WAR 6/20 - 6/27 ***The***Perfect***Storm***

=






Activists call on Ireland to seek safe passage for Gaza flotilla

Published: 06.20.11, 18:05 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4084823,00.html

Irish activists who plan to join an international flotilla to Gaza called Monday for the Irish government to urge Israel to allow the ships free passage to the Palestinian enclave.



"This is going to be a very significant challenge to the Israeli blockade and we are absolutely determined to make it to Gaza and we hope that Israel will not impede the flotilla," ISG co-ordinator Fintan Lane, who participated in last year's flotilla, told a press conference in Dublin. (AFP)
[/size]


=
 
=







AP Interview: Israeli minister predicts Assad will be ousted within 6 months

SLOBODAN LEKIC
Associated Press
10:35 a.m. EDT, June 20, 2011
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-syria-israel,0,4049915.story

LE BOURGET, France (AP) — Israel's defense minister predicted on Monday that Syrian President Bashar Assad will reach his "demise" within six months because he has lost his legitimacy during the crackdown on anti-government protests.


"It's my personal judgment that Bashar Assad crossed the point of no return towards his demise," Ehud Barack said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Egyptian Revolution (2011) Since the uprising began in mid-March, activists say more than 1,400 Syrians have been killed and 10,000 detained as authorities try to maintain their grip on power. Despite international criticism, the crackdown has so far allowed the regime to ride out the nationwide wave of protests.

"(Assad) ended up using too much brutal force, too many graves have been dug and he lost practically his legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people," Barak told the AP. "He probably will stay around for another quarter or two but that will not change his fate."

Syria's embattled president said Monday he would consider political reforms, including ending his Baath Party's monopoly on power. In a televised speech, Assad acknowledged demands for reform were legitimate, but said "saboteurs" were exploiting the situation.

Barak was speaking after opening the Israeli pavilion at the Paris Air Show, where Israel hopes to secure foreign orders for its Iron Dome missile defense system. Experts say the system is the first with a proven capability to intercept short-range rockets.

Barack said Israel was also in the final stages of testing the David's Sling ballistic missile defense system, which would defend against medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

"Governments that are under direct threat of missiles and rockets should consider this," he said. "This is something unique; nobody else has it."

Israel's defense and security firms have a particularly strong presence at this year's air show, the world's biggest.






=
 
=







Human rights activists trying to break the Gaza blockade have vowed to stop Israeli forces from boarding their ship.

Dr Fintan Lane, coordinator of Irish Ship to Gaza, said crews in the second aid flotilla will make it difficult for officials to seize control of vessels, including the Irish-owned MV Saoirse.


Nine people were killed last year when Israeli commandos stormed the MV Marmara, a Turkish aid ship trying to break the naval blockade.

"If they attempt to board the ship we will non-violently impede their progress. We will not facilitate their boarding party," said Dr Lane.

"We will not lay hands on them, we will not use physical measures against them. But we will lock down the ship and make it difficult to seize control."

At least 20 Irish citizens, including former rugby international Trevor Hogan, are taking part in Freedom Flotilla II.

About a dozen aid ships carrying medical supplies, sports equipment and construction materials are due to meet in international waters some 16 hours from Gaza early next week.

Crew include skipper Shane Dillion, artist Felim Egan, former politician Chris Andrew and MEP Paul Murphy. Almost 130,000 euro has been raised in Ireland to fund the humanitarian mission.

Hogan, who recently retired from rugby with a knee injury, said he was focused on getting to Gaza but had to be prepared for the alternative. "Anything we face is a fraction of what the Palestinians face on a daily basis and that gives me strength," he added.

Dr Lane said threats by Israel to attack ships with snipers should be condemned by governments, including Ireland.
[/size]




=
 
=








Syria: protesters hit the streets after President Assad claims he is more loved than ever


Demonstrators hit the streets of Damascus following Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's speech in which he insisted his people loved him more than ever.

By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent
4:02PM BST 20 Jun 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Assad-claims-he-is-more-loved-than-ever.html


President Assad blamed the unrest gripping his country on foreign conspirators and Islamic extremists.


But Opposition figure Walid al-Bunni said: "The regime has no realisation that this is a mass street movement demanding freedom and dignity.



"Assad has not said anything to satisfy the families of the 1,400 martyrs or the national aspiration of the Syrian people for the country to become a democracy."


Activists and residents returned to the streets in the suburbs of Damascus as well as in the coastal city of Latakia shortly after Mr Assad's speech.


Addressing Syrians for the first time in more than two months, Mr Assad mixed defiance with the language of conciliation, but the concessions he laid out looked unlikely to end the uprising against him.





=
 
=









Pressure on Syria mounts as army tightens its grip in the border

20 June 2011, Monday / MUHLÝS KAÇAR , ANKARA
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-248...-as-army-tightens-its-grip-in-the-border.html

As uncertainty looms each day over Syria about the extent and materialization of reforms announced during the Syrian leader’s televised speech on Monday, several Western countries have started raising their voices regarding the tragedy that has been unfolding in Syria.


On Monday, Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague urged for reforms in Syria, adding that either the Syria’s leader Bashar al-Assad must make reforms or leave office. The remarks by Hague came before a meeting with European Union foreign ministers on Monday, which took place in Luxembourg. It is reported that the EU will expand sanctions on Syria, where the government is conducting a brutal crackdown on dissenters.

Hague also brought up Turkey’s role in the process, saying that he hopes Turkey will play an influential role in conveying the will of the international community to Assad.

“I hope our Turkish colleagues will bring every possible pressure to bear on the Assad regime with a very clear message that they are losing legitimacy and that Assad should reform or step aside,” Hague said.

Since the uprisings unfolded in Syria in January, Turkey has engaged in several diplomatic talks at every possible level with its Syrian counterparts, pressing them to carry out comprehensive reforms without further delay.

Just last week when the Syrian leader’s special envoy Hassan Turkmani was in Ankara for a two-day visit, where two separate talks were held at length with both Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu, Turkey sent a blunt message to the Syrian government that Ankara is becoming increasingly angry over the burgeoning humanitarian crisis.

Erdoðan and Davutoðlu also told Turkmani that Turkey’s patience had run out with regards to the promise of reforms in the country.

Although Turkmani told the two that “Syria is ready to introduce reforms and take into consideration the demands raised by the anti-government protest movement,” the response he found in the Turkish capital was that Turkey “wants action now, no more talk.” On Sunday night, Syrian army snipers wounded two Syrian refugees who had sought shelter in a tent site in Syria near the Turkish border. Syrian soldiers fired with long range Canas rifles at the tent camp near the Turkish-Syrian border. One of the wounded remains in critical condition.

Syrians who had recently fled to the southern province of Hatay say that since the number of Syrians fleeing the violence has increased the Syrian army has begun blocking roads to Turkey. Many Syrians in Hatay said that the Syrian army sprayed bullets on Syrians trying to cross the border into Turkey.

Associated Press reported on Monday that the government tried to back up this claim by taking journalists and foreign diplomats on a trip to a northern town where authorities say armed groups had killed 120 security personnel two weeks ago.

The trip to Jisr al-Shughour in the restive Idlib province near the border with Turkey was organized jointly by the Syrian foreign ministry and the military. It included 70 Western and Arab diplomats, including US Ambassador Robert Ford.

Maj. Gen. Riad Haddad, head of the Syrian military’s political department, told journalists on the trip that the military will continue to pursue gunmen “in every village where they are found, even near the Turkish border.”

The Arab media’s recent claims that Ankara is set to send a letter to Damascus via a special envoy demanding Syrian president’s brother, Maher al-Assad, step down as the commander of the Syrian army’s Fourth Division and the Presidential Guards, has been denied by high-level officials in Turkey.

Speaking to Today’s Zaman, an official said that there is no such plan taking place at the moment, nor is there any reason for it. The official also drew the attention to Assad’s special envoy Turkmani’s two-day visit to Ankara last week, adding: “Foreign Minister Davutoðlu went to Damascus and met with Assad in person. The head of the National Intelligence Organization [MÝT] Hakan Fidan also went to Damascus with the Turkish prime minister’s special directive in order to hold a series of official talks. Our prime minister and Assad talk over the phone. So why the need for such a letter? We do not have such plans at the moment.”







=
 
=






2011-06-20

Syria opposition says 'revolt' must go on

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46820

NICOSIA - Pro-democracy activists said the three-month-old "revolt" in Syria must go on after a speech by President Bashar al-Assad on Monday that they said only deepened the crisis.

The Coordination Committee, an umbrella group of activists calling for street protests, called for "the revolution to carry on until all its aims have been achieved."

"We consider any dialogue useless that does not turn the page on the current regime," it said in a statement. Assad's speech on the three-month-old unrest only served to "deepen the crisis."





=
 

LC

Veteran Member
Thanks, Dutch...any rain out your way yet? Hope so. Mother is looking at cows and trying to decide which ones go and which ones stay. So sad to see a purebred herd get culled that way.

LC
 
=







Conspiracy is blooming, defiant Assad warns Syria

Jason Koutsoukis
June 21, 2011 .
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/wor...defiant-assad-warns-syria-20110620-1gc1b.html

JERUSALEM: The Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, has addressed the nation, calling for national unity and expanding his amnesty to those opposing his rule. But he said conspiracy in the country was ''blooming'' and 64,000 people were wanted by the authorities.

Critics saw it as a further attempt to suppress pro-democracy supporters whose public calls for change have continued despite the regime's deadly efforts to crush dissent.


As the Obama administration weighed bringing war crimes charges against Mr Assad over the deaths of more than 1300 protesters, Syrian troops continued to sweep the northern border to block refugees from fleeing to neighbouring Turkey.

As opposition activists announced the formation of a ''National Council'' to ''lead the battle to oust Assad'', news reports suggested that Mr Assad was preparing a constitution overhaul that would end his ruling Baath Party's 50-year monopoly on power.

According to a Baath Party official quoted by the Los Angeles Times, Mr Assad's speech would signal a change to the wording of Article 8 of the Syrian Constitution that granted his party leadership ''of'' state and society, to leadership ''in'' state and society.

The wording change would supposedly allow the development of other political parties to run against the Baath Party in national elections.

''With this amendment, the Baath Party becomes a party operating on Syrian territory and [has] priority in the state as a result of tradition,'' said the unnamed high-ranking official.

''A law of parties will be introduced within 30 days, allowing political parties to obtain licences and giving the right to any group to establish a political party on Syrian territory and to compete with the Baath Party and the Progressive Front,'' a collection of Baath front groups.

But critics and opposition supporters immediately said the proposal would fall far short of the demands of protesters, and maintained their calls for Mr Assad's resignation.

''We announce the creation of a National Council to lead the Syrian revolution, comprising all communities and representatives of national political forces inside and outside Syria,'' said Syrian opposition spokesman Jamil Saib on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters stationed across the Syrian border in Turkey where more than 10,000 refugees have fled to escape Mr Assad's troops, Mr Saib said the council was created ''in the name of Syria's free revolutionary youth in view of the crimes the regime perpetrated against the oppressed civilian population, which was holding peaceful protests.''

Mr Saib said council members included Abdallah Trad el Moulahim, one of the organisers of a Syrian opposition gathering in Turkey this month, Syrian-based activists Haitham el-Maleh, Souhair al-Atassi and Aref Dalila, as well as Sheikh Khaled al-Khalaf and Mamoun el-Homsi. This will be the third time that Mr Assad has made a national speech since the popular uprising began on March 18 in the wake of similar protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. There are few expectations that he was prepared to offer concrete change.

On March 30 - two weeks after the start of anti-regime demonstrations in Syria - Mr Assad addressed parliament and called the deadly unrest a ''conspiracy'' that was fomented by the country's enemies.

In a televised address on April 16, Mr Assad announced the lifting of emergency laws that had been in place for nearly 50 years but immediately replaced the laws with new measures to suppress freedom of speech and public dissent.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London, the Assad regime's attempts to put down the uprising had resulted in the deaths of at least 1310 civilians and of 341 security force members.

Residents who had crossed the border into Turkey on Sunday said Mr Assad's forces had cut off the main border village of Bdama, closing its only bakery and burning surrounding forests. Raka El-Abdu, 23, told Agence France-Presse that his 14-strong family fled Bdama on Saturday but he went back on Sunday to get bread, using mountain routes only locals would know.

The village was virtually empty. ''They closed the only bakery there. We cannot get bread … I saw soldiers shooting the owner of the bakery,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/wor...warns-syria-20110620-1gc1b.html#ixzz1PpeHnyHg




=
 
Thanks, Dutch...any rain out your way yet? Hope so. Mother is looking at cows and trying to decide which ones go and which ones stay. So sad to see a purebred herd get culled that way.

LC

Nope! No Rain, the PTB are saying that the last 8 months are the driest in 117 years. We have wild fires, by the number (but that doesn't count). One is down near Christoval, Tx which is about 30 miles to the south of us. The other one started on a ranch just to the west of us yesterday. We are lucky in that the wind is from the south and that is keeping the wild fire out of Quail Valley (our A/O)


=
 
=






EU ready to expand Syria sanctions

Published 20 June 2011
http://www.euractiv.com/en/global-europe/eu-ready-expand-syria-sanctions-news-505798

The European Union said today (20 June) it was preparing to expand its sanctions on Syria in response to worsening violence against opponents of the government.

"The EU is actively preparing to expand its restrictive measures by additional designations with a view to achieving a fundamental change of policy by the Syrian leadership without delay," a statement agreed by EU foreign ministers said.



EU diplomats said they expected a decision to expand the sanctions later in the week.

"The situation of violence is extremely alarming and you'll see that all of us involved, all the international community, call on President Bashar al-Assad to stop the violence and for him to start listening to what people actually ask him to do," said High Representative Catherine Ashton ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council.

Apparently, the speech given by the Syrian president neither reassured the international community nor managed to defuse popular grievances in the country as protesters took to the streets and said Assad's speech did not meet popular demands for sweeping political change.

"No to dialogue with murderers," chanted 300 protesters in the Damascus suburb of Irbin, a witness told Reuters.

In a speech at Damascus University dominated by security concerns, Assad accused "saboteurs" among protesters demanding an end to his 11-year rule of serving a foreign conspiracy to sow chaos.

Under mounting international pressure and facing wider street protests despite a military crackdown that has killed more than 1,300 people, Assad, from Syria's minority Alawite sect, said political reforms he had launched since the three-month uprising began would stabilise the country and diffuse grievances.

