WAR 01-27-2017-to-02-02-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(305) 01-06-2017-to-01-12-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...1-12-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(306) 01-13-2017-to-01-19-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...1-19-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(307) 01-20-2017-to-01-26-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...1-26-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

=========

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20180127-huge-blast-rocks-kabul-afp

27 January 2018 - 10H00

Huge blast rocks Kabul: AFP

KABUL (AFP) - A huge blast rocked Kabul on Saturday, AFP reporters and witnesses said, in the latest apparent attack in the Afghan capital.

AFP reporters heard a loud explosion that shook the windows of their compound, and photos shared on social media purportedly of the blast showed a huge plume of smoke rising into the sky.

The explosion happened in a crowded part of the city where the interior ministry, the European Union and the High Peace Council have offices. Kabul police headquarters is also in the vicinity of the blast.

"I can confirm an explosion happened near the old interior ministry building in Kabul," interior ministry deputy spokesman Nasrat Rahimi told AFP.

The explosion comes exactly a week after Taliban militants stormed a luxury hotel in Kabul, killing at least 22 people, the majority foreigners.

A security alert issued to foreigners on Saturday morning warned that the Islamic State group, which has terrorised the city in recent months, was planning "to conduct aggressive attacks" on supermarkets, shops and hotels frequented by foreigners.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-for-syrian-kurdish-ypg-anadolu-idUSKBN1FG08W

#World News January 27, 2018 / 1:02 AM / Updated 23 minutes ago

U.S. tells Turkey it will end weapons support for Syrian Kurdish YPG: Anadolu

Reuters Staff
3 Min Read

ANKARA (Reuters) - The United States has told Turkey it will not provide any more weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, Turkish state media said on Saturday, as Turkey’s offensive by against the U.S.-backed YPG in Syria entered its eighth day.

The Turkish incursion in northwest Syria’s Afrin region against the YPG has opened a new front in the multi-sided Syrian civil war, but has also further strained ties with NATO ally Washington.

Washington has angered Ankara by providing arms, training and air support to the Syrian Kurdish forces. Turkey sees the YPG as an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged a deadly insurgency in Turkey’s largely Kurdish southeast for three decades.

Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency said on Saturday that Ibrahim Kalin, spokesman for President Tayyip Erdogan, and U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster held a phone call on Friday in which McMaster confirmed the United States would no longer provide weapons to the YPG.

On Thursday, the Pentagon said it carefully tracked weapons provided to the YPG and would continue discussions with Turkey, after Ankara urged Washington to end its support for the YPG or risk confronting Turkish forces on the ground in Syria.

On Friday, Erdogan said Turkish forces would sweep Kurdish fighters from the Syrian border and could push all the way east to the frontier with Iraq - a move which risks a possible confrontation with U.S. forces allied to the Kurds.

Since the start of the incursion, dubbed “Operation Olive Branch” by Ankara, Erdogan has said Turkish forces would push east towards the town of Manbij, part of Kurdish-held territory some 100 km (60 miles) east of Afrin, where U.S. troops were deployed to deter Turkish and U.S.-backed rebels from clashing.

Any Turkish advance towards Manbij could threaten U.S. efforts to stabilize northern Syria, where the United States has about 2,000 troops, officially as part of the international coalition against Islamic State.

In a sign of growing bilateral tensions, Ankara and Washington disagreed over the main message of a phone call between Erdogan and U.S. President Donald Trump held on Wednesday.

The White House said Trump had urged Erdogan to curtail the military operation in Syria, while Turkey said Erdogan had told Trump that U.S. troops should withdraw from Manbij.

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said she had seen media reports about the phone call, but was not aware of any change in U.S. posture.

Anadolu said Kalin and McMaster had agreed for Turkey and the United States to remain in close coordination to “avoid misunderstandings”.

Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Mark Potter
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.longwarjournal.org/arch...s-islamists-for-failure-of-arab-uprisings.php

Al Qaeda head blames Islamists for failure of Arab uprisings

By Thomas Joscelyn | January 26, 2018 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

Ayman al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, discusses the failures of the Arab uprisings in a newly-released audio message. As Sahab, al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, released the 12-minute, Arabic recording online earlier today.

Zawahiri speaks on the seventh anniversary of the Arab uprisings, which began in several countries in late 2010 and early 2011. His message is titled, “Seven Years Later, Where is the Salvation?” Zawahiri complains that “all of the revolutions were suppressed except Syria, which entered the spiral of international solutions,” meaning that powerful nations are now dictating the course of events.

The “reigning regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya” have all “returned,” only “more ferocious and corrupt” than before, Zawahiri complains. He claims that the jihadis should learn from this “bitter experience.” The number one lesson he seeks to impart is that jihadists cannot compromise on their ideology the same way many other Islamist parties did.

Indeed, Zawahiri blames Islamist groups, such as the Ennahda party in Tunisia and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, for the failure of the Arab revolts to deliver sharia-based governance in several countries. The al Qaeda honcho claims that the “Muslim masses” called for sharia to be implemented, but the Islamists were only interested in power, making “concessions” that compromised their ideology. Zawahiri argues that Ennahda and the Muslim Brotherhood were eager to placate the West and America, yet this path only led to the return of the same criminal regimes that were deposed in the first place.

Of course, Zawahiri’s reading of history is highly selective. He ignores many of the actors who rose up against their oppressive governments in 2010 and 2011. And while the calls for sharia governance were heard at the time, they were not nearly as universal as the al Qaeda emir would have listeners believe.

Zawahiri’s latest message is similar to the one he released in Aug. 2016. He complained at the time that the Arab uprisings had “failed” in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. He likened the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to a “poultry farm,” which raises “chickens” to be pleased “with what they are given,” but leaves them “ignorant” of the predatory threats that surround them. In mid-2016, Zawahiri was uncertain about Libya, but had hope for Syria. [See FDD’s Long War Journal report, Zawahiri compares members of the Muslim Brotherhood to chickens.]

However, Osama bin Laden’s successor now counts the Libyan revolt among those that failed. And he laments that nations are able to control the Syrian conflict through funding and some groups’ fear of being labeled terrorists. The latter point is a reference to the US-led effort to designate certain jihadist groups as terrorist organizations. One of the reasons that al Qaeda’s “unity” project in Syria stalled is that some rebels fear the designations will tarnish them. Although Zawahiri doesn’t mention it, al Qaeda itself initially sought to hide the extent of its network in Syria, in part, to avoid international scrutiny.

Zawahiri’s latest message, as well as his Aug. 2016 statement, are very different from al Qaeda’s initial reaction to the Arab uprisings.

Osama bin Laden surmised that there was a “sizable” contingent “within the Brotherhood” that was evolving in the jihadists’ direction. Bin Laden also wrote in his personal journal shortly before his death that the Arab revolts were a unique opportunity for his cause. In addition, al Qaeda ordered its men to cooperate with Islamist groups throughout Arab-majority countries in an attempt to steer them toward the jihadist ideology. In Syria, for example, al Qaeda’s men have cooperated with Islamists and Salafists of various stripes and even groups backed by the West.

While Zawahiri laments the failure to achieve al Qaeda’s longstanding goal of sharia governance in several countries, it does not mean that he thinks all is lost. Even though widespread sharia governance hasn’t taken root, al Qaeda still maintains an insurgency footprint in multiple areas within these countries. Even though it has faced setbacks, al Qaeda’s guerrilla forces are fighting in more countries today than on Sept. 11, 2001 — a fact that Osama bin Laden’s son, Hamza, has crowed about in the not-so-distant past.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD's Long War Journal.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/iran-military-budget/4225872.html

Extremism Watch

Analysts Fear Bigger Iran Military Budget Could Mean More Proxy Wars

Last Updated: January 26, 2018 9:26 AM
Mehdi Jedinia

An Iranian official has announced the allocation of $2.5 billion more for the country's military to increase what it terms the country's "military capabilities."

Ali Asghar Yousefnejad, a member of Iranian Parliament and the spokesperson for Iran's special parliamentary committee that deals with the country's budget, told the country's official news agency IRNA on Tuesday that the $2.5 billion is in addition to what the military will receive once the fiscal year begins in March.

The country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reportedly approved the increase in military spending.

The additional money comes from Iranian National Development Fund (INDF), a developmental fund established in 2011 that reserves a portion of the country's gas and oil revenues and spends it on projects that the government deems necessary.

Economic protests
The increase in military expenditure comes on the heels of large-scale protests across major cities in Iran that continued for several weeks. Among other things, protesters criticized the government's economic policies and its military involvement in regional countries resulting in neglecting the well-being of its citizens.

Some analysts believe Iran is spending big chunks of its military budget on foreign military interventions and adding to the military budget means more regime interventions in regional countries.

"Huge amount of this budget will be spent for regional ambitions in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine in support of Iran proxies," Babak Taghvaei, a Malta-based Iranian analyst told VOA. "Iran extends invaluable support to its allies including Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and other Shia militias in the region through various projects."

In terms of how much the government spends to allegedly finance proxy wars in the region, Taghvaei said it is hard to come up with a number because the regime is secretive and denies it finances these regional wars.

Out of touch
Alex Vatanka of the Washington-based Middle East Institute thinks the allocation of additional money for defense spending illustrates that the religious-based government is out of touch with ordinary Iranians.

"Earmarking this fund a month after budget planning [for the] defense sector when people are dealing with real vital shortcomings and environmental issues shows how unrealistic and detached decision makers are in Iran," Vatanka said.

Tehran has reportedly spent billions in propping up its allies in Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Until November 2017 when it was replaced by North Korea, Iran topped the U.S State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism.

"Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2016, including support for Hezbollah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East," U.S. State Department said in its 2016 Country Report on Terrorism.

"Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force [IRGC-QF] to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East," the report said.

Tehran denies the charges that it supports terrorism and that it has been engaged in proxy warfare in the region.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-in-afghan-capital/ar-BBIiqIg?ocid=spartanntp

At least 17 dead in car bomb at checkpoint near embassies in Afghan capital

Reuters
43 mins ago

KABUL, Jan 27 (Reuters) - A bomb hidden in an ambulance killed at least 17 people and wounded about 110 at a police checkpoint in the Afghan capital Kabul on Saturday, in an area near foreign embassies and government buildings, officials said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the blast, a week after it claimed an attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul in which more than 20 people were killed.

"It is a massacre," said Dejan Panic coordinator in Afghanistan for the Italian aid group Emergency, which runs a nearby trauma hospital. In a message on Twitter, the group said more than 50 wounded had been brought in to that hospital alone.

A spokesman from the public health ministry said 17 dead and 110 wounded had been brought to city hospitals, and victims were still being brought in.

Mirwais Yasini, a member of parliament who was nearby when the explosion occurred, said the ambulance approached the checkpoint, close to an office of the High Peace Council and several foreign embassies, and blew up.

He said a number of people were lying on the ground. People helped walking wounded away as ambulances with sirens wailing inched their way through the traffic-clogged streets of the city center.

A plume of grey smoke rose from the blast area in the city center and buildings hundreds of meters away were shaken by the force of the explosion. (Writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by Nick Macfie, Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://jamestown.org/program/guns-hire-al-qaeda-arabian-peninsula-securing-future-yemen/

Guns for Hire: How al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Is Securing Its Future in Yemen

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 16 Issue: 2
By: Michael Horton
January 26, 2018 11:01 AM Age: 1 day

The outgoing director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, said in a recent interview that Yemen “continues to be one of the most frustrating theaters in our counterterrorism work right now.” [1] Mr. Rasmussen’s comments reflect the difficulty of conducting counter-terror operations in war-torn Yemen. The conflict is like a matryoshka, or Russian nesting doll—there are wars within wars. Complicating the conflict further is the presence of outside actors, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose own agendas in Yemen are frequently in opposition to one another.

In such a conflict, drawing clear lines between al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), anti-Houthi militias, tribal fighters and forces backed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE is an increasingly difficult task. This ambiguity, the multiplicity of fighting groups, the ever-shifting alliances and the hundreds of millions of dollars of materiel provided to pro-government forces by Saudi Arabia and the UAE have all helped AQAP survive and thrive (Middle East Eye, October 27, 2017). At the same time, the war has forced AQAP to become a very different organization than it was four years ago.

The war has provided AQAP with a host of opportunities to hone and refine its tactics while continuing to grow its organization. Most critically, AQAP has become more pragmatic and continues to de-prioritize ideology—at least in terms of its day-to-day operations—in favor of building alliances, recruiting and training capable fighters and enhancing access to revenue streams. AQAP has learned from its own mistakes and from those of Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq—ideology might win recruits, but it rarely wins wars. Patience, skilled fighters, alliances and access to money and weapons are what wins or, in the case of AQAP, ensures long-term organizational survival.

From Ideologues to Predatory Pragmatists
AQAP’s leadership learned a great deal from its first failed attempt to hold and govern territory in 2011-12 (al-Jazeera, May 29, 2011). Its near defeat in the southern governorate of Abyan in 2012 was largely due to the fact that AQAP had alienated the populace it was trying to govern and, most critically, it made enemies of tribal elites rather than making them allies, or at least ensuring that they remained neutral. AQAP’s overconfidence, and its unbending application of its own strident interpretation of Islamic law in the areas it seized in 2011, cost it any local support it might have enjoyed.

In April 2015, AQAP took over Yemen’s fifth largest city, the port of al-Mukalla (al-Jazeera, September 16, 2015). The takeover was swift and relatively bloodless. The AQAP leadership focused on firming up alliances and agreements with local elites and existing power centers. Rather than overtly asserting its control, it ruled through proxies (Middle East Eye, May 12, 2015). The application of Islamic law was limited—with some exceptions—and generally mirrored what the populace already accepted.

AQAP’s real efforts during its yearlong occupation of al-Mukalla were directed toward building alliances with a range of elites from local tribes and business owners to members of the largely defunct Yemeni army. These alliances were built on reciprocity: AQAP provided security, protection and a measure of stability, and, in exchange, various elites agreed not to fight and to share in the spoils of war. [2] During its invasion and occupation of al-Mukalla, AQAP stole an estimated $100 million from the Yemeni Central Bank branch in the city and from other banks. AQAP also seized millions of dollars’ worth of military hardware from army depots and bases. This money and hardware was essential to funding AQAP’s ongoing operations and to secure alliances. A percentage of the spoils were undoubtedly shared among those who, at a minimum, chose not to fight AQAP. [3]

While AQAP continued to publish its propaganda—just as it does now—the importance of enforcing Islamic law, of creating a caliphate and of directly attacking targets in the West were de-prioritized in favor of localized objectives. The continuing stream of AQAP tweets, forum postings and publications retains some importance for recruitment and provides material for analysts to parse, but generally does not reflect the pragmatic and dynamic strategies that AQAP employs.

While AQAP left al-Mukalla in April 2016 rather than fight the Emirati backed forces that took control of the city, its year of governing a sizeable city—at least through proxies—provided the leadership with invaluable experience. Some residents of al-Mukalla claim that AQAP did a better job of administering the city than the current Emirati backed government (al-Jazeera, January 11). Most critically for AQAP, its rule over al-Mukalla allowed it to establish its reputation as a reliable and relatively capable force that was willing to work with those elites whose interests overlapped with its own.

Spinning Its Web
AQAP’s willingness to sideline its ideologically driven ambitions in favor of attainable objectives like building alliances and securing access to revenue through illicit and licit trade has prompted it to focus on implementing its enmeshment strategy. This involves AQAP inserting its operatives and forces into existing power structures where it can leverage factionalism by offering the services of its often better trained and better motivated fighters. AQAP is implementing a strategy that is not dissimilar to that used by its enemies, the Houthis, who slowly co-opted elites that had been loyal to Yemen’s former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. The buy-in by national and local elites that the Houthis enjoy is on a far larger scale than that enjoyed by AQAP, but, for AQAP, even limited and contingent local support is critical for its long-term survival.

AQAP’s operatives and fighters are present on all of the frontlines in Yemen’s multi-actor civil war. They are most active in the governorate of al-Bayda and in the battle for the divided city of Taiz. AQAP also remains a potent force in parts of the Hadramawt, where it has launched numerous attacks against the Emirati backed Hadrawmi Elite Forces (al-Monitor, July 19, 2017). [4] It is in al-Bayda and Taiz, however, that AQAP has repeatedly proven itself to be a dependable ally in the battle against Houthi-allied forces.

Al-Bayda is a strategic fallback position for AQAP. After its near defeat in 2012, senior operatives sought and found refuge in the governorate’s rugged terrain. Control of this strategic governorate, which is located near the center of Yemen, where it acts as a kind of keystone for accessing eight other governorates, is critical to the Houthis and to those forces opposing them.

AQAP’s relationship with the tribes that are the dominant power in al-Bayda is complex. Lines between AQAP fighters and operatives and tribal militias as well as coalition backed anti-Houthi forces are rarely demarcated. This lack of clarity is a critical component to AQAP’s strategy of enmeshing its operatives with anti-Houthi and tribal fighters. This is not to say that AQAP enjoys a high-degree of support from al-Bayda’s tribes. In many cases, the opposite is true. AQAP and some parts of these tribes have fought pitched battles against one another. However, for the moment, AQAP and much of the membership of the various tribes, whose territory encompasses al-Bayda, are focused on defeating a common enemy, the Houthis. [5] For now, this unites them.

In the bitterly contested city of Taiz, which has been under siege by Houthi and formerly Saleh-aligned forces since 2014, AQAP operatives and fighters are overtly and covertly fighting alongside local militias, many of which embrace Salafism. AQAP’s fighters are better trained, organized and funded than many of the ad-hoc militias that were formed to fight the Houthis and their allies. This was particularly the case in the first two years of the war in Yemen. Just as AQAP leverages factionalism, it is pragmatic in how it deploys its fighters. In Taiz, in particular, AQAP fighters have often been critical to efforts to stop Houthi-aligned forces from gaining territory.

