 476,000, Lt. Col. Janet Herrick, a spokeswoman for Human Resources Command, told Army Times on Feb. 23. * *

The program is open to those in specific grades and specialties, according to a Military Personnel Message released Feb. 3.

The deadline to apply is March 31. Officers who are accepted will be notified by e-mail no later than Aug. 31, according to the release.*

Through the program, "the Army looks to retain the talent, skills and experience of quality officers who are fit, resilient and ready to serve America's Army," said Brig. Gen. Joseph R. Calloway, director of HRC’s Officer Personnel Management Directorate, in a Feb. 22 Army release.

“Each year the program is open to varying grades and specialties for officers and warrant officers to match the needs of the Army and keep skilled officers on active duty,” Herrick said.

The CAD program is different from a branch transfer program; with its emphasis on skills and experience, it focuses on officers qualified in their requesting branch or functional area, according to the MILPER message.

The selections will be made based on what skills the Army needs at the time officers are selected, officials said.*

Those who transfer to active duty will have a three-year active-duty service obligation, according to the MILPER message.

*Who’s eligible

Commissioned officers in these grades and specialties may apply:
All basic-branch first and second lieutenants in the Army Competitive Category who successfully completed their Branch Officer Leadership Course.
All ACC basic branch captains who completed their Captain Career Course and successfully completed a key development qualifying assignment. Captains in Adjutant General (42B) and Logistics branch (90A) must only complete the CCC.
Majors in the branches of Air Defense Artillery (14A), Chemical Corps (74A), Military Intelligence (35D), Finance Corps (36A), Corps of Engineers (12A), Acquisition Corps (FA51), Nuclear and Counter Proliferation (FA52) and Information Operations (FA30).
Warrant officers in these areas may apply:
Warrant officers one (WO1) and chief warrant officers two (CW2) in MOS 131A, 140A, 140E, 152E/H, 153D/M, 154F, 180A, 255A, 255N, 311A, 352N, 353T, 420A, 881A, 920A, and 923A.
CW3 in MOS 120A, 125D, 150U, 152E/H, 154F, 180A, 255S, 311A, and 352N.
CW4 in MOS 120A, 125D, 131A, 150U, 152E/H, 154F, 180A, 255S, 311A, 350F, and 921A.
CW2, CW3, and CW4 for Army Special Operations Aviation (ARSOA) assignment in MOS 152H, 152D, 153D, 153M, 154C, 154F, and 155A/E/G.
The CAD program's requirements for commissioned officers and warrant officers include:

Hold a security clearance of secret or higher.
Have a bachelor’s degree, at minimum.
Pass the Army Physical Fitness Test and meet height/weight standards in AR 600-9.
All eligible lieutenants must have completed BOLC.
All eligible captains must be graduates of CCC.
Who’s not eligible:

Officers in special branches such as the Army Medical Department, Judge Advocate General Corps and Chaplains Corps.
Promotable majors.
*Officers who have been released from active duty because of a show-cause board, medical board or hardship or compassionate release from duty unless documentation shows the reason for separation has been resolved.
Those who resigned for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. *
Majors and captains who have been selected by an Officer Separation Board and who received a reserve appointment may apply through an exception to policy if they meet eligibility requirements detailed in the MILPER message.

CAD applies only to officers. Enlisted soldiers do not have a version of the Call to Active Duty Program, but they do have a Selective Retention Bonus program that is updated periodically, Herrick said.

For details on applying for the CAD program, see MILPER Message 17-052 or visit the HRC website.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/middleeast/iraq-mosul-offensive/

Iraqi commander: ISIS leaders 'running away' from Mosul

By Euan McKirdy, Kareem Khadder, Ingrid Formanek and Hamdi Alkhshali, CNN
Updated 6:10 AM ET, Tue February 28, 2017

battle for Mosul_00003029

Irbil, Iraq (CNN)The commander of Iraq's federal police has said ISIS militants in western Mosul are looking to cut and run from their defense of the group's last remaining stronghold in the country.

Cmdr. Ra'ed Shaker Jawdat said ISIS militants were increasingly cut off from each other, and that its leaders were fleeing the remaining pockets of militant control.

"The terrorist organization Da'esh are living in a state of shock (and) confusion and defeat and its fighters are fighting in isolated groups," Jawdat said, using an Arabic acronym for ISIS.

"Our field intelligence units indicate that the terrorist organization is falling apart and its leadership are running away from Mosul."

He added that his forces were combing the al-Ghazalani, al-Jawasq, and al-Tayaran neighborhoods in search of fighters, IEDs and booby traps, and that government artillery was targeting remaining "terrorist dens" in the western half of the city.

Militant meeting bombarded
Earlier, Iraqi militants and government troops had targeted an ISIS meeting in a town outside Mosul, killing and injuring dozens, according to the Popular Mobilization Unit's (PMU) media unit.

PMU artillery targeted the meeting, which was being held near a police station in Tal Afar, a largely Turkmen town around 70 km (43 miles) west of Mosul, the northern Iraqi town which has been the focus of a huge Iraqi military operation in recent weeks and months.

Arwa Damon Return to Mosul Trailer

Arwa Damon Return to Mosul Trailer 00:30
The PMU is an umbrella group of militant groups that is working with government forces to liberate ISIS-held areas of the northwestern Iraqi governorate of Nineveh, including its capital, Mosul.

Two artillery strikes, planned in conjunction with an Iraqi army brigade, killed and injured more than 70 gathered ISIS fighters, the PMU media office said.

Government forces retook the eastern part of Mosul from ISIS a month ago, completing a key phase in an offensive on the city, Iraq's second-largest and ISIS' last stronghold in the country, that began on October.

Humanitarian concerns
The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says that since operations to liberate the western part of the city, which began February 19, around 8,000 people have fled from the occupied areas of the city and surrounding villages. The agency reports that emergency kits of food and water have been distributed to those fleeing ISIS-held areas.

For those who remain trapped in the war zone, OCHA says that civilians in "many neighborhoods" in southern and western Mosul have no access to drinking water.

The report adds that as many as 75 civilians have been treated as trauma casualties since the renewed campaign began.

Displaced Iraqis flee the city of Mosul during an operation to retake the city from ISIS.

Minister: IDPs number in millions
Meanwhile, Iraq's Minister of Migration and Displaced Jassem Mohammad al-Jaff said during a press conference at the offices of the ministry headquarters in Baghdad that the number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) have reached 4.3 million across the country since ISIS began taking territory in 2014, but that more than 1.6 million have returned to their homes in areas liberated from ISIS.

US soldiers help Iraqi troops secure Mosul

US soldiers help Iraqi troops secure Mosul 01:57

Al-Jaff added that since operations began, the government had processed 14,000 IDPs, which have been transferred to Al-Qayyara and al-Qayyara airfield and the village of al-Hajj Ali to the to the south of Mosul, and added that his department is taking care of their needs.

The government figures eclipse the OCHA records as they take into account a wider timeframe and may include IDPs which were not registered by the UN agency.

Key bridge retaken
On Monday, the army reported it has recaptured a bridge across the Tigris River in west Mosul, where fierce battles are ongoing to oust ISIS from its last bastion in Iraq.

While all five bridges linking the government-held eastern Mosul to the western part have been destroyed, the takeover of the fourth bridge will allow Iraqi forces to lay a ramp over the broken part and open a supply route from east.

The battle to take over west Mosul, where about 750,000 people are believed to be living, has proved to be challenging. The narrow, densely populated streets there makes the impact of heavy weaponry deadly and indiscriminate, and access to aid difficult.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.japantoday.com/category...ea-and-japan-look-to-turn-screws-on-pyongyang

U.S., S Korea and Japan look to turn screws on Pyongyang

POLITICS FEB. 28, 2017 - 11:30AM JST
Comments 1

WASHINGTON — Senior U.S., South Korean and Japanese officials met on Monday to discuss how better to enforce international sanctions against North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.

The Washington talks came shortly after United Nations experts warned that Pyongyang has been flouting existing sanctions, and just as China’s top diplomat held talks at the White House.

U.S. special representative for North Korea policy Joseph Yun met senior Japanese diplomat Kenji Kanasugi and South Korea’s special representative Kim Hong-kyun at the State Department.

In a statement, they condemned the North’s “flagrant disregard for multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting its ballistic missile and nuclear programs.”

This, they argued, “requires strong international pressure on the regime” and they called on other countries to “fully and effectively implement their obligations” under U.N. resolutions.

This was a tacit appeal to China, overwhelmingly North Korea’s main trading partner, after a UN experts report last week warned that Pyongyang was getting better at sanctions busting.

Even as the allies met, China’s State Councilor Yang Jiechi was across town at the White House, meeting President Donald Trump’s senior foreign policy advisers.

After the talks, the councilor—who outranks China’s foreign minister—briefly met Trump himself, the most senior Chinese official to greet the new US leader since his inauguration.

Yang is due to meet U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at the State Department on Tuesday.

Earlier on Monday, the European Union further restricted its own trade in coal, iron and iron ore and banned imports of copper, nickel, silver and zinc from North Korea.

In their statement, the United States, Japan and South Korea said they too would seek to cut “the revenue sources for North Korea’s weapons programs, particularly illicit activities.”

China shares U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons, but prefers negotiations to tougher new sanctions, which it fears could destabilize North Korea and trigger a flood of refugees.

Beijing’s decision earlier this month to halt North Korean coal imports has been seen as an attempt to defuse criticism and nudge North Korea and the U.S. toward negotiations.

But China has pushed back against Trump’s criticism that it has not done enough to bring its smaller neighbor to heel, insisting the conflict is at core one between Pyongyang and Washington.

The UN Security Council has imposed six sets of sanctions since Pyongyang first tested an atomic device in 2006.

But Kim Jong-Un’s isolated regime has continued to thumb its nose at the world with a series of missile launches over the years and two nuclear tests in 2016 alone.

And on February 13, Kim’s estranged half-brother was murdered with the banned VX nerve agent in an attack in Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur airport that has been blamed on the regime.

© 2017 AFP
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-drills-idUSKBN1683HQ

World News | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 3:44am EST

South Korea, U.S. begin large-scale annual drills amid North Korea tension

South Korean and U.S. troops began large-scale joint military exercise on Wednesday conducted annually to test their defense readiness against the threat from North Korea, which routinely characterizes the drills as preparation for war against it.

The exercise, called Foal Eagle, comes amid heightened tension following the latest test launch of a ballistic missile by the North on Feb. 12 and in the past prompted threats by Pyongyang to launch military action in retaliation.

South Korea's Defense Ministry and the U.S. military based in the South confirmed the start of the drills on Wednesday that will continue until the end of April but did not immediately provide further details.

The exercise last year involved about 17,000 American troops and more than 300,000 South Koreans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis spoke with South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-Koo early on Wednesday by telephone and said the United States remains steadfast in its commitment to the defense of its ally.

Mattis welcomed a deal signed by South Korea with the Lotte Group conglomerate this week to secure the land to station the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in the South, the two countries said.

South Korea has said it and the United States aim to make the system, which the two countries decided last year to deploy in response to the North Korean missile threat, operational by the end of the year.

Han said in the phone call with Mattis that this year's joint drills will be conducted at a similar scale as last year's, which the South's Defense Ministry had called the "largest-ever" exercises by the allies.

North Korea's official KCNA news agency said earlier on Wednesday its leader Kim Jong Un inspected the headquarters of a major military unit and issued guidance on increasing combat readiness.

(Reporting by Jack Kim and Ju-min Park in Seoul and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Michael Perry)

Related Coverage
China, Russia to step up opposition to South Korean anti-missile system
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-mosul-road-idUSKBN1683H8

World News | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 3:15pm EST

Iraqi army controls main roads out of Mosul, trapping Islamic State

By Stephen Kalin | MOSUL, Iraq

U.S.-backed Iraqi army units on Wednesday took control of the last major road out of western Mosul that had been in Islamic State's hands, trapping the militants in a shrinking area within the city, a general and residents said.