But in the Sunni Sleibeh and Raml al-Filistini districts of the mixed coastal city of Latakia, where several Sunni neighbourhoods have been surrounded by troops and armour for weeks, protesters chanted "liar, liar."

"People were still hoping he would say something meaningful that would result in tanks and troops leaving the streets. They were disappointed and started going out as soon as Assad finished talking," one activist in Latakia said.

In the city of Hama, scene of a 1982 attack to crush an uprising led by the Muslim Brotherhood that killed thousands of civilians during the rule of Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, protesters chanted "damn your soul, Hafez".

Demonstrations also took place in the eastern city of Albu Kamal on the border with Iraq, the southern city of Deraa and other towns in the Hauran Plain, cradle of the uprising, now in its fourth month, and at the campus of Aleppo University, activists said.






=
 
=







Should a Future President Michelle Bachmann Be Free to Bomb Mexico?

Posted: 06/20/11 11:02 AM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kieschnick/should-a-future-president_b_880382.html

No. And President Obama should not be free to bomb Libya.

American presidents care very much about being able to wage war without asking permission. And they do just that with great regularity to the dismay of much the rest of the world.


The War Powers Act was passed as a weak measure to reign in President Nixon, whose secret wars in Cambodia and Laos were conducted in parallel with the Vietnam War, itself undeclared. President Nixon so opposed the Act that he vetoed it, but his veto was overturned by more than two thirds of Congress.

Which brings us to Libya. American forces have participated in a war against the regime of Libyan dictator Gaddafi. Nearly a billion dollars has been spent. While other countries have taken the lead, U.S. naval and air forces have been very active, American drones fire massive quantities of missiles, and it is an open secret that CIA paramilitary forces are on the ground.

President Obama does not believe that these activities require any approval from Congress under the War Powers Act because they do not rise to the level of "hostilities". Tell that to Gaddafi!

We now know, based on reporting by Charles Savage at the New York Times, that President Obama overruled the advice of his Attorney General, the chief lawyer of the Defense Department, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department.

President Obama, in what can only be described as opinion shopping, preferred the views of the legal advisor at the State Department, the in house counsel at the White House (a specialist in election law) and his own point of view.

This serves the nation badly, regardless of what one thinks of the U.S. intervention in Libya. We quite reasonably fear a president who acts as a commander in chief above the law.

That we do so is so is not a partisan point of view, nor an isolationist point of view. One might think that Michelle Bachmann, who I think is hot-headed and crazed, if elected president, should not be able to decide that she can direct our forces to attack Mexico, for example, over a dispute over immigration or drugs.

The War Powers Act, born out of great deference to executive power, gives a president 90 days to launch, execute, and fully end a military intervention, whether it is for humanitarian reasons or any other purpose.

Yet President Obama is unwilling to concede the point. We are now past the outer limit. A bipartisan group of members of Congress has filed a lawsuit to force the issue. For the good of the nation, Mr. Obama must seek Congressional approval. If he does not, Congress should halt our participation by cutting off funding. If deference to Mr. Obama prevents even this, a court should grant an emergency hearing on the Congressional lawsuit.





=
 
=


***The***Border***Badlands***



California gangs form alliances with Mexican drug cartels

Gangs becoming more sophisticated in trafficking drugs, guns, people

By Scott Johnson
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 06/19/2011 06:33:22 AM PDT
Updated: 06/20/2011 07:50:41 AM PDT
http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_18310548

LOS BANOS -- Evidence is increasing that California prison gangs are forging close relationships with powerful drug-trafficking cartels in Mexico, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and gang experts who say the relationships have moved into a dangerous new area as Mexican cartels and American gangs swap tactical information, share intelligence and exchange techniques to avoid detection.

"What we're seeing is that highly sophisticated gangs, operating out of the prison system or from cartels in Mexico, are shot-calling, and then farming out the work to local street gangs in California, like the Norteños," state Attorney General Kamala Harris said recently by phone from Los Banos, the scene of a large anti-gang operation June 7.


Increased cooperation across borders and among organized crime syndicates threatens California in new ways, officials say. As evidence, they point to the beginnings of a spillover into this country of the sort of violence that has pitted cartels against the Mexican government and army.

Historically, the term "transnational gang" has been used by academics and law enforcement officials to refer to the spread of such Central American gangs as Mara Salvatrucha into North Carolina, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Those gangs were formed in part by refugees who had fled the wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras in the 1980s and were deported back to their home countries. Many formed gangs to protect themselves. But they also exported violence.

A January report from the Congressional Research Service found that transnational gangs continue to expand, and over the past three years Congress has allocated more than $100 million to combat their growth in Central America and the U.S.

Harris said the term should be expanded to include the kind of cooperation she said is growing between California prison gangs and Mexican cartels that regularly traffic drugs, weapons and human beings across the U.S. border.

"There is good reason to connect the activities of these gang members here with Mexico," Harris said. "I think they're very connected."

The raid

Just after 7 a.m. June 7 in Los Banos, a quiet Central Valley town, a dozen police officers in dark blue jumpsuits, SWAT gear and M-4 assault rifles loaded into four unmarked police trucks in the parking lot of a Carl's Jr. They rolled through a quiet suburb of one-story ranch houses, European automobiles and leafy streets. Weapons ready, they knocked loudly at the door of a nondescript residence, and when a hefty Latino man in his mid-30s answered, they arrested him and quickly moved on.

Before the day was over, an additional 74 men would be taken in raids across the Central Valley in the largest gang sweep in California this year, according to detectives involved in the raid. More than 250 officers from 16 state and federal agencies swept into communities in two counties looking for members of a notorious California prison gang, Nuestra Familia, and its street affiliate, the Norteños.

The operation, "Red Zone," was the latest continuation of a two-year Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement investigation into what Harris calls "the scourge of transnational gangs." Two days later, a similar operation in Tracy netted 30 more alleged gang members.

Harris said she has made tackling transnational gangs a priority since her term began in January. Two major crackdowns, one in May and another in June, have resulted in almost 200 arrests of alleged gang members, and the seizure of about 200 pounds of methamphetamine.

After members of the Arrellano Felix cartel attempted to assassinate five members of a family in Palmdale, near Los Angeles, in February, Harris traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border to announce the expansion of a multiagency task force in Imperial County, along the border, to target transnational gangs.

Tracking gangs

Operation Red Zone was the latest sting in a two-year effort that provides a window into how the shift in gang methods may be taking place.

Officers from the Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement began tracking an increase in Norteño-related slayings in Salinas in October 2009. There, Norteños and members of Nuestra Familia were importing up to 20 pounds of methamphetamine per week and distributing it regionally. As a result, police say, the homicide rate there doubled from 2007 to 2009, increasing to four times the national average.

When law enforcement caught on, many gang members fled. Some sought safety in the flat plains and farms of the Central Valley, in and around Los Banos, in Merced County. Nuestra Familia, meanwhile, was struggling to get a foothold in the rural areas. But the team that was tracking them in Salinas followed them as they moved east.

What they started to see worried them. Nuestra Familia has established networks all over Northern California and well into Oregon, Illinois, Texas, Colorado and Utah.

The gang also had regimental commanders in several California counties. The ties to the East Bay were also deep and well-entrenched. Detectives found connections to Oakland, Tracy, Concord and Morgan Hill on a regular basis.

In the Salinas takedown in May 2010, the team arrested Martin Mentoya, also known as "Cyclone," the regimental commander for the East Bay, responsible for Hayward, Oakland and Richmond. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms later indicted Mentoya on federal charges of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Mentoya was also charged with two counts of firebombing.

"In Los Banos, they were working with people in the Bay Area to share resources," said Dean Johnston, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement special agent supervisor and lead investigator on the recent operations. "It's part of a criminal organization; they all agree to help each other."

More distressing still were the ties to Mexico, which were more sophisticated than expected. "They're doing things proactively now to cooperate with each other," Johnston said. "Now there are signs these gangs are working with the cartels, and it's more sophisticated than we've seen before."

This strategic partnership appears to mirror a dramatic rise in methamphetamine production in Mexico. According to Malcolm Beith, author of "The Last Narco," a recent book about the drug war in Mexico, meth production in Mexico has soared since 2003, largely due to U.S. demand. In 2007, the Mexican army seized 22 meth labs. This year, it has already seized 89 -- an increase officials say signals radically increased production. One lab in Sinaloa was producing about 20 tons of meth annually at an estimated street value of $700 million.

Making connections

The Nuestra Familia and Norteño members found what they thought was a shelter from law enforcement in the rural communities of the Central Valley. Many lived in nice suburban homes. It was quiet. The detectives began to piece together a picture of how the two organizations are working together. In the past, Johnston said, the cartels would only sell the narcotics that U.S. buyers could pay for up front. Now, he said, the Mexican cartels "are opening lines by giving them fronted amounts of drugs. They're helping them out, not just selling to them, and that's a big change."

Johnston said the cartel leaders have been reassured somewhat by the reputation Norteños have for being honest about their drug trafficking. Whereas other groups may cut their drugs with other products to increase their profit margins, Norteños do not.

"Nuestra Familia guarantees its product," the detective said. "If people complain about their ability to consume it, they'll return it. They're very strict on the quality of their substance."

This has also reassured the cartels, officials say.

"Recently, these drug-trafficking cartels are making large amounts of meth available to the gangs," Johnston said. "They're saying, 'We know you guys are good for it,' and that's a big difference."

Officials say they have also seen the cartels and the gangs getting more sophisticated. Detectives watched traffickers falsify tags on vehicles to bring cars across the U.S. border from Mexico. A Mexican official with access to vehicle registration was on their payroll. U.S. Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement officials said the Mexican official was getting paid $400 for each vehicle registration change. At least three registrations were changed. Nuestra Familia also began wiring money into bank accounts instead of dealing in cash transactions.

One of the most worrying developments was the sophistication of countersurveillance techniques adopted by the gangs.

"They were driving to meet locations and purposefully trying to avoid detection," Johnston said. "They never used to do that."

The more time and exposure the U.S. gangs had to Mexican cartels, the more they tended to adopt the methodology of the cartels, he said.

"The gangs are doing things now that we've seen the major drug-trafficking organizations do. They're learning our techniques, in part, and they're also learning new stuff from the cartels."

Officials say the effects of the recent raid will be felt statewide. Gangs and the Mexican cartels have national reach. They dabble in a multitude of transjurisdictional crimes, including weapons and the illegal trade of human beings, including children for the sex trade. Throughout, Nuestra Familia helps smooth transactions.

In the Los Banos case, for example, Norteños from Merced had purchased an AK-47, but didn't have ammunition for it. They reached out to Morgan Hill Norteños, who supplied them with bullets.

Johnston said he often sees guns used in crimes in the East Bay that resurface months later three counties away, having essentially been "washed" by crossing the county line.

"This is not just about one region," Harris said. "An operation like this affects the entire state."





=
 
=









McCain: Mexicans behind Arizona fires​

PHOENIX, June 19 (UPI) -- Illegal immigrants from Mexico are responsible for starting some of the huge wildfires in Arizona, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alleges.


At a Phoenix news conference, the right-wing senator claimed illegal immigrants light fires in the wilderness for warmth, to send signals and to distract border agents, CNN said.

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally," McCain said. "The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border."

However, he offered no evidence to substantiate his claim.

Civil rights advocate Randy Parraz told CNN such unfounded allegations were "careless and reckless" and said McCain was trying to make rightist political headway with the wildfire crisis.

"It's easier to fan the flames of intolerance, especially in Arizona," Parraz said.

High heat, low humidity and steady winds have helped dozens of fires in Arizona consume more than 700,000 acres of land in the past three weeks.






=
 
=


OK! Any one have comments about this question? Is it "Yea"! Or is it Nay"?

Do you "feel" that you should have the right to carry openly?





Some in St. Louis area carry guns openly to affirm rights


BY SHANE ANTHONY • santhony@post-dispatch.com > 636-255-7209 | Posted: Monday, June 20, 2011 12:35 am | (152) Comments
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_23828920-2b8c-5169-8c34-08bb73c432a9.html


ST. PETERS • Steve Randall strolled into the Starbucks at Mid Rivers Mall Drive and Mexico Road one recent Thursday evening wearing his Glock 21C pistol in a holster at his side.

Randall's imposing height and short haircut might have led some to believe he was a police officer. Perhaps they were too busy to notice the gun on his hip or the hips of two men who joined him.


For Randall, 39, of Overland, this was just another "open-carrying" gathering with friends, something he says he does for two reasons — to provide personal protection and to let Missourians know they have the right to do so.

Open carry is legal in most states, but in recent years has become part of the national gun debate, which had primarily been dominated by battles over carrying concealed weapons. California, where open carry is allowed if the gun is unloaded, is a battleground on the issue now.

Locally, Maplewood just banned open carrying of firearms after a man walked into Walmart with a holstered pistol.

Opponents say the practice isn't necessary in modern times. But supporters such as Randall want to affirm their rights.

"My wish is to show that open carry is a viable form of carry and a legal option in many places," Randall said.

"Openly carrying guns creates a culture of fear and intimidation," countered Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence. "It's alarming to the populace, and it's alarming to the police."

In California, where legislators are weighing a ban on open carry, gun owners have shown up at Starbucks with holstered weapons, Malte said, and protesters have followed them.

The coffee chain's position has been that the issue should be decided in legislatures and courts rather than in its stores. So the company follows the local laws.

That has led open carry advocates to frequent the stores, even if, like Randall, they don't claim to be big coffee drinkers.

Ted Bruce, an assistant attorney general, said Missouri generally allows a person to carry guns openly with a few restrictions such as polling places, schools, churches and government buildings. It is also illegal to carry a firearm while intoxicated, he said.

However, many individual Missouri municipalities have instituted stricter laws banning open carry. And Bruce said businesses can restrict guns: "If Starbucks wanted to say 'you can't come in with a gun,' they would have the right to do that."

Both open and concealed carry are considered illegal in Illinois.

LITTLE ATTENTION

Malte said even gun rights advocates are split on open carry. "Most Americans do not think that's normal behavior," he said.

Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, said gun rights advocates usually have three issues. They want the right to carry, the right to transfer ownership and the right to use their weapons for self-defense. But he and other advocates see open carry without requiring a permit as a practice courts have upheld for years based on the constitutional right to bear arms.

"Open carry is the Second Amendment," Stollenwerk said.