In the Hadramawt, AQAP faces a different enemy and is employing a different strategy. Here the enemy is not the Houthis and those forces allied with them—at least not overtly—instead it is the UAE-backed and created Hadrawmi Elite Forces, supposedly allied with Yemen’s government in exile. The UAE backed force’s popularity among locals—many of whom view the UAE as intent on the colonization of the oil and gas rich parts of Yemen—is limited due to its harsh tactics.

The UAE’s attempt to gain a foothold in the area has empowered some Hadrawmi elites and disempowered others. These disaffected elites, combined with growing popular resentment of the UAE and its allies, have provided AQAP with the opening it needs. As is pointed out in a recent article for al-Jazeera, many residents of al-Mukalla look favorably upon AQAP’s light footprint occupation of the city (al-Jazeera, January 11). They cite the fact that AQAP engaged in more public works and provided better security for residents than the current governing regime.

Just as AQAP has exploited factionalism and leveraged its fighting capabilities in al-Bayda and Taiz, it is doing the same in the Hadramawt, only with a slight twist —it is increasingly acting as a mercenary force.

Guns for Hire
Like many terrorist and militant organizations, AQAP has at times been used by the state that it claims to want to overthrow. For example, parts of the former Saleh regime used al-Qaeda to target rivals and to extract funds from Western donors. AQAP and its precursor organization were thoroughly penetrated by both branches of Yemeni intelligence: the Political Security Bureau (PSB) and the National Security Agency (NSA) (al-Jazeera, June 4, 2015). The murky relationship between the Saleh regime and AQAP mirrors the equally murky and complex set of relationships that now exist between a host of Yemeni elites, coalition-backed forces and AQAP. The group is expert at exploiting the ambiguous and ever-shifting alliances that now exist across war-torn Yemen.

Alliances such as these serve a multiplicity of purposes, but most importantly they allow AQAP to further enmesh its operatives in a variety of martial, social and business networks where they can collect valuable human intelligence (HUMINT). These alliances also serve as important sources of revenue for AQAP, both in terms of hard currency and access to licit and illicit trade networks.

The war in Yemen—or, more accurately, wars—are providing elites across the country with an abundance of opportunities to profit, although these profits pale in comparison with those of the arms manufacturers supplying Saudi Arabia and the UAE. [6] AQAP too is intent on finding new ways to profit and secure its financial future. Just as its ability to deploy motivated, well-trained fighters to the frontlines in places like Taiz and al-Bayda, keep them on post and ensure they are supplied, is recognized and valued by some anti-Houthi forces, the same applies to certain elites in the Hadramawt. While there is no Houthi threat in the Hadramawt, there is much at stake in the resource-rich governorate. The Hadramawt is home to Yemen’s LNG terminal and contains developed oil and gas fields, as well as what could be considerable untapped oil reserves. The Hadramawt also sits atop Yemen’s last largely untapped aquifer.

The involvement of Saudi Arabia in Hadrawmi affairs and of the UAE in particular has angered many residents, elite and non-elite. Many view the UAE and Saudi Arabia as colonizing forces, intent on carving up Yemen and denying it its nationhood. Concurrent with this, UAE-backed forces have been accused of disappearing and torturing Yemenis they suspect of links to AQAP or of backing tribal militias opposed to the Hadrawmi Elite Forces (al-Jazeera, June 22, 2017). [7]

The combination of abusive tactics, a foreign presence, and the sidelining of many Hadrawmi elites is providing AQAP with opportunities to maintain and enhance its position in the Hadramawt. In some areas—particularly in the southern reaches of the Hadramawt, where UAE-backed forces are most active—AQAP fighters act as guns for hire for disaffected elites who want to thwart what they see as a takeover by the UAE that could result in their permanent disempowerment. [8] At the same time that there is conflict between Hadrawmi elites, there is a struggle between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, whose conflicting agendas mean that the forces each backs do not always work together and, at times, even fight one another.

AQAP’s leadership understands the financial and political advantages that will likely arise from allowing its fighters to act as mercenaries for select elites. The war in the Hadramawt will enrich AQAP while allowing it to continue to enmesh its operatives in local power structures.

Outlook
The complexity of the war in Yemen, the presence of outside actors with conflicting agendas, and the opportunity to tap into a variety of licit and illicit networks all favor the continued growth and development of AQAP. It has repeatedly demonstrated that it is an organization—or, more accurately, a plurality of organizations—that learns, adapts, evolves and stands ready to seize the advantage where possible. AQAP’s ability to adapt to changing political and martial environments by remaining fluid is evidenced by its willingness to de-prioritize core aspects of its militant Salafist ideology in favor of more expedient and pragmatic strategies that enable it to build alliances, enmesh its operatives and tap into revenue streams.

The weakening position of Houthi and Houthi-allied forces on some fronts and the, as yet, limited possibility of their retreat from Sanaa will aid AQAP. The inability of coalition-backed forces to secure the areas that they claim to control is made clear by the almost daily attacks and bombings in Aden and across southern Yemen.

If coalition backed forces are able to force the Houthis to retreat, AQAP will move to fill some of the voids left by the Houthis and their allies—at least over the short-term. However, AQAP understands the danger of overexposure. It will continue to conceal itself within Yemen’s matryoshka-like war in order to pursue pragmatic strategies that preserve its alliances and access to licit and illicit trade networks. The leadership of AQAP recognizes that the future belongs to organizations that can rapidly adapt to and exploit dynamic environments.

NOTES
[1] See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/world/middleeast/yemen-al-qaeda-us-terrorism.html
[2] Author interviews, various Hadramawt-based ex-government officials (October-November 2016).
[3] Author interview with a Yemen-based journalist/analyst (December 2016).
[4] See: SITE Intelligence Group (January 10, 2018).
[5] See: Nadwa al-Dawsari, “Our Common Enemy: Ambiguous Ties Between al-Qaeda and Yemen’s Tribes,” Carnegie Middle East Center, January 10, 2018.
[6] See: Peter Salisbury, “Yemen: National Chaos, Local Order,” Chatham House, December 20, 2017.
[7] See: “Yemen: UAE Backs Abusive Local Forces”, Human Rights Watch, June 22, 2017.
[8] Author interview with a Hadramawt-based journalist/analyst (January 2017); author interview with a former member of the Yemeni government (January 2017).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://jamestown.org/program/russi...a-targeting-underwater-communications-cables/

Russian ‘Hybrid War’ Tactics at Sea: Targeting Underwater Communications Cables

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 15 Issue: 10
By: Ihor Kabanenko
January 23, 2018 05:50 PM Age: 4 days

In the last five years, Russia has increased its underwater activity four to five times (Redstar.ru, November 8, 2017). Thirteen new Russian nuclear and conventional submarines have been commissioned since 2014 (24tv.ua, December 27, 2017). These vessels are capable of carrying out various offensive and multipurpose underwater missions, as well as to launch navy seals (special forces) for operations against enemy maritime infrastructure.

Yet, attack and multipurpose submarines should not be the only assets and capabilities counted in the context of Russian underwater operations. Moscow has also exerted great effort to develop naval assets for “hybrid” (New Type) underwater and seabed actions. These assets specifically combine civil and military, conventional and special, technological and operational capabilities. Among other missions and tasks, this allows such naval platforms to secretly tap undersea cable information streams as well as disable undersea communication lines, if needed. Such “dual use” assets directly fit Russia’s hybrid warfare doctrine, as they can conduct clandestine underwater operations under the cover of, for example, carrying out “oceanic research” or “search-and-rescue activities.” At least two types of such hybrid warfare maritime platforms are particularly worth pointing out in more detail.

The first are Russia’s so-called “nuclear deep-water stations,” which, in reality, are actually deep-water special operations submarines (DWSOS). These can be transported inside special nuclear submarine carrier vessels and furtively deployed to any ocean spot around the world to begin their long-term secret missions along the seabed. In recent years, Russia has commissioned or modernized Kalitka/Losharik-, Kashalot-, Paltus– and X-Ray-class DWSOSs (Oborona.ru, November 11, 2017). Perhaps the most capable of these is the Kalitka (also nicknamed the “Losharik”), commissioned in 2006. This sub is capable of diving down to 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) and can reportedly be used to destroy seabed infrastructure, primarily undersea communication lines (Topwar.ru, March 27, 2017). Moscow is increasing the number of DWSOS carriers in its fleet as well: the Delta IV–class special nuclear submarine Podmoskovye is conducting sea trial after its modernization. And the next generation of submarine-carriers is already undergoing refitment (Svobodnaya Pressa, August 12, 2015). All of the above-mentioned assets belong to 29th Special Purpose Submarine Brigade of the Russian North Fleet.

In addition to DWSOSs, the second major asset type for conducting underwater hybrid warfare are Russia’s so-called “oceanographic research vessels” (ORV) and “search-and-rescue vessels” (SRV). None of these surface ships carry anti-submarine warfare (ASW) weapons or cruise missiles on board, but their strategic intelligence-gathering capabilities against seabed targets should be taken seriously. Both types of ships belong to the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD): ORVs to the MOD’s Main Directorate of Underwater Research, and SRVs to the Search and Rescue Service of the Russian Navy.

Russia’s most advanced ORV is probably the Yantar, commissioned in 2015 (Army-news.ru, May 24, 2015). This spy ship bristles with surveillance equipment and serves as a mothership for manned as well as unmanned deep-sea submersibles. The Yantar carries two modest Russian Rus– and Konsul-class manned underwater vehicles (MUV) capable of diving up to 6,000 meters for 10–12 hours at a time. These MUVs feature manipulators with cable-cutting tools. Moreover, they themselves carry remotely operated underwater drones (ROUD), which can perform a wide spectrum of underwater tasks: from object inspection and destruction, to delivering various devices to the seafloor or lifting objects to the surface (Tvzvezda.ru, July 12, 2017; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, December 14, 2015). The Yantar can also carry separate ROUDs such as the Pantera Plus (Tetis-pro.ru, RIA Novosti, December 14, 2017). In 2015, this vessel was observed near a United States nuclear missile submarine base, located close to undersea military communications trunk lines and nodes (Lenta.ru, September 3, 2015). Then, in October 2016, the Yantar was found loitering over undersea communications cables off the Syrian coast, including some links to Europe (Izvestiya, March 22, 2017; Vesti.ru, October 8, 2017). A second Yantar-class vessel is currently under construction (Shipyard-Yantar.ru, accessed January 12).

Instead of trying to build next-generation ORVs and SRVs, Moscow is modernizing former Soviet vessels of these classes due to budget restrictions in Russia’s shipbuilding program. Modern equipment for acoustic, biological, physical and geophysical surveys has already been installed onboard the Admiral Vladimirsky ORV. This ship is now conducting expeditions across various international maritime areas operationally important to Russia (Tvzvezda.ru, December 15, 2017; Mil.ru, April 23, 2017). The country’s search-and-rescue MUVs are undergoing modernization as well. For example, Russian Prize-class MUVs received digital equipment, including cameras as well as special manipulators able to cut cables, twist and unscrew nuts, and carry out underwater welding work. These MUVs have been taken aboard Russian SRVs Georgy Titov (North Sea Fleet), Sayany (Black Sea Fleet), SS-750 (Baltic Fleet) and Alagez (Pacific Fleet) (Korabel.ru, April 24, 2016). In 2016, a new Bester-1 MUV was deployed on board the SRV Igor Belousov (Pacific Fleet). This underwater vehicle can be quickly transferred by cargo aircraft to any SRV or ORV (Tvzvezda.ru, July 12, 2017). Finally, modernized Russian Vishnya-class intelligence ships should be counted as potent hybrid underwater warfare tools as well (Aif.ru, March 16, 2017).

NATO has already responded to this increasingly perceived threat from Russia’s growing underwater activity with plans to reestablish a command post, shuttered after the Cold War, to help secure the sea lines of communications in the North Atlantic (UNIAN, January 14). Allies are also rushing to boost their ASW capabilities and to develop advanced submarine-detecting planes. But NATO still has more to do to protect undersea communications and Internet cables in the North Atlantic as well as the Mediterranean against Russian hybrid underwater activity.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Up to 95 dead now. Pictures at link:


Taliban attacker driving ambulance packed with explosives kills 95 in Kabul

Updated 11:59 AM ET, Sat January 27, 2018


Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN)An attacker driving an ambulance packed with explosives detonated them Saturday in the Afghan capital of Kabul, leaving 95 people dead and 158 others injured, Afghan officials said.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mojahid claimed responsibility for the attack, which comes a week after militants stormed a Kabul hotel.
The blast occurred around 12:45 p.m. local time after the vehicle passed through a security checkpoint, Interior Ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi told CNN.
Police identified the attacker at a second checkpoint, Rahimi said, but couldn't stop him before he detonated the explosives in a central area near the old Ministry of the Interior building, a large hospital and diplomatic buildings.

The injured have been taken to hospitals across the Afghan capital, said spokesman Wahid Majrooh of the Ministry of Public Health, who confirmed the casualties. He said the toll was likely to rise.
The attack, in the heart of what's meant to be the securest part of the city, is likely to fuel doubts over the Afghan authorities' ability to keep people safe.

'Insane, inhuman, heinous'
Afghanistan's Chief Executive, Abdullah Abdullah, condemned the attack, describing it as "insane, inhuman, heinous and a warcrime," via his official Twitter account.
He also called on the international community to "take further action" against "state-sponsored terrorism."
"Our priority and focus right now is to help those in need and provide the best treatment for those wounded," he wrote. "This is the moment when we all need to stand together and punch our enemy hard. This is enough!"

We condemn this terrorist act and share the sorrows and loses of our people. Our priority and focus right now is to help those in need and provide the best treatment for those wounded. This is the moment when we all need to stand together and punch our enemy hard. This is enough!
— Dr. Abdullah (@afgexecutive) January 27, 2018

The head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan called the attack "nothing short of an atrocity" that targeted a civilian area of the city.
"While the Taliban claim suggested the purpose of the attack was to target police, a massive vehicle bomb in a densely populated area could not reasonably be expected to leave civilians unharmed," Tadamichi Yamamoto said in a statement.
"I am particularly disturbed by credible reports that the attackers used a vehicle painted to look like an ambulance, including bearing the distinctive medical emblem, in clear violation of international humanitarian law," he said.

US Ambassador to Afghanistan John Bass condemned what he called a "senseless and cowardly bombing" and those who perpetrated it.
"My government and I stand with the brave people of Afghanistan. Their work to create a peaceful, prosperous future for all the citizens of this country is the best response to terrorists and others who know only violence," Bass said in a statement.
The blast comes a week after gunmen attacked the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul, killing at least 22 people during a 12-hour standoff with security forces.
Of those killed, 14 were foreign nationals -- including four Americans -- and eight were Afghans, according to the Ministry of Interior. Six gunmen were killed by Afghan security forces. The Taliban also claimed responsibility for that assault.
ISIS militants on Wednesday attacked the offices of British aid agency Save the Children in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, killing at least four people and injuring dozens.

Analysis: Attack shows strongholds are vulnerable

Saturday's bombing was not just another attack in the Afghan capital, CNN Senior International Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh said.

Every time the so-called ring of steel in the capital is penetrated, especially to such devastating effect, it undermines the government's ability to appear in control of even its most important sanctuaries, he said.

At a time when President Ashraf Ghani faces many internal enemies and is far from secure, the perception that even his inner enclaves are vulnerable is very damaging.
Secondly, the Taliban on Saturday swiftly claimed responsibility. That was a marked contrast to another attack last March on a key military hospital in Kabul, which killed at least 30 people, many of them doctors and injured soldiers, Paton Walsh said.

The Taliban back then denied it was behind the hospital attack, suggesting such targets were beyond the pale. ISIS eventually made a reasonably credible claim to that attack.

This time, the Taliban had no such qualms, Paton Walsh said. This could be interpreted as a sign the Taliban doesn't want to lose out to its younger, nastier competitor insurgency in the extremism stakes. A year ago, medical facilities were off-limits; now, an ambulance can be used as a bomb.

Thirdly, this is a seminal moment in the 16-year Afghanistan war. Last year, US and Afghan officials accepted that things had not gone well -- that territory was lost -- but noted the Taliban had lost people, too. This year, they insist, is the year the Taliban will begin to lose territory again. Attacks like this not only diminish morale but show strongholds as vulnerable, Paton Walsh said.

This year, too, hundreds more US troops are en route to the country to begin a much riskier mission: training Afghan troops outside the wire. There will be Americans on the front line who know that combat may be part of their mission and who may die in that effort, Paton Walsh said.

This is the one key foreign policy issue upon which US President Donald Trump has made a very specific policy pledge: to win.

At the same time, key indicators about how well the US and Afghan forces are doing -- such as how many Afghan soldiers or police are killed or injured -- are being classified, depriving the American public of simple ways of assessing their President's success, Paton Walsh said, noting that neither the Pentagon or this White House typically hide it when they are winning.

CNN's Ehsan Popalzai reported from Kabul, and Laura Smith-Spark wrote from London. CNN's Sara Mazloumsaki and Marilia Brocchetto contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/27/asia/afghanistan-kabul-blast-intl/index.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
U.S. Dept of Defense
@DeptofDefense

#SecDef Mattis described the North Korean regime as a ‘Threat to the Entire World’ during a joint press conference with South Korea Minister of Defense Song Young-moo at @PacificCommand HQ. Read More: (link: https://go.usa.gov/xnGKe) go.usa.gov/xnGKe
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/26/russia-deploys-more-s-400-missile-systems-syria.html

Russia Deploys More S-400 Missile Systems to Syria

Military.com 26 Jan 2018 By Oriana Pawlyk
Russia is reportedly increasing the number of S-400 surface-to-air missile systems in western Syria, where it operates maritime and air forces.