The army's 9th Armored Division was within a kilometer of Mosul's Syria Gate, the city's northwestern entrance, a general from the unit told Reuters by telephone.
"We effectively control the road, it is in our sight," he said.

Mosul residents said they had not been able to travel on the highway that starts at the Syria Gate since Tuesday. The road links Mosul to Tal Afar, another Islamic State stronghold 60 km (40 miles) to the west, and then to Syria.

Iraqi forces captured the eastern side of Mosul in January after 100 days of fighting and launched their attack on the districts that lie west of the Tigris river on Feb. 19.

If they defeat Islamic State in Mosul, that would crush the Iraq wing of the caliphate declared by the group's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2014 from the city's grand old Nuri Mosque.

The U.S.-led coalition effort against Islamic State is killing the group's fighters more quickly than it can replace them, British Major General Rupert Jones, deputy commander for the Combined Joint Task Force said.

With more than 45,000 killed by coalition air strikes up to August last year, "their destruction just becomes really a matter of time," he said on Tuesday in London.

The U.S. commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, has said he believes U.S.-backed forces will recapture both Mosul and Raqqa, Islamic State's Syria stronghold in neighboring Syria, within six months.

The closing of the westward highway meant that Islamic State are besieged in the city center, said Lt General Abdul Wahab al-Saidi, the deputy commander of the Counter Terrorism Service (CTS), deployed in the southwestern side.

Units from the elite U.S.-trained division battled incoming sniper and anti-tank fire as they moved eastwards, through Wadi al-Hajar district, and northward, through al-Mansour and al-Shuhada districts where gunfire and explosions could be heard.

These moves would allow the CTS to link up with Rapid Response and Federal Police units deployed by the riverside, and to link up with the 9th Armored Division coming from the west, tightening the noose around the militants.

"Many of them were killed, and for those who are still positioned in the residential neighborhoods, they either pull back or get killed are our forces move forward," Saidi said.

Two militants lay dead near the field command of the CTS, in the al-Mamoun district which looked like a ghost town. A few hundred meters away, a car bomb was hit by an air strike.

STRAFING FROM ABOVE
The few families who remained in al-Mamoun said they were too scared to leave as the militants had booby-trapped cars.

Women cooked bread over outdoor ovens while men gathered on street corners as helicopters flew overhead strafing suspected militant positions further north.

One of two buses parked nearby had its roof shorn off. Residents buried a 60-year-old woman who was killed on Tuesday when she stepped on an explosive device while trying to flee.

Several thousand militants, including many who traveled from Western countries to join up, are believed to be in Mosul among a remaining civilian population estimated at the start of the offensive at 750,000.

They are using mortars, sniper fire, booby traps and suicide car bombs to fight the offensive carried out by a 100,000-strong force made up of Iraqi armed forces, regional Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iranian-trained Shi'ite Muslim paramilitary groups.

About 26,000 have been displaced from western Mosul, often under militant fire, according to government figures. The United Nations puts at more than 176,000 the total number of people displaced from Mosul since the offensive started in October.

Thousands more streamed out, walking through the desert toward government lines during the day, crossing over a deep trench which appears to have served as an Islamic State defense, some waving white flags.

Also In World News
Syrian government forces enter Palmyra, drive back Islamic State: monitors
UK PM May's Brexit plan suffers hitch in parliament

Among them a boy shot in the leg was limping alongside a cart carrying an older woman, while another was pushed in a wheelchair. Old people asked why there was no cars or buses to pick them up and take them to the displaced people centers.

A man said he spent 11 days hiding in his house with no food, no water and no idea of what was happening outside.

"The archangel of death would have come for us if we stayed any longer," he said.
Aid agencies put the number of killed and wounded at several thousands, both military and civilians.

Army, police, CTS and Rapid Response units forces attacking Islamic State in western Mosul are backed by air and ground support from a U.S.-led coalition, including artillery. U.S. personnel are operating close to the frontlines to direct air strikes.

Federal police and Rapid Response units are several hundred meters only from the city's' government buildings.

Taking those buildings would be of symbolic significance in terms of restoring state authority over the city and help Iraqi forces attack militants in the nearby old city center where the al-Nuri Mosque is located.

Military engineers started preparing a pontoon that they plan to put in place by the side of the city's southernmost bridge, captured on Monday. Air strikes have damaged all of its five bridges.

(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed in Baghdad, Writing by Maher Chmaytelli, Editing by Angus MacSwan)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-military-commentary-idUSKBN1684OW

Edition: United States

Commentary | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 10:27am EST

Is Beijing outflanking the United States in the South China Sea?


China's Liaoning aircraft carrier with accompanying fleet conducts a drill in an area of South China Sea, in this undated photo taken December, 2016. REUTERS/Stringer

By Peter Apps

For much of the last week, the U.S. aircraft carrier Carl Vinson has been patrolling the South China Sea. It is just the kind of display of Washington’s power and global reach that the U.S. Navy excels at – both to reassure allies and, in this case, send a message to potential foes.

How much longer Washington will be able to perform such operations unchallenged, however, is an increasingly open question.

Some military experts project that within a little more than a decade, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy may have more warships than Washington under its command. Beijing’s military buildup is part of its strategy to dominate many disputed territories in the South China Sea – and push America back.

READ MORE FROM REUTERS COMMENTARY:
Commentary: Could Trump actually be good for European defense?
Commentary: Why Trump's tough talk on Iran will backfire
Commentary: North Korea gives Donald Trump a nuclear crisis from hell

Retaining U.S. global military dominance is at the heart of President Donald Trump’s plan to up Pentagon spending by $54 billion, or roughly 9 percent. That alone, however, will not be enough to maintain Washington’s regional military edge. China’s own defense budget has increased by double digits almost every year for the last two decades – although it slowed slightly last year. More importantly, Beijing is also adopting a range of tactics to which Washington lacks a truly effective response.

While Washington’s approach in Asia has always been focused on its ability to move aircraft carriers through China’s backyard, Beijing has been doing everything it can to tilt the strategic balance against its possible foes. It’s a strategy that includes new weapons systems, considerable conventional naval expansion but also a host of other tactics including building naval bases, floating power stations and artificial islands.

Some current and former U.S. military officials believe it is a question of when, rather than if, a regional conflict takes place. What seems equally plausible is a decades-long – and perhaps largely bloodless – confrontation remaining just below the threshold of anything that might trigger actual war.

That may well be China’s plan.

It’s a game that Beijing has played in increasing earnest since 1995, when the Chinese military fired several missiles and conducted military maneuvers around Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a breakaway province. U.S. President Bill Clinton responded by sending two aircraft carriers to patrol the waters between Taiwan and mainland China, a move that Beijing’s military could do little to stop without sparking a war it knew it would not win.

MORE TOP NEWS:
Also In Commentary
Commentary: Chasing leaks is a road to hell in Washington. See: Nixon.
Commentary: The futility of a Mexico-United States wall
China's latest crackdown on pollution
China, Russia step up opposition to South Korea anti-missile system

Since then, China has focused on gaining the ability to keep U.S. forces – particularly aircraft carriers – out of its immediate neighborhood. Many analysts believe it now possesses enough weapons technology – submarines, missiles and strike aircraft in particular – that U.S. planners would be reluctant to risk their carriers that close to China’s coast again.

China is believed to have thousands of ballistic missiles aimed at the island, as well as naval weaponry to destroy nearby warships. Some experts believe Beijing might try to regain control of the island sometime in the next two decades.

Beijing’s next immediate goal appears to be expanding its military capability much further out – to a number of potentially energy-rich atolls and islands claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.

Beijing’s most grandiose claims in the South China Sea were rejected last year by the U.N.’s top international maritime court.* China has, however, continued to build and expand, particularly around the disputed Scarborough Shoal. The Chinese military landed on the islands – also claimed by the Philippines – in 2012 and have since built up their presence there.

From these disputed bases, Beijing’s military claims a range of air and sea areas under its jurisdiction, demanding foreign aircraft and ships register with them. American, Australian and other military forces make a point of flouting these rules – which have little international legitimacy – with relative impunity.

No one has a strategy to stop the Chinese. At his confirmation hearings, new U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raised eyebrows by suggesting U.S. forces might somehow deny China access to the disputed islands. That would almost certainly start a war, however, and the idea has not been mentioned since.

In many ways, what has happened in the South China Sea resembles a more gradual version of what Vladimir Putin’s Russia achieved in Crimea during its 2014 takeover – using armed men without uniform to change the reality on the ground before Ukraine or its allies could react.

In Ukraine, Russia later proved itself willing to use more overt – although still officially denied – military force to seize control of some Russian-speaking areas in the east of the country. The question in the South China Sea is whether Beijing might consider something similar – and what might happen if it does.

China has also become increasingly focused on acquiring the kind of high-level, high-value military assets that the United States has used against it in the past. China’s first aircraft carrier – a former Soviet vessel rebuilt – is becoming ever more effective, although it remains primarily used for training. In December, it conducted what appeared to be its first long-range patrol outside China’s coastal waters. China is also constructing its first domestically built carrier and reportedly working on another.

Such ships are important to Beijing’s international image – witness the attention Russia got through sending its only carrier to conduct airstrikes in Syria late last year. So are the ballistic missile submarines that – like Russia – Beijing is increasingly building, a stark reminder to any potential enemies of the cataclysmic consequences of outright war.

According to some estimates, over the next 10 to15 years, China could build its fleet to a total of 500, including up to four aircraft carriers and 100 submarines as well as smaller but sophisticated corvettes, patrol boats and other combat craft. That compares to Trump’s planned expansion of the U.S. Navy to some 350 vessels, including a larger proportion of more powerful vessels, but spread across the entire world.

In sailing through the disputed waters of the South China Sea, the Carl Vinson has once again shown America’s military might. In the event of an actual war, however, it is far from clear how long such a massive vessel would survive before being sunk.
In any case, the Carl Vinson will be gone next week – although other forces will remain – and the Chinese will still be building.

(Peter Apps is Reuters global affairs columnist, writing on international affairs, globalization, conflict and other issues. He is founder and executive director of the Project for Study of the 21st Century; PS21, a non-national, non-partisan, non-ideological think tank in London, New York and Washington. Before that, he spent 12 years as a reporter for Reuters covering defense, political risk and emerging markets. Since 2016, he has been a member of the British Army Reserve and the UK Labour Party.* @pete_apps)
*
The views expressed in this article are not those of Reuters News.

Next In Commentary

Commentary: In U.S. and European politics, struggle behind closed doors
Europeans like to call the British and their former white colonies – the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – the “Anglo Saxons”. No matter that all these states now have an ethnic mix, in which descendants of the Germanic tribes of Angles and Saxons who settled in England are increasingly outnumbered by people with no such origins. The name sticks.

Commentary: Flynn facts: a threat to national security
The National Security Council was created 70 years ago, at the dawn of the Cold War, as the White House intelligence center – where secrets of state were weighed, assayed and placed before the president for life-and-death decisions.

MORE FROM REUTERS
Meryl Streep accuses Karl Lagerfeld of spoiling her Oscars
Iran ready to give U.S. 'slap in the face': commander
U.S. carrier group patrols in tense South China Sea
After OPEC cuts heavy oil, China teapot refiners pull U.S. supply to Asia
After seven years of bailouts, Greeks sink yet deeper in poverty
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-blast-idUSKBN1683MR

World News | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 11:53am EST

Taliban claim attacks in Afghan capital, at least 15 dead

Video

By Mirwais Harooni | KABUL

Afghan Taliban militants said they attacked police, military and intelligence targets in Kabul on Wednesday, as security officials confirmed attacks in two areas of the city that killed at least 15 people and wounded dozens.

A powerful explosion was heard across the city as a car bomb was detonated near a police headquarters in the west of the city, the interior ministry said. The blast was followed immediately by gunfire between security forces and an unknown number of attackers.