Stollenwerk said those who carry properly holstered handguns rarely receive much attention. "When people do notice, they disregard it or ask friendly questions like, 'Hey, do I need a permit to do that?'" he said.

"In the end, even most concealed carriers want the right to choose open carry when it suits them and their circumstances, just like open carriers want the right to choose concealed carry sometimes."

Randall posts regularly on OpenCarry.org. He said he decided about three years ago to wear his gun to a Walmart in St. Charles. He was nervous, he said, but nothing happened. No one seemed to notice.

Since then, Randall has gone to Starbucks shops throughout the area. He has posted videos on YouTube, and his gun-toting coffee shop ventures drew the attention of others who have joined him.

One, Jared Miller, 39, of Lincoln County, said Randall helped him overcome misgivings about open carrying in more-populated areas. "I've always wanted to do that, but I was a little nervous," he said.

ENCOUNTERS WITH COPS

At times, Randall and his group encounter police officers. Someone called St. Charles police when he openly carried on Main Street in 2010. He posted a video of the encounter on YouTube.

A search of the video site leads to a host of similar encounters across the country. Some, like Randall's in St. Charles, are cordial. Some, like an incident in Philadelphia, were peppered with foul language and involved officers drawing their weapons.

Randall says he isn't looking for a lawsuit or confrontation, but he wants officers to know he has the legal right to carry.

He has researched local ordinances online and by calling city officials or visiting them in person. He said the rules vary greatly across the Missouri side of the metro area. In St. Peters, open carry is allowed for those who have concealed carry permits. City ordinances prohibit open carry in St. Louis. In St. Charles, no permit is required.

The Maplewood City Council recently banned open carry. Police Chief Steve Kruse said he recommended the change after Walmart security called police on March 12 to report a man in the store with a holstered pistol. Officers eventually arrested him on a St. Louis County traffic warrant, Kruse said.

Kruse said citizens can carry concealed if they get the proper permit.

"Why would you feel that you have to openly carry a firearm knowing full well that people are going to be alarmed by it, and the police are going to be called?" he asked.

Randall said he prefers open carry because it is more comfortable. He also said it could deter those with ill intent from committing a crime. He says it's important to him to exercise his rights because, if he doesn't, "Did I really have the right? No. I only had the illusion."

Often, people don't notice Randall carrying his gun. When they do, most are more curious than confrontational, he said, but he understands some may be afraid. He said he tries to be friendly and professional to put others at ease and fight the image of guns as villains.

"Civil society is not about bare minimums," Randall said. "It is about treating others in a manner that you want to be treated and understanding that others' perspectives and agendas may be very different than your own."





=
 
=



***The***Asian***Contagion***



South Korea military apologises for its soldiers firing 99 bullets at passenger aircraft after mistaking it for North Korean warplane

Aircraft undamaged because it was out of range

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:46 AM on 20th June 2011
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...aircraft-mistaking-North-Korean-warplane.html


South Korean military chiefs have apologised for troops firing at a passenger jet after mistaking it for a North Korean warplane.

Soldiers on Gyodong island, off South Korea's west coast, shot at the Asiana Airlines flight with 99 rife rounds, including tracer bullets.


But the Airbus A321, carrying 119 passengers from the south-western Chinese city of Chengdu, was out of range and landed in Seoul's Incheon international airport undamaged.

The incident took place before dawn last Friday close to the tense Yellow Sea border between the two countries.

One report claimed that the soldiers - two marine guards with K-2 rifles - never saw the aircraft because it was foggy.

They thought it was a North Korean warplane by the sound of its engine which triggered a fusillade of shots for four minutes - half of them tracer bullets.

But it took 20 minutes for their platoon leader to establish it was a civilian aircraft after reporting the incident to the Air Force's Master Control and Reporting Center.

Attacked: An Airbus A321 was fired on in fog by South Korean troops who thought its engine sounded like a North Korean warplane

The soldiers will not face punishment because they acted in line with rules of engagement.

Colonel Lee Bung-woo, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: 'The military sincerely apologises to our people for causing worries over the incident.'

He promised soldiers at frontline guard posts would be trained to distinguish between civilian and military aircraft.

Soldiers are on alert for possible attacks by North Korea following two deadly border incidents last year.

Defence Minister Kim Kwan-jin has told border troops that if the North Koreans attack, they should strike back immediately without waiting for orders from top commanders about how to respond.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...king-North-Korean-warplane.html#ixzz1Ppok5FpO




=
 
=





Attacks ‘likely’ but Seoul, U.S. ready

June 21, 2011
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937843

The top U.S. commander in South Korea said yesterday North Korea is likely to launch more military attacks against the South, but Seoul and Washington are prepared to more adequately address the threat.

“While the Kim regime has proven a willingness to escalate in order to obtain what it wants, I am convinced that the ROK-U.S. alliance is prepared,” Gen. Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, told a forum in Seoul, referring to South Korea by the acronym of its official name, the Republic of Korea.


“Our counter-provocation planning and combined exercises are stronger than ever. ... In the past year, we have worked hard to develop a hostile counter-provocation plan that more adequately addresses the full spectrum of conflict.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula rose to one of their highest levels last year since the 1950-53 Korean War after the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, reportedly by the North, and the North’s bombardment of the western border island of Yeonpyeong. Fifty South Koreans were killed in the two attacks.

In between the attacks, North Korea disclosed the existence of its uranium enrichment facility, which could give Pyongyang a second way to make a nuclear bomb.

North Korea has attacked South Korea in many ways since the end of the war, which ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. Analysts believe the attacks were aimed at first getting attention from the outside world and then winning economic concessions from the South.

Sharp also accused North Korea of engaging in “coercive strategy.”

“North Korea’s unprovoked submarine attack against the Cheonan, the announcement of their highly enriched uranium program and brutal artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island over the past year were part of the North’s spiraling threat of coercive strategy,” Sharp said.

“Their desire to antagonize, provoke, appease and demand concessions has been taken in order to achieve the regime’s goals of gaining food, fuel, economic aid and succession to sustain their regime and become a ‘strong and prosperous nation’ by 2012,” he said.

About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War.

Since last year’s provocations, South Korea has been pushing a series of military reforms designed to enhance interoperability among the Army, Navy and Air Force and drastically increase its firepower. Sharp called Seoul’s military reform measures an essential step to making the South’s armed forces stronger.

“It will absolutely enhance your war-fighting capability through a more efficient joint structure,” Sharp said. “This is essential not only for increased command and control capability, but also for fiscal prudence.”

Sharp is set to retire next month, and Gen. James Thurman, chief of the U.S. Army Forces Command, will become the new USFK commander.

“We continue to face a determined enemy to the north, and ... you have achieved an unprecedented degree of success,” Sharp said.






=
 
=







Group says report tells of cannibalism in North


An alleged North Korean police document reported a case of cannibalism, a South Korean missionary group said yesterday, in a development, if confirmed, that could support what has long been rumored in the North.

There have been accounts among some defectors of people eating human flesh amid chronic food shortages that culminated in a massive famine in the late 1990s that was estimated to have killed 2 million people.


The North has since relied on international aid to help feed its 24 million people. The North’s police released a 791-page report in 2009 to give guidance on how to deal with criminals, and its preface said the report was based on previous events and possible circumstances. The report, later obtained by South Korea’s Caleb Mission, provided a rare look into the alleged cannibalism and other crimes, but it did not say whether cannibalism has become a widespread practice.

In one account, a male guard who could not bear his hunger killed his colleague using an ax, ate some of the human flesh and sold the remainder in the market by disguising it as mutton, the report said, without giving any further details such as when the alleged crime occurred.

The Kukmin Ilbo, a local newspaper that first reported the case, said there were four more crimes related to cannibalism in the North’s police report, but no details were given. A North Korean defector also claimed he witnessed the public execution of a North Korean man charged with selling human flesh around 1997.

“There were many cases” of cannibalism at that time, the defector said. He asked not to be identified, citing safety concerns for his family.

Chun Hae-sung, a spokesman for the Unification Ministry handling inter-Korean affairs, told reporters that it’s not appropriate for the government to either confirm or mention the alleged cannibalism. He also said it is difficult to determine the authenticity of the report, which his ministry plans to obtain for analysis.



=
 

Be Well

may all be well
Thank you for newshounding, Dutch. And I hope the horrible drought ends soon.

BTW my hub when taking ESL classes in FL in the early 80s had two people from China in his class tell stories of people eating babies and children in China in, IIRC, the 1970s. People would eat others' children and give their children to others, so no one was eating their own children. The teacher quickly shut them up.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

Posted for fair use....
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2011/06/21/8/0401000000AEN20110621001600315F.HTML

2011/06/21 09:22 KST
N. Korea increases imports of anti-riot gear from China

BEIJING, June 21 (Yonhap) -- North Korea has recently created a special police task force and bought large amounts of anti-riot gear from China in an apparent attempt to cope with any possible riots in the North, a source said Tuesday.

The communist North purchased tear gas, helmets and shields through Chinese merchants in China's northeastern city of Shenyang in recent months, the source said.

The North has also considered buying flak jackets, protective clothing and other equipment that could be used against rioters, the source said.

The development indicated the North is concerned about any possible popular uprising similar to the ones in North Africa and the Middle East that ousted longtime autocratic leaders.

The North has created a special police task force across the country that it has trained to quash any riots.

There have been reports of growing discontent in the North over chronic food shortages and political oppression.

The North's botched currency reform in 2009 caused public backlash as it led to massive inflation and worsened food shortages, though no organized opposition has emerged to challenge leader Kim Jong-il.

Kim has ruled the country of 24 million with an iron fist since 1994 and tolerates no dissident. He was accused by rights groups of using public executions as a political tool to silence any domestic criticism.

(END)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/MF21Dg01.html

Korea
Jun 21, 2011
North Korea not quite in the zone
By Andrei Lankov

In early June, the governments of China and North Korea declared that they would work to develop two new special economic zones (SEZs). One zone is to be situated in the small port city of Raseon, on the eastern coast of South Korea, just 20 kilometers from the nearest crossing to China. Another zone will be developed on the unremarkable sandy island of Hwanggumpyong, in the vicinity of Sinuiju, the largest city on the border (some three quarters of trade between the two countries pass through this city).

One cannot be surprised by this initiative as talk of new SEZs "soon to be established" has been around for over a decade. There is little doubt that the North Korean government is very interested in the idea of SEZs. Unfortunately, this interest does not necessary mean that the North Korean authorities are willing to make the concessions that would allow the SEZs to operate efficiently.

The history of North Korean SEZs is essentially the history of frequent failures and occasional partial successes. The first attempt to create a SEZ took place in 1991, when the North Korean government established a SEZ in the remote northwestern corner of the country. The Raseon SEZ, as it has now become known, is located where the borders of China, Russia and North Korea meet.

News of the establishment of North Korea's first SEZ produced much enthusiasm in the international media. As usual, there was no shortage of pundits who saw the decision as a sure sign that Chinese-style reforms would soon be launched in North Korea.

There had been talk of such a move since at least 1984, when the North Korean rubber-stamp parliament passed a joint ventures law, and more or less every change of Pyongyang policies was interpreted by optimists as a sign of impending reforms. Needless to say, no reforms have happened so far, after three decades of waiting (and unlikely to happen any time soon).

Raseon SEZ was not a sign of reform. Neither was it a success. By 2000, the total volume of foreign investment in the area was a paltry US$ 35 million, even though initially there was talk of about $2 billion in investment.

The major problem was the location - an underdeveloped area even by meager North Korean standards. The only paved road in the area connects Rajin and Sonbong, and even this is only a single lane. It takes some 40 minutes to travel 17 kilometers along the area’s best road. The bridge that connects the area with China has remained unchanged since colonial days.

Obviously, Pyongyang expected that rich foreign investors would pay to upgrade infrastructure. They did, but only on a very limited scale.

So for two decades the Raseon SEZ has largely remained dormant, being essentially a large market place where North Korean merchants have been able to buy Chinese goods for resale in the inner regions of North Korea.

For a brief time it also served as a gambling enclave for rich Chinese, but after some ugly embezzlement incidents the Chinese demanded the local casino to be closed. The North Korean authorities had no choice but to oblige, and afterwards the Raseon SEZ slipped into relative obscurity again.

Why did North Korea's decision-makers choose such an inhospitable setting for their first experiment with a SEZ? It seems that from their perspective, the remoteness was not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage. As was shown by subsequent events, North Korean authorities are driven by two mutually incompatible impulses: they want to develop SEZs to produce hard currency income, but they also want to minimize their impact on North Korean society.

So is the SEZ was far away from major population centers, it would be easier to control and supervise, and it would not become a source of the forbidden knowledge about the outside world (to be more precise, about prosperity and individual freedom enjoyed by the citizens of neighboring countries).

The North Korean state (or at least some important faction within it) has long come to realize that the North Korean economic system is hopelessly inefficient. However, they also understand that the peculiar situation of the country prevents it from emulating the successful Chinese approach.

The root of all North Korean political problems is the existence of liberal and filthy rich South Korea. Chinese-style reforms, if ever attempted, would expose the North Korean population (still largely unaware about the outside world), to the stark images of South Korean prosperity.

Reforms would also bring with them an unavoidable relaxation of societal controls. The net result of these changes would likely be a grave crisis in the regime’s legitimacy and, perhaps, its complete collapse. In a sense, reforms in China were possible because no capitalist, democratic and affluent South China existed (Taiwan is far too small to be of significant concern to Beijing).

However, the North Korean leaders still want to do something about the dire economic situation - as long as this "something" does not look too dangerous politically. So, the North Korean leaders continue to use ideological mobilizations (but this horse has long died). They have also attempted to find miracle technologies, notably related to information technology. And they have pinned some expectations on SEZs.

SEZs are acceptable to the North Korean government because they are relatively easy to control. So far, all North Korean SEZs have been fenced off with barbed wire and all visitors have had their IDs carefully studied at checkpoints.

The North Korean government obviously hopes that small areas of controlled capitalism will generate enough income to make a difference - or at least to keep afloat the long-decaying economy.

So despite the near total failure of the Raseon SEZ, in the early 2000s the North Korean government undertook two further attempts to establish SEZs. One of these attempts took place in the border land city of Sinuiju, in whose vicinity the recently announced Hwanggumpyong SEZ is supposed to operate.

The 2002 plan had some twists that made it appear, well, a bit too North Korean. It was stated that the entire population of Sinuiju, some 350,000 people, would be relocated. These people were not good enough to enjoy the fruits of capitalism. They were to be replaced by 200,000 model workers, hand-picked by the authorities for their skill and perceived political reliability.