Two mobile missile batteries have been delivered to Khmeimim air base in Latakia province, while another two went to Tartus naval port on the Mediterranean Sea, according to RT, the Russian government-funded news outlet.

Whether this poses significant or increased threat to U.S. warplanes operating in the country for the fight against the Islamic State is unknown. The missile batteries' final locations have not been disclosed.

U.S. Air Forces Central Command would not comment on the reported SAMs deployment or on any extra precautions it might take for fighter and drone aircraft operating in the country.

Related content:

Russia to Target US, Coalition Aircraft Over Syria
US to Turkey: Russian S-400s Aren't Compatible with NATO Tech
General: US Pilots Made the Call to Shoot Down Syrian Aircraft


"AfCent always remains vigilant and committed to the defense and protection of U.S. personnel, our coalition partners and assets. We posture our forces as necessary to counter potential threats," Capt. AnnMarie Annicelli told Military.com in a statement Thursday.

The U.S. generally operates east and north of Euphrates River, while Russian and Syrian forces operate in the west and south.

Russia and the U.S. have an established "deconfliction zone" -- an area in which they have agreed not to operate. The zone previously applied to airspace but now includes ground territory, a defense official told Military.com last year.

Russia first deployed the S-400, known as the "Triumf," to Syria in 2015, the same year it entered the battlespace. The advanced system can carry multiple, short- to very long-range missiles with a variety of sensor systems. Exactly how many Russian-made SAMs are in Syria is unknown.

In June, Russia condemned the U.S. shootdown of a Syrian Su-22 fighter bomber over Syria, saying it would track aircraft of any kind near its airspace in Syria with surface-to-air missiles and claiming the U.S. failed to use the established deconfliction line between the militaries before the incident.

Months earlier, a top U.S. Air Force general stressed more discussions with Russia were needed as the battlespace in Syria began to shrink and become more complex.

"It's a dense surface-to-air threat in portions of Syria," Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, then-commander of Air Combat Command, said last February.

Aircraft must be ready at all times to act, he said, because "the [surface-to-air missile] systems the Russians and Syrians have over there are active systems."

He clarified that while the SAM systems are operative, they're not necessarily painting U.S. aircraft with target tracking radars "to any great extent that I know of."

The latest S-400 deployment comes as Russia's Ministry of Defence has vowed to sell the weapons system to other countries. In addition to Turkey, nations expressing interest include Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria, Newsweek reports. India is also in negotiations to purchase five Triumf systems for roughly $5 billion, Defense News reports.

Turkey, a NATO ally, in July agreed to purchase four Russian-made S-400 mobile missile batteries for $2.5 billion over the next few years. It finalized the deal in September.

-- Oriana Pawlyk can be reached at oriana.pawlyk@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @Oriana0214.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
SOMEWHAT (currently) fortunately, the 400's come complete with Soviet operations crews. Or at least CURRENTLY they do.

If/when THAT changes there will be a whole lotta fat tossed into the fire.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/26/ir...rise-persian-gulf-small-boat-harassment-drops

Iranian Drone Missions on the Rise in the Persian Gulf as Small Boat Harassment Drops

By: Paul McLeary
January 26, 2018 1:55 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Iranian drones have become increasingly active in the Persian Gulf and other critical waterways around the Middle East, regularly conducting surveillance flights close to U.S. warships crossing the Strait of Hormuz and operating around the region, a defense official told USNI News on Friday.

The revelation comes days after the U.S. 5th Fleet said that incidents of small Iranian fast boats harassing American ships in the Gulf have stopped altogether since August, after a 20-month period of increasing tension as they buzzed Navy ships on average of twice a month.

An American defense official confirmed to USNI News that Iranian QOM-1 drones – also known as the Shaheed 129, and capable of carrying weapons – have been conducting “one to two maritime flights per day” over the Strait of Hormuz and the Southern Arabian Gulf in recent months. Those flights “often approach U.S. Navy ships operating in the region,” the official said.

There is no indication that those flights have put U.S. Navy vessels or commercial shipping at risk, but crews are on alert for the drones, which are roughly the size of an MQ-1 Predator and often fly without lights or transponders turned on, alarming U.S. Navy pilots operating in the already crowded airspace.

“We remain concerned with the increased number of Iranian UAVs operating in international airspace at night without navigation lights or an active transponder, as would be expected according to international norms,” U.S. 5th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Bill Urban told USNI News on Friday.

o one expert, the shift in Iran’s posture from small boat harassment to drone operations makes sense.

“They’re likely compensating [for the halting of the fast boat operations] by flying more drones,” Afshon Ostovar, who teaches national security the Naval Postgraduate School and studies the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, told USNI News.

“The regime as a whole also likely prefers the quiet ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) campaign to the louder maritime harassment campaign [represented by the fast boats].”

Flying a drone is a more sophisticated display of military power than sending a small boat out to charge an aircraft carrier, and can serve as a reminder of Tehran’s increasingly sophisticated ISR capabilities, something the Iranian government and military are likely to enjoy putting on display while not directly antagonizing the United States Navy, he said.

The most serious interaction between the U.S. Navy and an Iranian drone came last August, when a Shaheed-129 buzzed an American F/A-18E Super Hornet as it prepared to land on USS Nimitz (CVN-68) during a night operation in the Persian Gulf. U.S. Central Command at the time said that, despite repeated radio calls demanding the drone stay clear of American flight operations, it came within 100 feet of the jet, which had to swerve to avoid a collision. Urban confirmed to USNI that the drone in that incident did not have its navigation lights on.

Less than a week later, a second unmanned aircraft came within 1,000 feet of the carrier.

American aircraft have had other hair-raising incidents with the Shaheed in the skies over Syria. The regime of Bashar al-Assad operates several of the Iranian-made aircraft, which can be equipped with a combination of eight bombs or Sadid-1 air-to-ground missiles.

Video

In June, U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles shot down two of the unmanned aircraft, after one dropped a munition close to American forces in southeast Syria and another approached an American outpost. The Nimitz incident came less than two months later.

The close call with Nimitz put a punctuation mark at the tail end of a dangerous 20 months time in the Persian Gulf, as Iranian fast boats were regularly speeding toward American naval vessels at a rate of 2.5 unsafe or unprofessional interactions per month.

In total, there were 14 unsafe and unprofessional interactions in 2017 and 36 in 2016, U.S. officials confirmed to USNI News following a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this month, 5th Fleet denied Iranian claims that its drones chased away destroyer USS Higgins (DDG-76), assigned to the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group operating in the Middle East as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, in the Gulf of Oman.

A spokesman for 5th Fleet told USNI News at the time that the ship performed its operations and left the area on a pre-planned schedule.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
TURKEY THREATENING THE US
Started by ontheright, Yesterday 10:47 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?530875-TURKEY-THREATENING-THE-US

----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/article/us-blinks-turkish-pressure-syria/

US blinks under Turkish pressure in Syria

Turkey’s aim is to scatter the Kurds’ Rojava dream of a contiguous homeland across northern Syria

By M.K. Bhadrakumar January 28, 2018 9:40 AM (UTC+8)
Comments 7

The Turkish President Recep Erdogan gave a stark warning to the Trump administration on Friday by stating his intention to order an assault on the northern Syrian town of Manbij, roughly 40 km from the Turkish border and 100 km to the east of Afrin, where US forces are operating alongside Kurdish militia.

He said, “Operation Olive Branch will continue until it reaches its goals. We will rid Manbij of terrorists (read Kurds) … Our battles will continue until no terrorist is left right up to our (910-km) border with Iraq.”

The fact of the matter is that unlike Afrin, which is predominantly Kurdish, the ethnic composition of Manbij is diverse with Arabs, Circassians and Chechens forming majority. A Turkish assault on Manbij will expose the fundamental contradiction in the US strategy to align with Kurds in the multi-ethnic northern Syrian region to the east of the Euphrates, where Arabs dominate and tribal solidarity remains strong.

The Kurds consider this region as “historically Kurdish,” based on notions from the Middle Ages and Salah al-Din, but the ground reality is that they can never integrate such a large Arab population. Suffice to say, undermining the Kurdish gains in Manbij is not going to be difficult for Turkey and US forces are sure to get caught in the crossfire, since without direct US intervention, Kurds will be at a disadvantage.

Occupation of Afrin is not the Turkish objective. Turkey’s aim is to scatter the Kurds’ Rojava dream, which is based on a contiguous homeland across northern Syria up to the East Mediterranean. The western analysts’ prognosis of a “Turkish quagmire” in Afrin is far-fetched. Turkey understands that it is futile to conquer Afrin, a region of rugged mountains with hostile Kurdish population.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu hinted at this when he said on Friday, “After clearing them (Kurds), we will hand the region over to its real owners; namely, we will hand it over to Syrians.” Cavusoglu meant the Arab population. Interestingly, Kurds in Afrin have sent feelers to Damascus to come and reclaim the lost territory.

Much depends on the Russian game plan. Russia is in a unique position of being on friendly terms with Turkey, Afrin Kurds and Damascus. Moscow may prefer that the Turks complete their mission in Afrin and move on to Manbij. That gives respite to the Syrian government forces to gain control of Idlib.

Turkey is signaling that it will risk confrontation with the US, if it must. Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag (who also officiates as the government spokesman) warned the Pentagon, “Those who support the terrorist organization will become a target in this battle. The United States needs to review its soldiers and elements giving support to terrorists on the ground in such a way as to avoid a confrontation with Turkey.”

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim also spoke on these lines: “A big country like the US has a huge army and potential, does it need terrorist organizations (for its operations in the region)? … This is clear hostility. Turkey will not allow this no matter who is behind it, regardless of its power and whatever the name it may have.”

To be sure, Turkey is relentlessly piling pressure and is not giving any wriggle room to Washington. The Trump administration is compelled to compromise. The National Security Advisor HR McMaster telephoned the Turkish presidential aide Ibrahim Kalin on Friday late evening to discuss Turkey’s “legitimate interests” and to convey that the US will not provide weapons to the Syrian Kurds anymore.

McMaster’s overture followed a telephone conversation on Friday between Erdogan and British Prime Minister Theresa May. Britain has a role to play in the Kurdish problem, historically. Besides, the controversial speech on Syria by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at Stanford University ten days ago, which was the tipping point, had a big British input – where he proclaimed that military presence in Syria would continue “indefinitely” and that Pentagon planned to train a 30,000-strong Kurdish security force on the Turkish border.

In immediate terms, the US and Britain’s priority is to disrupt Russia’s Syria talks in Sochi on January 29-30, which is expected to discuss a constitution for Syria. The West sees Turkey’s role as the last countervailing force to a Russian-imposed peace in Syria.

However, any compromise formula at this point may be too little, too late for Erdogan at this stage. For one thing, the ground situation has acquired a dynamic of its own. The Kurds are firing rockets at Turkey with impunity. The point is, PKK is not under US command. Erdogan rejected McMaster’s assurance and alleged that US arms are still “flowing” to the Kuridsh militia.

Foreign Minister Cavusoglu point blank demanded today that the US forces should withdraw from Manbij “immediately.” Complying with the Turkish demand will be very humiliating for the Pentagon. But what is the alternative?

The signs are that Erdogan has a deal already with the Kremlin. Russia is tacitly acceding to the Turkish drive to weaken Kurds. It’s a “win-win” situation for Moscow and Ankara. From the Russian viewpoint, the US strategy in Syria will reach a cul-de-sac if the Turks degrade its Kurdish allies. It must be factored in that Moscow suspects that the US masterminded the attack attack on the Russian base at Hmeimim on January 5. President Putin hinted at this and went on to point a finger at a calculated ploy to wreck Russian-Turkish relations.

As for Turkey, given the trust deficit in their relations after the failed coup against Erdogan in 2015 and the opaqueness of American intentions in Syria and Iraq, Turkey is barely tolerating the US military-intelligence presence along its sensitive southern borders. But Turkey cannot and will not make an outright demand for a US pullout from Syria, being NATO allies and all that.

On the other hand, if the US is neither able to protect its Kurdish allies nor to create new facts on the ground in northern Syria (to counter the expanding Iranian presence), and also lacks the capacity to leverage the policies of regional states, what is the logic of maintaining isolated pockets of military presence in northeastern Syria “indefinitely?”

Thus, by degrading the Kurdish militia and effectively destroying their utility to the US, Erdogan is killing two birds with one stone. Putin must be sensing that, too. Meanwhile, Russia is prevailing upon Tehran and Damascus to get on with life, leaving it to Erdogan to sort out the fate of the US presence in Syria.

More on this topic

Turkey plays its latest card in the New Great Game
Pepe Escobar

America’s Syrian humiliation is worse than it looks
David P. Goldman

US sends mixed signals after Turkish move on Syrian Kurds
Asia Times staff
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5::dot5::dot5: Load out can also include the updated B61s with the JDAM package...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.themaven.net/warriormav...-rush-f-22s-war-WXuNGP5k4EyBUdzfj3PXmA?full=1

Air Force Revs Up "Rapid Raptor" Program to Rush F-22s War

Video

by Kris Osborn
8 hrs

F-22 Mini-Series Part I: The Air Force is strengthening its “Rapid Raptor” program designed to send four F-22s to war
By Kris Osborn - Managing Editor - Warrior Maven

The Air Force is strengthening its “Rapid Raptor” program designed to fast-track four F-22s to war - anywhere in the world - within 24 hours, on a moments notice, should there be an immediate need for attacks in today’s pressured, fast-moving global threat environment , service officials said.

The program, in existence for several years, prepares four F-22s with the requisite crew members, C-17 support, fuel, maintenance and weapons necessary to execute a fast-attack “first-strike” ability in remote or austere parts of the world, Air Force officials say.

First strike options are, according to military planners, of particular significance for the F-22 Raptor, given its technical focus on using stealth and air-to-air combat technology to attack heavily defended or “contested” enemy areas.

“If jets, no matter how technically advanced, tactically skilled and strategically sound in the air, can only leap from well-known base to well-known base, their first-strike threat is limited,” an Air Force statement said.

Most air attack contingencies, it seems almost self-evident, are likely to include F-22s as among the first to strike; the aircraft is designed to engage and destroy enemy air threats and also use stealth to destroy enemy air defenses – creating an “air corridor” for other fighters. Although not intended to function as a higher altitude stealth bomber, an F-22 is well suited to a mission objective aimed at destroying enemy aircraft, including fighters, as well as air defenses.

The Raptor is, by design, engineered to fly in tandem with fourth-generation fighters such as an F-15 or F-18, to not only pave the way for further attacks but also to use its longer-range sensors to hand off targets to 4th gen planes for follow-on attacks.

CLICK HERE

Rapid Raptor was originally developed by Air Force Pacific Command and has since been expanded to a global sphere by Air Combat Command, service officials said.

“The ACC Rapid Raptor program’s aim is to take the concept, as developed in PACAF, and change it from a theater specific to a worldwide capability.” Staff. Sgt. Sarah Trachte, Air Combat Command spokeswoman, told Warrior Maven in a written statement.

As part of the Rapid Raptor concept, ACC F-22s forward deployed to Europe in 2015 and 2016, she added. Using the Rapid Raptor program for Europe is, in many respects, entirely consistent with the Pentagon’s broader European posture; for many years now, DoD and NATO have been positioning deterrence-oriented forces throughout the European continent as well conducting numerous allied “solidarity” or “interoperability” exercises. Apart from demonstrating force as a counterbalance to Russian posturing, these activities are also part of a decided strategic effort to demonstrate “mobility” and rapid deployability.

Therefore, so while Air Force officials are careful to say the Rapid Raptor, as a concept does, not “target” any specific nation, its utilization in Europe is indeed of great relevance given existing tensions with Russia. Furthermore, multiple news reports cited F-22 participation in wargame exercises over the Korean peninsula last year – a fact which certainly lends evidence to the possibility that the Raptor would figure prominently in any attack on North Korea.

Also, apart from being prepared to conduct major-power, nation state warfare across the globe within 24-hours, the Rapid Raptor program is designed to enable ground attack options in unexpected, remote or “austere” target areas.

Accordingly, should the need to attack emerge suddenly in a particular part of the world, a small continent of F-22s will be able to get there. The point here, it seems clear, is that recent global combat circumstances have further reinforced the importance of the F-22s ground attack or close-air-support ability. Of course, historically, many most immediately think of the F-22 in terms of its speed, maneuverability and dogfighting advantage as an air supremacy fighter, yet its recent air to ground attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan have fortified its role in an air-to-ground fight.

--- To Read Warrior Maven's Previous Report on F-22 Weapons Upgrades - CLICK HERE --

While the F-22 is by no means intended to function as an A-10 would in a close-in ground fight persay, it does have a 20mm cannon which has been used in ground attacks against ISIS, officials familiar with the war effort say. As recently as this past November, the F-22 conducted a successful ground attack against a Taliban facility in Afghanistan. To support these kinds of mission options, the F-22 weapons compliment includes ground-specific attack weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions – such as the GBU 32 and GBU 39 -- and the Small Diameter Bomb.

“Since the jet first deployed in 2014, it has been capable of air-to-ground and air-to-air. We have the small diameter bomb and JDAMs in the AOR.I uses side weapons bay and its typical load out is eight SDBs and two AMRAAMS (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile),” Ken Merchant, Vice President, F-22 programs, Lockheed Martin, told Warrior Maven in an interview.

Coming UP - Warrior Maven F-22 Mini-Series Part II: F-22 Agile Acquisition, Modernization & Weapons

====

ETA:

latest

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...rmament.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131012234851
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar..._attack_on_kabul_military_academy_112977.html

11 Afghan Troops Die in Is Attack on Kabul Military Academy

By Amir Shah & Rahim Faiez
January 29, 2018

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Islamic State militants attacked Afghan soldiers guarding a military academy in the capital of Kabul on Monday, killing at least 11 troops and wounding 16.