Fighting at police headquarters, not far from a military training school, lasted for several hours with gunmen barricaded inside the building.

Najib Danesh, a spokesman for the interior ministry, said the attack was neutralized by late afternoon and security forces were conducting checks of the area.

He said 15 people, including 11 civilians, were killed in the attack and in a separate one minutes later at an office of Afghanistan's main intelligence agency, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), to the east of Kabul.

Another 50 people, including women and children, were wounded in the two attacks.

Gallery

senior army official said the attack on the NDS office was over more quickly.

"Two terrorists entered a building. One blew himself up and the second was shot by Afghan security forces," said Abdul Nasir Ziaee, commander of 111th corps based in the east of the city.

A spokesman for the Taliban, who sometimes exaggerate the impact of their operations, sent a statement claiming responsibility for the attacks, which he said had killed dozens of soldiers, police and intelligence officials.

Last month, a suicide bomber killed at least 20 people outside the Supreme Court in Kabul. The Islamic State militant group claimed responsibility for that attack.

The Taliban are seeking to expel foreign troops, defeat the U.S.-backed government and reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

The Wednesday attacks come shortly ahead of the period when the Taliban usually announce a spring offensive, and underline warnings from Afghan officials that they faced a difficult year.

In the northern province of Baghlan, the Taliban seized control of a district center after days of heavy fighting. Faiz Mohammad Amiri, governor of Tala wa Barfak district, said the Taliban had taken control. Four members of the security forces had been killed and another four wounded.

The Taliban's main spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, said light and heavy weapons had been captured.

Government forces have struggled to control the insurgency since a NATO-led force ended its combat mission in 2014.

According to U.S. estimates, Afghan government forces now control less than 60 percent of the country although they hold all main provincial centers.

(Reporting by Mirwais Harooni and Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Nick Macfie and John Stonestreet)

Related Coverage
At least one dead, 35 wounded in Kabul attacks-Afghan official
Taliban says attacks targets in Afghan capital Kabul
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-palmyra-idUSKBN16847B

World News | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 5:27pm EST

Syrian government forces enter Palmyra, drive back Islamic State: monitors

Russian-backed Syrian government forces and their allies fought their way into Palmyra on Wednesday, driving back Islamic State militants who have held the historic city since December, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group reported.

A Hezbollah-run media outlet earlier reported that the Syrian army and its allies had recaptured the Palmyra citadel, on the city's western outskirts, and seized a modern palatial complex to the southwest.

Islamic State has captured Palmyra, whose ancient ruins are a UNESCO World Heritage Site, twice during Syria's six-year conflict.

The army recaptured the city from the ultra-hardline group in March last year, but Islamic State seized it again in December.

The group has razed ancient monuments during both of its spells in control of Palmyra - destruction the United Nations has condemned as a war crime.

A Syrian military source told Reuters earlier on Wednesday: "The army's entry to the city will begin very soon."

The army said it had captured an area known as the "Palmyra triangle" a few kilometers (miles) west of the city after rapid advances in recent days backed by Russian air strikes.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based organization that reports on the war, said government forces were expected to storm Palmyra at "any moment". Russia has said its aircraft are supporting the army offensive in Palmyra.

Photos published on an Islamic State Telegram account on Wednesday showed the group's fighters firing at the Syrian army with rockets and a tank. Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the photos.

Islamic State first captured Palmyra from the government in 2015. During its first period in control of the site, the jihadists destroyed monuments including a 1,800-year-old monumental arch.

Most recently, Islamic State has razed the landmark Tetrapylon - a platform with four columns at each corner - and the facade of Palmyra's Roman Theatre. Palmyra, known in Arabic as Tadmur, stood at the crossroads of the ancient world.

The government and its allies lost Palmyra as they focused on defeating Syrian rebel groups in eastern Aleppo. The rebel groups were driven from eastern Aleppo in December, the government's biggest victory of the war.

(Reporting by Tom Perry and John Davison in Beirut and Andrew Osborn in Moscow and Ali Abdelaty in Cairo; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Alison Williams)

Related Coverage
Russia, Syria bombed U.S.-backed fighters in Syria: U.S. general
U.S. commander downplays chance of big Iraq, Syria troop hike
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thetower.org/4655-experts-iran-advancing-nuclear-program-with-help-of-north-korea/

Experts: Iran Advancing Nuclear Program With Help of North Korea

by TheTower.org Staff | 03.01.17 2:35 pm

Iran is using its strategic ties to North Korea to advance its illicit nuclear weapons program, two experts for the Begin-Sadat Center wrote in a paper published Tuesday.

Lt. Col. (ret.) Dr. Refael Ofek and Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Dany Shoham wrote that if Iran “is unwilling to lose years to the freeze on its military nuclear program,” it is likely exploiting its military ties with North Korea to advance its progress to a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear and ballistic missile ties between the two nations are longstanding and ongoing, though unlike Iran, North Korea already has developed nuclear weapons. While Iran is temporarily constrained by the nuclear deal, it can contribute to the development of North Korea’s program*by sharing its technology and through finance. “There is an irony in this, as it is thanks to its [Vienna Nuclear Deal]-spurred economic recovery that Iran is able to afford it,” Ofek and Shoham noted.

“This kind of strategic, military-technological collaboration is more than merely plausible. It is entirely possible, indeed likely, that such a collaboration is already underway,” they added.*In return for the boost Iran given*its nuclear program, North Korea is likely*“ready and able to furnish a route by which Iran can clandestinely circumvent” the nuclear deal.

The authors noted that a number of Iranian ballistic missiles are modified North Korean models. For example, Iran’s Shahab-3 missile is a variant of North Korea’s Nodong-1. The warhead on the Shahab-3 was redesigned to carry a nuclear warhead in the mid-2000s by*Kamran Daneshjoo, a top Iranian scientist.

Iran carried out the calculations that were necessary to miniaturize a nuclear warhead to match the weight and dimensional specifications of the Shahab-3, then carried out benchmark tests at the secret Parchin military site, Ofek and Shoham wrote. “More significantly, Iranian experts were present at Punggye-ri, the NK nuclear test site, when such tests were carried out in the 2000s,” they added.

The North Korean-built Syrian plutonium reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007 provided Iran with another platform to advance its*nuclear program, according to Ofek and Shoham. Iran financed the project, which “was probably intended as a backup for the heavy water plutonium production reactor of Iran’s military nuclear program.”

While Iran and North Korea have used different technologies to produce plutonium, both use gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, and in that technology Iran is apparently more advanced than North Korea.

Iran’s 2012 agreement to share science and technology with North Korea was “a meaningful event” that “was probably intended to mask an evolving Iranian-NK cryptic interface,” Ofek and Shoham wrote. While it was ostensibly about civil cooperation, the deal was ratified by Ali Akhbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Furthermore, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later said the deal was an “outcome of the fact that Iran and NK have common enemies, because the arrogant powers do not accept independent states,” suggesting a military component to the deal.

Ofek and Shoham posited that the 2012 agreement was intended to “compensate technologically” for Iran’s expected rollback of its nuclear program. About two months before its signing, then-President Barack Obama had told*Khamenei,*“We are prepared to open a direct channel to resolve the nuclear agreement if you are prepared to do the same thing and authorize it at the highest levels and engage in a serious discussion on these issues.”

Iran has also established a “permanent” delegation of ballistic missile experts in North Korea, which “supported the successful field test of a long-range ballistic missile in December 2012,” the authors noted. “The more advanced solid-fueled motor technology, which included the NK KN-11 submarine-launched ballistic missile and the Iranian Sajjil missile (range 2,000 km), was apparently developed collaboratively by the two countries.”

Satellite photographs publicized in December showed*that a ballistic missile launch site in*Geumchang-ri bore a strong resemblance to the Iranian launch site in Tabriz.

In the nuclear realm, a group Iranian experts including*Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, who leads Iran’s nuclear weapons program, were secretly in North Korea for its*2013 nuclear test, Ofek and Shoham wrote. In contrast to North Korea’s two earlier nuclear tests, which used*plutonium-core-based devices, the 2013 test is believed to have been fueled by enriched uranium. North Korea’s two nuclear tests in 2016 also possibly used enriched uranium devices.

“In 2015, information exchanges and reciprocal delegation visits reportedly took place that were aimed at the planning of nuclear warheads,” the authors noted. “These include four [North Korean] delegations that visited Iran up until June 2015, one month before the [nuclear deal] was completed.” Shortly afterwards, North Korea opened a new centrifuge facility.

Ofek and Shoham observed:
The chronology, contents, and features of the overt interface between Iran and NK mark an ongoing evolutionary process in terms of weapons technologies at the highest strategic level. The two countries have followed fairly similar nuclear and ballistic courses, with considerable, largely intended, reciprocal technological complementarity. The numerous technological common denominators that underlie the NW and ballistic missile programs of Iran and NK cannot be regarded as coincidental. Rather, they likely indicate – in conjunction with geopolitical and economic drives –a much broader degree of undisclosed interaction between Tehran and Pyongyang.
The authors urged*the Trump administration to “meticulously and rigidly ascertain” that*the strategic cooperation between the two rogue states is stopped.
Investigative journalist Claudia Rosett examined the possibility in December that Iran and North Korea are collaborating on nuclear weapons research in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Rosett’s concerns echo those expressed by Ilan Berman in the National Interest*in August 2015, who wrote that for decades Iran and North Korea have forged a “formidable alliance – the centerpiece of which is cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities.” He explained that for years, reports have indicated that North Korea has actively aided*Iran’s nuclear program. North Korea sent “hundreds of nuclear experts” to work in Iran, while making “key nuclear software” available to Iranian scientists.

----------
----------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=72256

Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Iran Is Progressing Towards Nuclear Weapons Via North Korea

By Lt. Col. (ret.) Dr. Refael Ofek and Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Dany Shoham
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 415, February 28, 2017
https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-progressing-nuclear-weapons-via-north-korea/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This analysis argues that Iran is steadily making
progress towards a nuclear weapon and is doing so via North Korea. Iran is
unwilling to submit to a years-long freeze of its military nuclear program
as stipulated by the July 2015 Vienna Nuclear Deal. North Korea is ready and
able to provide a clandestine means of circumventing the deal, which would
allow the Iranians to covertly advance that nuclear program. At the same
time, Iran is likely assisting in the upgrading of certain North Korean
strategic capacities.

While the Vienna Nuclear Deal (VND) is focused on preventing (or at least
postponing) the development of nuclear weapons (NW) in Iran, its
restrictions are looser with regard to related delivery systems
(particularly nuclear-capable ballistic missiles) as well as to the transfer
of nuclear technology by Iran to other countries. Moreover, almost no limits
have been placed on the enhancement of Tehran's military nuclear program
outside Iran. North Korea (NK) arguably constitutes the ideal such location
for Iran.

The nuclear and ballistic interfaces between the two countries are
long-lasting, unique, and intriguing. The principal difference between the
countries is that while NK probably already possesses NW, Iran aspires to
acquire them but is subject to the VND. Iran has the ability, however, to
contribute significantly to NK’s nuclear program, in terms of both
technology (i.e., by upgrading gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment) and
finance (and there is an irony in this, as it is thanks to its VND-spurred
economic recovery that Iran is able to afford it).

This kind of strategic, military-technological collaboration is more than
merely plausible. It is entirely possible, indeed likely, that such a
collaboration is already underway.

This presumption assumes that Iran is unwilling to lose years to the freeze
on its military nuclear program. It further assumes that NK is ready and
able to furnish a route by which Iran can clandestinely circumvent the VND,
thus allowing it to make concrete progress on its NW program. And finally,
it assumes that the ongoing, rather vague interface between the two
countries reflects Iranian advances towards NW. The following components and
vectors comprise that interface.