The most unusual act was the decision to appoint a foreigner as the SEZ governor - Yang Bin, a Chinese entrepreneur with Dutch citizenship and then reputedly the second-richest man in China. He was then 39 years old.

On September 12, 2002, the Supreme People's Assembly, the North Korean pseudo-parliament, adopted the Basic Law of the Sinuiju Special Administrative Region. The law consisted of six chapters (government, economy, culture, fundamental rights and duties of residents, structure, and the emblem and flag of the region), and an impressive total of 101 articles. The law - essentially, a quasi-constitution - even envisioned that the SEZ would have its own flag.

The Basic Law proclaimed that the legal system would remain unchanged for 50 years, and that foreigners would enjoy the same rights as North Koreans in the area. Foreign judges were to be invited to solve disputes and oversee the enforcement of laws. It looked too good to be true, so for a while it was all the media usual hype about a "breakthrough". The North Korean vice minister for foreign trade called the SEZ "a new historical miracle".
However, the miracle at Sinuiju hardly lasted 50 weeks, let alone the promised 50 years, and its flag is nowhere to be seen.

It was probably the Chinese who sank the project. Beijing was not amused by the turn of events. There are at least two known reasons for their unease. First, Yang Bin wanted to transform the city into a gambling center, a Macau of the North. This was not welcomed. It is also likely that China did not want competition between Sinuiju and its northeastern cities. It did not help that the North Koreans, following their modus operandi, did not bother to liaise with the Chinese beforehand.

Yang Bin was already under investigation at that time. Soon after he was arrested for fraud and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Nothing was heard about the Sinuiju SEZ for another decade - until early this month, that is (well, technically the Hwanggumpyong SEZ is a new undertaking, and nobody talks of inviting foreign judges any more).

At about the same time, the North Koreans undertook what can be described as their only successful experiment in SEZ-building. They developed the Kaesong Industrial Zone (KIZ) in the southern part of North Korea. Unlike earlier projects, the zone specifically targets South Korean business.

The idea of the KIZ is based on the assumption that the interests of both Koreas can be served by a combination of Southern capital and technologies with the cheap labor of North Korea. The plan, as initially conceived and eventually realized, envisioned the creation of an industrial park in the vicinity of the demilitarized zone. The South Korean companies would employ North Korean workers who, laboring under the supervision of South Korean managers, would produce cheap items for sale in South Korea and overseas.

The KIZ's construction began in 2003, and by late 2004 the first production lines began. Generally, South Korean big business did not show much interest in the idea, with only small- and medium-sized companies moving in.

The South Korean government provided generous inducements to those pioneers, including cheap loans and guarantees. The latter were especially important since even in 2003-04 when North-South relations went through a short honeymoon, South Korean businessmen were afraid that over-investing in the KIZ would one day make them hostage to the policies of both Seoul and Pyongyang.

Contrary to earlier worries, the KIZ was successful. By late 2010, some 120 South Korean companies operated there with 47,000 North Korean workers. In 2010, KIZ-based companies produced goods worth $323.3 million (slightly over half consisted of textile and clothing). For the mammoth South Korean economy, this was small change, but for the North it was significant enough.

Theoretically, the South Korean companies pay their North Korean workers the agreed basic monthly wages of $61 (as of 2010), but this figure does not include overtime premiums and special incentives, so the actual monthly payment seems to be close to $90-100 per worker.

However, this salary is paid to a North Korean government agency that makes a number of deductions, so less than a third reaches the workers' pockets. This allowed critics of the project to describe it as a "slave labor camp". The description is grossly unfair: even after the deductions, the KIZ jobs are by far the best paid regular jobs in Kim Jong-il's North Korea, so locals strives hard to be accepted into a KIZ-based factory.

The success of KIZ might seem encouraging, but it is actually a very special case. It is viable because the South Korean government is willing to go to great lengths to support it. It has subsidized industrial development and has provided adventurous developers and companies with generous subsidies and guarantees that made the entire undertaking possible. This willingness is driven by a multitude of political considerations. Frankly, it is doubtful whether the Chinese side would be equally interested in subsidizing a similar undertaking by Chinese companies in Sinuiju.

What will happen to these two planned new SEZs? The fate of Raseon seems pretty certain. As indicated by published documents, it is largely about transportation links. Chinese Manchuria is landlocked, so Chinese companies will save a small fortune on transportation costs if they are given access to a seaport on the Eastern coast of the Korean Peninsula. If this is what happens in Raseon, it has a relatively bright future.

The future of Sinuiju (officially Hwanggumpyong) SEZ is far less certain. Obviously Chinese businesses want to do there what their South Korean counterparts did in Kaesong, take advantage of low labor costs in North Korea. Even though Chinese labor is cheap, North Korean labor is much cheaper still, since $15-20 a month would be seen by the average North Korean worker as a good wage. For the same labor, they would have to pay a Chinese worker between $100 and $150 a month.

But that said, the business reputation of North Korean managers leaves much to be desired. They are likely to intervene in operations - partially as a way to extort bribes, but largely because they will worry about excessive exposure of their population to dangerous Chinese influences. South Korean businesses in Kaesong accept such interference, but they are backed by the South Korean government. It remains to be seen whether the same situation will develop in a Chinese-led zone.

If the past is an indicator, the chances of success are not high. Further Chinese penetration of the North Korean economy may concern South Korean and especially American policy planners, but on balance this is a good thing for North Koreans. They will earn a living and they will also learn something of the outside world from which they have largely been isolated for nearly 60 years.

Andrei Lankov is an associate professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, and adjunct research fellow at the Research School of Pacifica and Asian Studies, Australian National University. He graduated from Leningrad State University with a PhD in Far Eastern history and China, with emphasis on Korea. He has published books and articles on Korea and North Asia.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Add this to the changes in deployment and modernization of the B61 and the pending withdrawal of the USNs W80 armed Tomahawk-N SLCM (which has been the assumed go to weapon for East Asia to the point that the Japanese wanted to be consulted prior to its withdrawal from service) and the START and post START positions of the Obama Admin and you have to start wondering....HC

For links in text please see article source....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110620_8859.php

General Rules Out Deploying U.S. Nukes in South Korea
Monday, June 20, 2011

The commander of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula on Monday said there was no need to redeploy short-range nuclear arms in South Korea, the Korea Herald reported (see GSN, April 20).

The United States withdrew the weapons in 1991 after Pyongyang and Seoul approved a denuclearization agreement. However, there has been some talk in Seoul about refielding the armaments following the North's shelling of a South Korean island and suspicions the regime is readying for a third nuclear test.

"I don't believe tactical nuclear weapons need to return to the Republic of Korea," Gen. Walter Sharp said during a breakfast discussion in Seoul.

"What the U.S. has guaranteed through extended deterrence, which includes the nuclear umbrella, has the sufficient capabilities we have from stocks in different places around the world in order to be able to do what we need to be able to deter North Korea from using nuclear weapons," Sharp said. "They don't have to be stationed here in Korea for either deterrent capability or use capability."

The Obama White House has repeatedly affirmed it has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea.

Burwell Bell, who commanded U.S. forces in South Korea from 2006 to 2008, last week said it is crucial for Pyongyang to note that the United States "is a reliable ally [to South Korea] and fully prepared to meet our security commitments ... including providing the nuclear umbrella."

"Quite frankly, it does not matter where these weapons are technically, whether they are offshore or whether they are here onshore," Bell said during a visit to Seoul.

Sharp said North Korea's recent attacks on the South had led to a deepening of the partnership between Seoul and Washington.

"I hope [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il understands that the strength of this alliance is now in the very firm belief by the people of the ROK that if North Korea strikes again, there will be a very strong, appropriate response going back into North Korea that the capability is real, we have the plans in place to make that happen," he said (Song Sang-ho, Korea Herald, June 20).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110620_7501.php

India Weighs Developing ICBM With 6,200-Mile Reach
Monday, June 20, 2011

India is considering whether to abandon a self-imposed limit on the range of its nuclear-capable missiles in order to develop an ICBM that can strike targets at distances of more than 6,200 miles, the Pioneer newspaper reported on Sunday (see GSN, June 13).

Currently, Indian policies do not permit production of missiles with ranges in excess of 3,100 miles. Only China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States today possess an ICBM strike capability.

The Indian Defense Research and Development Organization in May forwarded the ICBM proposal to the Defense Ministry, which is now weighing the matter. A final decision on the plan is expected to be made by the government's Cabinet Security Committee.

New Delhi adopted its voluntary missile-range restriction after it achieved a successful trial launch of its Agni 3 missile in 2006. The intermediate-range weapon can travel about 1,860 miles. That flight permitted DRDO researchers to advance development of intercontinental strike capacities, though the civilian leadership still needs to approve the new capabilities.

The Indian military has announced plans to conduct a first flight test of the Agni 5 missile in December. The long-range missile is designed to travel as far as 3,100 miles, which is almost enough to classify it as an ICBM (see GSN, June 6).

Informed insiders said the chief aim of developing an ICBM would be to prevent an attack by neighboring China, which has significantly increased its own military spending in recent years (Rahul Datta, Pioneer, June 20).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use....
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937846

China backs North succession, gov't sources say

¸ÛÁ¨ÁÖ ¡°±èÁ¤Àº ¾î¸®´Ù°í ¾èº¸¸é ¾È µÅ¡±
June 21, 2011

China fully backs the third-generation dynastic succession being arranged in North Korea, according to officials in Seoul.

According to the government officials, Meng Jianzhu, China¡¯s minister of public security, visited Pyongyang in February and reported to his government that the succession was going smoothly and that Kim Jong-il¡¯s heir apparent, Kim Jong-un, had started gaining support, particularly from the military.

¡°There will be absolutely no instability in the succession,¡± a report from Meng¡¯s visit said, according to South Korean government sources, ¡°and [Jong-un] must not be taken lightly because of his age.¡±

Kim Jong-un¡¯s exact age is unknown, but he is believed to be in his late 20s. Meng¡¯s report said that Jong-un was ¡°extremely polite to elders¡± and that his personality and looks were like those of his grandfather¡¯s, North Korean founder Kim Il Sung.

Meng also reported that the power structure in North Korea was changing to revolve around Kim Jong-un, and that he already had considerable authority even within the military, sources said.

Meng¡¯s visit was widely reported by North Korea¡¯s Korean Central News Agency at the time. According to government sources, Meng¡¯s discussions focused on the democratic protests in the Middle East.

But officials in Seoul said the succession plan was hitting snags outside the inner ruling circles, if not within.

Sources within the South Korean government said Pyongyang¡¯s attempts to proclaim itself a ¡°strong and prosperous nation¡± next year, the 100th anniversary of Kim Il Sung¡¯s birth, are predictably going badly.

¡°The North Korean government planned on building 100,000 houses in Pyongyang by April 2012,¡± said a government source in Seoul, ¡°but they¡¯ve only completed 500 as of last December.¡± As a result, Pyongyang in April cut its goal for additional housing to a total of 20,000 to 25,000.

North Korea has also been promoting its use of computer numerical control (CNC), which is a system for automating machine tools, claiming it as a great technological advancement. It has also associated its CNC technology with heir apparent Kim Jong-un.

But according to sources in the South Korean government, only 3 percent of the factories in the country have the technology and it is often faulty.

¡°The continued failures of Kim Jong-un¡¯s ¡®achievements¡¯ have been hitting the succession hard,¡± the source said.

By Christine Kim [christine.kim@joongang.co.kr]
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links in text please see article source....

Posted for fair use....
http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/06/20/the-submarine-that-might-save-america/

The Submarine That Might Save America
Jun. 20 2011 - 1:07 pm | 4,383 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
Posted by Loren Thompson

Imagine that the survival of America depended on a handful of fighting machines operated by an elite group of military personnel. If they succeed, the nation is secure. If they fail, it will be utterly destroyed. Sounds like another improbable action-movie plot from Hollywood, doesn’t it? It isn’t. It may very well be the future of U.S. nuclear strategy.

As I wrote last week, the specter of nuclear war will remain the single greatest military threat to America for the foreseeable future. The Obama Administration therefore has embarked on a costly effort to refurbish and replace a nuclear-weapons arsenal that has seen little modernization since the Cold War ended 20 years ago. The president remains committed to reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, but until there is some assured means of verifying other countries have done the same, the nation is stuck maintaining a potent arsenal to deter attacks.

However, that doesn’t mean the arsenal will continue to be organized the way it is today, with three distinctly different types of delivery systems. Back when Russia had over 10,000 nuclear warheads aimed at America, strategists believed that a “triad” of manned bombers, land-based missiles and submarine-based missiles would be so tough to take out in a surprise attack that it guaranteed the secure retaliatory capability needed for stable deterrence. But as threats evolve and the number of weapons are limited by arms control agreements, the triad may become a dyad, or even a so-called “monad” — in other words, a single type of highly survivable weapon.

That isn’t the plan set forth in the Nuclear Posture Review completed by the administration last year, but let’s be realistic — how much of a deterrent can 60 nuclear-capable bombers located at a handful of bases be? They’re so vulnerable that they could easily be wiped out in a first strike, and even if they weren’t their ability to reach targets in a real nuclear exchange is problematic. As for the 450 Minuteman missiles that make up the other land-based leg of the arsenal, their locations are well known and the number of warheads they carry has dwindled to a small portion of the nuclear arsenal, so their future contribution to deterrence is uncertain too. A clever attacker might be able to collapse the communications links to both land-based parts of the triad, leaving them without the authority to launch.

That leaves submarines carrying ballistic missiles as the most survivable and reliable component of the deterrent force. Today, about half of the warheads in the nuclear arsenal are carried on 14 Ohio-class submarines that are nearly impossible to find much less target, making them — in the words of the U.S. Navy — “the nation’s only day-to-day assured nuclear response capability.” Each Ohio boat has 24 missile tubes, and the vast majority of them contain missiles with multiple warheads that can each hit a different target. In other words, a single Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine can wipe out an entire medium-size country.

Critics call this overkill, but the reason each sub needs to be so fearsome is that deterrence depends on what’s left after an enemy attacks, since the threat of retaliation is what deters the attack in the first place. In a carefully timed attack, up to a third of the Ohios might be caught in port, leaving only nine or ten as the backbone of the retaliatory force, and several of those might be thousands of miles from where they needed to be to conduct a prompt response. It’s all hypothetical, not to mention borderline crazy, but when you face the prospect of mad dictators controlling nuclear forces, it’s something that needs to be thought through very carefully.