The attack was the latest in a wave of relentless violence in Kabul this month unleashed by the Taliban and the rival Islamic State group that has killed scores and left hundreds wounded.

Monday’s attack started around 4 a.m., witnesses said, and fighting continued long after daybreak.

A suicide bomber first struck the military unit responsible for providing security for the academy, followed by a gunbattle with the troops, said Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Afghan defense ministry.

At least five insurgents were involved in the morning assault, according to Waziri. Two of the attackers were killed in the gunbattle, two detonated their suicide vests and one was arrested by the troops, he said.

All roads leading to the military academy were blocked by police, which only allowed ambulances access to the site to transfer the wounded to hospitals.

After the gunbattle ended, the security forces resumed control of the area. They also confiscated one suicide vest, an AK-47 and some ammunition, Waziri said.

Waziri earlier said that five soldiers were killed but later raised the death toll to 11. He insisted, however that “the attack was against an army unit providing security for the academy and not the academy itself.”

Afzal Aman, commander of the city’s military garrison, confirmed the attack in the area of the Marshal Fahim academy. Hashmat Faqeri, a resident near the site, told The Associated Press he heard sounds of explosions and a gunbattle.

Hours later, the Islamic State group’s affiliate in Afghanistan, known as Khorasan Province, posted its claim of responsibility on the website of its media arm, the Aamaq news agency, saying its fighters targeted the “military academy in Kabul.”

Neighboring Pakistan condemned Monday’s attack. Islamabad said it “reiterates its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, especially the series of heinous attacks within the last week in Afghanistan.”

The academy, known as Marshal Fahim National Defense University located on the edge of Kabul at the Camp Qargha military base, is sometimes also called “Sandhurst in the Sand” — a reference to the British academy. Named after Mohammed Fahim, the country’s late vice-president and a military commander of the Northern Alliance that fought the Taliban, the academy was inaugurated in 2013 after British forces oversaw building the officers’ school and its training program.

The academy was also the site where the highest-ranking U.S. military officer to be lost in the Afghan and Iraqi wars was killed in August 2014. Army Maj Gen. Harold J. Greene, then deputy commander of the transition force in the country, was shot and killed by an Afghan soldiers in a so-called “insider attack” that was later claimed by the Taliban.

The same academy was also attacked in October last year by a suicide bomber who killed 15 officers. The attacker was on foot and detonated his suicide vest as the on-duty officers were leaving the facility, heading home in the evening. That attack was also claimed by the Taliban.

Both the Taliban and IS have stepped up attacks in recent months in Kabul and elsewhere across Afghanistan, including massive bombings staged by militants determined to inflict maximum casualties, instill terror in the population and undermine confidence in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government and the country’s security forces.

On Saturday, a Taliban attacker drove an ambulance filled with explosives into the heart of the city, killing at least 103 people and wounding as many as 235.

Interior Minister Wais Ahmad Barmak said Sunday that the investigation into the attack indicated that a second ambulance was also involved but had left the area, indicating some would-be attackers may have escaped.

The Taliban claimed the ambulance attack, as well as an attack a week earlier in which militants stormed a hilltop hotel in Kabul, the Intercontinental, killing 22 people, including 14 foreigners, and setting off a 13-hour battle with security forces.

Masoom Stanekzai, the head of Afghanistan’s intelligence service, said five suspects have been arrested for their involvement in the hotel attack. A sixth suspect had fled the country, he said.

He also said that four people have been arrested in connection with Saturday’s ambulance attack.

The recent brutal attacks have underscored the weaknesses of Afghan security forces, more than 16 years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban, and raise questions about President Donald Trump’s strategy for winning America’s longest war.

The Taliban have been waging an insurgency since they were driven from power by U.S. and Afghan forces after the Sept. 11 attacks. In recent years, they have seized districts across the country and carried out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting Afghan security forces and the U.S.-backed government.

The Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan emerged in 2014, as the U.S. and NATO were winding down their combat mission and around the time that IS declared its self-styled Islamic caliphate, headquartered in Syria and Iraq. Its followers have clashed with both Afghan forces and the Taliban.

Associated Press writers Maamoun Youssef in Cairo and Patrick Quinn in Beirut contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20180129-fighting-flares-yemens-aden-after-separatist-coup-attempt

29 January 2018 - 11H06

Fighting flares in Yemen's Aden after separatist 'coup' attempt

ADEN (AFP) -

Fresh fighting flared in Yemen's southern city of Aden on Monday after separatist forces seized government buildings in what the prime minister said was an attempted coup.

Aden has served as the headquarters of Saudi-backed President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's government since it was forced out of the capital Sanaa by Shiite rebels three years ago.

The separatists -- who want the return of the independent South Yemen that existed before 1990 -- supported Hadi's forces against the rebels but tensions between the two sides have risen in recent months.

The flare-up in Aden has added yet another dimension to one of the world's most complicated conflicts, a civil war that left thousands dead and millions on the brink of starvation.

On Monday, sporadic clashes continued after fighting overnight in the port city, especially in its north where separatist forces tried to take control of a military camp, security sources said.

The separatists dispatched additional forces from the central province of Marib and the southern province of Abyan, the sources said.

The forces from Abyan progressed towards Aden after clashes with loyalists on the way.

After the separatists seized the government headquarters on Sunday, Prime Minister Ahmed bin Dagher on Sunday denounced a "coup... in Aden against legitimacy and the country's unity".

He urged a Saudi-led military coalition backing Hadi to intervene in its defence. The coalition launched air strikes against the Iran-backed Huthi rebels in March 2015 and sent troops to support Hadi's forces, fearing that Tehran would gain a foothold in the country on Saudi Arabia's southern border.

- 'Shooting' all night -
On Sunday, security sources said pro-separatist units trained and backed by the United Arab Emirates had taken over the government headquarters in Aden after clashes.

By early evening, separatists took control of two roads leading to the presidential palace where several members of the government were staying, security sources said.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said fighting continued overnight in the port city.

"All night shooting in Aden #Yemen, including heavy weapons," Alexandre Faite, the head of the ICRC delegation in the country based in Sanaa, said on Twitter.

"Those in southern part of city, including (ICRC staff) still unable to get out."

UN envoy to Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed urged all parties to return to "calm and dialogue".

The top negotiator is to step down in April after three years of overseeing UN-brokered negotiations between the government and rebels, none of which have stemmed the violence in the country.

More than 9,200 people have been killed in Yemen since the Saudi-led military coalition intervened.

The separatists joined forces with Hadi's government to oust the rebels from southern provinces in 2015, but tensions have soared since a secessionist governor's sacking last year.

- 'Outlaws' -
Dagher held a cabinet meeting overnight to discuss "military developments and sabotage acts targeting government installations", loyalist news agency Saba reported.

He condemned the actions of "outlaws" against the "legitimacy represented by President Hadi" in the city.

Sunday's fighting in Aden killed 15 people including three civilians, hospital sources said, after separatist protesters were prevented from entering the city for a rally to demand the government's ouster.

The separatists accused the prime minister of ordering his troops to open fire at the protesters.

Sunday's rally was called by the Southern Transitional Council, an autonomous body not recognised by the government and aimed at overseeing self-governance in southern provinces.

Former Aden governor Aidarous al-Zoubeidi formed the council in May last year after Hadi fired him.

The council had asked Hadi to make changes in the government and gave him one week to do so -- a deadline that expired on Sunday.

It had warned that if Hadi did not accept the demand, its supporters would begin a protest campaign to oust Dagher's government.

South Yemen was independent -- with former British colony Aden as its capital -- from its formation in 1967 until 1990, when it was unified with North Yemen.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...acks-on-police-defense-minister-idUSKBN1FI1RG

#World News January 29, 2018 / 6:18 AM / Updated 2 hours ago

Colombia's ELN rebels responsible for bomb attacks on police: defense minister

Reuters Staff
3 Min Read

BOGOTA (Reuters) - Colombia’s ELN rebels are responsible for three bomb attacks against police stations that killed seven and wounded dozens more over the weekend, the nation’s defense minister said on Monday, as the government weighs the future of peace talks with the group.

Five police officers were killed and more than 40 wounded in a bombing in the port city of Barranquilla on Saturday morning.

Two more officers died, and one was wounded just before midnight on Saturday in the rural Bolivar province, and the third attack took place about four hours later in the city of Soledad, injuring five police and one civilian.

“The authorship of these terrible actions is on the head of the National Liberation Army,” Defense Minister Luis Carlos Villegas told local Caracol Radio, adding that the violence raised the question of whether the group wants peace.

The ELN and the government have been in formal peace talks for nearly a year, and the two sides agreed to their first-ever ceasefire in October. However, the guerrillas launched a new offensive when the ceasefire expired this month, killing security force members, bombing major oil pipelines and kidnapping an oil contractor.

In a statement on its main website on Monday, the ELN said it would support a new ceasefire but that attacks would continue in the absence of one.

President Juan Manuel Santos, who said the government would not rest until the perpetrators of the bombings were found, will speak about the future of the talks later on Monday, Villegas said. Santos had recalled the government’s negotiator at the Quito talks after the renewed offensive this month.

A man arrested after the first bombing in Barranquilla had been detained in 2015 in connection with an ELN cell, Villegas said, and the group was also responsible for a police station bombing in Ecuador on Saturday. No one was killed in that attack.

The urban front of the ELN put out a statement over the weekend claiming responsibility for the Barranquilla bombing, but others inside the organization said on Sunday they could not verify its authenticity.

Reporting by Julia Symmes Cobb; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russian jet flies within 5 feet of US Navy plane, Pentagon says

Washington (CNN)A Russian military jet performed an unsafe intercept of a US Navy P-3 Orion surveillance plane while it was flying in international airspace over the Black Sea Monday, three defense officials told CNN.

The American pilots reported that the Russian jet came within five feet of the US plane, according to two of the officials.
The Russian jet's action forced the US Navy aircraft to end its mission prematurely, one of the officials said.
Several unsafe interactions between Russian and US military forces have taken place near the Black Sea.
Russian, US and NATO forces operate in close proximity to one another in the area, particularly since Russia boosted its military presence in the region following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.The US Navy has also upped its presence in the area in recent years.
A Russian Su-30 fighter jet made an "unsafe" intercept of a US P-8A Poseidon aircraft in November while it was flying over the Black Sea.
The last reported incident between US and Russian aircraft took place in the skies over Syria, when US F-22s intercepted Russian attack jets after they flew over the de-confliction line intended to ensure safety. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/russia-jet-us-navy-black-sea/index.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Assad Threatens to Launch Scud Missiles at Israel

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has threatened to fire a Scud missile at the Jewish State if the Israel Air Force carries out one more air strike on Damascus.

The Lebanese newspaper “A-Diyar” reported Saturday evening that Assad made the threat during a phone conversation with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Assad said he would launch Scud missiles at Ben Gurion International Airport if Israel bombed Damascus again, saying “Syrian honor must be considered above all else.”

The Russian president said he would be sure to convey the message to Israel.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/mid...to-launch-scud-missiles-at-israel/2018/01/27/
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
SYRIAN ARMY FIRES ON ADVANCING TURKISH MILITARY COLUMNS
Started by Doomer Doug, Today 12:36 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Y-FIRES-ON-ADVANCING-TURKISH-MILITARY-COLUMNS

===

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20180130-turkish-air-strikes-pound-kurdish-fighters-syria

30 January 2018 - 13H14

Turkish air strikes pound Kurdish fighters in Syria

AFRIN (SYRIA) (AFP) -

Turkish air strikes pounded the Syrian border region of Afrin and fighting raged on two fronts as Ankara pursued its offensive against the Kurdish enclave on Tuesday.

A monitoring group and Kurdish sources said Turkey's air force had stepped up its raids on the 10th day of operation "Olive Branch", which sees Turkey providing air and ground support to Syrian opposition fighters in an offensive against Kurdish militia in northwestern Syria.

Ankara has pushed forward with the operation to force the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) from the region despite international concerns and reports of rising civilian casualties.

In reaction to the offensive, the Kurds were not attending peace talks Tuesday aimed at resolving Syria's almost seven-year civil war being held in the Russian city of Sochi.

Turkish jets were hitting Kurdish positions in the towns of Rajo and Jandairis, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group.

Syrian rebels backed by Turkey "were engaged in fierce battles against Kurdish forces" in the two towns, said Rami Abdel Rahman, the head of the Britain-based Observatory, which uses a network of sources to monitor Syria's war.

"Turkey's aerial campaign against Afrin has escalated since Monday," he added.

A spokesman for the YPG, which Ankara considers a "terror" group, said the strikes had been relentless.

"Since yesterday, the bombardment by Turkish aircraft has not stopped in some areas," the spokesman, Brusk Hasakeh, said.

It was unclear how many civilians remained in Rajo and Jandairis as many had already fled to Afrin town, the capital of the district.

- Hundreds at mass funeral -
An AFP journalist on Tuesday heard consecutive strikes hitting areas surrounding Afrin town.

On Monday hundreds of people attended a mass funeral in Afrin for civilians and fighters killed in the offensive, weeping and carrying coffins draped in Kurdish flags.

The Observatory says at least 67 civilians have been killed since the start of the operation on January 20. Turkey strongly rejects such claims, saying it is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties in the operation.

At least 85 YPG militiamen have died, the Observatory says, as have 81 fighters from the rebel groups fighting with Turkish backing.

Turkey says seven of its soldiers have been killed.

Turkish state-run news agency Anadolu reported on Tuesday that two villages in the Afrin region had been "cleared" of the YPG.

Turkey and allied forces have made gains in the offensive and on Sunday seized control of Mount Barsaya, a strategically important high point near the town of Afrin.

A Turkish military convoy of dozens of vehicles crossed the border overnight, the Observatory said. It initially headed towards an area south of Afrin but was forced to change course after coming under fire from forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Turkish relations with the United States have soured over Ankara's stance on the YPG -- which Ankara says is a "terrorist" offshoot of Turkey's outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

- Sochi talks delayed -
The YPG has received support from the United States, with its fighters spearheading the battle against the Islamic State group across swathes of Syria.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to expand the offensive against the YPG to other Kurdish areas including Manbij, east of Afrin.

Speaking at a meeting of lawmakers from his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), Erdogan said Tuesday: "We will not stop until we eliminate the terror threat from our border."

Turkish authorities have cracked down on criticism of the operation and on Tuesday detained all the top members of the country's main medical association, including its chief.

The arrests came after the Turkish Medical Association (TTB) issued a statement saying that "war is a man-made public health problem".

The talks in Sochi had meanwhile been delayed by several hours, as Moscow struggled to bring together key players.

Syria's main opposition group, like the Kurds, said they would boycott the event, and last-minute negotiations were underway to bring others together at the table.

Few expect the congress, co-sponsored by Russia, Iran and Turkey, to make much progress in ending Syria's civil war, which has killed more than 340,000 people and devastated the country since breaking out in 2011.

by Delil Souleiman
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
This Business Will Get Out of Control

Already Happened@M3t4_tr0n BMPs (infantry fighting vehicles) moving through the streets of Hrodna, Belarus, close to Poland and Lithuania borders https://already-happened.com/2018/01...rders/ … pic.twitter.com/wPCDkef2PP

Already Happened@M3t4_tr0n
Unusual military movements ongoing in Belarus, recently spotted around Lida ~20km from the border with Lithuania, source says "This is the first time I see such a train" https://already-happened.com/2018/01...rders/ … pic.twitter.com/RbRXcmQKPt
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/the-pakistan-trap/550895/

The Devastating Paradox of Pakistan

How Afghanistan’s neighbor cultivated American dependency while subverting American policy

Mark Mazzetti
March 2018 Issue

Two months after the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Vice President–elect Joe Biden sat with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, in the Arg Palace, an 83-acre compound in Kabul that had become a gilded cage for the mercurial and isolated leader. The discussion was already tense as Karzai urged Washington to help root out Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, implying that more pressure needed to be exerted on Pakistani leaders. Biden’s answer stunned Karzai into silence. Biden let Karzai know how Barack Obama’s incoming administration saw its priorities. “Mr. President,” Biden said, “Pakistan is fifty times more important than Afghanistan for the United States.”

It was an undiplomatic moment for sure, but also a frank expression of the devastating paradox at the heart of the longest war in American history. In 16 years, the United States has spent billions of dollars fighting a war that has killed thousands of soldiers and an untold number of civilians in a country that Washington considers insignificant to its strategic interests in the region. Meanwhile, the country it has viewed as a linchpin, Pakistan—a nuclear-armed cauldron of volatile politics and long America’s closest military ally in South Asia—has pursued a covert campaign in Afghanistan designed to ensure that the money and the lives have been spent in vain. The stakes in Pakistan have been considered too high to break ties with Islamabad or take other steps that would risk destabilizing the country. The stakes in Afghanistan have been deemed low enough that careening from one failed strategy to another has been acceptable.

Even so, the post-9/11 years have seen the slow dissolution of the shotgun marriage arranged between the U.S. and Pakistan in the quest to rout al-Qaeda. As Steve Coll recounts in Directorate S—which picks up the narrative where his Pulitzer Prize–winning 2004 volume, Ghost Wars, left off—the seeds of mistrust were planted early, and mutual recriminations steadily accumulated. Weeks after the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, a demoralized Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the head of Pakistan’s army, likened his “helpless” country to a mortgaged house, with the United States playing the role of banker. For American officials who dealt with Pakistan, another domestic analogy might have seemed more apt: Pakistan was the spouse who had drained the family bank account and then slept with the sketchy neighbor.

The anger on the American side was fueled by the gradual realization that Washington had, since the very beginning of the war, allowed Pakistan to wield too much influence over U.S. strategy. As the Taliban retreated from Kabul and Kandahar in late 2001, the CIA station chief in Islamabad wrote cables channeling the Pakistani military’s perspective. A Northern Alliance takeover of the country, the message went, could lead to a bloodbath for Afghanistan’s Pashtuns (Pakistan’s traditional allies) and undermine Pakistan’s readiness to broker a political settlement there. What Pakistan wanted most of all, of course, was its own favored groups, and not its rival India’s, in power.

