WAR 12-28-2019-to-01-03-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(398) 12-07-2019-to-12-13-2019___*THE***WINDS****of****WAR*****

(399) 12-14-2019-to-12-20-2019___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(400) 12-21-2019-to-12-27-2019___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

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

Posted earlier today by (beat me to the new week's thread, my bad) jward
passin' thru






Today at 7:47 AM





Joint maritime maneuvers, involving the Russian, Chinese and Iranian Navies, have entered their second day in the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman
.

The naval drills, the first of their kind, were launched on Friday with the aim of securing international trade routes in strategic waterways and boosting preparedness among participants against piracy and marine terrorism.

The three countries have sent some of their most advanced vessels to take part in the four-day exercises.

Iran's Navy Commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi said the drills are designed to heighten security in the region's crucially important waterways.

Rear Admiral Gholamreza Tahani, Iranian flotilla chief, said the maneuvers cover 17,000 square kilometers and consist of "various tactical exercises," including target practice and rescuing ships from assaults and fires.

"Among the objectives of this exercise are improving the security of international maritime trade, countering maritime piracy and terrorism, exchanging information regarding rescue operations and operational and tactical experience," he said.

Tahani also stressed that the joint drills serve as a signal to the world that ties between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing have reached a "meaningful" level.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the naval drills with China and Russia "make clear our broader commitment to secure vital waterways."

Iran-China-Russia naval drills show broader commitment to secure vital waterways: FM Zarif
Iran-China-Russia naval drills show broader commitment to secure vital waterways: FM Zarif
Iran says its joint naval drills with China and Russia are indicative of its resolve to secure vital waterways.


The Pentagon has said the US was "monitoring" the trilateral naval drills.

"We are aware of the multilateral exercise being conducted between Iran, China and Russia in the Arabian Sea. We are monitoring it and will continue to work with our partners and allies to ensure freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in international waterways," said Pentagon spokesman Sean Robertson on Thursday.

Acting US Navy Secretary Thomas Modly claimed on Friday that Iran could carry out "provocative actions" in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere in that region.

"I think they're going to continue to perform provocative actions over there... and I think they'll look at every opportunity they can to do that," he told Reuters.

The United States has been trying to persuade its allies into a coalition with the purported aim of providing “security” for merchant shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and other strategic Middle Eastern shipping lanes.

Washington claims Tehran played a role in two separate attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in May and June, without providing any credible evidence to support the accusations, which Iran has categorically dismissed.

The US has sent troops and missile systems to Saudi Arabia following escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has always reiterated that foreign military presence brings insecurity to the region.



www.presstv.com


Iran, China, Russia drill in vital waterways for 2nd day
Joint maritime maneuvers, involving the Russian, Chinese and Iranian Navies, have entered their second day in the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman.

www.presstv.com
www.presstv.com




Aleph ️ א (@no_itsmyturn) Tweeted:
Second day of the Iranian, Chinese and Russian joint naval drills
(Increased the speed by x1.25)
#Iran #China #Russia Aleph ️ א on Twitter
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1210893242272755712
View: https://twitter.com/no_itsmyturn/status/1210893242272755712?s=20



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

Posted for fair use.....

Ukraine, separatists expected to swap prisoners on Sunday
yesterday

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Kyiv expects to swap prisoners with Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Saturday.

The exchange was brokered by the Russian and Ukrainian presidents at peace talks in Paris earlier this month.

Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin in their first meeting failed to find a compromise to end the five-year war that has killed 14,000 people, but agreed to revive the peace process and exchange prisoners.

“The exchange should be tomorrow. We’re all waiting for it,” Zelenskiy said Saturday, calling it “the most difficult task this year.”

Separatist officials confirmed the exchange was to take place Sunday and said they expected to swap 55 Ukrainians for 87 rebels.
Earlier this week Ukrainian media reported that a court in Odessa released 11 people accused of terrorism in preparation for the exchange. Four others were released from jail in Kharkiv on Saturday.

The last major prisoner swap between separatist rebels and Ukrainian forces took place in December 2017, with 233 rebels exchanged for 73 Ukrainians.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Libyan official: Turkish troops unwanted, destabilizing
By MENELAOS HADJICOSTIS
yesterday

NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) — Turkey’s willingness to dispatch troops to Libya is “unacceptable” and such a move would constitute unwanted meddling in the affairs of a friendly country, the speaker of the North African country’s parliament said Saturday.

Aguila Saleh said in a joint statement with his Cypriot counterpart that Turkey’s actions are increasing tensions and destabilizing the region.

Saleh and Cypriot parliamentary speaker Demetris Syllouris also reiterated their condemnation of a maritime border agreement that Turkey signed with Libya’s Tripoli-based government — but which hasn’t been ratified by the Libyan parliament — as a “flagrant violation of international law that’s devoid of any legal basis.”

According to the Cyprus News Agency, Saleh said Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj isn’t authorized to sign any agreements on his own because any such deal requires unanimous approval from the nine-member presidential council and parliament’s assent.

Sarraj is battling an offensive launched in April by the rival government based in eastern Libya and forces loyal to commander Gen. Khalifa Hifter, who is trying to take Tripoli, the capital.

The fighting has threatened to plunge Libya into violence rivaling the 2011 conflict that ousted and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Speaking through an interpreter, Saleh said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took advantage of the divisions within Libya, as well as Tripoli’s control by “terrorist groups,” to get the agreements approved.

According to Saleh, Erdogan’s aim “is to provoke countries in the eastern Mediterranean and to interfere in their exclusive economic zones without taking account these countries’ sovereign rights at sea and in the air.”