That brings me to the most expensive program in the “Obama nuclear buildup,” the Ohio replacement program. Ohio subs began joining the fleet in 1981, so if Navy planners had stuck with their original 30-year design life, the first ship in the class would be retiring this year. What they did instead was introduce a mid-life refueling of the sub’s nuclear reactor that extended the life of each hull by a dozen years. They also converted the first four vessels in the class to cruise-missile launchers with no nuclear role after the Cold War ended, which is why there are only 14 Ohios carrying ballistic missiles today rather than the 18 that were built. The net effect of these two changes was to delay the day when a new sub would be needed in the deterrence mission.

The year the oldest Ohio-class ballistic-missile sub completes its final nuclear patrol is now expected to be 2027, which sounds a long way off until you realize it takes nearly two decades to design, develop, build and test the lead ship in a successor class. The Navy has put together a tightly-wound schedule for developing that successor that requires design work to commence in the fiscal year beginning this October, with a seven-year construction phase for the lead ship starting in 2019. That is followed by three years of testing at sea from 2026-2028, and then an initial operational patrol in 2029. As congressional naval expert Ronald O’Rourke noted in an April report, any delay in executing the development schedule would result in a smaller force of submarines at sea than is currently deemed necessary two decades hence.

The Ohio replacement is referred to in naval nomenclature as SSBN(X), with “SS” referring to the fact that it’s a submarine, “B” referring to the ballistic missiles it carries, “N” referring to its nuclear propulsion, and “X” designating it as experimental — in other words, still in development. Most people prefer to call it the “Ohio replacement.” Whatever you call it, though, it looks likely to carry the preponderance of U.S. nuclear warheads during the middle portion of the century, roughly from 2030 to 2080, and therefore to be the most important part of the deterrent force. Given the uncertain fate of land-based nuclear forces, timely deployment of the new class of ballistic-missile subs could have a material impact on the durability of American civilization in the current century.

SSBN(X) will not be just a warmed over remake of the Ohio class. Each boat will host a third fewer launch tubes — 16 versus 24 — and therefore far fewer missiles (how many warheads each missile will carry isn’t clear yet). It will also have a life-of-ship nuclear core for its propulsion system designed to last 40 years, which means no mid-life refueling will be required. Because ships will not be out of commission for refueling, each SSBN(X) will be more productive — which is one reason why plans call for buying only a dozen of the new vessels to replace 14 Ohio subs. And the successor class will need to be even stealthier than the very quiet Ohios, as a hedge against the danger that future breakthroughs in sensors and information processing might make it easier for adversaries to track undersea warships.

One thing that won’t change, at least initially, is the missiles the Ohio replacement will carry. The Navy plans to continue using the extremely reliable Lockheed Martin D-5 ballistic missile, which has seen 135 consecutive test launches without mishap. That track record is especially impressive in light of the fact that D-5 missiles are designed to be ejected into the air by pressurized steam from submerged vessels, and only ignite once they are clear of the water. Lockheed Martin received a contract in 2007 to extend the life of the missiles until at least 2040, with additional contracts doled out to upgrade the guidance system and refurbish the nuclear warheads the missile carries. The Navy continues to buy a small number of rocket motors each year to maintain a warm industrial base, but the government is reluctant to engage in any purchases that would signal production of new nuclear weapons.

If President Obama’s dream of nuclear disarmament fails to come to fruition, then Navy planners will eventually have to give further thought to what weapons and other equipment is carried on future ballistic-missile subs. For now, though, they are mainly focused on making sure the new sub is ready on time. That quest is already creating budgetary challenges, because the $80 billion program needs to be shoehorned into a naval shipbuilding program that the Congressional Budget Office says is woefully underfunded. Construction of the new sub will cost over $5 billion annually in the next decade at a time when the Navy will need to replace other types of warships built in the Reagan era that are approaching retirement. Construction of cruisers, destroyers and attack subs (which don’t carry ballistic missiles) will all need to be funded at the same time SSBN(X) is, creating a huge budget crunch in naval shipbuilding.

Members of the Obama defense team have been pressing the Navy to reduce the operational requirements for the Ohio replacement as a way of holding down costs, with a goal of keeping the construction cost of each boat after the lead vessel under $5 billion. However, there are dangers in limiting the performance of warships that will comprise the core of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and Congress will likely impose cost-increasing measures on the new class’s construction plan. For instance, legislators may force the Navy to split production of the boats between General Dynamics shipyards in New England and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Virginia shipyard, even though the latter yard hasn’t delivered a ballistic-missile sub since the 1960s.

Beyond the tight schedule and the budgetary issues, you have to wonder how geopolitical changes might impact on the Navy’s plans. The current nuclear force is an inheritance from the Cold War, and every facet of global security has changed since that 40-year standoff ended. The Obama Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review displaced strategic deterrence from its top position in the nation’s nuclear agenda, substituting a focus on proliferation and terrorism — a clear signal that the fears motivating construction of the Ohio class have waned. But the nuclear weapons are still out there, and nobody can guarantee the leaders of countries like Russia and China will remain as reasonable as they seem today. The day may well come when America and its enemies are once again angrily brandishing their nuclear weapons in a high stakes rivalry for global dominance. If that happens, a dozen submarines conceived during the Obama years may make the difference between national survival and nuclear annihilation.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF21Ak02.html

Middle East
Jun 21, 2011
Turkey recalibrating regional role
By Barbara Slavin

WASHINGTON - As thousands of Syrian refugees pour over the Turkish border, the just re-elected government in Ankara is confronting the limits of its "no problems" policy toward its neighbors.

Despite massive interaction with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and deepening Turkish involvement in the Syrian economy, Turkey is coming to terms with the prospect of a long, bloody civil war in Syria and the possible toppling of the Assad regime.

Increasingly, Turkey also finds itself on the opposite side of Iran on regional questions and competing for influence in Syria and Iraq. Turkish efforts to mediate a resolution of the international dispute with Iran over its nuclear program appear to have come to a dead end.

In the aftermath of the ruling Justice and Development (AKP) party's re-election a week ago, analysts predict that Turkey will recalibrate its regional role.

"Syria was the cornerstone of the 'zero problems' foreign policy," said Omer Taspinar, director of the Turkey project at the Brookings Institution.

Speaking last Wednesday at the Carnegie Foundation, another Washington think-tank, Taspinar suggested that the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would focus on internal problems of constitutional reform and resolving the aspirations of Turkey's Kurdish minority, work to normalize relations with Armenia, and to define its participation in a new North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) missile defense scheme.

Taspinar said Turkey may also focus on toning down Sunni-Shi'ite conflict in countries such as Iraq, where Erdogan recently became the first foreign Sunni leader to meet with Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shi'ite religious figure with the widest following among this branch of Islam. However, rising Sunni opposition to the Syrian Alawite regime - and continued Saudi refusal to embrace the Shi'ite government in Iraq - could undermine Sunni Turkey's anti-sectarian mission.

Since coming to power in 2002, the AKP has embraced an expansive "neo-Ottoman" foreign policy. But Turkey, despite its deep knowledge of countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, was caught flat-footed like everyone else by the cascade of uprisings that have shaken the Arab world over the past six months.

It turns out that Turkey doesn't have "that special insight" into the region, said Steven Cook, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. Turkey's interests were "as wrapped up in the old order" as those of the United States and other countries, he said.

Cook predicted that Turkey would lose its luster as a champion of regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli dispute. The latter role was easier for Turkey to play "when the Arab world was politically dead," he said. Now Egypt, which brokered a recent unity deal between Palestinian factions, is reassuming a leading diplomatic role.

Like the United States, Turkey's performance in regard to the Arab uprisings has been uneven at best.

Erdogan won plaudits from Arab democrats for pivoting swiftly over Egypt and calling for the downfall of Hosni Mubarak. But Turkey hesitated too long over Libya - sparking violent protests in front of the Turkish consulate in Benghazi and criticism that Ankara was putting its substantial economic interests in Libya ahead of democratic principles.

Erdogan has been quicker to condemn Syrian human-rights abuses but is conducting a "delicate high-ware balancing act", according to Taspinar, in regard to Syria - hosting the first conference of Syrian opposition forces on Turkish soil while continuing to urge Assad to reform.

Turkey's position on Syria is similar to that of the United States, said Kadir Ustun, research director in Washington of the SETA Foundation, a Turkish think-tank. Neither wants the Assad regime to fall but both worry that the regime is not capable of positive change.

A fragmentation of Syria's complex ethnic mosaic is a frightening prospect for Turkey that could send thousands more refugees across the border on top of more than 8,000 already there. Turkey also worries about a revival of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant group whose leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was expelled by Syria in 1998, paving the way for Turkish-Syrian rapprochement.

Despite the fact that Turkey - whose annual trade with Syria amounts to US$2.5 billion - is Syria's largest trading partner, Ankara's leverage in Damascus appears to be less than that of Iran, which is staunchly backing Assad's crackdown on political dissent.

Turkey's efforts to resolve the international quarrel with Iran over its nuclear program have also failed.

A "Tehran declaration" unveiled with much fanfare a year ago after mediation by Turkey and Brazil was rejected by the United States and its partners because it would have left Iran with more than enough enriched uranium to produce a weapon. A round of nuclear talks in Istanbul in January ended without even an agreement to meet again. Iran appears too wrapped up in its internal political divisions to engage constructively while the Barack Obama administration is focusing on sanctions and its own re-election.

Ustun said Turkey was still committed to trying to help resolve the nuclear dispute and remains concerned about the potential for military action against Iran as well as the impact of economic sanctions. However, in the aftermath of last year's failed diplomacy, Turkish diplomats are being more careful with Iran, Ustun said, and coordinating more closely with the United States.
Turkey is evolving from a US "client state to a partner", Cook said, and has great potential to use its economic power as "an engine of growth" for emerging Arab democracies. The Arab spring, he added, is pushing Turkey into a position that "the US is likely to be more comfortable with, going forward".

(Inter Press Service)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/world/africa/21powers.html

Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and THOM SHANKER
Published: June 20, 2011

WASHINGTON — Since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials.

Related
Libyan Media Minders Nervous After Guard Death (June 21, 2011)
House May Vote This Week on Money for Libya Strikes (June 20, 2011)
2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate (June 18, 2011)

The most recent strike from a piloted United States aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.

While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged that American forces have continued to take part in some of the strike sorties, few details about their scope and frequency have been made public.

The unclassified portion of material about Libya that the White House sent to Congress last week, for example, said “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator” drones, but included no numbers for such strikes.

The disclosure of such details could add texture to an unfolding debate about the merits of the Obama administration’s legal argument that it does not need Congressional authorization to continue the mission because United States forces are not engaged in “hostilities” within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Under that 1973 law, presidents must end unauthorized deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have introduced American forces into actual or imminent hostilities. That deadline for the Libyan mission appeared to pass on May 20, but the administration contended that the deadline did not apply because the United States’ role had not risen to the level of “hostilities,” at least since it handed control of the mission over to NATO.

In support of that argument, the administration has pointed to a series of factors, noting, for example, that most of the strikes have been carried out by allies, while the United States has primarily been playing “non-kinetic” supporting roles like refueling and surveillance. It has also said there is little risk of American casualties because there are no ground troops and Libyan forces have little ability to exchange fire with American aircraft. And it noted that the mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

The special anti-radar missiles used to suppress enemy air defenses are usually carried by piloted aircraft, not drones, and the Pentagon has regularly said that American military aircraft have continued to conduct these missions. Still, officials have been reluctant to release the exact numbers of strikes.

Under military doctrine, strikes aimed at suppressing air defenses are typically considered to be defensive actions, not offensive. On the other hand, military doctrine also considers the turning on of air-defense radar in a no-fly zone to be a “hostile act.” It is not clear whether any of the Libyan defenses were made targets because they had turned on such radar.

The administration’s legal position prompted internal controversy. Top lawyers at the Justice Department and the Pentagon argued that the United States’ military activities did amount to “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, but President Obama sided with top lawyers at the State Department and the White House who contended that they did not cross that threshold.

On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, acknowledged the internal debate, but defended the judgment made by Mr. Obama, noting that the applicability of the War Powers Resolution to deployments has repeatedly prompted debate over the years.

The House of Representatives may vote later this week on a proposal to cut off funding for the Libya mission. The proposal is backed by an odd-bedfellows coalition of antiwar liberals and Tea Party Republicans.

They are opposed by an equally unusual alignment of Democrats who support the White House and the intervention in Libya, and more hawkish Republicans.

On Monday, a group that includes prominent neoconservative figures — including Liz Cheney, Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz — sent Republicans an open letter opposing efforts to cut off funds for the mission.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/world/asia/21china.html

Rebel Leader From Libya Is Expected to Visit China
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 20, 2011

BEIJING (AP) — China said Monday that Libya’s opposition leader will visit this week, further increasing Beijing’s engagement in the Libyan conflict and dealing another setback to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Related
Times Topic: Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)
Libyan Media Minders Nervous After Guard Death (June 21, 2011)

China’s Foreign Ministry said in a one-sentence statement posted on its Web site that the opposition leader, Mahmoud Jibril, would be in China on Tuesday and Wednesday. No other details were immediately available.

Mr. Jibril is the chairman of the executive board of the Transitional National Council, the umbrella organization of rebel groups trying to unseat Colonel Qaddafi.

China initially stayed on the sidelines after the revolt against Colonel Qaddafi erupted in mid-February, but it has recently intensified efforts to persuade the two sides to seek a settlement.

Chinese diplomats in Qatar met this month with the rebel council chairman, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil. A few days later, the Libyan foreign minister, Abdulati al-Obeidi, was sent to Beijing in an apparent attempt to reassert the Libyan government’s influence.

China has pointedly avoided joining international calls for Colonel Qaddafi to step down, saying it is a matter for the Libyan people to decide. It also abstained in the vote by the United Nations Security Council authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government and has repeatedly criticized the NATO bombing campaign in support of the rebels.

When fighting erupted, China sent military transport planes and arranged chartered boats to evacuate an estimated 30,000 Chinese citizens working in Libya, primarily in the construction and oil industries, which represented one of the largest groups of foreign laborers there.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links in text please see article sourced...