George W. Bush’s war cabinet was already jittery about the “nightmare scenario” of the new conflict: violence spilling over into Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf’s government collapsing, and the country’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of Pakistani generals with Taliban sympathies. Musharraf himself spent years masterfully stoking these fears. He often warned American officials that the more he acceded to Washington’s demands, the more his support inside the military would erode and the better the chances would become of the nightmare scenario playing out.

The conundrum might have been resolved, Coll suggests, had the American military’s tactical failures during the first year not helped Musharraf’s argument that Pakistan was too dangerous to ignore. Intelligence failures and insufficient troops at the battles in Tora Bora and the Shah-i-Kot Valley allowed al-Qaeda fighters to slip over Afghanistan’s eastern border and resettle in Pakistan’s tribal areas and cities. With the arrival of the militants in his country, Musharraf ordered his military intelligence service, the ISI, to work with the CIA to hunt down al-Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistani cities. He also made the case to U.S. officials that, partly thanks to American misadventures, Pakistan now deserved a huge influx of military aid. The arrests in 2002 and 2003 of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and others reinforced Bush’s view that Pakistan was “with us,” an ally to be trusted.

Coll convincingly shows that those few al-Qaeda scalps, delivered by the ISI at a time when the Bush administration had already begun to ignore Afghanistan and focus on the looming war in Iraq, bought years of American inattention to the ISI’s more secretive activities: arming and financing the Taliban and other Afghan militant groups sympathetic to Pakistan rather than India. The United States had stumbled into an informal, unspoken bargain, accepting help from Pakistan in the fight against al-Qaeda in exchange for tacitly enabling, while feebly contesting, Pakistan’s efforts to sabotage the American-led campaign in Afghanistan. Intermittent U.S. demands that the covert efforts stop went unheeded.

The deal was stunningly lucrative for Islamabad. Each year, the Pentagon transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to Pakistan, ostensibly to reimburse its military for counterterrorism operations. In fact, Coalition Support Funds were a “kind of legal bribery to Pakistan’s generals,” Coll argues. The Pentagon would receive bills for air-defense expenses, even though al-Qaeda had no air force. One Special Forces colonel, Barry Shapiro, recalls invoices from Pakistan’s navy listing per diem pay for sailors “on duty fighting the Global War on Terrorism.” Shapiro tried to question some of the expenses: Was there any proof that the Pakistani army had indeed shot off the missiles it was asking to be reimbursed for? But he was told by his superiors to be quiet and pay up.

The arrangement was effectively on autopilot as the Iraq War consumed the Bush administration’s attention. Congress approved the funding with few reservations, and years passed before lawmakers seemed to comprehend their role in the farce. During one congressional hearing in 2012, a top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gary Ackerman, lamented that Pakistan had become “a black hole for American aid.” “Our tax dollars go in. Our diplomats go in, sometimes. Our aid professionals go in, sometimes. Our hopes go in. Our prayers go in,” he said. “Nothing good ever comes out.”

Members of Congress began calling for a strategy to put pressure on Pakistan by cutting annual aid to the country, but policy makers faced another quandary: As the goals the United States set in Afghanistan grew more ambitious, Washington’s need of Pakistan’s help to achieve them grew too. The swiftness with which the initial military campaign fulfilled its comparatively modest aims—to avenge the September 11 attacks by destroying al-Qaeda’s base in Afghanistan, expel the Taliban from cities, and install a more competent government in Kabul—led to hubris about what was possible in a hopelessly poor country wracked by decades of war.

The enterprise of nation building meant, in no particularly consistent order, quixotic attempts to root out corruption, lean on Karzai to sack unsavory warlords, and reengineer Afghanistan’s opium economy by getting farmers to plant crops far less lucrative than poppies. In 2004, I traveled with a team of Green Berets through gorgeous, flowering poppy fields to meet with the elders of various villages in Kunar province. “The government in Kabul wants you to plant wheat” was high on the list of the soldiers’ talking points. During the meeting, one of the elders duly declared, “Next year we will plant wheat!” Many of the others sniggered.

The more the United States invested in the Afghan War, the more it seemed as if Washington was holding on to a steering wheel detached from the rest of the car. The main supply lines that kept the war machine humming—bringing fuel, food, and equipment to the rising numbers of troops in Afghanistan—ran through Pakistan. The government in Islamabad could (and did, for as long as seven months at one point) cut off the supplies, leaving convoys of trucks sitting idle between the port of Karachi and various border crossings.

Many CIA officials were skeptical that the United States should try to root out corruption, and advocated that the agency focus on trying to decimate al‑Qaeda and its sympathizers with drone strikes. During the Obama years, they clashed repeatedly with generals and policy makers beguiled by a counterinsurgency doctrine that put a premium on anti-corruption efforts. Despite ample evidence of America’s inconsistent approach, the notion that the U.S. might have no grand policy whatsoever in Afghanistan was difficult to accept for some of the key players, notably Kayani and Karzai.

They chose to fill the void with conspiracy theories. Kayani and other top Pakistani military officials believed that the United States was secretly working with Karzai’s government to bolster India’s influence in Afghanistan as a counterweight to Pakistan. Karzai subscribed to a more elaborate conspiracy: Washington was sending ever more troops to his country to gain a permanent foothold in Central Asia, from which the United States could compete against Russia and China for supremacy in the region—the Great Game redux.

But this was fevered thinking, which was partly what prompted Biden to deliver his blunt message to Karzai in the Arg Palace in 2009. That meeting came at an inflection point: A new administration was taking over, and Biden was skeptical that the Afghanistan project was worth the candle. The American economy was in crisis, and the generals were about to present the inexperienced president-elect with a costly new plan to send in thousands of additional troops.

Biden began openly proposing that Obama chart a different course. If the real problems lay in Pakistan, he asked, then why not instead use the money to keep Pakistan from imploding? At the same time, shouldn’t the U.S. think about working directly with Saudi Arabia and China—traditional allies of Pakistan—to pressure the ISI to finally end its support of the Taliban and other radical groups? Coll suggests that this thinking never gained much traction. Obama went along with the generals’ troop increase, and approved an even larger one at the end of 2009. The question of what to do about Pakistan, the phantom enemy in a failing war, went largely unanswered.

Coll’s majestic Ghost Wars tracked the CIA’s adventures in Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion, in 1979, through the eve of the September 11 attacks. Reading it was a gut-wrenching experience, with momentum building toward a climactic, dreadful outcome. Reading Directorate S is more like watching a slow-motion video of a truck going off a cliff, frame by agonizing frame. And no semblance of closure ever comes. Coll may have embarked on a full accounting of the war to its end, but history didn’t cooperate. Obama announced a plan in 2014 to conclude America’s combat operations in Afghanistan. By the time his tenure in the White House wound down, the generals had persuaded him to leave thousands of troops in the country indefinitely.

Within months of taking office, his successor—who had campaigned on scaling back America’s overseas adventures—accepted a Pentagon plan to add thousands more U.S. troops. In a speech announcing his strategy, Donald Trump ran through a familiar litany of complaints about Pakistan, capped by the demand that the country end its support for the very groups America is fighting in Afghanistan. He also called on India, Pakistan’s archenemy, to take a greater role in Afghanistan’s internal affairs—a threat evidently intended to scare Pakistani officials into backing off. Frustration mounted as the year turned, and an outraged presidential tweet denouncing years of “nothing but lies & deceit” was followed by a suspension of security assistance to Pakistan. What the repercussions might be was anybody’s guess.

Coll sums up the war as a “humbling case study in the limits of American power.” But a decade and a half after the first shots were fired, the U.S. president wasn’t exactly projecting humility, much less a newly coherent American policy.

This article appears in the March 2018 print edition with the headline “The Pakistan Trap.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nuclear-deterrence-capabilities-idUSKBN1FJ1A0

#World News January 30, 2018 / 2:19 AM / Updated 10 hours ago

Chinese military paper urges increase in nuclear deterrence capabilities

Reuters Staff
3 Min Read

BEIJING (Reuters) - China must strengthen its nuclear deterrence and counter-strike capabilities to keep pace with the developing nuclear strategies of the United States and Russia, the official paper of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) said on Tuesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration may be pursuing the development of new nuclear weaponry and could explicitly leave open the possibility of nuclear retaliation for major non-nuclear attacks, according to a draft of a pending Nuclear Posture Review leaked by the Huffington Post.

This “unprecedented” move by the United States, combined with continuous quality improvements of nuclear arsenals in both the U.S. and Russia, means that both countries place greater importance on deterrence and real combat usability, the commentary in the PLA Daily said.

“In the roiling unpredictability of today’s world, to upgrade the capability of our country’s deterrence strategy, to support our great power position... we must strengthen the reliability and trustworthiness of our nuclear deterrence and nuclear counterstrike capabilities,” it said.

The article was written by two researchers from the PLA Academy of Military Science, a top research institute directly responsible to China’s Central Military Commission.

A change was necessary despite China having developed nuclear weapons to avoid bullying from nuclear powers, the paper said, adding that China would always stick to the principle of “no first use” and a final goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Neither Russia nor the United States is abandoning nuclear weapons as each adopts new high-tech weapons capabilities, the paper said, pointing to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of maintenance and modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years costing more than $1.2 trillion.

This spend, the paper said, has led to a corresponding Russian military modernization program, aiming to boost the share of advanced armaments in its nuclear triad to at least 90 percent by 2021.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is overseeing an ambitious military modernization program, including developing advanced nuclear-capable missiles. China carried out its first nuclear weapons test only in 1964.

Trump’s strong embrace of his predecessor President Barack Obama’s nuclear modernization program has led some former senior U.S. government officials, legislators and arms control specialists to warn of risks from the U.S. stoking a new arms race.

A U.S. national defense strategy released on Jan. 19 shifted priorities to put what Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called a “great power competition” with China and Russia at the heart of the country’s military strategy.

Reporting by Christian Shepherd; Editing by Clarence Fernandez
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australian-nuclear-weapons-make-sense/

When Australian nuclear weapons could make sense

30 Jan 2018 | Stephan Fruehling

What a way to start a year! The debate initiated by three former Australian deputy secretaries of defence—Hugh White, Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith—about the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear weapons is certainly being noticed by many Americans. ‘Is this serious?’ is a common question from security analysts here in Washington DC.

My response is ‘Yes and no’. No, Australia isn’t about to start pouring concrete for reactors, or dusting off plans and drawings from its old centrifuge program of the 1970s and 1980s. Yes, we’ll be in dire straits if the rise of China continues and the US can’t regain the stable governance and international focus that helped it win the Cold War. The question then becomes ‘Will Australia go nuclear in the future?’, and the answer has to be ‘That depends.’

Australia would consider nuclear weapons only if there were a direct, existential threat to the country. The move would almost certainly be signalled by a massive and rapid increase in our defence budget and capabilities, which currently grow at a glacial pace. We would have to have lost confidence in US extended nuclear deterrence, which is a benefit of the alliance that Canberra—thanks to our lucky geography—has never had to pay as much attention to as US allies in the northern hemisphere. Before that happens, we’d conduct a massive political and official push to engage the US on the practicalities of its nuclear guarantees.

We’d also probably want a green light from the US: nuclear weapons are no panacea, and they’d take a long time to build. Even if the US were to abrogate its formal treaty responsibilities, continued access to US intelligence, technology and weapons systems would become even more important to us than it is now. If the choice were between maximising the advantages of our geographic position for a conventional defence based on US technology, or going it alone for the uncertain benefits of what would be for decades a small and short-range nuclear arsenal, there’d be no real choice.

Indonesia’s reaction would also be a crucial consideration. We benefit hugely from the absence of nuclear weapons east of India and south of China. An Indonesian nuclear weapons program in response to an Australian one would lead to a massive deterioration in our strategic circumstances. If an Australian nuclear program in response to a third-party threat led to an Indonesian nuclear weapon, the cure may be worse than the disease.

What kind of plausible strategic problems might fulfil these criteria and be mitigated by Australian nuclear weapons? An Indonesian nuclear program that threatened Australia is one. But if the main concern is that US strategic nuclear forces might not deter, say, North Korea, an Australian arsenal would hardly make a difference.

Could China coerce Australia with its nuclear weapons? Everything in China’s history points to its strong belief that the main value of its own small nuclear force is in countering nuclear coercion. A larger arsenal might give it more nuclear strike options against the US, but China’s conventional and economic power in Asia is already such that it doesn’t need to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to impose its new order on the region.

Hence, the use of overwhelming conventional forces to invade Australia, or to otherwise coerce us into submission, is left as the second problem that might be solved by Australian nukes. In practice, that would require Chinese control of bases in Indonesia.

Even then, given China’s clear confidence in the viability of its conventional war options, and in the deterrent value of its limited nuclear forces against even the US nuclear arsenal, Australian countervalue targeting of the Chinese homeland probably wouldn’t be a wise strategic posture.

It might be less technically challenging and strategically more promising to use nuclear weapons to create the tactical dilemmas that the US and NATO sought to impose on the Soviet Union during the Cold War: concentrate forces to overcome conventional defences and be destroyed by nuclear attack, or disperse and invite piecemeal destruction by conventional forces.

However, whether that idea would apply to the maritime defence of Australia in the 21st century is as uncertain as the motivations that would push an adversary to make that effort against us in the first place. A serious study of the political and operational aspects of such a scenario would be the key to assessing whether nuclear weapons could really be a solution to our prospective security problems, rather than a distraction from them.

Author
Stephan Frühling is a Fulbright Professional Scholar in US–Australia Alliance Studies at Georgetown University and an associate professor in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

Related Posts

Two concepts of nuclear sharing

Going nuclear?

Nuclear weapons for Australia—not so fast

Wrestling a nuclear-armed 800-pound gorilla
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204676/crises-between-india-and-pakistan-the-basics/

Crises between India and Pakistan: The Basics
by Michael Krepon | January 30, 2018 | No Comments

Quote of the week:
“Clearly, five major crises within a twenty-year period indicate a fundamental structural problem… This region has not been stable and peaceful despite the common cultural and geopolitical heritage of its two dominant states.”

— Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta, Arming without Aiming: India’s Military Modernization, Brookings (2010)

Crises on the subcontinent are man-made and not accidental. The instigators have grievances and want to change the status quo. Crisis-triggering events usually do not come as a bolt out of the blue. Instead they are preceded by a series of events leading up to a big explosion. When a crisis comes as a surprise, someone important has been asleep at the switch.

There are indicators to the run-up of a crisis. Some are now very much evident. Firing along the Line of Control (LoC) dividing Kashmir is the highest in seven years, according to Indian accounts. Pakistan has accused India of over 1,300 cease-fire violations in 2017. Crossings by militant cadres into Kashmir are up. Public disaffection among Kashmiri Muslims under Indian governance is very high and combustible. Military posts along the LoC are being overrun.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded to this pattern of increased violence by publicizing “surgical strikes” in September 2016. These hit-and-run-and return operations can be scaled up if deemed warranted, as can Pakistani responses. Modi’s action shored up domestic support but did nothing to reverse or stem the pattern of violence across the LoC.

Crises reoccur because they don’t resolve any of the underlying problems. Instead, they just aggravate pre-existing conditions. Offsetting nuclear capabilities have not calmed these troubled waters. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because nuclear weapons do not have a calming influence. Instead, they magnify grievances.

The alternative to crises, sub-conventional sparring, and limited warfare between India and Pakistan is intensive and sustained diplomacy to reconcile differences. But this pathway requires a bold leader in India to take the initiative and a bold leader in Pakistan willing to stand up to spoilers. This hasn’t been tried since Partition.

The frequency of crises is hard to predict. Sometimes they follow closely after each other; at other times, there can be a long hiatus between crises. There was a nine-year lull between the 1990 crisis, sparked by a large-scale Pakistani military exercise and inflammable developments fostered by Pakistan’s military and intelligence services in Kashmir and Punjab, and the Kargil war. India and Pakistan have now gone over nine years since the 2008 crisis when cadres of the Lashkar e-Taiba attacked iconic targets in Mumbai.

So far, the high-water mark for crises and risk taking on the subcontinent occurred in the first three years after the 1998 nuclear tests. These years of living dangerously were marked by the 1999 Kargil war followed by the 2001-2 “Twin Peaks” crisis, which was sparked by an attack on the Indian parliament building by militant cadres whose leadership were based in Pakistan.

Every crisis has provided an impetus to Pakistani and Indian nuclear modernization programs, upping the stakes for the next crisis. There is no evidence, however, that an accelerated nuclear competition or the nuclear balance of forces have affected the outcome of any crisis, in part because the contestants remain largely in the dark as to each other’s actual capabilities.

To shore up deterrence, Pakistan threatens to use nuclear weapons first and India threatens to respond with massive retaliation. These threats lack credibility to the listeners, no matter how often they are repeated because they appear too dangerous to initiate. Nuclear detonations by accident or by a breakdown of command and control are more likely than an orders being passed down by from Indian or Pakistani decision makers.

Why have nuclear detonations been absent so far? New Delhi’s leaders place a high priority on economic growth and have viewed uncontrolled escalation as a significant threat to this objective. In addition, there is a paucity of meaningful targets for Indian forces within Azad Jammu and Kashmir, where escalation is mostly likely to be controlled. Targets elsewhere in Pakistan are another matter.

Pakistan’s decision makers are also sensitive to uncontrolled escalation. All of these constraining factors continue to remain in place in the event of another crisis. In addition, Pakistan’s leaders now have concerns about the impact of fighting on crucial Chinese Belt and Road investments. The more both countries need to focus on improving the environment for foreign investment, the more unwelcome another severe crisis would be.