From the 1990s onward, dozens – perhaps hundreds – of NK scientists and
technicians apparently worked in Iran in nuclear and ballistic facilities.
Ballistic missile field tests were held in Iran, for instance near Qom,
where the NK missiles Hwasong-6 (originally the Soviet Scud-C, which is
designated in Iran as Shehab-2) and Nodong-1 (designated in Iran as
Shehab-3) were tested. Moreover, in the mid-2000s, the Shehab-3 was
tentatively adjusted by Kamran Daneshjoo, a top Iranian scientist, to carry
a nuclear warhead.

Furthermore, calculations were made that were aimed at miniaturizing a
nuclear implosion device in order to fit its dimensions and weight to the
specifications of the Shehab-3 re-entry vehicle. These, together with
benchmark tests, were conducted in the highly classified facility of
Parchin. Even more significantly, Iranian experts were present at
Punggye-ri, the NK nuclear test site, when such tests were carried out in
the 2000s.

Syria served concurrently as another important platform for Iran – until the
destruction by Israel of the plutonium-based nuclear reactor that had been
constructed in Syria by NK. According to some reports, not only were the
Iranians fully aware of that project in real time, but the project was
heavily financed by Tehran. Considering Iranian interests, it was probably
intended as a backup for the heavy water plutonium production reactor of
Iran’s military nuclear program, and possibly as an alternative to the
Iranian uranium enrichment plant in Natanz in the event that it is
dismantled.

While the Iranian heavy water plutonium production reactor differed from the
NK gas-graphite reactor, the uranium enrichment routes of both countries are
based on the gas centrifuge technique. In that respect, Iran seems to be
ahead of NK, particularly in developing and manufacturing advanced
centrifuges of carbon fiber rotors.

A meaningful event took place in September 2012, when Daneshjoo, then the
Iranian Minister of Science and Technology, signed an agreement with NK
establishing formal cooperation. The agreement formally addressed such civil
applications as “information technology, energy, environment, agriculture
and food”. However, the memorandum of the agreement was ratified by Ali
Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iranian
Supreme Leader Khamenei has since clarified that the agreement is an
"outcome of the fact that Iran and NK have common enemies, because the
arrogant powers do not accept independent states." It is reasonable to infer
that the agreement went far beyond its alleged civilian sphere.

The September 2012 agreement was probably intended to mask an evolving
Iranian-NK cryptic interface, intended by Iran to compensate technologically
for the following development. About two months earlier, President Obama had
sent this secret message to Iran's leaders: "We are prepared to open a
direct channel to resolve the nuclear agreement if you are prepared to do
the same thing and authorize it at the highest levels and engage in a
serious discussion on these issues." This message paved the way towards
talks that started in Kazakhstan in February 2013, continued through the
November 2013 Geneva and March 2015 Lausanne interim “Framework” agreements,
and culminated in the VND. The final agreement involved freezing substantial
portions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for largely decreased
economic sanctions on Iran.

In tandem with the 2012-13 events, a permanent offshoot of Iranian missile
experts was established in NK that supported the successful field test of a
long-range ballistic missile in December 2012. Ballistic, or ballistic
together with nuclear warhead capabilities, are presumably included in the
Iranian-NK missile cooperation. Iran and NK upgraded the Shehab-3/Nodong-1
liquid-fueled motor missiles in a quite similar (though not identical)
fashion, with Iran producing the Ghadr (range 1600 km) and Emad (range 1700
km) derivatives. In addition, components of the liquid-fueled motor missile
Musudan (also called the BM-25), which has a range of 2,500-4,000 km and was
successfully field-tested in NK in 2016, have been supplied to Iran in the
past by NK. The more advanced solid-fueled motor technology, which included
the NK KN-11 submarine-launched ballistic missile and the Iranian Sajjil
missile (range 2,000 km), was apparently developed collaboratively by the
two countries. Also, a new NK ballistic missile test site was revealed in
2016 in Guemchang-ri – and it closely resembles the Iranian ballistic
missile test site near Tabriz.

A delegation of Iranian nuclear experts headed by Mohsen
Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, director of the Iranian NW project, was covertly
present at the third NK nuclear test in February 2013. This test was
apparently based – unlike the previous plutonium-core-based field tests – on
an HEU (highly enriched uranium) core nuclear device (as, presumably, were
the fourth and fifth nuclear tests, which took place in 2016). In 2015,
information exchanges and reciprocal delegation visits reportedly took place
that were aimed at the planning of nuclear warheads. These include four NK
delegations that visited Iran up until June 2015, one month before the VND
was completed. It may be noted that in August 2015, a new gas centrifuge
hall apparently became operational in the NK main uranium enrichment
facility.

Finally, in April 2016, a remarkable clash arose between Deputy Secretary of
State Antony Blinken and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) during a US House Foreign
Affairs Committee hearing. They locked horns over planes that fly between
Iran and NK, which should land and be rigorously inspected in China so as to
ensure the prevention of NK proliferation of nuclear and missile technology,
let alone actual nuclear weapons, to Iran. Sherman charged that this had not
been handled with sufficient care by the Obama administration.

All in all, a major consequence of the VND is that the Obama administration
shot the US in the foot. It is expected that the terms of the VND and the
abundance of money transacted as a result with Iran – about US$150 billion –
will substantially facilitate the advancement of the NW and ballistic
missile programs of both Iran and NK.

The chronology, contents, and features of the overt interface between Iran
and NK mark an ongoing evolutionary process in terms of weapons technologies
at the highest strategic level. The two countries have followed fairly
similar nuclear and ballistic courses, with considerable, largely intended,
reciprocal technological complementarity. The numerous technological common
denominators that underlie the NW and ballistic missile programs of Iran and
NK cannot be regarded as coincidental. Rather, they likely indicate – in
conjunction with geopolitical and economic drives –a much broader degree of
undisclosed interaction between Tehran and Pyongyang.

The current Iranian-NK interface, which appears to be fully active,
presumably serves as a productive substitute for the Iranian activities
prohibited by the VND. It enables Iran, in other words, to continue its
pursuit of NW. If not strictly monitored by the western intelligence
communities, this cooperation might take the shape of conveyance from NK to
Iran of weapons-grade fissile material, weaponry components, or, in a
worst-case scenario, completed NW. To an appreciable degree, Iran is
simultaneously assisting in the upgrading of NK strategic capacities as
well. The Trump administration would be well advised to meticulously and
rigidly ascertain that such developments do not take place.


Lt. Col. (ret.) Dr. Refael Ofek is an expert in the field of nuclear physics
and technology, who served as a senior analyst in the Israeli intelligence
community.

Lt. Col. (ret.) Dr. Dany Shoham is an expert in the field of weapons of mass
destruction, who served as a senior intelligence analyst in the Israel
Defense Forces.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the
Greg Rosshandler Family
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...pons-are-primarily-for-defense/1111488384583/

Russian analyst: North Korea weapons are primarily for defense

Alexander Zhebin says the regime’s insecurities need to be addressed in Washington.

By Elizabeth Shim **|** March 1, 2017 at 11:34 AM

March 1 (UPI) -- North Korea is viewed as a top security threat in Washington, and the recent assassination of Kim Jong Un's half-brother in Malaysia has not encouraged the United States to offer dialogue to Pyongyang.

Backchannel talks in New York between former U.S. government officials and North Korean diplomats were being arranged until the slaying.

The Feb. 13 assassination, which involved the use of a banned VX nerve agent, has been blamed for the cancellation of the talks.

But even in the face of numerous provocations, some Russian experts, while wary of nuclear weapons in North Korea, see the situation differently on the peninsula.

Alexander Zhebin, a North Korea expert at the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, told UPI during the annual Global Peace Convention on Wednesday in Manila that Russians see North Korea's motives are clearly to prevent an attack.

"North Korea will use everything to defend themselves in case of American or a South Korean invasion," Zhebin said. "North Korea is very small, and not a very rich country. How can they challenge the United States, or attack the United States?"

The analyst said fear is driving the regime's choice to pursue weapons development, and that past U.S. actions in countries like Iraq and Libya have "really frightened" the North Korean leadership.

To ease North Korea concerns, the United States has offered multiple security assurances, including the Clinton-era 1994 Agreed Framework, the 2005 Joint Statement reached during the Six Party Talks, and the Leap Day deal signed during President Barack Obama's term.

But continued weapons buildup in South Korea and what Zhebin described as inconsistent U.S. foreign policy in successive administrations have placed a cloud of uncertainty over Pyongyang.

Drastic policy shifts have undermined North Korean trust in U.S. policies and each new U.S. president is seen as a new chapter in the life of a "hostile" superpower with troops south of the demilitarized zone.

U.S. political changes provide a contrast to North Korea, which has not changed its weapons policy across successive generations of Kims, Zhebin said.

"Very often North Korea is seen as an unpredictable, irrational government," the analyst said. "But an irrational and unpredictable government would not be able to stay in power for 70 years."

The North Korean leadership may also be addressing the needs and interests of its elite class, who, while being increasingly exposed to the outside world, also worry about their eventual fate after unification.

Trials, punishment and imprisonment may await North Korea officials, and that risk allows the regime to maintain loyalty among its ranks.

Zhebin, who visited Pyongyang in 2016 during the country's Seventh Party Congress, and spent 12 years in North Korea as a journalist, also said North Korea ultimately wants to have "very good relations with the United States."

"It is an open secret each new U.S. administration changes very dramatically," Zhebin said.

An underlying sense of consistency in U.S. North Korea policy may need to be conveyed, he added.

The Global Peace Foundation is affiliated with the ultimate holding company that owns United Press International.
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for more news from UPI.com


Related UPI Stories
North Korean envoy arrives in Malaysia to claim body of leader's half brother
North Korea defectors fear for their lives after Kim Jong Nam assassination
U.S., South Korean troops prepare for joint military drill
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/03/01/commentary/japan-commentary/trump-effect-japan/

Commentary / Japan

The Trump effect and Japan

by Ramesh Thakur
Mar 1, 2017
Article history

CANBERRA – U.S. President Donald Trump has mounted a four-front (trade, immigration, alliances and nuclear policy) offensive against the existing liberal international order designed and maintained by Washington since 1945. Japan has been a major beneficiary of, stakeholder in, and contributor to that global order. Consequently Japan has an exceptional opportunity, while maneuvering to remain close to Washington, to reduce its unhealthy security and economic dependency on the United States, and to educate the U.S. administration on the merits and benefits of the key planks of a rules-based global order and international cooperation.

The changes to U.S. immigration policy and practices are probably immune to Japanese criticism given Japan’s own miserly refugee intake (fewer than 100 per year) and opposition to large-scale immigration, despite numerous studies showing the benefits of this in resuscitating Japan’s lackluster economy with a shrinking population.

An efficient and trade-dependent economy, Japan had invested heavily in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whose latent but obvious anti-China premise was always problematic, that has now been dumped. This increases the importance of bilateral and regional free trade agreements, which do not privilege investor rights to profits over consumer and worker rights and environmental safeguards. Japan has benefited hugely from globally integrated supply, production and consumption chains that risk being ruptured by U.S. protectionist policies. Japan must speak up for and defend the rules-based open international economy.

The United Nations was helpful in reintegrating Japan into the international community and Tokyo seeks permanent membership of the Security Council. The U.N. system is the biggest incubator of global rules to govern the world: from trade, refugees and the law of the sea, to health, the use of force, sanctions and the regulation of armaments. That is, the U.N. is the cornerstone of an effective rules-based global order in setting international standards, norms, treaties and legal principles. Japan should be at the forefront of defending the purposes and activities of the organization while supporting all reform efforts, highlighting the urgency of restructuring the Security Council, and impressing upon Trump the utility and value of the U.N.

Should Japan act on Trump’s suggestion to acquire nuclear weapons and missiles? The benefits of any such radical shift in national security strategy would quickly prove illusory for they are not particularly useful for the purposes of defense or deterrence.

By contrast, the costs and penalties would be substantial. If Japan cheated on its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, it would quickly become a pariah state. If it withdrew from the NPT to weaponize, Japan would morph from an almost universally admired, humane, civilian good international citizen to one whose international reputation is destroyed.