Posted for fair use....
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/...pay-despite-wh-claim-of-no-legal-hostilities/

Airmen, sailors in Libya receiving “imminent danger pay” despite WH claim of no legal “hostilities”
posted at 10:05 pm on June 20, 2011 by Allahpundit

This is Obama’s big argument for why the War Powers Act shouldn’t apply to Libya, of course. No American is in any serious danger, therefore there aren’t really “hostilities” going on, therefore there’s no need for Congress to formally authorize the mission. In theory, by that logic, if the military developed the ability to wage war entirely via drones and other unmanned units, there’d be no limit to how broad the conflict could get before requiring congressional approval in the form of a constitutional declaration of war, an AUMF, or some lesser compromise resolution under the WPA.

So no one’s in danger in Libya — and yet, according to the Pentagon, the men there are in enough danger to warrant extra pay each month for participating in combat. Which is to say, it is a war. It’s just not … a war-war.

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.” There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya…

“Hostilities by remote control are still hostilities,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), normally a close Obama ally, on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” “We are killing with drones what we would otherwise be killing with fighter planes. And we are engaged in hostilities in Libya.”…

The administration’s logic has been criticized by some academic experts. They said it amounted to an argument that a battle, if won handily enough, does not amount to a battle.

The Pentagon’s being perfectly consistent on this. Jeh Johnson, their general counsel, was one of the two lawyers who warned Obama that the Libya mission did indeed rise to the level of “hostilities” for WPA purposes. Johnson even gave him advice on how to get out of that box — simply end the drone strikes and reduce the mission to one of logistical support for NATO. O said no, leaving John Yoo and Robert Delahunty to draw this unhappy conclusion:

If these are not hostilities, then what are? By Obama’s lights, President Nixon’s air campaign over Cambodia — the very kind of operation at which the WPR was aimed — would not count as “hostilities.” Nor would President Reagan’s decision to mine Nicaragua’s harbors, or President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco. In those cases too, no U.S. ground forces were introduced; there was little to no risk of U.S. casualties; exchanges of fire were limited or non-existent. Likewise, by Obama’s test, a future president could launch multiple drone attacks on Venezuela if Hugo Chavez refused to step down — or even drop a nuclear weapon on downtown Caracas — without engaging the U.S. in “hostilities.”…

Obama’s indefensible interpretation of the WPR is transparently driven by politics. The WPR is a liberal icon, passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress over Richard Nixon’s veto in the depths of Vietnam and Watergate. Even when presidents have given it lip service, the WPR has failed in its objective of subjecting presidential war-making to tight Congressional controls. Bill Clinton’s 1999 war in Kosovo was emblematic of that failure; the sole sign of Congress’s support was a supplemental appropriation to pay for the costs of air operations. But liberals like Obama think it is useful to keep the WPR on life support — even while disregarding it themselves — in the hopes of resurrecting it against future Republican presidents. That is probably bad as politics; it is certainly contemptible as law.

Excellent point. Obama actually had a lot of options available to resolve the WPA standoff. He could have taken Johnson’s advice and scaled back the mission, which probably would have placated Boehner. He could have done what he should have done from day one, which is seek formal authorization from Congress with McCain and Graham leading the way in support on the Republican side. He could have been bold and dismissed the WPA as an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s military powers and dared Boehner to defund the mission if he opposed it that much. (Where that would leave us vis-a-vis Congress’s war power under Article I, Section 8, I have no idea.) Or he could have done what he actually did: Retain the aegis of legitimacy of the WPA while ignoring it in practice by insisting he was in compliance with it even though his own lawyers said he wasn’t. Or rather, I should say, most of his own lawyers. One of the ones who told him what he wanted to hear was Harold Koh, whose big selling point on the left when he went to work for State was that he’d, um, rein in executive power.

Exit question via Hugh Hewitt, citing Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre”: If Johnson, Eric Holder, and OLC director Caroline Krauss believe Obama is breaking the law by engaging in “hostilities” in Libya, why don’t they resign? And another question: Why is the media treating Friday night’s Obama-ignoring-his-own-lawyers bombshell as if it’s a one-day story?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use....
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/vi...nt-from-kissing-gaddafi-to-bombing-libya.html

Why Italy went from kissing Gaddafi to bombing Libya?
Tuesday, 21 June 2011 03:47
By Francesca Astorri

Why Italy went from kissing Gaddafi’s hand to bombing Libya? What has changed in Berlusconi’s priorities and strategy to make him shift from a partner position with Libya to an enemy one?

“Italy went from kissing Gaddafi’s hand to bombing the country not for its own choice, but because Italy had the clear perception that there was no other option. It was a reaction to the initiative taken by our allies, first of all the French and the British, then also the American,” said Lucio Caracciolo, Professor of Strategic Studies at LUISS Guido Carli University of Rome and Editor-in-Chief of Limes, a leading Italian geopolitical newspaper edited by Repubblica Editor, told the Peninsula in an exclusive interview.

Caracciolo said: “Italy doesn’t have a strategy of its own in this war. The conclusion of the Italian Government was “if we don’t intervene now, France and the UK will never leave us anything” but in this way Italy has lost in any case,” he added.

Caracciolo explains that whatever end this war in Libya will see, Italy has lost it: if Gaddafi gets defeated, Italy will lose a commercial and political partner with which Italy used to have a privileged relation; if Gaddafi wins, Libya will never trust Italy again, targeting the country as a traitor and blacklisting it,” said Caracciolo.

Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister, agrees with Caracciolo: “Italy goes to a net loss on the strategic front. Italy lacks the ability to invent a new policy,” said Prodi in Washington where he was presiding over the second international conference “Africa: 53 Countries One Union”. “Whatever the final outcome in Libya, Italy has nothing to gain,” added Prodi.

Even France doesn’t have noble reasons for its intervention in Libya. In Caracciolo’s opinion, Sarkozy is missing a real consensus in the country, next year France will have to vote, and Sarkozy’s strategy was to gain some credit by building an international alliance. So basically, the French domestic politics that led France into Libya is dragging the rest of the allies with it.

Talking about the allies’ unity in this mission in Libya, Qatar is seen by its western allies as an “ambitious, active and resource-rich” country.

Italian domestic politics and lobbies see losing more than gaining business from this war in Libya. Italian economic lobbies’ life and trade are based on political relations or, as Caracciolo said, “Italian companies do business through politics”, so they hoped that this Libyan adventure was not going to happen.

Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Eni (Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi), Italian oil company with a 2010 net income of 6.3bn euros, said that the company has not faced negative effects from the war in Libya, because the losses were compensated by the rise in oil prices. But the panorama will change drastically if the fighting in Libya contiues in 2012 and the oil price drops off to 70 dollars per barrel.

In the end, with no noble start up reasons to this war and with no happy ending options, the best prospect in Italy’s point of view is to “accept a partition between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania” said Caracciolo.

The Peninsula
 

BREWER

Veteran Member
Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21049/

Syrian soldiers drive refugees back to ghost towns. Palestinians join protests:
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 21, 2011, 7:28 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Bashar Assad Barack Obama Erdogan Syrian uprising US warships
Displaced people from Syrian towns and villages

The Syrian army went into action Tuesday, June 21, the day after the Assad speech, to drive back to their homes the nearly quarter of a million civilians who fled the towns and villages on the Turkish bordering the last ten days to escape military persecution. debkafile's sources reported sounds of gunfire and explosions coming from the hill refuges.

This appeared to be Syrian President Bashar Assad's answer to the phone conversation early Tuesday between US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister, after which a senior Turkish official gave Syrian President less than a week to make good on his promised reforms and end the violence against his populations.

In his speech Monday, the Syrian ruler called on the refugees to return to their homes under the army's protection. He tried for a caring note by explaining that "without their sons" those towns were "dead cities."

But his opponents had no doubt he was threatening displaced citizens who flouted his "call" with the same violent treatment he has meted out to the opposition since April.
Assad's determination to crush dissent by force is as steely as ever.

Contrary to reporting from Washington, Ankara and Damascus of up to 10,000 Syrian refugees who crossed into Turkey for shelter and a few thousand who took to the hills inside Syria, debkafile's military sources report that the real figure is nearer 250,000.

Sunday, June 19, Turkey began ferrying food, clean water and medical supplies to the starving and traumatized people hiding in the hills of northern Syria - many of whom had lost family members and all their belongings and property, their homes, businesses and crops destroyed and confiscated in such towns as Jisr al-Shugour. Turkish helicopters dropped supplies to people hiding in inaccessible places.

Ankara was not deterred from this effort by Damascus' warning that aid to the refugees and displaced persons on Syrian soil would be deemed foreign military action and draw an appropriate response. On carrier of this warning was Assad's special emissary to Ankara Gen. Hassan Turkmeni.

Assad is quite barefacedly showing he is not scared of a showdown with Washington or Ankara. He estimates that in the final reckoning, neither will venture military action against his regime and army. Even the US president strong condemnation of the regime's "outrageous" use of violence against the protesters saying it must "end now" told the Syrian ruler he still has time to play with; Obama still held back from naming Bashar Assad as responsible for the violence or calling on him to step down.

During the day, four civilians were killed in Homs and Deir al Zor as clashes between pro- and anti-government protesters erupted in Damascus and other towns. Although the government managed to bring thousands of pro-Assad supporters out on the streets after the presidential address, the situation in Syria may be approaching a crunch:

1. For the first time, large government forces went into Hama, the town which symbolizes Muslim Brotherhood defiance of the Assad family since the 1982 massacre. Those forces face the strong risk of fierce armed opposition - which is why the army did not interfere with the anti-government rallies there until Tuesday.

2. Also for the first time, Palestinians from the refugee camps around Damascus have thrown their weight behind the anti-Assad opposition. Over the last weekend, small armed groups shot up buildings belonging to Assad sympathizers, such as Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinian – Central Command and the PFL.

3. The US and NATO continue to pile up military assets in the Mediterranean and Turkey. The huge USS George H.W. Bush carrier cruising in the central Mediterranean opposite Syrian shores has been joined by the USS Truxtun missile destroyer which departed the Israeli naval base in Haifa on June 17 and the USS Barry guided missile destroyer which sailed out of the Italian port of Gaeta on the same day.

Also that day, Turkey assumed command of the Standing NATO Maritime Group-2 Response Force in the Mediterranean.

In Paris, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin issued another warning against military intervention in Syria on the Libyan model.

Monday, debkafile reported that some sources described Turkish military helicopters as infiltrating northern Syria on reconnaissance missions and NATO planning to fly extra troops from Spanish and Germany bases to the Izmir Air base in western Turkey.
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
Turkish choppers over Syria. NATO boosts Izmir base
DEBKAfile Special Report June 20, 2011, 8:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

Debkafile reports war fever in and around Syria after Syrian President Bashar Assad's speech Monday, June 20, sparked riots by disappointed protesters in Damascus and Latakia. Our military sources checked reports from Cypriot aviation sources that Syria had closed its airspace to civilian traffic and found its skies were still open.

According to other sources, some Iranian, Turkish military helicopters are infiltrating northern Syria on reconnaissance missions. Arab sources report NATO is planning to fly extra troops from Spanish and Germany bases to the Izmir Air base in western Turkey to expand the current number of 400. Damascus accuses Turkey of seeking to seize Syrian territory on the pretext of providing a buffer zone for Syrian refugees.


http://www.debka.com/article/21046/

Posted Under Fair Use Discussion
 

BREWER

Veteran Member
The CIA’s Fake “Arab Spring” Becoming A Long, Hot Summer Of War

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://tarpley.net/2011/06/20/cia-fa...summer-of-war/

The CIA’s Fake “Arab Spring” Becoming A Long, Hot Summer Of War
[Translate]

Obama Regime Courts World Conflagration: Imperial Overstretch Threatens as US, NATO Wage Five Wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen – Are Syria, Iran, Lebanon Next?

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
June 20, 2011

Washington DC, June 20- With the previously covert US bombing of Yemen out in the open, the Obama administration is now waging illegal wars against at least five countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen. Given Obama’s absurd and Orwellian theory that acts of war from the air in the sea do not constitute hostilities under the terms of the War Powers Act, this list may be incomplete, and stealth US attacks may be going on elsewhere as well. As spring turns into summer along the banks of the Potomac, there are signs that Obama’s next move may be a trifecta of aggression – an attack on Syria which would also embroil the US in war with Iran and with the Hezbollah forces of Lebanon. Or, the Obama rampage may strike Pakistan. The “Arab Spring” of color revolutions, military coups, and destabilizations is moving inexorably towards a possible world conflagration whose outlines are already visible.

According to military sources speaking on the Alex Jones radio program on June 15, US Special Forces units based at Fort Hood, Texas, have been told to prepare for deployment to Libya no later than July. Also on alert, reportedly for September or October, are the heavy armored units of the First Cavalry Division, currently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other components of the US III Corps at various US bases. Observers point out that US Special Forces have been in Libya since February at the latest. They also note that, while the Libyan destination is highly plausible, some of these units may also find themselves on the way to Yemen, Syria, Iran, or beyond. At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry was denouncing the presence of the US Aegis cruiser Monterrey in the Black Sea. The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan and its task force are presently off the coast of Syria. One very plausible explanation for these deployments might be that a US attack on Syria, under the pretext of protecting civilians, is imminent.

On June 19, CNN reported a large-scale US Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps military drill, the biggest of its type in history, along much of the American Atlantic coast under the code name of Exercise Mailed Fist, to be conducted from June 19-24. “The exercise is designed to test the capability of every type of Marine Corps aircraft, including MV-22 Ospreys and F/A 18 Hornets, as well as some Navy ships and Air Force planes,” CNN reported. This drill appears designed to train for amphibious landings on the coast of the Mediterranean, as in Libya or Syria.

June-July Turning Point, as in 1848

The US-UK putsch wave of 2011 continues to exhibit similarities to an earlier historical model, the insurrections of 1848 in Europe. The 1848 events started with a revolt in Sicily (not far from Tunisia), and forced the ouster of King Louis Philippe of France in February and of the powerful Austrian Chancellor, Prince Metternich, in March. These insurrections drew on the pent-up tensions accumulated over decades under the post-1815 Holy Alliance system, but they were by and large detonated by the networks of Italian ultra-nationalist firebrand Giuseppe Mazzini, an agent of the British Admiralty. Tides of unrest swept through central Europe.