Perhaps this helps explain the absence of big explosions since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. There is also reason to hope that Pakistan’s decision makers have internalized the lessons of prior crises. Dangerous misadventures have not advanced the Kashmir cause. Instead, the Kargil War and big explosions in India with links to Pakistani have reaffirmed the status quo in Kashmir, badly damaged Pakistan’s international standing, and have diminished its economic prospects, aside from China.

It is possible that the worst nuclear-tinged crises on the subcontinent are a reflection of a more troubled past. But there is no room for complacency. Some of the indicators of another major crisis are growing. Violence along the Kashmir divide and unrest within the Kashmir Valley are high. Spoilers haven’t changed their agendas. India and Pakistan have track records of miscalculation about acceptable tolerance levels, and sustained diplomacy to improve ties has insufficient backing. There’s also a Catch 22 about activating diplomacy, as this might activate spoilers, as well. Even so, without sustained diplomacy to make progress on long-standing disputes, the risk of nuclear crises will remain ever prevalent in the Subcontinent.

Note to readers: Stimson has published an outstanding new collection of essays on crises between India and Pakistan, Investigating Crises: South Asia’s Lessons, Evolving Dynamics and Trajectories,edited by Sameer Lalwani and Hannah Haegeland. It can be read at www.investigatingcrises.org
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....And these people have nukes and delivery vehicles (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft) for them....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/article/jihad-decree-triggers-demands-holy-war-kashmir/

Jihad decree triggers demands for holy war on Kashmir

Efforts by Pakistan's government to dissociate itself from charges of sponsoring terrorism have attracted a hostile response from Islamists

By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid January 30, 2018 6:33 PM (UTC+8)
4 Comments

Branded a “sponsor of terrorism” by the Trump administration for failing to act against extremism, Pakistan has sought to polish its image by decreeing that only the state has the right to issue a jihad (holy war).

But now some Islamist politicians want the government to use its new powers to settle the most prickly issue in Pakistan’s fragile relationship with India: its historic claims over the contested territory of Kashmir.

The order was included in a fatwa (decree) against terrorism, entitled Paigham-e-Pakistan (“Pakistan’s message”), which the government announced on January 16 at a ceremony headed by President Mamnoon Hussain and addressed by many Islamic scholars.

Its two most significant features are the declaration that only the state can announce a jihad, and a decree that any move to impose Sharia law needs to conform with legal statutes. The fatwa seeks to address challenges in Pakistani society created by terrorism, sectarianism and religious extremism.

But quite unexpectedly, the decree has prompted calls by prominent Islamist parties for the government to formally launch a jihad in Indian-held Kashmir, as well as in Afghanistan.

Government sources close to the drafting of Paigham-e-Pakistan have confirmed that Islamist leaders are agitated over the decree and are keen to capitalize on the state’s capitulation to a Tehrik Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLY)-led protest rally in Islamabad in November.

“The government is already under pressure over the Khatm-e-Nabuwwat (finality of the prophethood) issue, and after the TLY dharna [sit-in], the religious groups are gaining strength and want a formal announcement of jihad,” a government official, who worked on the draft, told Asia Times. “And so the edict that was designed to counter radicalism is being misused to render it counterproductive.”

Abdur Rauf Farooqi, the Secretary General of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Sami (JUI-S), the political face of a prominent Taliban seminary, confirmed that the demand for a state jihad has been forwarded.

“If the fatwa has made jihad the state’s prerogative, then we demand (the) formal launch of jihad in Kashmir immediately. Because Kashmir belongs to Pakistan and has been illegally occupied by India,” he told Asia Times. “Furthermore, since the Afghanistan Taliban are engaged in jihad against (the) US and NATO occupation, Pakistan should participate in Afghan jihad as well,” Farooqi added.

Ameer-ul-Azeem of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) agreed that Pakistan should engage in jihad to ‘‘safeguard Muslim interests’’. “Even if a formal announcement cannot be made for whatever reasons, the covert jihad that the state has been involved in should continue at full throttle.

‘Safeguarding Muslim interests’
“Also to ensure Muslim unity, there needs to be strict implementation of Islamic law, which as per Paigham-e-Pakistan is also the state’s responsibility,” Ameer-ul-Azeem said.

Amjad Khan of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F), the party that has been in coalition with the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and whose leader Fazl-ur-Rehman was closely involved in the formulation of Paigham-e-Pakistan, said that a formal launch of jihad was under consideration.

“We’ve been discussing this for a long time and have ulema (religious scholars) from all schools of thought on board,” he told Asia Times. “The state should take all the ulema (Body of Muslim scholars) on board and make the announcement.”

Meanwhile, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), the political wing of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which was involved in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, feels the Paigham-e-Pakistan decree vindicates the stance of the group and their leader Hafiz Saeed.

JuD spokesman Nadeem Awan said the group was founded on its demand for a formal announcement of a Kashmir jihad. ‘‘That has been our demand throughout. Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein and the state should do whatever it takes to liberate it.

“We’ve actually contributed written literature on this front more than anyone else. Pakistan should formally announce jihad and Kashmir, and we should also support the Afghan Taliban to liberate Afghanistan from the US,” he said to Asia Times.

Referring to the Afghan Taliban, which the JUI-S openly backs with its seminary Dar Ul Uloom Haqqania, Abdur Rauf Farooqi stressed that the Pakistani state should recall its own policies from the past.

“It was our state that prepared the mujahideen for Afghan jihad, now it should follow through with that struggle,” he said.

“Not just that, since Pakistan is also an Islamic state, it should announce global jihad to liberate Muslims around the world, especially Palestine. I think that’s the part that the Saudi-led Islamic military coalition led by [former Army Chief] Raheel Sharif should play.”

Farooqi added that until the “actual causes” behind terrorism were addressed, no counter-terror fatwa would work. “These include the spread of secular ideas in society,” he maintained.

While the current Pakistan Army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, has been making placatory noises, the latest move to dissociate the state from charges of supporting terrorism seems to have backfired.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.ft.com/content/5254f36a-05a2-11e8-9e12-af73e8db3c71

Opinion Iran under Rouhani

Iran is threatening stability in the Middle East

Tehran’s regional aggression and ballistic missiles programme must be curtailed

Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan
yesterday
31 Comments

Europe and countries of the Arab Gulf share a common neighbourhood and many common concerns. Both would like to see a Middle East and north Africa region that is politically stable and economically prosperous, where different religions and ethnicities live peacefully side by side, and where human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected and preserved.

One case in point is the nuclear accord with Iran signed in July 2015. Like many others, the United Arab Emirates was sceptical, but hoped that the deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), would encourage Iran to moderate its behaviour in the region. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Instead of mending its ways, Tehran has pursued a narrow sectarian agenda that is threatening the fragile regional social fabric. The long-term consequences are disastrous.

To fix this problem, we urgently need a concerted international effort to contain Iran’s brazen regional aggression and curtail its dangerous ballistic missiles programme. Just as the international community pulled together to fix the nuclear issue, we now need our international partners, including the EU, to address this challenge.

Some may argue that this is an unrealistic aspiration, and that regional security issues never were and never should be included in discussions of the JCPOA and inevitably would sink the accord. The UAE disagrees. Without greater progress on these issues, the agreement is doomed to fail. If we allow Tehran to continue down its current path of aggression, the accord will lose all its value.

What we need is a new accord that does three things: cuts back Tehran’s ability to support extremist groups and sectarian militias across the region; diminishes the ability of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to bring conflict and destruction to other countries; and limits Tehran’s burgeoning ballistic missile programme to a reasonable level, while preventing it from targeting innocent civilians in neighbouring states.

These are not unreasonable demands, but rather the basic preconditions of cordial relations and better regional co-operation.

This is why the UAE hopes that the international community can apply itself with as much rigour and determination to addressing Iran’s regional behaviour as it brought to the nuclear issue. European powers, given their considerable leverage and experience in steering discussions on the nuclear accord, have much to contribute. We are ready to work with our European partners to engage in this process in the service of regional peace and stability for all our benefit.

Despite the recent chaos and instability, there are also some reasons for hope, notably the ambitious reform programme initiated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the effects of which will be felt throughout the region.

These developments deserve the full support of the international community. The EU should do its best to embrace and encourage these changes. No doubt there will be bumps on the road. But rather than remaining focused on narrow policy differences, our European friends should look at the bigger picture and grasp this rare moment in favour of progress and reform.

Tackling the many challenges in our common neighbourhood requires close co-operation between Europe and the Arab Gulf. To succeed, we need each other. If we work at cross-purposes, we are doomed to fail.

The writer is minister of foreign affairs and international co-operation for the United Arab Emirates
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
SYRIAN ARMY FIRES ON ADVANCING TURKISH MILITARY COLUMNS
Started by Doomer Doug‎, 01-30-2018 12:36 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...S-ON-ADVANCING-TURKISH-MILITARY-COLUMNS/page2

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ekathimerini.com/225418/opinion/ekathimerini/comment/the-beginnings-of-a-nato-crisis

COSTAS IORDANIDIS

The beginnings of a NATO crisis

10 COMMENTS 20:51

It appears that NATO is sliding into the most serious crisis since its foundation as Turkish troops have engaged in a war against Kurdish rebels in northern Syria where the United States maintains a significant military presence.

This means that the risk of a military engagement between two member-states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is significant.

The military leader of US forces in northern Syria ignored an appeal by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for an American withdrawal from the region.

It was the only possible outcome.

A superpower would never retreat on the basis of an ultimatum by an ally, even if the strategic significance of the country in question is considerable.

On the other hand, however, Washington cannot ignore the fact that the Kurdish question poses a major security problem for Turkey, threatening the country’s very territorial integrity. As a result, all of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political rivals, bar the Kurdish party, have backed him on this issue.

The problem with the “circumstantial alliances” that Washington uses to tackle crises in regions beyond NATO’s remit is that, at the end of these ad hoc cooperations, these allies tend to go their own way.

The use of Islamist fundamentalists by the US against Soviet forces in the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 contributed to the broadening radicalization of Islamic extremists who have now transferred their terrorist activities to the West.

The arming of Kurds in Syria by the West, and in particular by Washington, in order to face down the forces of Bashar al-Assad and the so-called Islamic State, led Turkey to extreme, though predictable, reactions.

Something is clearly amiss with the West’s “occasional allies.” Some in Greece may claim that the alienation of Ankara or even a rupture with the West could eventually prove beneficial as Greece would become the West’s advanced outpost in the region.

But this line of reasoning overlooks an extremely significant fact: that a potential armed conflict between Greece and Turkey has been repeatedly averted since the 1950s because the two countries are members of NATO, despite the fact that the alliance was not active in preventing an escalation of tensions.

A potentially fatal threat for Greece would be an unchecked Turkey outside NATO, but the risk of such an eventuality appears to be disappearing.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.economist.com/news/euro...ck-together-turkey-and-nato-are-growing-apart

The unhappy marriage

Turkey and NATO are growing apart

But they will probably have to stick together

Print Edition | Europe
Feb 1st 2018

ANXIETIES about Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO and Russia’s military assertiveness remain at the top of the alliance’s agenda. But close behind looms the problem of semi-detached Turkey, a country that not only possesses NATO’s second-biggest armed force, but also straddles a critical geopolitical fault-line between west and east.

Turkey is not only unpredictable. It also pursues a nationalist agenda that can put it at odds with its obligations to allies. The most recent source of tension is the simmering row between Turkey and America over Turkey’s incursion into Afrin, a Kurdish enclave in north-west Syria. This is not, strictly speaking, a matter for NATO. However, American troops could soon find themselves under direct attack from their NATO ally if Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, carries out a promise to “strangle…before it is born” a 30,000-strong American-backed “border security force”, composed largely of YPG Kurdish fighters whom Turkey regards as terrorists.

Mr Erdogan probably calculates that he can face down America, which is less interested in the region than he is. He may be right, but clashing interests in Syria are only one element in Turkey’s troubled relationship with NATO members. Well before an attempted coup in the summer of 2016, there were growing concerns within NATO about Turkey’s drift towards authoritarianism. In the aftermath of the botched coup, those fears have intensified. Mr Erdogan, resentful of what he took to be insincere expressions of support from the West (in contrast with Vladimir Putin’s full-throated congratulations), has embarked on a brutal purge of anyone suspected of disloyalty. Among the 50,000 arrested and 110,000 dismissed from their jobs for supposed links with the exiled cleric, Fethullah Gulen (regarded as the plotter-in-chief), are about 11,000 military officers and pilots.

According to one Turkish military analyst, 38% of Turkey’s generals were sacked. Many were singled out for being pro-Western secularists. Some 400 Turkish military envoys to NATO were fired and ordered home—many fled abroad rather than face jail—to be replaced by less qualified Erdogan loyalists, some of whom are actively hostile to NATO and sympathetic to its adversaries. General Curtis Scaparrotti, the alliance’s supreme commander, has complained of “degradation” in staff quality.

In another episode, German MPs were last year (not for the first time) refused permission to visit German air crews flying support missions into Iraq from two bases in Turkey, Incirlik and Konya. It looked like punishment after Germany had banned Mr Erdogan’s supporters from holding rallies on its soil in support of his campaign to extend the powers of the presidency. (He called the ban a return to “Nazi practices”.) After an intervention by NATO’s civilian chief, Jens Stoltenberg, the Turks eventually allowed the lawmakers access to the AWACS crews at Konya. But the Germans still moved their Tornados from Incirlik to Muwaffaq Salti, an air base in Jordan which America is expanding, at a cost of $143m, as an insurance policy in case they need to leave Incirlik.

The warmth of Turkey’s relations with Russia, particularly since the coup, is another worry. Mr Erdogan looks to his opposite number in the Kremlin as the man to do business with in Syria. He sees in him a strong and purposeful leader like himself. By cosying up to Mr Putin, he sends a message to NATO that he has other options. From Mr Putin’s point of view, Mr Erdogan gives him a means of dividing and weakening NATO and the West, which is his overriding strategic objective.

Red on blue

The most flagrant demonstration of Mr Erdogan’s Janus-faced foreign policy was the announcement in December that Turkey has signed an agreement to purchase two batteries of advanced S-400 surface-to-air missiles from Russia. The S-400 system cannot be integrated with NATO air-defence systems and, at least at first, will be set up and operated by Russians. Unless Turkey is frozen out of NATO information-sharing on countermeasures aimed at defeating the S-400, Russia can expect a windfall of intelligence.

Most worrying, Turkey is a partner in the F-35 programme and is due to take delivery of 116 of the stealthy fighter jets that will be the mainstay of NATO’s combat air capability for the next 30 years. Turkey will be in a unique position to hone the S-400 against the F-35, knowledge that Russia may well take advantage of. Some national-security commentators in America argue that Turkey should either cancel the S-400 or be told it cannot buy the F-35. The resulting confrontation could lead to Turkey marching out of NATO.

NATO officials are doing their best to put on a brave face. They point out that Turkey has also signed a deal with Eurosam, a European consortium building air-defence missiles, and that the S-400 may be just a stopgap. They also say that, in other ways, it is business as usual. Turkey is fulfilling its commitments to the alliance, for example by guarding Kabul airport and doing nothing to hinder a NATO-EU security agreement, which it could have blocked. There is sympathy, too, for Turkey’s vulnerability to terrorism and praise for the refugee burden it has borne. And even if there were a mechanism for suspending or expelling Turkey from NATO, which there is not (although its tarnished democratic credentials would prevent it joining the alliance as a new member), its geopolitical importance is as great as ever.

The hope is that Mr Erdogan knows that Russia is using Turkey for its own purposes, and that it is no substitute for NATO as a long-term security partner. It is possible, too, that his post-coup paranoia will abate, although there is little sign of it. But as with many unhappy marriages, the reality is that—however fraught their relationship—Turkey and NATO have little choice but to try to make it work.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "An unhappy marriage"
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...th_at_a_minimum_of_60000_fighters_112997.html

U.S. Officials Estimate Taliban Strength at a Minimum of 60,000 Fighters

By Bill Roggio
February 01, 2018

NBC News reports that U.S. and Afghan officials estimate the Taliban’s strength in Afghanistan to be a minimum of 60,000 fighters. This updated figure is significant, because as the report notes, for years the only previous estimate was approximately 20,000:

In 2014, U.S. officials told NBC News that the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan was about 20,000. Four years later, one U.S. defense official said the current Taliban strength is at least 60,000. Another senior U.S. official said 60,000 “passes the sniff test,” while a third official said 60,000 is “a place to start.”

An Afghan official told NBC News earlier this month that the Afghan estimate of Taliban strength is also 60,000. That marks a significant increase from the estimate of 35,000 that Afghanistan’s TOLOnews attributed to an Afghan defense official in 2011.


Given all of the information available to FDD’s Long War Journal, I believe this latest assessment to significantly more accurate. I am quoted in the above-referenced article that 60,000 would be my low-end estimate. In fact, with the amount of territory up for grabs and fighting taking place, that number could easily be doubled.

The report went on to note that one official thinks it’s a “fool’s errand” to estimate Taliban strength as “the fighters often change their allegiance from one terror group to another”:

The U.S. military does not release official numbers on how many Taliban are in Afghanistan. One U.S. official called such estimates a “fool’s errand” because the fighters often change their allegiance from one terror group to another.

“It’s a wildly varying planning figure,” the official said, explaining the U.S. military needs a marker to plan to fight but is hopeful many fighters are not ideological and will eventually lay down their arms and “find a reason to identify with Afghanistan nationalism and the larger good.”

Part of the reason for the apparent increase in Taliban strength is integration between the Taliban and a separate group of Islamist militants, the Haqqani network. According to the Pentagon’s June 2017 Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan report, “Haqqani and Taliban integration has become so robust that many observers no longer look at them as separate entities, but as factions within the same group.”


There is a lot to unpack in those three short paragraphs, but here are the three key issues with those statements.