Regional fears of a nuclear-armed remilitarized Japan would be stoked, deepening strategic mistrust across Northeast Asia. The government would pay a very domestic price for acutely inflaming the public’s nuclear allergy. The alliance with the U.S. could be strained to the breaking point. Most importantly, the NPT, which has mostly kept the nuclear genie in check, would be in ruins with a cascade of proliferation that would be intensely damaging to Japan’s national security.

Instead Japan would do better to actively promote nuclear disarmament. So far Tokyo has been disingenuous in paying lip service to tepid efforts to abolish the bomb as a sop to domestic anti-nuclear sentiment, while lobbying furiously against all genuine efforts to that end. Unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament would not be in Japan’s interest, but verifiable global nuclear disarmament would, for it would lock in massive U.S. conventional superiority for decades to come. It is past time for Japan to shed its hesitations and ambivalence that has led to Tokyo punching well below its weight in nuclear diplomacy.

On alliance policy, by all accounts Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s meeting with Trump was an unqualified success — with Pyongyang helpfully providing a timely photo opportunity of the two leaders engaging in intense discussions of North Korea’s Feb. 12 launch of a medium-range ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan. Nevertheless Japan needs to pursue a double hedging strategy, against a possible weakening of U.S. commitment and against possible future threats to national security.

No ally can be confident any longer of the depth and reliability of the U.S. security guarantee, or that it will be honored should a threat materialize. Trump has given enough indications of skepticism toward allies’ contributions to their own defense, unpredictable policy preferences and reversals, and a deep instinct for isolationism and disengagement, to justify self-reliant policies in Europe and the Pacific alike. Nor is there any indication that the relative U.S. decline and the parallel continuing strategic ascendancy of China have come to a halt with an end to the history of power transitions.

While Japan must continue to do everything possible to engage in constructive and friendly relations with China, prudence dictates it cannot ignore the reality of conflicting major interests, the possibility of a rupture in relations leading to unplanned or deliberately provoked armed conflict, and the resulting imperative to build military capacity to cope with all plausible threat scenarios.

In addition to strengthening military assets, Tokyo must also deepen relations with friendly countries in Asia and the Pacific, especially the major democracies of Australia, India and Indonesia. It would help if Japan softened its Western orientation to reclaim its Asian identity.

The strategy of strengthening regional diplomatic relationships in turn is held hostage to Japan’s stubborn refusal to openly confront the ugliness of its past culminating in World War II, to deny irrefutable facts on the brutal treatment of peoples its forces occupied, to demonstrate contrition whose authenticity is beyond question, and so to position Japan to be able to move on from the ghosts of history like Germany has done in Europe. Infuriating to neighbors, such history denialism is also exasperating to Japan’s many well-wishers.

One final suggestion. I have long thought Japan should establish an international advisory board as an alternative, independent and contestable source of analyses and recommendations on Japan’s engagement with the world beyond its borders. Chaired preferably by the prime minister to give it clout and status, or else by the foreign minister with a foreign national as deputy chair, at least half its members should be non-Japanese knowledgeable about world affairs who are known friends of Japan.

To be useful it must include contrarian and diverse voices and not just yes men and women who echo what the government wants to hear. While eschewing public criticism, members could be encouraged to express forthright views in private.
Ramesh Thakur is a professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ns-Long-Term-Vice-Adm.-Robert-Monroe-USN-(Ret.)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/learning-to-live-with-nuclear-weapons-long-term/

Commentary

Learning To Live With Nuclear Weapons, Long Term

ROBERT R. MONROE
2/28/2017

Now that President Obama's "world without nuclear weapons" has failed, it's up to America — as the world's leader — to establish a strategy to enable us all to live with nuclear weapons for the long term.

We gave the no-nukes approach a very good try.* For decades an immense global nuclear-disarmament regime — consisting of the U.N., the Conference on Disarmament, about half the world's nations, and countless nongovernment organizations — has labored unceasingly to bring the dream about (severely damaging the valuable 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty in the process).

In the U.S., four pre-eminent elder statesmen in 2007 launched a continuing effort to give serious credibility to nuclear disarmament.* In 2009 President Obama, in Prague, announced that henceforth America's goal was to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. would lead by example, and the other nuclear nations would follow.* To achieve this objective, for the past eight years Obama has directed a series of actions to disenfranchise, derogate, delimit and disable America's nuclear weapons capability.

He succeeded eminently in the U.S.* Today, all our nuclear weapons are past the end of their design lives, and no warhead has been tested in a quarter century.* Designed for massive destruction during the Cold War, these warheads are unable to deter many of today's most serious nuclear threats.

No advanced research and development has been carried out, and no new weapons have been designed or produced.* Our test-experienced scientists and engineers have departed, and their replacements have not been able to learn by testing.* We no longer have the production facilities to build new weapons.

Regrettably, however, Obama failed in the rest of the world.* Russia and China have been aggressively modernizing and increasing their nuclear arsenals; and —*with America disabled —*they feel free to act aggressively and issue nuclear threats.* India and Pakistan have likewise expanded and improved their nukes while fighting over boarders. Israel is preparing to defend itself with nuclear weapons.

But the gravest threat is elsewhere.* For over two decades, two rogue states, North Korea and Iran, have been determined to produce nuclear weapons, and they're near success.

Hidden nuclear proliferation is just below the surface in northeast Asia and the Mideast, and as soon as these two irresponsible belligerents start producing deliverable nuclear weapons for sale to any buyer or for use by proxies, an avalanche of global proliferation will start in self-defense, spurred on by the rapid spread of fissile material (from reactors) and the new accessibility of intercontinental missiles.

With nuclear weapons available worldwide, they'll be used not just by aggressor states and terrorists, but by failed and failing states, criminals, extortionists, even disaffected individuals. Ruined, deserted, radioactive cities will dot the globe.

Our strategy of the past sixty years —*of attempting to do away with nukes —*is about to thrust us into a world of horror and chaos.* We've given it a good try, and it just doesn't work.

Is there any other strategy to maintain a livable world? Absolutely, but only one.* Nonproliferation!* We must build on the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).* Its creators wisely established two tiers of nations: five nuclear-weapons states (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council), and the others (currently 185) as non-nuclear-weapons states.* The creators' sole failure lay in not providing an enforcement mechanism to prevent proliferation.

The only strategy that can save the world is for the five nuclear-weapons states to accept the responsibility of enforcing nonproliferation, using military force if necessary.

But is there time to make this immense change?* Absolutely not … not enough time to make it a five-state responsibility.* This will take years, maybe decades.* It will eventually become a collegial responsibility, but at present America, as the world's leader, must accept it as an individual responsibility and act on behalf of the five.

What steps should America take?* It's straightforward:

  • Announce the proliferation danger and the new strategy far and wide.* Sell it in Washington, in America, in every capital in the world, and to all the people of the world, unceasingly.* An immense foreign-policy crusade.
  • Withdraw from the Iran agreement.* Tell Iran that if it does not dismantle its nuclear facilities, we will do it with military force.* If they fail to do so, we will follow through.* The world will feel a great surge of hope.
  • With great urgency, rebuild America's nuclear weapons capability.* Resume nuclear testing; design, test and produce an entirely new nuclear arsenal of advanced, specialized weapons; and produce next-generation delivery systems.
  • Encourage the other four permanent Security Council members to resume testing and improve their nuclear arsenals continuously.* To enforce nonproliferation absolutely, the five must have unquestioned nuclear superiority.* Modify the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty accordingly.
With the clear example of Iran, North Korea will be much easier.* Stick and carrot.
Once these two rogue proliferators are stopped, nuclear proliferation will become manageable.* There will be only eight nuclear states overall, five of which are U.N. approved.* Should India become a permanent member of the Security Council in the future, the numbers will be six and two.* Livable.

The world's current course leads to disaster.* America is the only nation that can prevent these two rogue belligerents from producing nuclear weapons.* We must have the courage to do so.* Our action will also give the world a strategy for living with nuclear weapons permanently.


Monroe, a retired vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, is former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-alternative-to-nato-expansion-that-wont-antagonize-russia-1488144087

Opinion Commentary

An Alternative to NATO Expansion That Won’t Antagonize Russia

‘Permanent neutrality’ would offer countries like Ukraine and Georgia the protection they need.

By Michael O’Hanlon
Feb. 26, 2017 4:21 p.m. ET

Lost in the brouhaha over whether President Trump and his team are too friendly toward Russian President Vladimir Putin is a more important question. If the Trump administration is serious about its worthy goal of improving U.S. relations with Russia, how exactly can it do so? .... (rest needs subscription to view HC)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I'm playing a little catch up so don't fret the dates.....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/...=collection/sectioncollection/middleeast&_r=0

Middle East

General Says U.S. Wants to Resume Major Military Exercise With Egypt

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DECLAN WALSH
FEB. 26, 2017

CAIRO — The top commander of American military operations in the Middle East said during a visit here on Sunday that the United States wanted to resume a major military exercise with Egypt that President Barack Obama canceled in 2013 to protest the killings of hundreds of civilian protesters.

“It is my goal to get that exercise back on track and try to re-establish that as another key part of our military relationship,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the head of the United States Central Command, told an Egyptian television interviewer.

General Votel’s comments were made shortly after he met with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and top Egyptian military and Defense Ministry officials. It also comes amid a general warming of relations between Mr. Sisi and President Trump, who has hailed the Egyptian president as a “fantastic guy.”

Even before Mr. Trump took office, Mr. Obama had agreed to resume the provision of major weapons systems, including F-16 fighter planes, M1A1 Abrams tanks and Harpoon missiles. The delivery of those systems by Mr. Obama was suspended in 2013 after the Egyptian military ousted Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president and a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But growing concern over the threat of militants in Sinai, many of whom have pledged loyalty to the Islamic State, as well as Egypt’s decision to buy weapons from Russia and France, led the Obama administration to reverse course.

President Trump appears even less inclined to let Egypt’s dismal human rights record interfere with the security relationship between the two countries. Egyptian ministers are preparing for a planned visit to the White house in the coming months.

The first joint American and Egyptian exercise began in 1980 and was eventually expanded until it became a major biannual undertaking. The largest Bright Star exercise, as the maneuvers are known, included about 70,000 troops from 11 nations and was held in 1999.

Even if a formal agreement on resuming the exercise is reached soon, it may take 18 months or longer for a new Bright Star to be held because funds need to be included in the Pentagon’s future budget requests.

Morning Briefing: Europe
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.

If the exercise is resumed as expected, it is likely to be much smaller than the huge exercise of 1999 and to be focused more on terrorist threats. The urgency of that threat was demonstrated in recent days as dozens of Coptic Christian families fled El Arish, the main town of northern Sinai, after a spate of gun attacks on civilians in the past month that left at least seven people dead.

Egyptian Christians have been broadly supportive of Mr. Sisi, seeing him as a bulwark against repression by Islamist extremists. But many fleeing El Arish were sharply critical of Mr. Sisi’s failure to protect them from the growing extremist threat. Already in December, an Islamic State suicide bomber killed about 30 people in an attack on a prominent Cairo church during Sunday Mass.

Though the resumption of Bright Star would send a loud signal that America is preparing to resume its relationship at the pre-2013 level, Egypt’s main goal is still the resumption of a military financing program that allows it to finance military purchases worth billions of dollars, by leveraging expected future inflows of American military aid.

The program effectively allows Egypt to leverage the value of annual American aid, currently at $1.3 billion, to several times that amount. It was frozen by Mr. Obama in 2015.

Any concession to Mr. Sisi by Mr. Trump could, however, be tempered by resistance from Congress. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, have been sharply critical of Mr. Sisi’s continuing crackdown on civil society, in particular a proposed law that would make it nearly impossible for many foreign aid organizations to work in Egypt.

In December, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said in a joint statement that if the “draconian” law was passed, they would seek to introduce new restrictions on American aid to Egypt.