The turning point came in June-July 1848. When a Czech nationalist insurrection broke out in Prague, it was crushed by the Austrian army of Gen. Windischgrätz after June 12. An attempted coup by the radical working class and city mob of Paris, organized in Louis Blanc’s National Workshops, was defeated by the reactionary Gen. Cavaignac in the June Days – June 24-26, 1848. In northern Italy, the army of the Italian Kingdom of Sardinia – which had declared war[2] on Vienna in support of a rebellion in Milan and with the hope of using the upheaval to drive the Austrians out of Italy and thus achieve national unity – was defeated on July 25 by Marshal Radetsky at Custozza. In September and October, Hungarian nationalist radicals under the Mazzini disciple Kossuth set off a civil war with the Croatians, leading to social chaos and (as R. R. Palmer put it), “the war of all against all.” Somewhat later, Russian troops were invited in to put down the Hungarian rebellion. There was a renewed flare-up of insurrectionary activity in the spring of 1849, notably with the creation of Mazzini’s Roman Republic, before the insurrectionary movements subsided during the late summer of 1849, and gave way to a phase of oppression, cynicism, and reaction. It may be useful to keep this time frame in mind as a rough guide to evaluating events today, while of course bearing in mind no mechanistic or cyclical repetition should be anticipated.

Ahmadinejad of Iran to Obama: Only the US Mask Has Changed, Hands Off Syria

On June 8, President Ahmadinejad of Iran warned the US-NATO bloc not to assail Syria: “Syria is a pioneer of resistance. The Syrian government and nation can settle their issues and there is no need for the interference of others,” Ahmadinejad said. He cautioned certain US-led countries in the region to “stop interfering in Syria’s affairs,” and added that Washington will turn against these states immediately after it achieves its objectives in Syria.[3] These warnings may be addressed to Jordan, the Iraqi Kurds, or Turkey, whose territories may have been used by CIA/MI-6 networks to smuggle weapons and commandos into Syria to help constitute the armed gangs of the Moslem Brotherhood which have killed 400 Syrian military and security forces so far. “The Americans want to gain popularity among the regional nations through the implementation of this plan and portray themselves as the upholder of people’s rights,” Ahmadinejad went on, and noted that while a new regime took power in the U.S. in 2009, the nature of the ruling system has not changed: “Only the masks have changed. Campaign against terrorism was the mask of the previous U.S. administration, but the mask of the current administration is supporting human rights.”[4] More recently, the Iranian Foreign Ministry and leading Iranian generals have issued stern warnings against any aggression at the expense of Syria, which they evidently would regard as casus belli. Increased attacks on US forces by Shiite militias in Iraq in recent weeks may be a token of Tehran’s alarm over the possible loss of its main ally.

Article continues...
 

BREWER

Veteran Member
...continued

the rest of the article.....

“Gay Girl in Damascus” a US Hoax – Like So Many Reports on Syria and Libya?

On June 14, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued an unusual dual condemnation of both Damascus and Tehran, repeating the US line that Iran is assisting in the repression of Syrian protests. “Today in Syria, Iran is supporting the Assad regime’s vicious assaults on peaceful protesters and military actions against its own cities,” said Clinton. Back in the real world, suspicions were growing up that much media reporting concerning events in Syria represented pure fiction in the tradition of the Kuwait incubator babies and Jessica Lynch: the much-touted “Gay Girl in Damascus” blog, which had been cited as a primary source of information about Syria by mainstream news media across the western world, was exposed as a total hoax. This hoax was the handiwork of Tom McMaster, a 40-year-old American man, and his wife Britta Froelicher, an activist with the American Friends Service Committee, an organization linked to the US intelligence community since the Cold War. How many of the films, photos, and interviews broadcast and posted about supposed war crimes in Libya, Syria, and other countries have also been invented out of whole cloth by this CIA cottage industry of disinformation and black propaganda? How much of the social media hype associated with the “Arab Spring” derives from the trolls at US Cyber Command?

Egypt’s Asterisk Revolution: Run by Samantha Power and McFaul From the White House

The “Gay Girl in Damascus” stunt may be seen in retrospect as a microcosm of the entire “Arab Spring”: a cynical manipulation of idealistic (or nihilistic) young dupes under the aegis of US-designed color revolutions and people power coups, playing these affluent computer-oriented young people against the fragile structures of the modern state under conditions of world economic depression. But even so, the activities of the golden youth in the public squares have been largely a media spectacle, a diversion, a smokescreen. Street demonstrations do not amount to a struggle for power. The overthrow of governments has been accomplished behind the scenes by generals and government officials who have been bribed, blackmailed, and otherwise subverted into mounting putsches sponsored by CIA/MI-6/DGSE. In Tunisia this worked well, with Ben Ali fleeing the country when the general staff made clear that they had turned against him. In Egypt, the procedure finally ousted Mubarak, but with much greater difficulty. US assets like Tantawi and Enan proved unable to drive out the Rais until the Obama White House made some heavy-duty threats of direct US action, the exact nature of which has yet to be determined, but which may have involved the menace of US action against the Suez Canal.

As US Egyptian asset Saad Eddin Ibrahim told Lally Weymoth of the Washington Post: “The Egyptian chief of staff [Tantawi] on orders from the White House was escalating the pressure. President Obama’s advisers, who are good friends — Samantha Power and Michael McFaul — asked me to come [to Washington]. They relied on me as a source. . . . After Mubarak’s second speech, Obama became convinced [that Mubarak had to go].”[5] Nationalist colonels in the Egyptian Army may be interested to know that their supreme commander, now the virtual dictator of Egypt, acted on orders from the likes of McFaul and Power, who control the “democratic” opposition as well.

In Libya, the color revolution has worked far less well, as armed al-Qaeda gangs have been unable to conquer the loyalist stronghold of Tripoli, and are also having trouble subduing loyalists in the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor. In Syria, the color revolution model has not worked at all, since the middle class is not interested in undergoing a total Iraq-style bloodbath and Moslem Brotherhood reign of terror for the sake of some vapid slogans about democracy. In Algeria, where the population has immediate experience of the nightmarish slaughter wrought by the Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) a few years back, no appetite whatever for new adventures has been observed. Al Jazeera has now shifted target to destabilize Morocco, and we will see how that turns out. The destabilization of Jordan has gone nowhere.

An attack on Syria could come soon. “It has gotten to the point where Qaddafi’s behavior and Assad’s behavior are indistinguishable,” commented warmonger GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who noted “You need to put on the table all options, including a model like we have in Libya.”[6] This meant a much wider war.

Yemen: Government of Wounded President Saleh Crumbles, US Drone Strikes Begin

Yemen’s President Saleh was seriously wounded on June 3 when rockets allegedly fired by insurgent tribesmen struck his palace. Saleh was flown to Saudi Arabia the next day for emergency treatment. While Saleh’s relatives and allies tried to hold onto power, the Pentagon exploited the resulting power vacuum to begin large-scale Predator drone attacks in the country. It was revealed that the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and the CIA were operating out of a headquarters in Sanaa, and that the CIA would soon begin a wide-ranging program of Predator drone assassinations outside of any rules of military engagement. There were also reports that the US was building a large Predator drone base for operations in Yemen. In the meantime, Islamic militants of the Ansar al-Sharia group, equated by the US media to “al Qaeda,” seized parts of a provincial capital in southern Yemen. It should be remembered that the two leading spokesman for “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (“AQAP”) are US citizen Anwar Awlaki and Guantanamo alumnus al-Shiri, both obvious US double agents. The purpose of the entire Yemen destabilization is to open an avenue of attack against Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s immediate neighbor.

US Strike Against Pakistan Nukes On Front Burner

On June 17, Pakistan said “NATO aircraft attacked one of its military posts in the northwest near the Afghan border and it had expressed its serious concern to the U.S. embassy in Islamabad…. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said NATO aircraft intruded around 2.5 km (1.5 miles) inside Pakistani territory” to make the attack.[7] These probes by NATO aggressors along Pakistan’s border are now a frequent occurrence, and threaten to break out in an open, shooting war – all the more so since any one of these raids could represent a US attempt to cripple Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent with a conventional first strike below the nuclear threshold. Afghanistan President Karzai has officially announced that peace talks with State Department participation are now going on with Mullah Omar and others leaders of the Afghan Taliban. These talks have nothing to do with peace; they rather represent a US attempt to recruit the Afghan and other Taliban and Pushtuns generally as kamikaze puppets to be launched against Pakistan in military attacks.

Certain parts of the US media – particularly the ones addressed to policy elites — have mounted a sustained campaign of demonization against Pakistan. Here are some recent samples of top front-page headlines from the Washington Post:

May 28: “Infiltrators worry Pakistani military; ‘We are under attack’; US unsure of army’s commitment to purging ranks”
May 30: “In Afghan war, Haqqani group is ‘resilient’ foe; Operations based in Pakistan; Network is seen as least reconcilable insurgent faction”
June 11: “Thwarted raids add to tension with Pakistan; US shared intelligence; Bomb-making sites were later found vacant”
June 16: “Pakistan Relations Reach a new low; security ties fraying; Anti-US sentiment in Pakistani army on rise”

Iran’s Ahmadinejad was also taking seriously the spate of media reports about a coming US attack on Pakistan’s nuclear forces. “We have precise information that America wants to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear facilities in order to control Pakistan and to weaken the government and the people of Pakistan,” he said on June 6. The U.S. is also seeking to “use the United Nations Security Council and some other international organizations as a lever to pave the way for its increased presence in Pakistan with the aim of undermining Pakistan’s national sovereignty,” said the Iranian President.[8] The Pakistani government has requested that Iran share with them the detailed intelligence that was the basis for this report.

The Pakistan nukes scenario was the centerpiece of a widely noticed study entitled “Terrorist Tactics in Pakistan Threaten Nuclear Weapons Safety,” by British academic Shaun Gregory, published on June 1 in the CTC Sentinel, the house organ of the Combating Terrorism Center of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY. Gregory’s thesis is that Pakistan, now equipped with over 100 nuclear weapons, will not be able to defend all of them against a determined terrorist attack. He estimates that some 70,000 Pakistanis are now involved in the nation’s nuclear program, and that terrorists would inevitably be able to infiltrate and subvert some of this personnel, including by recruiting rogue commanders of the tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons which Pakistan is currently deploying to guard against an attack by India. Gregory also asserts that it would be enough for terrorists to get possession of fissile materials that would allow the construction of a dirty bomb. Even a failed attack on a nuclear site would cause world hysteria: “The successful location and penetration of such a site by terrorists, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful in accessing nuclear assets, would itself be a transformative event both in terms of the U.S.-Pakistani nuclear relationship and in terms of international anxiety about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,” writes Gregory.[9]

Reuters commented: “It’s a nightmare scenario: al Qaeda militants gain control of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, either through a base assault, theft or a rogue commander’s cooperation, possibly in the event of hostilities with nuclear-armed neighbor India.[10] The Pakistanis were on full alert: “We know that the ultimate objective of the United States here is not to get a piece of land but to target our nuclear facilities….” said a Pakistani source quoted by Ansar Abbasi in News International on June 9.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff head Admiral Mike Mullen confirmed that this is indeed what the Pentagon has in mind, saying of Pakistan: “It’s a country with an awful lot of terrorists on that border… Things that I fear in the future, it’s the proliferation of that [nuclear] technology, and it’s the opportunity and the potential that it could fall into the hands of terrorists, many of whom are alive and well and seek that in that region.”

article continues below...
 

BREWER

Veteran Member
Article continues....

As if to provide a suitable pretext for such an attack, the US media has been trumpeting the alleged selection of notorious MI-6 asset Ayman al-Zawahiri as Bin Laden’s successor as top dog of “al Qaeda.” Zawahiri has allegedly sworn to avenge the death of Bin Laden, meaning that the door to new false flag terror events is wide open. This coverage was accompanied by the assurance that Zawahiri’s home base was nowhere else but Pakistan. Mullen immediately proclaimed that Zawahiri would soon meet the same fate as his predecessor, meaning that the US is determined to carry out more unilateral attacks on Pakistani territory, despite the virtual certainty that these will meet with Pakistani countermeasures. Pakistan’s Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik “has said that a foreign hand is involved in terror incidents in Pakistan,” and called for national unity against terrorists in “the fight for our survival.”[11]

The other main US goal is to block the creation of the Pakistan energy corridor, the fabled Pipelinestan. These projects involve oil and gas pipelines from Iran to China and India, all crossing through Pakistan. The US and UK are determined to block such peaceful infrastructure development, which would give all these countries a rational common economic interest. One key part of the Pakistan energy corridor has been halted; on June, IANS reported that “the proposed Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline has run into delays as Islamabad has failed to raise the necessary funds…. Pakistani officials have told their Iranian counterparts that the pipeline was unlikely to be completed by the scheduled deadline of December 2014, the Urdu daily Jang reported. According to reliable sources, Pakistan has neither been able to raise the necessary $1.24 billion funding nor plan out the proposed route for the pipeline within its territory.”[12]

An Anti-US Coup d’État by Nationalist Colonels in Islamabad?

On June 15, the New York Times and Washington Post both published front-page articles highlighting the rapid growth of anti-American resentment in the Pakistani officer corps. The New York Times wrote that many military officers were so disgusted by the servility of army chief Kayani towards Washington that “a colonels’ coup, while unlikely, was not out of the question,” according to “a well-informed Pakistani who has seen the general in recent weeks, as well as an American military official involved with Pakistan for many years.”[13]

The neocon National Review, genuinely alarmed by the prospect of a new generation of modernizing military officers in the great tradition of Colonel Nasser of Egypt, spun out some grim scenarios and asked, “would the outcome of a break between America and Pakistan be war–whether low-level or outright?”[14] In reality, a regime of progressive colonels might provide a better outcome than Islamic fundamentalists not just for Pakistan, but also for Egypt.

Panetta’s New Pearl Harbor of Virtual Flag Cyber-Attacks

Islamabad continues to enjoy support from China, which pledged a month ago to regard any attack on Pakistan as an attack on the Middle Kingdom itself. China has military options for retaliation, ranging from ICBMs to sensitive points like the Taiwan Straits, but these are less likely. China could also express displeasure by divesting some U.S. Treasury bonds. More likely might be operations in the cyber-realm. US sources allege that Lockheed Martin, the CIA, and other websites are under cyber assault, and some commentators have tried to pin this on China. CIA Director Panetta, now moving over to the Pentagon, told a Senate Committee, “The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems.”[15] Since no known cyber-attack has thus far been able to create such devastating effects, we may assume that Panetta is preparing the way for virtual flag terrorism, in which the US government would simply assert that some catastrophic event had been caused by a country it wishes to target. In a possibly related development, German attorney Thorsten van Geest is in court seeking a temporary restraining order against the Merkel government to shut down all anti-terror drills around at the June 26 opening of the World the Women’s Soccer Championship in Berlin, citing the danger that these exercises might be flipped live.