1) If the fighters “change their allegiance from one terror group to another,” what difference does that really make? The groups they are moving between are still comprised of jihadists who are battling the Afghan government and Coalition forces.

2) Unfortunately, some U.S. officials remain blind to the fact that the Haqqani network is a integral part of the Taliban and view it as some sort of separate entity. This is both shortsighted and incorrect. As we’ve explained numerous times here at FDD’s Long War Journal, both the Taliban and Haqqani leaders have repeatedly denied there is separation between the two. Siraj Haqqani, the operational leader of the Haqqani Network, is one of two deputies to the Taliban’s emir. He also serves as the Taliban’s top military commander and leads its Miramshah Shura, one of four Taliban subcommands. His father, Jalaluddin Haqqani, sits on the Taliban’s Rahbari Shura, also known as the Quetta Shura. Haqqani Network leaders have served as Taliban shadow governors for Khost, Paktia, and Paktika provinces. The Taliban claims credit for attacks that the U.S. and Afghan government blame on the Haqqani Network. Statements by Haqqani network leaders are routinely released at Voice of Jihad, the Taliban’s official propaganda arm.

3) Hope is not a strategy. One disillusioned U.S. official says, according to NBC News, that he is “hopeful many fighters are not ideological and will eventually lay down their arms and ‘find a reason to identify with Afghanistan nationalism and the larger good.'” U.S. officials have hoped this for years, and yet the Taliban remains more potent than ever. Hopefully, U.S. officials will begin to recognize the commitment of the Taliban.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/israels-russia-gambit/

Israel’s Russia Gambit

How will Russia respond to the implied request to rein in the Iranians?

View count: 1181 views
Last updated: January 31
Total word count: 1488 words

By George Friedman

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Jan. 29 and told Putin that Iran is trying to turn Lebanon into a vast missile manufacturing base. I have written on the rise of Iranian power following the defeat of Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria, and have raised the question of how Israel and Turkey will respond to Iran’s emergence as a major power in the Arab world. We are now beginning to see the Israeli response.

Netanyahu had told Putin when Russia intervened in Syria that Israel understood Russia had interests in Syria and would not interfere with the Russian presence there. He also told Putin that Israel too has interests in Syria and that chief among them is limiting the Iranian presence. The implication behind that statement was that Netanyahu was going to Moscow to call in his chits.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Moscow’s Jewish Center on Jan. 29, 2018. Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Israel’s strategic imperative is, above all, to avoid a war with all Arab powers at the same time. Israel’s army is limited in size and ability to absorb casualties in a war along the country’s entire periphery. The nightmare scenario for Israel is far from materializing. Egypt has no interest in fighting Israel and is cooperating against jihadists in Sinai. Jordan remains dependent on Israel for its national security. Until recently, Israel was more secure than it had ever been. In addition to security along its Jordanian and Egyptian borders, Syria was in chaos and Hezbollah was fighting in Syria. That meant that neither Syria nor Lebanon posed a threat, and that Israel’s entire periphery was secure.

The defeat of opponents of the Assad regime has changed Israel’s strategic reality. It is not simply the Russians operating in Syria, but also the Iranians, both directly and through their Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. Hezbollah forces supporting the Assad regime were severely weakened during the fighting, taking heavy casualties. Now that the fighting has subsided, Hezbollah has been working hard to rebuild its strength, supported by Iran. Separately, Hezbollah in Lebanon is focused on Israel. Therefore, Israel, which fought a war with Hezbollah in 2006, now has to view Lebanon, and Syria as well, as an evolving Iranian base.

The war in 2006 did not go particularly well for Israel. Hezbollah proved a capable defensive force, holding a line against an Israeli assault on its positions in southern Lebanon, and also firing rockets deep into Israeli territory. Hezbollah came through the war relatively intact, while Israel had to reconsider its military doctrine. The Israelis have no desire to repeat 2006, even with a new doctrine. On the other hand, Israel cannot afford a rocket and missile barrage from Lebanon. Although Hezbollah and the Iranians have had ample time to build structures to protect the rockets and missiles, an air campaign by Israel is unlikely to destroy all of them. Meanwhile, an Israeli military incursion into Lebanon would be difficult to execute.

Therefore, Netanyahu’s visit to Russia makes perfect sense. Since Israel did not intrude on Russia in Syria, it is now Israel’s turn to ask Russia to rein in the Iranians, which Russia won’t necessarily accede to. The problem is Russian strategy. Russia has achieved its main strategic purpose: It has demonstrated that it is capable of fighting an extended war at some distance from the homeland. It was not a vast war, and the Russian role in the victory was partial, but it achieved its goal of appearing powerful and therefore the mission was a success. Russia now faces the problem that all powers face when they fight wars primarily to demonstrate their power: What does it do now that it has won?

Pitting Russia Against Iran

What the Israelis are asking for is that the Russians take away from Iran what it had fought for in Syria. This would be no easy task. The Syrian war, from Iran’s point of view, was part of a broader strategy to become a major and even dominant power in the Arab world. It achieved a powerful position in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and a significant presence in Yemen. Iran had gone from being relatively isolated in the region to being a significant presence, although not yet a dominant power.

If the Russians were to do what the Israelis want, they would be asking the Iranians to accept a limited presence in what, to them, is a strategic region. But the question is: Can the Russians block the Iranians without hurting their own strategic interests in the country and the region? Iran has other uses for the Russians. Foremost, the Iranians pose serious problems for the Americans. The foundation of U.S. strategy in the Arab world is the Arab monarchies in the Arabian Peninsula. Most of these, Qatar excepted, are terrified of Iranian power, particularly at a time when oil prices are still not high enough to make up for the years of shortfall. These regimes have internal problems that Iran can exploit. They do not want to see the United States accommodate the Iranians. Therefore, the U.S. needs to pick minor confrontations with Iran to placate its Arab allies. The more the U.S. does this, the more Iran needs Russia. An Iranian-Russian alliance would be a potent tool.

The Israelis have always warned about Iran’s nuclear capability, and their concern was understandable. But nuclear weapons were not Iran’s primary interest because it understood that those weapons were not usable. The real threat from Iran was Tehran’s intelligence capabilities in terms of being able to support proxies in different Arab countries. The Israelis had seen the war in Syria as fragmenting and neutralizing Syria. They did not expect it to end with Iran in such a strategic position in conventional terms.

The Complexity of the Middle East

It is not at all clear that the Russians will want to satisfy Israel’s needs, or even that they could. On the ground, as opposed to in the air, Iran has more substantial capabilities in Syria than the Russians, and certainly more in Lebanon. What the Russians would be asking of the Iranians is to abandon a powerful strategic position. It is not clear that the Russians have anything to offer the Iranians as compensation, or even that the Russians are troubled by the Iranian position. It poses substantial problems for the Americans in the Arab world, and that isn’t something the Russians would want to give up.

This poses a serious problem for Israel. It also poses a serious problem for Turkey. Whatever temporary arrangement Turkey has with Russia and Iran, no Turkish relationship with either is stable. The Russians have been historic enemies of Turkey in the Caucasus, and in the end, this is a region where Russian interests will not go away. And the Turks have historically dueled with Iran over the domination of the Arab world. For the moment, Turkey is focused on the Kurdish threat to its territorial integrity. However, in the long run, allowing Iran to solidify its position around Turkey’s borders pits a manageable problem — the Kurds — against a potentially unmanageable problem — the Iranians and the Russians.

Russians might indicate a willingness to cooperate with the Israelis to limit the Iranians, but will do nothing decisive. The United States has no appetite for getting seriously involved in any of this, but will be content to hold its position on the Arabian Peninsula while dueling with Iran. If this problem is to be solved for Israel, the trip Netanyahu will have to make will be to Ankara, not Moscow. Netanyahu undoubtedly knows this, and discussions with the Turks are underway, but each country wants the other to take the first risk.

Given this situation, Iran’s position should solidify. The one weakness in this scenario is Iran’s internal situation. In the wake of Iran’s recent unrest, the magnitude and purpose of which is still somewhat obscure, the classic question rises: Does Iran have the domestic base to support its foreign adventures? At the moment, the answer appears to be yes.

For Israel, the period of strategic invulnerability is ending. The willingness not to interfere with the Russians has created a threat Israel did not anticipate. The presence of the Iranians not only in Lebanon but also in Syria opens the door for conflicts Israel lived happily without. As this unfolds, the place to watch is Lebanon. Torn by civil war in the 1980s, the possibility of another civil war is increasing. As that danger increases, Russia faces the problem that anyone who wins a war in the Middle East faces: What should it do with the next war? Russia has won the first, but easy, round. The next one gets harder.

Related Articles:
Turkey Enters the Fray
Never in the field of human conflict has such a limited military operation been threatened for so long.

As North Korea Goes Nuclear, U.S.-China Relations Sour
Beijing will use what leverage it has to prevent the U.S. from taking a tougher stance on trade.

Where Hypersonic Weapons Fit in the Future of War
The battles that will urgently require these are the battles that nations must win.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russia says US "hunting" for Russians to arrest around the world

MOSCOW - Russia has issued a travel warning recommending its citizens think twice before travelling abroad, saying the United States was hunting for Russians to arrest around the world.



The Foreign Ministry statement warns Russian citizens that when abroad they face a serious threat of arrest by other countries at Washington's request, after which they could be extradited to the United States.


"Despite our calls to improve cooperation between the relevant US and Russian authorities ... US special services have effectively continued "hunting" for Russians around the world," the travel warning said.


"Considering these circumstances, we strongly insist that Russian citizens carefully weigh up all the risks when planning trips abroad," the Foreign Ministry said.


It said more than 10 Russians had been detained in foreign countries with US involvement since the start of 2017.


By way of example, it pointed to at least four Russians arrested on US cyber crime charges in Spain, Latvia and Greece. US action against suspected Russian cyber criminals surged to a record high last year. https://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3089,00.html
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
IDF attacks Hamas outpost in response to rocket fire

The IDF attacked a Hamas observation post in the northern Gaza early Friday morning in retaliation to last night's rocket fire from the strip.



The IDF Spokesperson's Unit once again reiterated that "the IDF considers the Hamas terrorist organization solely responsible for what is happening in the Gaza Strip." https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5079728,00.html
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ping-to-build-a-military-base-in-afghanistan/

Now China’s helping to build a military base in Afghanistan

By: Nicole Bauke  
3 hours ago

Beijing plans to help build and support a new military base in Afghanistan to protect China’s economic interests and local border security from militants, according to Agence France-Presse.

The installation will be built in the Wakhan Corridor, the eastern panhandle of the country, a remote and mountainous area bordering China’s Xinjiang region.

“We are going to build it but the Chinese government has committed to help the division financially, provide equipment and train the Afghan soldiers,” Afghan Defense Ministry Deputy Spokesman Mohammed Radmanesh told AFP.

While the Wakhan Corridor is relatively cut off from the rest of Afghanistan and the violent conflict affecting much of the country, Beijing worries that Islamic State militants fleeing Iraq and Syria could enter China through Wakhan, or cross Central Asia and Xinjiang to reach Afghanistan.

It also worries that exiled Uighur members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement are crossing into Xinjiang from Wakhan to carry out attacks.

Kabul is interested in seeing Beijing use its “special relationship” with Islamabad to encourage the Pakistani military to “force the Taliban into peace talks,” said Andrew Small, author of The China-Pakistan Axis, according to AFP.

Military Times reported last year that Chinese troops appeared to be operating in Afghanistan. Members of the local Kyrgyz ethnic minority also claim to have seen Chinese and Afghan troops on joint patrols last year, but Chinese and Afghan officials both deny the claims, according to AFP.

The army base demonstrates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s goal to extend China’s economic and geopolitical strength both regionally and globally. Last July, China officially opened its first overseas Army base and sent members of it’s People’s Liberation Army to Djibouti.

=====

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/m..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

China in talks over military base in remote Afghanistan: Officials

PUBLISHED FEB 2, 2018, 11:31 AM SGT

KABUL (AFP) - Worried about militants sneaking into a restive Chinese region from war-torn Afghanistan, Beijing is in talks with Kabul over the construction of a military base, Afghan officials say, as it seeks to shore up its fragile neighbour.

The army camp will be built in Afghanistan's remote and mountainous Wakhan Corridor, where witnesses have reported seeing Chinese and Afghan troops on joint patrols.

The freezing, barren panhandle of land - bordering China's tense Xinjiang region - is so cut off from the rest of Afghanistan that many inhabitants are unaware of the Afghan conflict, scraping out harsh but peaceful lives.

However they retain strong links with neighbours in Xinjiang, and with so few travellers in the region local interest in the Chinese visitors has been high, residents told AFP on a recent visit there.

China's involvement in the base comes as President Xi Jinping seeks to extend Beijing's economic and geopolitical clout.

The Chinese are pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure in South Asia. With Afghanistan's potential to destabilise the region, analysts said any moves there would be viewed through the prism of security.

Beijing fears that exiled Uighur members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) are passing through the Wakhan into Xinjiang to carry out attacks.

It also worries that Islamic State group militants fleeing Iraq and Syria could cross Central Asia and Xinjiang to reach Afghanistan, or use the Wakhan to enter China, analysts say.

Afghan and Chinese officials discussed the plan in December in Beijing, but details are still being clarified, Afghan defence ministry deputy spokesman Mohammad Radmanesh said.

"We are going to build it (the base) but the Chinese government has committed to help the division financially, provide equipment and train the Afghan soldiers," he told AFP recently.

A senior Chinese embassy official in Kabul would only say Beijing is involved in "capacity-building" in Afghanistan.

Nato's US-led Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan declined to comment. But US officials have previously welcomed China's role in Afghanistan, noting they share the same security concerns.

Joint patrols

Members of the Kyrgyz ethnic minority in Wakhan told AFP in October they had been seeing Chinese and Afghan military patrols for months.

"The Chinese army first came here last summer and they were accompanied by the Afghan army," said Abdul Rashid, a Kyrgyz chief, adding that he had seen vehicles flying Chinese flags.

The Afghan army arrived days earlier "and told us that the Chinese army would be coming here", he said, adding: "We were strictly told not to go near them or talk to them and not to take any photos." Rashid's account was confirmed by other Kyrgyz, including another chief Jo Boi, who said the Chinese military spent almost a year in Wakhan before leaving in March 2017.

Both Chinese and Afghan officials deny the claims, with China's defence ministry telling AFP that the "Chinese army is not engaged in any military operation in the Wakhan Corridor".

With little access to the corridor, Kabul provides almost no services to those who live there - but the Chinese, Boi said, have been bringing "a lot of food and warm clothes".

"They are very good people, very kind," he told AFP.

After their March visit, he said, they returned in June for roughly a month. "Since then they come every month... to distribute food." .

Economic interests

China fears militancy could threaten its growing economic interests in the region, Ahmad Bilal Khalil, a researcher at the Kabul-based Center for Strategic and Regional Studies, told AFP.

"They need to have a secure Afghanistan," he said, estimating Beijing had provided Kabul with more than US$70 million in military aid in the past three years.

It recently flagged the possibility of including Afghanistan in the US$54-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) linking western China to the Indian Ocean via Pakistan.

"The anti-terrorism motivation is an important one but it's not as important as the bigger move to boost the CPEC," said Willy Lam, a political analyst in Hong Kong.

Kabul is also keen for Beijing to have a "more active role", Andrew Small, author of The China-Pakistan Axis, told AFP.

It hopes China will use its "special relationship" with Islamabad to encourage the Pakistani military, who wield significant influence over Afghanistan's insurgents, to "force the Taliban into peace talks", Small said.

"In the end China has vastly greater financial power than anyone else. So having them engaged... may end up being critical to the country's basic economic viability," he said.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/abrams-iraq-1042703768

US arms firm 'quits Iraq' over use of Abrams tanks by Iran-backed militia
#IraqatWar

General Dynamics reportedly withdraws maintenance support for 160 main battle tanks after Baghdad broke agreement on their use

Alex MacDonald
Friday 2 February 2018 11:50 UTC
Last update: Friday 2 February 2018 13:06 UTC

The US has suspended maintenance of Abrams tanks in Iraq following accusations that the Iraqi army had given at least one of the tanks to a controversial Hashd al-Shaabi brigade.

According to the Baghdad-based al-Ghad news agency, defence contractor General Dynamics has suspended maintenance of the tanks since December, after Baghdad broke a contractual agreement that only the Iraqi army would use the vehicles.

General Dynamics maintenance workers reportedly left Iraq for the Christmas period and have not returned.

The Hashd al-Shaabi, also known as the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMUs), are a collection of fighting groups, the largest of which are backed by Iran and have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses and promoting sectarianism. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the PMUs, is designated a terrorist by the US State Department.

Al-Ghad said 60 of Iraq’s 140 Abrams tanks are now out of service following the battle to retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State (IS) group, which involved both the Iraqi army and the PMUs.

It added that, following complaints from the US that two tanks had been given to non-army groups, Baghdad had retrieved one of the tanks during an operation against IS in Anbar province and had pledged to take back the other by the beginning of February.

Middle East Eye contacted General Dynamics and an Iraqi military spokesperson about the reports, but at time of publication had received no response.

Concerns have previously been raised about Iran-backed groups appropriating US technology in Iraq. Footage released in February 2016 appeared to show the flag of the group Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) flying from the back of an M1 Abrams.

Although KSS is not designated a terror organisation by the US, the group is known to have close ties to the Lebanese Hezbollah and the iran-backed Badr Organisation.

The group is commanded by Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani, who was involved in the insurgency against American forces during the occupation of Iraq after 2003.

The rise of Hashd al-Shaabi
The majority of PMUs were formed in 2014 after Iraq's most senior religious leader, Ali al-Sistani, issued a call to defend Iraq from the advancing forces of IS.

These groups, which joined with already established Iran-backed groups such as the Badr Organisation and Kataib Hezbollah, were largely responsible for pushing back IS from territories around Baghdad and are regarded as heroes by much of Iraq's Shia community.