“The Egyptians need to understand that Donald Trump can’t wave a wand and make all of their problems go away,” said Gerald M. Feierstein, a retired American diplomat who recently met with Mr. Sisi as part of a delegation from the Middle East Institute, a policy-research center based in Washington.

Correction: February 27, 2017

An earlier version of this article misstated the year that President Barack Obama suspended a military financing program with Egypt. It was 2015, not 2013.

A version of this article appears in print on February 27, 2017, on Page A3 of the New York edition with the headline: General Says U.S. Wants to Resume Exercise With Egypt. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Continue reading the main story

More in Middle East
Go to the Middle East Section »

Eyewitness to America’s Longest War, After Others Have Gone
Russian Airstrike in Syria Hits U.S. Allies by Mistake
Russian aircraft bombed Syrian Arab fighters being trained by the Americans, officials said. U.S. advisers were about three miles...


Austerity? Not on This Saudi Itinerary

U.N. Investigators Say Syria Bombed Convoy and Did So Deliberately
Senior Al Qaeda Leader Killed in Drone Strike
The leader, Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, was the second-ranking official after Ayman al-Zawahri and was a son-in-law to Al...
Top News
Go to the Home Page »
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-france-idUSKBN1685UH?il=0

Edition: United States

World News | Wed Mar 1, 2017 | 6:18pm EST

Four in French police custody for planning an attack: source

French authorities put four members of a family in police custody on Wednesday as part of a preliminary investigation in connection with a plot to carry out an attack, a judicial source said.

The four were arrested in the Clichy-sous-Bois suburb, east of the capital.

Bomb-making materials, including acetone and sulphuric acid, which can be used to make explosives, were found in a building in the neighborhood in January.

DNA traces from the objects led police to the suspects, who were arrested on Tuesday, the source said.

France is under heightened alert following a spate of attacks by Islamist militants in several cities that has killed around 230 people since January 2015.

(Reporting by Simon Carraud; Writing by Bate Felix; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Next In World News

UK PM May's Brexit plan suffers hitch in parliament
LONDON Britain's upper parliamentary house dealt a defeat to Theresa May's government on Wednesday, voting for a change to her Brexit plan that says she can only trigger divorce talks if she promises to protect EU citizens' rights.

Afghan-based Islamic State a wild card as Trump ponders U.S. commitment
KABUL/DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan An Islamic State offshoot based near the Afghan-Pakistan border is expanding to new areas, recruiting fighters and widening the reach of attacks in the region, members of the movement and Afghan officials said.

Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in
GENEVA Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia.

MORE FROM REUTERS
Meryl Streep accuses Karl Lagerfeld of spoiling her Oscars
Trump nominee for Israel ambassador heckled, questioned at Senate
Magician's death by hanging in Hollywood ruled accidental by coroner
Iran ready to give U.S. 'slap in the face': commander
In sweeping move, Trump puts regulation monitors in U.S. agencies

Trending Stories
1
Exclusive: Trump administration has found only $20 million in existing funds for wall - document
2
Snap tops expectations in pricing of long-awaited IPO
3
Iraqi army controls main roads out of Mosul, trapping Islamic State
4
Antarctica hits record high temperature at balmy 63.5°F
5
Is Beijing outflanking the United States in the South China Sea?

Pictures
Photos of the Day
Brutal street battle for Mosul
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.njherald.com/article/20170228/AP/302289839

Tuareg rebels join Mali army in operation against extremists

By BABA AHMED
Posted: Feb. 28, 2017 8:00 am Updated: Feb. 28, 2017 1:12 pm

GAO, Mali (AP) — Malian soldiers and former Tuareg rebels have staged their first joint patrol in northern Mali, a key step in a 2015 peace agreement meant to help calm a region under threat from multiple extremist and other armed groups.

As helicopters with the U.N. peacekeeping mission hovered overhead last week, 50 men in distinctive turbans started to patrol the city of Gao, a target of attacks by Islamic extremists including one in January that killed 54.

The joint battalion of some 600 people is the first to formally combine Malian soldiers with the rebels from armed independent groups of the Azawad region that signed the peace deal. The patrols are aimed at "building confidence and curtailing insecurity in northern Mali pending the full restoration of state authority," the spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, Stephane Dujarric, said Friday.

The new units face the challenge of securing the vast region and unearthing hidden extremists. They must also get along in the process, as the Tuaregs' quest for autonomy has been a source of conflict for decades with the government.

"Today, it's not a question of the Coordination of the Movements of Azawad (former Tuareg rebellion group) or the Malian army. We fight together all under the same flag: the green, the yellow and the red," said Hassan Ag Ibrahim, a young Tuareg fighter who was patrolling on foot alongside a Malian soldier.

Northern Mali has been tense since 2012, when Islamic extremists linked to al-Qaida took over the region, exploiting a power vacuum after mutinous soldiers overthrew the president. French-backed forces pushed the extremists from strongholds the following year, but attacks have continued and have pushed further south. The U.N. mission in Mali is the deadliest active peacekeeping mission in the world.

More recently, extremists have issued statements threatening Tuareg and Arab families in northern Mali about participating in the new joint operation, and they have followed through on the threats.

On Jan. 18, a suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden vehicle into a military camp in Gao, killing at least 54 people and injuring more than 100 others. A group linked to al-Qaida's North Africa branch, al-Mourabitoun, claimed responsibility and warned of more to come to punish "all who were lured by France."

But those backing the new joint patrol, and some residents of Gao, remain committed to the task.

Mohamed Maiga, a resident, said he hoped the joint patrol will bring peace.

"They must continue their patrols of this type so that terrorists and armed bandits stop attacks and robberies," he said.

Addressing concerns about security risks in the joint patrols, Daniel Massamba, spokesman for the U.N. mission, said the former rebels "have been identified and investigated to be sure they are not members of an infiltrated jihadist group."

Col. Rhissa Ag Sidi Mohammed, a Tuareg within the military and coordinator for the patrol, said the rebels who joined the force have received the necessary training.

Now that joint patrols have begun, they will spread to other areas. In the coming weeks, units will be deployed to Kidal and Taoudenit, according Col. Mohamed Ould Hassan, an officer and former Tuareg rebel.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/china-is-determined-to-blind-us-missile-defense-systems/

China Is Determined To ‘Blind’ US Missile Defense Systems

Ryan Pickrell
12:04 PM 03/01/2017

The U.S. plans to deploy an advanced missile shield to South Korea, and China is frantically searching for ways to undermine it.

The U.S. and South Korea announced plans to deploy a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea last summer in response to North Korean provocations. China is*highly critical of the plans, calling the missile shield a threat to China’s national security.

China specifically objects to the eyes of the THAAD system, specifically, the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance (AN/TYP-2) X-band radar, which can operate in either terminal mode or forward-base mode.

In terminal mode, the radar*has a range of several hundred miles, giving the THAAD anti-missile system the ability to detect, track, and eliminate missiles in the final or terminal phase of flight. In forward-base mode, the radar’s range is extended, making it possible for THAAD to target projectiles in the initial or launch phase. The radar can reportedly be reconfigured in eight hours.

The U.S. has assured China that the radar will be set in terminal mode; however, China fears that the U.S. will opt for the extended-range option. In forward-base mode, the radar could potentially peer into Chinese territory and reveal essential information about China’s defense systems. China asserts that U.S. plans to deploy THAAD in South Korea will upend China’s strategic nuclear deterrence capabilities.

Given North Korea’s continued aggression, the U.S. and South Korea are moving forward with plans to deploy THAAD in Seongju this year.

The U.S. responded that THAAD will target*only North Korea. “There is no other nation that needs to be concerned about THAAD other than North Korea,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis said early last month.

China doesn’t buy it though and is convinced the U.S. intends to “monitor China’s military deployment and missile-launch” abilities.

China’s foreign ministry said Tuesday that China would take “necessary measures” in response to the deployment and the burden of guilt for whatever consequences followed would be on the U.S. and South Korea.

“The US global missile defense system is ultimately targeted at the nuclear deterrent capability of China and Russia,” the Global Times wrote last month, adding that “resolute countermeasures against Washington’s anti-missile achievements are the only way to sustain the current strategic balance.”

“The anti-missile system is the new front of nuclear arms race,” the semi-official tabloid explained.

Chinese experts are working on ways to disable the THAAD system, thus removing the alleged threat to China’s national security.

“Once the system has been deployed, Seongju county will appear on the list of the PLA missile system’s strike targets,”*Song Zhongping, a military expert and former member of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLAAF), told the Global Times.

Song proposed “blinding” the THAAD radar.

“China has measures to counter the THAAD system, for instance, making it ‘blind,’ which is very easy. The PLA is entirely capable of doing that,” Peng Guangqian, a military strategist at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Academy of Military Science, told reporters.

“Making it ‘blind’ is a choice, but it will require damaging or even destroying THAAD’s radar system, so this is a ‘hard measure,’ normally implemented by a directed-energy weapon or laser weapon,” Song explained. “Apart from this, we can also make THAAD useless through electronic interference and feigned military activities, because such activities can interrupt the functioning of the THAAD system.”

China reportedly attempted to “blind” a U.S. satellite back in 2006. While China’s capabilities have improved, it is unclear whether they have the ability to target THAAD’s radar system.

The two experts also suggested learning from Russia, which is increasing strategic bomber patrols and working to develop more advanced weapons capable of penetrating the U.S. missile shield.

China also believes it can put pressure, specifically in the economic sphere, on South Korea to change the deployment plans.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-converting-missiles-ship-killers-china/

Jeremy Hsu Security
Date of Publication: 03.01.17.
Time of Publication: 7:00 am.
Comments 40

The Army Gets Back in the Ship-Killing Business

Since 1996, the Chinese military has steadily expanded its umbrella of land-based missiles, strike aircraft, and submarines designed to overwhelm both US air bases and carrier strike groups. That buildup aims to discourage the US military from potentially intervening in China’s territorial disputes with neighboring Asian countries. Now, the US response appears to be taking shape, first in the form of a new use for an old weapons system.

In late 2016, the Pentagon announced that it would convert the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a weapon typically fired from a truck-mounted rocket launcher, into a guided ballistic missile capable of hitting moving warships. That represents a planned upgrade of an existing Army missile that can strike targets at distances of about 186 miles. It could also form the linchpin of a US “forward defense” strategy meant to keep China from becoming too aggressive with its growing naval power.

“For a long time, the US has taken air and sea supremacy for granted,” says Cmdr. Keith Patton, deputy chair of the Strategic and Operational Research Department at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. “Now the military is looking back again to see what can be done and what can be defended; people are rediscovering their past.”

Sea Change

Conversion of the Army missile into a ship-killing weapon is a “logical step” given US security concerns in the near future, says Patton. The weapon already has a proven combat record from the 1991 Gulf War and the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if not for limitations imposed by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, it could have even greater long-distance strike capability.

The shift to the sea represents a sharp change from the US Army’s focus for most of the past 70 years. While coastal artillery guns still played a role in WWII, the dominance of long-range bombers and aircraft carriers eventually made large, fixed guns obsolete as shore defenses.

“After World War II, the US was seen as unchallenged at sea, with the possible exception of Soviet submarines,” Patton explains. “Coastal defense artillery, or even missiles, could not help with that threat, and would have been a distraction to Army’s primary mission of winning a major land war in Europe.”

These days, the US no longer holds such a clear oceanic advantage. China has the world’s largest conventional ballistic missile force, and two different types of anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill ships such as US Navy carriers. By 2020, the Chinese military will also match or exceed the US military in number of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-ship cruise missiles, said Andrew Erickson, professor of strategy in the US Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute, during a hearing for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission on Feb. 23. He added that China would “unambiguously” have the world’s second-largest blue water navy by 2020.

China’s growing naval power has inadvertently highlighted the gaps in US anti-ship capabilities. The US military’s primary anti-ship weapon has been the sea-skimming Harpoon missile that flies slower than the speed of sound. By comparison, ATACMS with an upgraded guidance system could become a ballistic anti-ship weapon that dives toward targets at speeds of up to Mach 3.