Saudi Arabia Signals Break from Washington

Saudi Arabia is known to be seeking cooperation with Pakistan and with other countries as part of its attempted exit from the collapsing US empire. Prince Turki al-Faisal, a leading figure of the royal family, signaled Riyadh’s broad-based rage against Washington with a June 7 op-ed warning Obama that “there will be disastrous consequences for U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes UN recognition of a Palestinian state.” Turki concluded with a threat: “We Arabs used to say no to peace, and we got our comeuppance in 1967 [with a crushing military defeat] …. Now, it is the Israelis who are saying no. I’d hate to be around when they face their comeuppance.”[16] These blunt words, which reflect a Saudi hostility to the Obama regime that goes beyond the Palestinian issue to include the whole range of national strategy, has caused shock behind closed doors in official Washington.

The March visit of Saudi Prince Bandar to Pakistan is widely regarded as having sealed a defensive alliance between these two powers, which may be regarded (along with Egypt) as regional pillars of the US empire. Both are seeking to exit the empire. Pakistan is thought to have guaranteed the Saudis protection under Islamabad’s nuclear umbrella, as well as a division or more of Pakistani troops to quell any color revolution or other destabilization the CIA might attempt. A possible signal of US rage over this cooperation came on May 16, when “motorcycle-riding assassins gunned down a Saudi diplomat in the Pakistani city of Karachi, four days after a grenade attack on the Saudi consulate there.”[17]

NATO Facing Logistical Overstretch in Libya

Resistance by Colonel Qaddafi of Libya against the attacking US-NATO forces has exposed the grave logistical and political weakness of the supposedly omnipotent Western alliance. A US military source speaking on the Alex Jones broadcast reported that US stocks of depleted uranium (DU) munitions are currently very low. This may be the reality behind outgoing Defense Secretary Gates’ complaint last week that NATO is running out of bombs in Libya, and similar remarks by French NATO General Stephane Abrial in Belgrade. The US still has some stocks, but how long would these last against Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran?

Obama is Impeachment Bait for Violating the War Powers Act

At a recent Republican presidential debate, candidates Bachman, Gingrich, and Cain hinted that the Libyan rebels include al Qaeda terrorists. Obama’s arrogant and cynical management of the attack on Libya has raised the possibility of congressional action to cut off funds for the war. The Republican fanatics of the Tea Party are seeking to force the US government to default on Treasury securities payments as a way of destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and other economic rights of the American people recognized under the New Deal. However, it is possible that the zombie bankers and hedge fund hyenas of Wall Street who fund and generally own the Republican Party will use threats and bribes to force these Tea Party extremists to knuckle under and increase the debt ceiling over the next month. That will leave the Tea Party fanatics in desperate need of an issue they can use to make a loud show of hostility to Obama to placate their extremist supporters, and that issue may be the aggression against Libya, which has become thoroughly unpopular despite Obama’s attempts to conceal that it is going on.

Libya: A War Too Far, even for GOP

The House of Representatives has voted to demand that Obama seek congressional approval for his stealth Libya war. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and others are suing Obama in federal court to force him to get such approval. Speaker of the House John Boehner has warned Obama that, if he does not come to Congress for approval by June 20, he will be in violation of the War Powers Act. Senators like Lugar, Corker, and Webb have also called on Obama to get a congressional resolution to prosecute hostilities. It has also been revealed that Obama was told by lawyers from the Department of Justice and the Pentagon that the Libyan war was indeed covered by the War Powers Act, but that Obama chose to endorse legal opinions from White House and State Department lawyers telling him he did not need to get any go-ahead from Congress. Naturally, Obama’s flagrant violation of the War Powers Act in Libya would make him subject to impeachment, and this possibility might become more likely if the US economy continues to deteriorate. Another approach would be for Congress to cut off the money for the Libyan aggression. Usually, such a move would be blocked with the argument that US troops would be left stranded in harm’s way. But in this case, by Obama’s own assurances, no US ground troops are officially involved (although they are already there nonetheless). Since Obama claims that only air and naval attacks are being mounted, it may prove easier to cut off the funding and end the illegal attacks on Libya.

As Chinese political scientist Kiyul Chung told RT on June 16, the world was at an historic crossroads, on the brink of deciding whether US and NATO military interventions on the Libyan model would subdue the entire world, or whether Russia, China, and other participants in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization would be able to create a worldwide movement to counterbalance the “unilateral, aggressive, and colonial” methods of the NATO bloc.

References
1 http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/17/mar...tml?&hpt=hp_c2
2 King Carlo Alberto of Sardinia declared war on Austria on March 23, 1848. He was joined by a coalition which included the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Papal States under Pope Pius IX, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. This marked the first transformation of the domestic insurrections of 1848 into cross-border wars. There is an eerie congruence between this event and the initiation of the NATO bombing of Libya on March 19, 2011.
3 Iran censures US interference in Syria, Press TV, June 8, 2011, at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183696.html
4 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242059
5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...M9G_print.html, emphasis added.
6 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-on-the-table
7 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110617/...tan_nato/print
8 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242059
9 Shaun Gregory, “Terrorist Tactics in Pakistan Threaten Nuclear Weapons Safety,” West Point CTC Sentinel, June 1, 2011, at http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/terror...eapons-safety; see also http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.or...0614_5737.php; Professor Shaun Gregory is Director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford, UK.
10 Reuters, June 1, 2011, at http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/01/how-p...opardised.html
11 http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=98524
12 http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pak...10859.html?x=0
13 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/wo...stan.html?_r=1
14 Stanley Kurtz, “Anti-American Coup in Pakistan?,” National Review, June 16, 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-stanley-kurtz
15 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_875889.html
16 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...H_story_1.html
17 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...illed-pakistan
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF22Ak04.html

Middle East
Jun 22, 2011
NATO at a crossroads in Libya
By Victor Kotsev

TEL AVIV - The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is running low on time to make some critical decisions in Libya, if it has not already done so secretly. The current campaign is growing increasingly desperate, and is beginning to attract intolerable levels of international condemnation; it is hardly sustainable for a very long time, and if it continues at the same pace, it could take many months before Muammar Gaddafi is brought to his knees.

This is assuming that the latter were to happen at all. For, while Gaddafi has reverted mostly to defensive actions in response to the ever-more fierce bombing raids, he has also kept his most important military cards close to his chest, and can still put up a significant fight.

The alliance is facing fairly straight-forward binary choices, attesting to the fact that the war is not going well for it. It can either escalate further its military involvement, up to and including a ground invasion, or it can force a partition of the country between Gaddafi and the rebels. Ironically, the spate of reports that has come out of Libya in the past week or so, underscoring the severity of the rifts between all the main participants in the fighting, can point to either scenario.

Gaddafi seems to believe that a ground operation is in the works; Russian officials have been talking about it for a while, and more recently additional countries have dropped hints.

Gaddafi's offer, voiced last week by his most prominent son Saif al-Islam, to hold elections within three months, and to step down if he loses, [1] attests to his efforts to avert such a scenario.

So does his defensive posture in the past weeks - while his army has inflicted severe casualties on the rebels, it has done so mostly by ambushes and by using heavy artillery against advancing enemy units. A few counter-attacks have taken place, but these apparently lacked much energy and were followed by swift withdrawals.

The rebels' blunt rejection of the colonel's offer, on the other hand, reveals surprising confidence. "We tell him [Saif al-Islam] that the time has passed because our rebels are at the outskirts of Tripoli, and they will join our people and rebels there to uproot the symbol of corruption and tyranny in Libya," a high-ranking rebel spokesman told al-Jazeera.

By all accounts, this statement does not nearly match the situation on the ground. There are currently three main fronts in Libya: in the east near the town of Brega, in the west between the rebel stronghold Misrata and several towns near the coast on the way to the capital Tripoli, and further west in the mountains.

The last front has witnessed the most significant rebel gains recently, but this is largely due to the withdrawal of Gaddafi forces from the area. In any case, the mountain rebels are very different from the rest of the anti-Gaddafi bloc: they are Berbers, arguably fighting for greater autonomy. Most analysts believe that they are unlikely to attack Tripoli, and Gaddafi has chosen to leave them alone for now, concentrating instead on more urgent threats.

The other two fronts have been moving slowly at best for the rebels. They frequently claim successes, but their advances are just as frequently reversed despite NATO cover, and their casualties are mounting. Dozens have recently been killed and hundreds wounded near Misrata alone; several attacks on Brega were repulsed with heavy losses as well.

My earlier assessment that the rebels would not be able to advance far due to their lack of military experience in non-urban conditions [2] is being confirmed by the reports. "We had a strategy to finish everything today, but some of the fighters think it's a game," a rebel commander told Reuters on Friday. His words two days later suggested that lessons were not being implemented quickly enough: "We made a mistake today ... We sent the boys out on foot before the vehicles."

"The Misrata rebels honed their fighting skills in close-quarter street battles," writes Reuters, "wresting the city center from pro-Gaddafi forces and then pushing them back on three fronts to break an artillery siege ... They are proving less successful in open ground." [3]

The frustration of the rebels is evident in their frequent outbursts against NATO, accusing the West of not providing enough of either military or financial assistance. As concerns the latter, their oil minister Ali Tarhouni issued a particularly grim warning a few days ago. "We are running out of everything," he told Reuters. "It's a complete failure. Either they [Western nations] don't understand or they don't care. Nothing has materialized yet. And I really mean nothing."

"The economy in eastern Libya, where much of the oil that once made Libya a major OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] exporter came from, is in a shambles," Reuters warns. [4]

Despite the rants and the setbacks, the rebels' bravado does match the ever-increasing NATO involvement in the operations. Attack helicopters are flying combat missions; the rebels are almost openly receiving heavy artillery and training in how to use it, even though reports neglect to mention by whom (NATO insists it is supplying only non-lethal equipment such as body armor and communications gear).

The air campaign, in general, has become bolder and deadlier. More and more strikes are carried out during the day time, and civilian casualties are mounting. In the past two days, international media broadcast gruesome pictures of the aftermath of NATO attacks on housing complexes.

According to the Gaddafi regime, seven civilians were killed by NATO on Sunday and 19 on Monday (and over 700 since the start of the operation); NATO acknowledged an "error" on Sunday while claiming that Monday's raid hit a military facility. The house in question belonged to a man from Gaddafi's inner circle, and the dead were his relatives.

The civilian casualties threaten to undermine what is left of the international legitimacy of the operation, and to force an abrupt end to it down the road. "NATO is endangering its credibility; we cannot risk killing civilians," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini warned on Monday.

International pressure is piling up. Last week, South African President Jacob Zuma joined a chorus of voices accusing NATO of overstepping its mandate. [5]

The alliance also faces considerable political and financial pressures at home. The operation's costs are mounting, and they are proving to be a considerable burden to individual members. In the United States, which has played a crucial role in the war, the administration of President Barack Obama faces threats from congress to have its war funding cut.

Obama has come under heavy criticism for ignoring the War Powers Act, which stipulates that a president who has not received authorization from congress for a military operation must conclude it after 60 days, and has an additional 30 days to do so. He did not apply or receive authorization, and the 90-day deadline expired last week.

All this does not exhaust NATO's troubles. Nobody will admit it, but it is likely that the alliance is running low on significant strategic targets that are legitimate to bomb. The escalating civilian casualties and the repeated targeting of empty buildings, including Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia complex in Tripoli, support this hypothesis.

Moreover, this is what usually happens during prolonged air campaigns, and there is no reason to believe that the Libya war is any different. It takes significant effort, time and intelligence-gathering to identify such high-value targets, and it takes just a few hours to bomb them.

NATO has been increasingly desperate, trying to shock and awe Gaddafi with strong "messages" for quite some time, and simple math indicates that the pool of targets is probably getting depleted much faster than it is being replenished.

Tactical targets such as tanks and artillery installations have also become more and more difficult to hit due to Gaddafi's improved tactics of hiding them in populated and difficult-to-bomb areas.

In other words, NATO is facing prohibitive costs and dubious gains if it continues with its current strategy. Gaddafi has been weakened appreciably as well, but he seems to be nowhere near breaking point. The question of what comes next looms; the Western alliance does not have many options.

A campaign to kill the colonel from the air has arguably been underway for some months, but it has not accomplished the objective. Failing that, and since the alliance has made the goal of its campaign to remove Gaddafi, the colonel only has to survive in power in order to create the perception that he has won (wars are fought largely over perception, as military scientists openly admit).
The main question is, will NATO be willing to concede such a defeat - for example, by forcing the division of Libya into two and allowing Gaddafi to rule the western part - or will it go all the way to send ground forces to remove him.

Speculation is running wild - from an imminent ground invasion in the next few days to complicated diplomatic initiatives involving members of the royal household, exiled by Gaddafi in 1969. Reliable information is scarce, but the rapid proliferation of reports and speculation is revealing by itself.

When tensions are rising so rapidly and new information is coming out at such a pace, it is safe to assume that the ground is being set for something new; however, it is hard to say, sometimes even for the participants themselves, whether more or less violence will ensue.

Both concessions and threats can be bluffs - aiming either to bolster the international support and legitimacy of the respective sides, to shore up a more advantageous negotiating position, or to prepare the public for whatever comes next.

Right before dramatic diplomatic announcements, negotiators with many years of experience often say, there is usually a palpable hardening of rhetoric on both sides; it serves both to pay lip-service to the demands of hardliners on each side and to warn the other side of what would happen if it did not keep its commitments. This is also true of the time immediately preceding large-scale military operations, unless the attack is meant to be a surprise.

Very often, the real threat of massive bloodshed is what finally persuades both sides to negotiate a ceasefire; sometimes, however, the threat materializes. What will happen in Libya is hard to predict, perhaps even for those who call the shots.

Notes
1. Gaddafi son offers Libya elections, al-Jazeera, 16 June 2011.
2. Libya: The land of make believe, , Asia Times Online, 13 June 2011.
3. Inexperience costing rebels in advance on Tripoli, Reuters, 19 June 2011.
4. Libyan rebels blame West for lack of cash, , Reuters, 18 June 2011.
5. Libya: Jacob Zuma accuses Nato of not sticking to UN resolution, The Telegraph, 14 June 2011.

Victor Kotsev is a journalist and political analyst based in Tel Aviv.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
 
Top