However, the US and some Iraqi political figures have attempted to limit the groups' influence and have called on them to disband or be incorporated into the army after the fall of Mosul in July.

A number of leaders of the PMUs announced in early July that they would be running in upcoming parliamentary elections in a coalition named Victory Alliance.

Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, had initially said he would be running in an alliance with the group. However, this collapsed soon after, following criticism that the Hashd alliance would pursue a sectarian agenda in Iraq.

3 Comments
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-aden-saudi-arabia-uae-1499070483

ANALYSIS: Saudi Arabia plays puppet master as Yemen slowly breaks apart
#YemenWar

Riyadh sat back in tacit support as separatists routed Aden's recognised government - but props up its exiled president to legitimise its war

MEE correspondent
Friday 2 February 2018 14:45 UTC
Last update: Friday 2 February 2018 16:43 UTC

Saudi Arabia quietly allowed the takeover of Aden by southern separatists and backed their push for independence - but held them back from finishing President Abd Rabbuh Hadi's government due to the legitimacy he gives their coalition in Yemen, activists and separatist sources have said.

Fighting in the southern city this week left Hadi's government cowering in the presidential palace - guarded by Saudi troops - and the UAE-backed Security Belt militia in full control.

The Security Belt later yielded many of gains, including public institutions, and publicly backed Hadi at the behest of Emirati and Saudi mediators. But they remain the pre-eminent force in the city.

And while the Emiratis and the Saudis were ostensibly on opposing sides, analysts and activists, and members of the Security Belt's political wing, the Southern Transitional Council, say the takeover was accepted by all in the coalition.

That consent, if true, betrays a shift in the motivations of the Saudi-led coalition, and support for a movement which could lead to the break-up of the sovereign state of Yemen.

"The Saudi coalition promised to help us achieve independence in the south, peacefully," a high-level source in the council told Middle East Eye.

"The Saudi and Emirati envoys intervened to prevent further bloodshed and promised Hadi's government would change. We trust them and this encourages us to obey."

A puppet president?
The source added that the council still supported Hadi, who remains in self-enforced exile in Riyadh, and it was his corrupt government in Aden, led by Prime Minister Ahmed Obaid bin Daghar, they wanted shot of.

"Our aim was not to create a riot in Aden, our forces did not want to kill southerners and they did not want to fight Saudi forces inside the palace," he said.

And the aftermath of the fighting has been littered with pledges that all belligerents are still on the same side and support the recognised president.

The STC's leader, Aidaroos al-Zubaidi, told France 24 Arabic TV on Tuesday he remained loyal to Hadi, despite the fact he had routed his men, and would continue to oppose the Houthis.

On Friday the UAE's foreign minister, Anwar Gargash, said on Twitter: "It's important to confirm to those who like creating division that the UAE's position is the mirror image of the Saudi stance.

"We are building a strategic partnership to overcome the Yemeni crisis."

But facts on the ground are this: Hadi has now lost two capitals - first Sanaa, which he fled when it was overrun by the Houthi movement in February 2015, and now Aden, which he fled a month after the fall of Sanaa.

However, his international legitimacy due to his election in 2012 still works for the Saudis. Their stated aim on entering Yemen was to restore the elected president to the capital and roll back the Iranian-supported Houthi movement.

Losing him now, even as a figurehead, could prove disastrous to the coalition's own reasons for its war, according to political activist Mohammad al-Yusofi. Ending his tenure would end the coalition.

"The southerners and the Saudi-led coalition are against Hadi but they cannot criticise him because he gives them legitimacy to stay - he asked them to intervene in Yemen to fight the Houthis," he said.

"You cannot find any photo of Hadi in the public institutions in Aden. All you find are photos of UAE and Saudi leaders and this means separatists do not want Hadi, despite him being president of the whole country."

And so, while the coalition publicly supports Hadi as a figurehead in exile, privately - as Aden has shown - they side with the strongest group on the ground.

Ibrahim al-Suhaibi, a former journalist and political analyst, said the Saudis control the coalition and no ally could act without Riyadh's input.

"The Saudis could have stopped the clashes in Aden in the first minutes. They did not because the clashes were against the prime minister and not Hadi."

Coalition-engineered crisis

But Suhaibi said the Saudis and Yemenis had created the crisis in Aden as a byproduct of their meddling in the affairs of Yemen.

With the backing of Riyadh, the UAE created, trained and armed the Security Belt in the full knowledge of its political aims.

"The Saudi-led coalition should close the military camps of separatists in Aden because they are illegal camps and [despite public pronouncements] they are not loyal to Hadi," he said.

He said the expedience of having heavily armed local militias on the ground outweighed for the coalition any potential problems they could cause in the future. But that in itself was against the stated aims of Riyadh - the protection of Yemen's elected government.

"Supporting armed groups like the Security Belt is against the aims of the Saudi-led coalition," he said. "We saw them fight Yemen's government with UAE-supplied arms and military vehicles.

"The Saudi-led coalition must stop supporting armed groups in Yemen. The presence of the illegal military camps in Aden means the presence of threats against the government."

Adel al-Khour, a field commander in the Security Belt, disagreed. He said south secessionists were part of the Saudi-led coalition and their military camps were under its supervision.

"The camps of the Security Belt were founded by the coalition and we receive our directions from the UAE commanders in Aden, so it is irrational to say these are illegal camps," he added to MEE.

"We are partners of the coalition and we fought the government because it is not a partner of the coalition but Hadi is our partner and we did not fight him."

1 Comment
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.voanews.com/a/germany-alarmed-by-threat-posed-by-child-jihadists/4236346.html

EUROPE

Germany Alarmed by ‘Kindergarten Jihadists’

February 02, 2018 12:27 PM
Jamie Dettmer

"Put on a thick jacket,” the 18-year-old son of Albanian immigrants instructed the 12-year-old German-Iraqi boy over the Internet on how to carry out a Christmas market attack last year in the Rhineland town of Ludwigshafen.

“Then go behind a hut and light and run,” he advised.

Fortunately, the crude nail-bomb device failed to work and the 12-year-old was arrested by police in December trying for a second time to pull off an attack, this time outside Ludwigshafen’s city hall.

The chilling mentoring by the 18-year-old from his home in neighboring Austria was detailed last month in court papers.

And now the head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency is lobbying for a repeal of laws restricting security surveillance of minors under the age of 14, arguing that the country is facing grave risks from what the German media dubs “kindergarten jihadists.”

In a media interview midweek, Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, warned that the Islamic State and the terror group’s followers are continuing to target children in Germany online. “Islamic State uses headhunters who scour the internet for children who can be approached and tries to radicalize these children, or recruit these children for terrorist attacks,” he warned.

‘Massive danger’

Maassen said he was alarmed also at the risks posed by returning “brainwashed” Islamic State women and their children, who he warned pose a “massive danger” to the country. He described the children of jihadist parents as “ticking time bombs.”

An estimated 1,000 German recruits joined IS.

“There are children who have undergone brainwashing in the ISIS [Islamic State] areas and are radicalized to a great extent,” he said. “We see that children who grew up with Islamic State were brainwashed in the schools and the kindergartens of the Islamic State. They were confronted early with the ISIS ideology ... learned to fight, and were in some cases forced to participate in the abuse of prisoners, or even the killing of prisoners.”

Only a handful of the 290 children and toddlers who left Germany with jihadist parents — or who were born in Syria or Iraq — have so far returned to Germany. And some rights activists have warned that Germany should not over-react and be too quick to alter civil liberty protections, questioning whether the danger is being over-stated.

The threat posed by the radicalization of minors has become a major political issue in Germany. Three out of five radical Islamist attacks in the country in 2016 were carried out by minors.

This is the second time Maassen has sounded a public alarm about child recruits — he last did so in October, saying he was worried about a new generation of jihadists being raised in Germany. He urged Germans to “take a very serious look” at the threat, and to call police if they noticed anything suspicious.

Last year, de-radicalization experts warned that Western governments were not giving enough thought about what to do with so-called “cubs of the caliphate” — both the offspring of foreign recruits as well as Syrian and Iraqi children enlisted into the terror ranks.

IS leaders made no secret of their earmarking of the young to be “the generation that will conquer Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mecca and Rome,” grooming youngsters to be the deadly legacy of a murderous caliphate on the brink of military defeat. As the terror group’s territory shrank in the face of offensives on IS strongholds in the Levant, the militants highlighted in a series of gloating videos what they hoped would be in store for their enemies.

Other countries share worries

German intelligence officials aren't alone in expressing worries about the offspring of IS foreign fighters — or the continuing efforts of jihadist recruiters. On Thursday, the head of London’s police’s counter-terrorism command, Dean Haydon, warned of children trained by Islamic State coming back to Britain to carry out attacks.

“Some terror groups are training children to commit atrocities,” he said as he outlined the risks posed by returnees. “We need to not just understand the risk the mother poses but the risk that any child poses as well. We look at them on a case-by-case basis and they may be arrested,” he told a London newspaper. Last month a 27-year-old British woman returning from Syria was arrested at Heathrow airport under terrorism laws. She had a two-year-old with her.

Haydon revealed that police are DNA-testing children who have been brought to Britain by ‘jihadist’ parents after being born in Syria or Iraq to establish their identity. “If a mother turns up with a stateless child, born in Syria, we need to be satisfied that that child actually belongs to that mother because we have had instances of kids trying to be smuggled back into the UK but not actually belonging to that parent,” he said.

De-radicalization experts say child recruits can be rehabilitated but warn they are battling a prevalent attitude among Western officials that ‘cubs of the caliphate’ are different from child soldiers from other wars.

In an interview with VOA last year, Mia Bloom, a Canadian academic, who’s co-authoring a book on jihadist child soldiers, said: “It would be a terrible mistake to think that because someone was a cub for a year or two, they are lost forever - they can be saved and rehabilitated.” She highlighted a de-radicalization program funded partly by the Pakistani army that has proved highly successful.

Related

Steeped in Martyrdom, Cubs of the Caliphate Groomed as Jihadist Legacy
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...370b74ea9a7_story.html?utm_term=.62256a922c53

National Security

Pentagon unveils new nuclear weapons strategy, ending Obama-era push to reduce U.S. arsenal

By Paul Sonne February 2 at 5:51 PM

The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy Friday that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. arsenal and minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in an introductory note to the new policy — the first update to the military’s nuclear strategy since 2010 — that the changes reflect a need to “look reality in the eye” and “see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”

The previous administration’s policy hinged on what President Barack Obama called a moral obligation for the United States to lead by example in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Officials in the Trump administration and the U.S. military argue that Obama’s approach proved overly idealistic, particularly as relations with Moscow soured. Russia, China and North Korea, they say, all advanced their nuclear weapons capabilities instead of following suit.

“Over the past decade, while the United States has led the world in these reductions, every one of our potential nuclear adversaries has been pursuing the exact opposite strategy,” Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said at a Pentagon news conference, explaining why the United States is changing course. “These powers are increasing the numbers and types of nuclear weapons in their arsenal.”

The new nuclear weapons policy follows on Donald Trump’s promise before taking office to expand and strengthen U.S. nuclear capabilities. President Trump also vowed during his State of the Union address Tuesday to build a nuclear arsenal “so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”

The threats have changed dramatically since the last time the Pentagon updated its nuclear weapons policy, with Russia reemerging as a geopolitical foe. North Korea, meanwhile, has edged closer to possessing a missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland with a nuclear warhead, bringing the prospect of nuclear war back to the forefront of the American psyche for the first time since the Cold War.

[U.S. can destroy ‘most’ of N. Korea’s nuclear missile infrastructure, top general says]

Trump’s perceived volatility has raised more concerns among Americans about the president’s exclusive authority to order a nuclear attack. His warning last summer that he would unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea marked a rare public threat by a U.S. president to use nuclear weapons.

The policy unveiled Friday envisions the introduction of “low-yield nukes” on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Despite being called “low yield,” such weapons could cause roughly as much damage as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, depending on their size.

Russia possesses a wide variety of small nuclear weapons that the United States mostly lacks. The Pentagon worries Moscow could seize part or all of a U.S. ally state and then detonate one in a “limited nuclear attack” to prevent American troops from coming to the rescue. Washington would be forced to choose between launching a much larger-scale nuclear attack on Russia or responding with less substantial conventional arms. The Pentagon says it wants a proportionate weapon to match.

John C. Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the United States would not be increasing the number of warheads in its stockpile, which has contained other low-yield weapons for years.

In a veiled reference to Russia, Rood said the new low-yield missiles would ensure that adversaries “do not come to the mistaken impression” they can use small battlefield nuclear weapons because “we don’t have credible response options.”

The new Pentagon policy also outlines longer-term plans to reintroduce a nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile called an SLCM (or “slick-em”), which the administration of President George H.W. Bush stopped deploying and the Obama administration ordered removed from the arsenal.

Officials say the SLCM would reassure Japan and South Korea in the face of threats from North Korea and put pressure on Russia to stop violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Unlike with the low-yield weapon, which the Pentagon plans to develop quickly, the SLCM’s reintroduction could be many years away.

The Pentagon confirmed its commitment to the modernization of the U.S. nuclear force that Obama approved in 2010 in exchange for Senate ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START. The military will introduce new bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as a new cruise missile for the bomber. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan will cost about $1.2 trillion over 30 years.

After a draft of the new policy leaked in mid-January, disarmament advocates assailed the Trump administration for pursuing what they described as unnecessary new nuclear weapons that could start an arms race and increase the likelihood of nuclear war.

Critics also accused the Defense Department of lowering the threshold for what might provoke a U.S. nuclear strike by mentioning cyberattacks in the list of non-nuclear strategic threats.

At the Pentagon, officials denied those accusations. They said the new policy, if anything, raises the threshold for nuclear strikes. They reiterated the Pentagon’s long-standing policy that says nuclear weapons can be used only in “extreme circumstances.”

The return of “great power competition” with Russia and threats from China, North Korea and Iran render progress toward any weapons reductions at this time “extremely challenging,” the new policy says.

Alex Bell, an Obama administration official and disarmament advocate at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, criticized the Pentagon for effectively abandoning the quest for nuclear reductions, saying it is treating the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons that Obama heralded in a 2009 speech in Prague as “an afterthought.”

“You have a clear message to the world that this administration is not interested in leading global efforts to reduce nuclear threats,” Bell said. She warned that Trump’s boasting about an expanding U.S. nuclear arsenal could set off “a new nuclear arms race.”

622 Comments
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42913191

Tillerson says Venezuelan military may turn on Maduro

2 February 2018

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has suggested Venezuela may face a military coup.

Mr Tillerson said the US was not advocating regime change and that he had no intelligence on any planned action.

But he said that historically the military in Latin America has often intervened in times of serious crises.

He was speaking at the University of Texas ahead of his Latin America tour.

The secretary of state will visit Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Colombia, as well as Jamaica.

Mr Tillerson joked that Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro should seek refuge in Cuba.

"If the kitchen gets a little too hot for him, I am sure that he's got some friends over in Cuba that could give him a nice hacienda [villa] on the beach," he said.

"In the history of Venezuela and South American countries, it is often times that the military is the agent of change when things are so bad and the leadership can no longer serve the people," he said.

Venezuela helicopter attack pilot killed in raid
Terrorist or freedom fighter?

Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza criticised Mr Tillerson's comments and urged Latin American countries to unite against a common enemy.

"Imperialism is our enemy. Trump goes against Mexico in the same way he attacks Venezuela and Central American immigrants", he said.

"Imperialism doesn't respect anything," added Mr Arreaza, as he arrived in Havana for an official visit to Cuba.

Mr Maduro is running for a second six-year term in elections due by the end of April.

He has repeatedly accused the United States of leading an international plot to oust him and undermine the social programmes introduced by the socialist party since it came to power in 1999.

--

Tough line on Caracas

By Barbara Plett-Usher, BBC State Department Correspondent

Rather intriguingly Secretary Tillerson speculated about a possible military coup in Venezuela before heading off to check in with regional powers, although he offered no evidence his musings were backed by intelligence.

His trip to Latin America is aimed at improving and strengthening relations south of the US-Mexico border, along which President Donald Trump wants to build a wall.

But a key part of his agenda will be trying to rally support for Washington's tough line on Caracas.

So far in the Western Hemisphere only Canada has followed the US lead in sanctioning loyalists of President Nicolás Maduro.

But there is a coalition of about a dozen Latin America countries, known as the Lima Group, that agrees with US political messaging.

Along with Washington it has rejected as undemocratic the Venezuelan government's decision to hold "snap" presidential elections.

Most of the countries Mr Tillerson will be visiting belong to this group, so he will try to reinforce and build on that support.

He will also discuss how to deal with the dire humanitarian situation. That will be a particular focus in Colombia, which is hosting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan refugees.

Grey line 2 pixels
Mr Tillerson blames "the corrupt and hostile regime of Nicolás Maduro" for Venezuela's economic crisis.

"It's a man-made collapse. Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves. But Venezuelans are starving, dying of malnutrition and disease," he said.

Venezuela pill shortage triggers rise in teenage pregnancies
Venezuela's farmers struggle as people go hungry
What has Venezuela's constituent assembly achieved?

The US Secretary of State said he will keep putting pressure on Venezuela and its ally, Cuba, "to return to democracy".

He praised sanctions Canada and the European Union recently imposed on senior Venezuelan officials over alleged human rights violations during anti-government protests.

The US Secretary of State also warned about the growing presence of China and Russia in Latin America. He said this posed serious risks for the region.

China's "state-led model of development" drains resources from Latin American countries and benefits mainly the Chinese people, he said.

"Latin America does not need new imperial powers that seek only to benefit their own people," he added.

He accused Russia of selling weapons to authoritarian regimes and described its increasing influence in the region was alarming.
 
Top