Scoot and Shoot

The US Army already plans to train for its “multi-domain battle” role in possibly firing land-based missiles at enemy warships. Such anti-ship weapons may also end up being sold to US allies in the Pacific. It’s one thing for an adversary to target a huge US aircraft carrier or static air base, but it’s another matter entirely to try tracking dozens of mobile missile launchers mounted on trucks. “With an aircraft carrier or an airfield, you could hit the runway and disable it for a while,” Patton says. “But the US military has learned how hard it is to track small, missile-launched vehicles.”

The shoot-and-scoot mobility of rocket trucks is just one advantage of the land-based missile systems, says David Johnson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. Unlike anti-ship weapons carried by aircraft or naval vessels, land-based weapons can have “deep magazines,” with no serious physical limitation on the number of missiles available. And the ATACMS conversion may just be the start, as the US military develops a next generation of land-based missiles that could target ships in any military theater of operation.

“ATACMS is attractive because it’s already been developed—you may have to change the guidance technology, but it’s an approved system,” Johnson says. “Whether it’s an interim solution or just an idea to start thinking of how to solve the problem, long-ranged fire is an advantage that these systems will bring to those theaters that will complement joint military operations.”

That aligns with recent US military strategic thinking on the Pacific. A 2013 RAND report sponsored by the US Army suggested that “the strategic placement of anti-ship missile systems” could help deter open conflict by “significantly raising the cost for China,” or actively “interdict warships” or “be used to form a full blockade of critical waterways in times of war.”

Land-based missiles may also offer a solution to a current dilemma faced by the US military in supporting Asian countries that often face off with China over competing territorial claims. The U.S. has traditionally relied on forward air bases and carrier strike groups—such as the USS Carl Vinson group that embarked on a patrol of the South China Sea in February—to provide highly visible reassurance to allies in the Pacific-Asia region. But such high-visibility military assets are also the most vulnerable to China’s many missile-armed forces if it came to open conflict.

The US military could sidestep this dilemma if it chose to “emulate China by fielding mobile, land-based missile forces of its own,” said Evan Montgomery, a senior fellow at CSBA, in a recent report titled “Reinforcing the Front Line: US Defense Strategy and the Rise of China.” Land-based anti-ship missiles positioned on the territory of U.S. allies could provide the same reassurance while also being much less vulnerable militarily—and perhaps reduce the overall risk of open war by acting as a powerful deterrent.

There is always the possibility that China would take a dim view of US military moves to reinforce its allies with land-based missiles. But any potentially stabilizing strategy beyond the status quo would be welcome, as tensions in the South China Sea continue to bubble and brew.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...h-korea/ar-AAnH0yC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

The White House is considering direct military action to counter North Korea

Business Insider
David Choi
4 hrs ago

In a dramatic shift from traditional policy, an internal White House review on North Korean strategy revealed*that the option*to use military force or a regime change to curb the threat of North Korean nuclear weapons was on the table, The Wall Street Journal reported*on Wednesday.

This review comes at the heels of a report claiming President Donald Trump believes the "greatest immediate threat" to the US was North Korea's nuclear program.

Recent provocations*from the Hermit Kingdom,*including the*ballistic missile launch in the Sea of Japan*and the assassination of Kim Jong Un's estranged half-brother in Malaysia, may have provoked this shift in the policy that have many officials and US allies worried.*

"North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!" Trump tweeted in January. Several weeks later, North Korea conducted its*missile test.

Since then,*Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland consulted with other officials to address North Korea's*fresh series of provocations. In the meeting, held about two weeks ago, the officials discussed*the possibility of a plan "outside the mainstream," the Journal reported.

According to the Journal, McFarland requested for all options in order to completely overhaul American policy toward North Korea*— including for the US to recognize North Korea as a nuclear state and*the possibility of a*direct*military conflict.

The proposals, which are now being vetted prior to Trump's review, would certainly be met with worry from*China, a long-time North Korean ally, who recently*responded with an*export ban*against North Korea's coal industry. Additionally, many experts fear that a direct military conflict would spark all-out warfare, including artillery barrages directed at Seoul, South Korea's capital.

Even more worrisome is the possibility*for further North Korean provocations, which may influence the recent policy shift, as early*as this month. As the US and ally South Korea conduct "Foal Eagle" and "Key Resolve," their annual military exercises that involve*17,000 US troops and*Terminal High Altitude Air Defense*systems, experts say that provocations from North Korea will*be likely.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stripes.com/news/north-k...-south-korean-war-games-1.456646#.WLfQAIWcHIU

North Korea vows ‘merciless’ response to US-South Korean war games

By KIM GAMEL | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: March 2, 2017

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea promised a “merciless” response to U.S.-South Korean war games, warning it won’t hesitate to use its “treasured nuclear sword of justice.”

The state-run Korean Central News Agency issued the statement Thursday, a day after Seoul and Washington launched annual Foal Eagle joint military exercises.

“Lots of U.S. war operation groups and nuclear strike means deployed in South Korea and in its vicinity have already begun moving to the positions for invasion of the north,” KCNA said, quoting a statement by an unnamed spokesman for the general staff of the Korean People’s Army.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay and guided-missile destroyer USS Stockdale steam in formation with the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier off the Korean peninsula during Foal Eagle 2016.
ANDREW HOLMES/U.S. NAVY

“Should the U.S. imperialists and the south Korean puppet forces fire even a single shell into the waters where the sovereignty of our Re-public is exercised, the KPA will immediately launch its merciless military counter-actions,” it added.

“The KPA will mercilessly foil the nuclear war racket of the aggressors with its treasured nuclear sword of justice,” it said.

Osan combat drills include air sorties, ground operations

US reaffirms missile-defense plans as joint war games begin in S. Korea

The response was expected as Pyongyang considers the drills a rehears-al for an invasion, despite U.S. and South Korean insistence that they are defensive in nature.

But the characteristic hyperbole and belligerent tone has taken on added significance after two nuclear tests last year and a series of missile launches raised concern that the North is making faster-than-expected progress in its nuclear-weapons program.

Most recently, North Korea test-fired an intermediate-range missile into the Sea of Japan on Feb. 12. Also, leader Kim Jong Un’s half brother was assassinated with VX nerve agent on Feb. 13, which South Korea has said was the work of North Korean agents, although the com-munist state denied involvement.

South Korean military officials reiterated the drills are meant as routine defensive measures but said they were ready to respond to any actions by the North.

“If North Korea commits provocations, we’ll be protecting our people’s lives and property by punishing them without any hesitation,” a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a media briefing.

Foal Eagle is a field-training exercise involving about 10,000 ground, air, naval and special-operations forces, including 3,500 servicemem-bers who are being brought to the peninsula, U.S. Forces Korea said.

A separate, computer-simulated command post exercise known as Key Re-solve also is due to begin in mid-March.

The two Koreas are divided by the world’s most heavily fortified bor-der as they remain technically at war after the 1950-53 conflict ended in an armistice instead of a peace treaty. There are about 28,500 U.S. servicemembers stationed in South Korea, with others frequently brought on temporary training assignments.

Stars and Stripes reporter Yoo Kyong Chang contributed to this report.

gamel.kim@stripes.com
Twitter: @kimgamel
*
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://medium.com/@PhilipYun_PF/hard-choices-on-north-korea-a32fbf915cbf#.uta5pjfl2

Philip W. YunFollow
Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of @plough_shares — East Asia and security policy expertise
Feb 28

Hard Choices on North*Korea

The assassination of Kim Jong-Nam, the older half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, is yet another bizarre, “can’t stop watching” episode in a string of reality TV events that is now commonplace in our public discourse. It’s easy to get sucked into the intrigue, but it distracts from the big picture: the US is in middle of a slow-motion train-wreck with North Korea over its nuclear weapons and missile program. Unless we do something about it now, a “metal on metal” collision could be in the offing — a full-blown crisis marked by more North Korean tests and calls within Washington for military strikes to stop them.

Kim Jong Nam’s murder and the subsequent media circus obscure three more crucial events: China’s decision last month to ban all coal imports from North Korea, the February 11 test launch of a mobile, land-based, solid-fueled missile and, critically, the annual US-South Korean military exercises — Foal Eagle and Key Resolve — happening this month.

A substantial and unexpected shift in policy, the Chinese ban on coal — if implemented — would effectively cut North Korea off from an estimated $1.9 billion in export earnings, or anywhere between 33% to 50% of its total trade, depending on whose numbers are used. Bottom line, in one move China has given up a huge amount of economic leverage, effectively telling the US: “It’s your problem now — to solve or make worse.” Regardless, there is little doubt the North Koreans are seething.

North Korea’s recent successful test of an intermediate-range missile, which is land-based, mobile and solid-fueled, only exacerbates a bad situation. This missile, when operational, will be harder to detect and destroy compared to the stationary, liquid fuel rockets the North currently possesses. Not only will North Korea have a less identifiable first strike capability, it also will have the capacity to absorb an initial attack and retaliate with something nuclear-tipped. This seriously changes the security equation on the Korean Peninsula. It is not a coincidence that we are now hearing increasingly loose talk within the DC beltway about so-called “preemptive” strikes on North Korea.

Needless to say, the situation couldn’t be more loaded as this year’s US-South Korean military drills — which in the North’s mind are potentially existential provocations — kick off. In response to North Korea’s spate of missile and nuclear weapons tests since early 2016, the US and South Korea have indicated these 2017 exercises will be more “robust,” and we can expect them to again include rehearsals for surgical strikes on North Korean leaders and its nuclear facilities.

To top it off, this year we have Kim Jong Un on one side — a young, relatively inexperienced, and unpredictable leader prone to aggression when challenged who could be facing internal turmoil (one explanation for killing his brother and reportedly, four senior regime officials by anti-aircraft fire). On the other side, we now have Donald Trump. In such a high-stakes standoff, where perception in the context of deterrence is everything, if we’re not careful these two leaders could prove to be a volatile — and deadly — mix.

What we have then is a regional tinderbox ready to be lit by a small spark that could lead to an exchange of fire and subsequently another war.

Given the immense downsides, is there something we can do to keep these military exercises from prompting unnecessary and dangerous escalation? Possibly. While at this late stage there is no time for wholesale changes to our military exercises (nor would we want to do so), they can be modified to reduce perceptions that forces are being configured for a real attack on the North, so long as we don’t lose sight of the need to maintain operational readiness and deterrence, for which there can be no compromise.

Operationally here are just a few of many adjustments that some experts feel might be worth considering now and later:

  1. Reduce inflammatory rhetoric by US and South Korean military and civilian leaders during exercises. Last year the public record was full of references to rehearsals for “surgical strikes” on North Korean military facilities and “decapitation raids” by special force targeting the North Korean leadership. Done to send a blunt message of resolve, it also puts an already nervous North Korea on edge.
  2. Alter the role of B52 and long-range nuclear capable bombers. At the very least, the planes should not be flown in conjunction with the deployment of large ground force maneuvers, as the North would see this as an indicator of a planned first strike. They also harken back to bombings of North Korea during the Korean War, and to their threatened use during a crisis along the North-South border in August 1976.
  3. Invite China, Russia or another country to observe the exercises in real time. Another possibility would be to invite South Korean, US or international non-governmental organizations to observe. Such third parties could provide “less biased” reporting of events; their presence would give more confidence that the exercises are not a disguise for a real attack.
  4. Propose the resumption of Korean War MIA remains recovery by US government personnel in North Korea, which were suspended in 2005. The resumption of this kind of joint effort for humanitarian reasons would give the North added assurances because, it reasons, an attack would not come if Americans are on the ground. The act of proposing these efforts sends an immediate message even though it would take time to implement.
  5. Hold daily briefings by South Korea and the US on the exercises. These briefings would include an explanation of the prior day’s activity as well as a description of what is being planned for subsequent days. This would allow the North to compare the official explanations to what is actually happening on the ground.

Taking such steps could help defuse an exceptionally charged situation in the short term. But we also must keep our eye on the long game. Even if we manage to get through the next few months unscathed, the US and its allies will still be left with a daunting reality: a hostile, unstable foe on the road to greater nuclear strength. If we want to change this, the West must rethink its tired status quo policies. Its ineffective mix of UN denouncements, sanctions, bluster and threats will do nothing to stop North Korea from having approximately 40 to 50 nuclear weapons worth of fissile material capable of hitting all of South Korea and Japan in five years, and in 10 years, a missile system capable of hitting the continental United States.

International sanctions or coercive actions that are too crushing could be especially dangerous. No matter how satisfying this would be, we would risk incentivizing rogue elements within the North to sell and smuggle fissile material to terrorists, or possibly cause a coup or collapse that could lead to a “loose nukes” situation. In the wrong hands, even a small amount of plutonium around the size of a soft ball could obliterate a small city.

Failure of imagination. There’s a lot of it going around. Brexit, ISIS — and Donald Trump. This failure aptly applies to North Korea’s actions as well. But there is also a profound failure to imagine how these dire future scenarios can be averted: direct talks and a political solution. In the case of North Korea, this is particularly challenging. But we must make some hard choices now — or they will be made for us. Because, as the past with North Korea has shown, the situation will only get worse if we don’t.
 

Housecarl

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

Debating in whispers: opposition fearful ahead of Turkish referendum

The Guardian
Kareem Shaheen in Istanbul
3 hrs ago

Turkish opposition officials have warned of a campaign of harassment and intimidation by the government in the run-up to next month’s referendum on a presidential system that would grant sweeping powers to President Recep Tayyip Erdoðan.

A wave of arrests of opposition lawmakers, activists and journalists, and the closure of media outlets, have left a predominantly government-friendly press moderating the debate on the vote.

Related: UK’s £100m weapons deal with Turkey ‘turns blind eye to rights abuse’
Opposition figures have also highlighted the divisive rhetoric of the ruling AK party, whose officials have conflated opposition to the constitutional package with support for terror groups like Islamic State. The vote will be held under the state of emergency imposed after a failed coup attempt last July.

“In democracies people can pick and choose what they want,” said Barýþ Yarkadaþ, a politician in the opposition People’s Republican Party (CHP), which is backing a no vote. “Now, the citizens’ right to pick and choose is being hijacked because the citizens can only hear one voice, and that is ‘yes’.”

Erdoðan approved the constitutional amendments last month after they were passed by a simple majority in parliament, paving the way for the vote on 16 April..

The referendum is widely seen as a vote on Erdoðan’s leadership. If accepted, the changes will allow the president to stand for two more terms, potentially keeping him in power until 2029.

The constitutional changes also include increasing the number of parliamentarians and reducing their age, abolishing the role of prime minister, allowing the president to create a cabinet that will have little oversight by parliament, and giving both the president and parliament the ability to call early elections.

The president’s supporters say the changes will lead to a strong Turkey no longer subjected to the chaos of coalition governments, will resolve conflicts of power in the executive branch, and will establish checks on the president’s power with the ability to impeach him or call new presidential elections.

But critics fear Turkey becoming a country under one-man rule, with power concentrated in the hands of Erdoðan, who will consolidate his authority over a friendly parliament and judiciary.

They also complain of oppression on a grand scale in a country reeling from a series of terror attacks, as well as the July coup attempt and an ensuing purge of the civil service.

A dozen opposition politicians from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party (HDP) are currently in prison, and last week judges handed down punishments to the two co-chiefs of a leftist coalition that includes Kurdish politicians and activists as well as other minority groups.

Selahattin Demirtaþ, the charismatic Kurdish politician who has spoken out against a presidential system and has been incarcerated since November, was sentenced to a further five months in prison. His co-chair Figen Yüksekdað was stripped of her parliamentary seat after a conviction by the high court for her attendance several years ago at the funeral of a leftist militant. The HDP said the ruling was “an attempt to intimidate us and our people”.

“The only leader who can maintain a good no campaign against Erdoðan is Selahettin Demirtaþ,” said Mithat Sincar, an HDP MP. “Demirtas’s arrest means Erdoðan has pushed his most powerful rival out of the game.”

Sincar said a referendum under emergency law would inevitably lead to more division in a country that is already politically polarised.

Senior officials from the ruling AK party have appeared to link voting no with promoting the interests of terror groups like Isis, the PKK and the Gulenists, followers of a US-based exiled cleric accused of responsibility for the attempted putsch.

Prime minister Binali Yýldýrým has said terror groups are opposed to the constitutional changes. “If all terror organisations are carrying out no campaigning like a chorus, then that should have meaning for our country, our people and our citizens. My citizens will not be on the same side as terrorists.”

Ozan Erdem, a provincial AKP deputy, was forced to resign by his own party last monthafter saying the country would have to prepare for civil war if the constitutional changes were defeated in the vote.

Beyond the rhetoric, the opposition says they have few outlets to express their views. The CHP estimates that 152journalists are currently in prison, including 11 from Cumhuriyet, the country’s oldest newspaper, which has taken a tough stance against the reforms and has been hounded by lawsuits and the threat of having a government-appointed trustee board take over management. More than 170 media organisations have been shut down since the coup, including newspapers, websites, TV stations and news agencies, and 2,500 journalists have been laid off.

This week, German-Turkish journalist Deniz Yücel of Die Welt newspaper was formally arrested after reporting on the hacking and leak of the personal emails of Erdoðan’s son-in-law, in a move interpreted as a message to the foreign press in the country.

Nearly 5,000 academics have been dismissed, part of a purge of professions including the police, army and judiciary in which more than 125,000 people have been fired and 40,000 arrested following the coup attempt.

“The concept of plurality is being abolished … and Turkey is being put in a position where there is only one voice,” said Yarkadas, the CHP MP who heads his party’s media commission and recently met the imprisoned Cumhuriyet journalists.

Some observers see the government’s intimidation of the no campaign as a sign that it fears a divided electorate may be leaning towards rejecting the constitutional changes. Polls have varied wildly, though some internal surveys show the opposition with a lead. Key to the result will be swing voters, who make up an estimated 10% of the electorate.

Few expect a fair fight. The government has removed the Supreme Election Board’s authority to impose penalties on TV stations that fail to give sufficient air time to both campaigns. As one media official, who asked to remain anonymous, put it: “Turkey debates in whispers right now.”

Gülsin Harman contributed reporting
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
DOT!...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-russia-balkan-threat-men-women-a7607411.html

Sweden brings back military conscription in face of growing Russia threat

At least 4,000 18-year-olds could be called up each year

Samuel Osborne
@SamuelOsborne93
Thursday 2 March 2017 12:19 GMT
32 comments

Sweden has decided to reintroduce a military draft for both men and women over security concerns and a growing threat from Russia.

The Nordic country mothballed compulsory military service seven years ago, but military activity in the Baltic region has increased since, in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, prompting Sweden to step up military preparedness.

Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said the left-leaning government is reintroducing the draft because of a deteriorating security environment in Europe and around Sweden.

Under the newly approved plan, at least 4,000 18-year-olds could be called up each year, starting in January.

As in the current system, Swedes will still be able to volunteer for military service. The policy affects residents born after 1999.*

The country abolished the draft in 2010, when only men were eligible, because there were enough volunteers to meet the region's military needs.

"We have had trouble staffing the military units on a voluntary basis and that needs to be addressed somehow," Mr*Hultqvist told public service radio SR.

The government's decision entails the call-up of 4,000 men and women for military training in 2018 and 2019 and Mr*Hultqvist told SR motivation would be an important factor when selecting the recruits for service.

Sofia Hultgren, who turns 17 later this year and thus could be drafted in coming years, said many young Swedes viewed lengthy careers as military professionals as something odd and old-fashioned.

"I think many see it as something lame, something your father did, when there are so much other fun things to do," Hultgren, a student, told Reuters.

Still, she welcomed the reintroduction of military service and said she consider such training even if she did not want to make it a career.

"I think this can give a feeling of comfort. Conscription strengthens our defence when we see so much ugliness in the world," she said.

Sweden, which is not a NATO member, is currently in the process of upgrading its military with a sharp hike in spending, and has reassigned troops to the Baltic Sea island of Gotland, besides urging local governments to step up contingency planning for a future war.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/02/sweden-reintroduces-military-conscription

Sweden reintroduces military conscription

last updated: 02/03/2017

Swedish MPs have backed the centre-left government’s proposal to reintroduce military conscription next year. The public broadcaster SR reported that mounting security concerns and inability to fill the ranks with volunteers led to the moves.

Having tabled compulsory military service for men only in 2010, ever-increasing militarisation in the Baltic region since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 made the Swedish government reconsider their position.

The decision, which was reportedly backed by around 70 percent of parliament, will mean 4000 men and women selected from 13,000 people born in 1999 will be called for service from 1st January 2018. Conscripts will serve for between nine and 12 months after which it is hoped that significant numbers will become military professionals.

Sweden is known for its neutrality but ‘Russian military activity’ was given as ‘one of the reasons’ for the move.A garrison was also recently restored to the island of Gotland which straddles three former Soviet states.

Sweden and Finland cooperate closely on military matters and though neither are NATO members, the threat from Russia seems to be bringing them closer to the organisation.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...duce-conscription-amid-rising-baltic-tensions

Sweden to reintroduce conscription amid rising Baltic tensions

Draft will cover men and women born in 1999 or later, though only small minority will be selected to serve

Reuters in Stockholm
Thursday 2 March 2017 07.24*EST

Sweden is to reintroduce conscription due to difficulties filling the ranks on a voluntary basis at a time of increased security concerns, the defence minister has said.

Sweden ended compulsory military service in 2010 but military activity in the Baltic region has increased after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, prompting Sweden to strengthen its military preparedness.

The draft will cover men and women born in 1999 or later, though only a small minority will be selected to serve.

The defence minister said the move was in response to a deteriorating security environment in Europe.

“We have had trouble staffing the military units on a voluntary basis and that needs to be addressed somehow,” Peter Hultqvist told public service radio.

Military service was the norm for young Swedish men during the cold war but conscription was watered down after the collapse of the Soviet Union as the prospect of conflict in the region faded.

But a resurgent Russia and tensions over the battle in Ukraine have prompted politicians to consider bolstering military capability while addressing the shortfall of people willing to pursue a career as a professional soldier.

The lack of military preparedness has been exposed in recent years, such as when Russian warplanes carrying out a mock bombing run on Sweden in 2013 caught air defences off guard.

The government’s decision entails the call-up of 4,000 men and women for military training in 2018-19. Hultqvist said motivation would be an important factor when selecting recruits.

Sofia Hultgren, who turns 17 this year and could be drafted in coming years, said many young Swedes viewed lengthy careers as military professionals as odd and old-fashioned.

“I think many see it as something lame, something your father did, when there are so much other fun things to do,” Hultgren, a student, told Reuters.

However, she welcomed the reintroduction of military service and said she would consider such training, even if she did not want to make it a career.

“I think this can give a feeling of comfort. Conscription strengthens our defence when we see so much ugliness in the world,” Hultgren said.

A government investigation last year found that, with unemployment near zero, only about 2,500 young people were recruited annually, while the military needed 4,000.

The wages for professional soldiers run well below the national average for the age group, providing little monetary incentive, while the pool of potential recruits, primarily former conscripts from before 2010, has dwindled.

“This buffer is now exhausted and that leaves great challenges in recruiting,” said Johan Österberg, a staffing researcher at the Swedish Defence University.

Swedish military expenditure has fallen from 2.5% of GDP in 1991, around the time the Soviet Union collapsed, to 1.1% in 2015, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows.

Sweden, which is not a Nato member, has since increased spending and reassigned troops to the Baltic Sea island of Gotland. It has also urged local governments to increase contingency plans for war.
 
Top