A senior Cypriot government official told The Associated Press that Saleh asked European Union member Cyprus to convey to the 28-member bloc that deployment of Turkish forces in his country would destabilize the entire region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to disclose details of the Libyan official’s visit.

On a surprise visit to Tunisia earlier this week, Erdogan reiterated that his county would evaluate sending soldiers to Libya if there is an invitation from Tripoli, where Sarraj’s United Nations-supported but weak administration is based.

Turkey has signed maritime and agreements with the Libyan government that controls Tripoli and some of the country’s west.

The military deal allows Ankara to dispatch military experts and personnel, along with weapons, despite a U.N. arms embargo that has been violated by other international actors.
Turkey contends the maritime agreement gives it economic rights to a large swath of the eastern Mediterranean sea. Greece, Cyprus and Egypt have denounced the deal as legally invalid as it encroaches on their maritime borders.

In Rome, asked about possible Turkish military action in Libya in support of Sarraj’s forces, Italian Premier Giuseppe Conte said he had tried to discourage any attempt at a military solution for Libya.

Conte, who discussed Libya with Erdogan in a phone call last week, told reporters Saturday that a “proxy war” in the North African country across the Mediterranean from Italy would only aggravate the “incredible fragmentation” there.

“I implored Turkish President Erodogan” against military involvement, Conte said.

Conte called for stepped-up diplomatic pressure for a political solution, and said Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio might soon return to Libya to work for a “cessation of hostilities.”
____

Frances D’Emilio in Rome contributed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Truck bomb in Somali capital kills at least 79 at rush hour

By ABDI GULED
yesterday

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — A truck bomb exploded at a busy security checkpoint in Somalia’s capital Saturday morning, killing at least 79 people including many students, authorities said. It was the worst attack in Mogadishu since the devastating 2017 bombing that killed hundreds.

The explosion ripped through rush hour as Somalia returned to work after its weekend. At least 125 people were wounded, Aamin Ambulance service director Abdiqadir Abdulrahman said, and hundreds of Mogadishu residents donated blood in response to desperate appeals.

President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed condemned the attack as a “heinous act of terror” and blamed the local al-Shabab extremist group, which is linked to al-Qaida and whose reach has extended to deadly attacks on luxury malls and schools in neighboring Kenya.

Bodies lay on the ground amid the blackened skeletons of vehicles. At a hospital, families and friends picked through dozens of the dead, gingerly lifting sheets to peer at faces.

Most of those killed were university students returning to class and police officers, said Somalia’s police chief Gen. Abdi Hassan Hijar. He said the vehicle detonated after police at the checkpoint blocked it from proceeding into the city.

Somalis mourned the deaths of so many young people in a country trying to rebuild itself after decades of conflict. Two Turkish brothers were among the dead, Somalia’s foreign minister said, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the attack.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but al-Shabab often carries out such attacks. The extremist group was pushed out of Mogadishu several years ago but continues to target high-profile areas such as checkpoints and hotels in the seaside city.

Al-Shabab is now able to make its own explosives, its “weapon of choice,” United Nations experts monitoring sanctions on Somalia said earlier this year. The group had previously relied on military-grade explosives captured during assaults on an African Union peacekeeping force.

Despite that advance in bomb-making, one security expert said the unlikely choice of target Saturday — a checkpoint at the western entrance to the capital — reflected al-Shabab’s weakening capability to plan and execute attacks at will. Mogadishu recently introduced tougher security measures that Somali officials said make it more difficult to smuggle in explosives.

“It feels like they literally knew that their (car bomb) may not proceed through the checkpoint into the city undetected, considering the additional obstacles ahead, so bombing the busy checkpoint in a show of strength appeared to be an ideal decision,” the Mogadishu-based Ahmed Barre told The Associated Press.

Al-Shabab was blamed for the truck bombing in Mogadishu in October 2017 that killed more than 500 people, but the group never claimed responsibility for the blast that led to widespread public outrage. Some analysts said al-Shabab didn’t dare claim credit as its strategy of trying to sway public opinion by exposing government weakness had badly backfired.

“This explosion is similar like the one ... in 2017. This one occurred just a few steps away from where I am and it knocked me on the ground from its force. I have never seen such a explosion in my entire life,” witness Abdurrahman Yusuf said.

The attack again raises concern about the readiness of Somali forces to take over responsibility for the Horn of Africa country’s security in the coming months from the AU force.

Al-Shabab, the target of a growing number of U.S. airstrikes since President Donald Trump took office, controls parts of Somalia’s southern and central regions. It funds itself with a “taxation” system that experts describe as extortion of businesses and travelers that brings in millions of dollars a year.
___

Video journalist Mohamed Sheikh Nor in Mogadishu contributed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

No Christmas gift from North Korea? Not so fast.
By Duyeon Kim, December 27, 2019

Christmas came and went without Santa Kim coming to town. North Korea’s warning that the United States would receive an unwelcome “Christmas gift” was never guaranteed. Actually, it came with a condition attached: Pyongyang said “it is entirely up to the US what Christmas gift it will select to get.” Did President Donald Trump send North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a secret letter, or vice versa? If so, it won’t take long to find out. Did Beijing privately warn Pyongyang against doing anything provocative on Christmas? Did Trump’s envoy Steve Biegun deliver a message to Pyongyang through a third party when he traveled in the region last week? Did Pyongyang restrain itself because China hosted the leaders of South Korea and Japan on Christmas eve? Was Pyongyang bluffing?

Or is North Korea in fact focused instead on whether Washington will meet its year-end deadline to propose a satisfactory deal before deciding whether and how to respond?

These questions may go unanswered. But Kim, nevertheless, probably did not get cold feet. North Korea’s course of action after the year-end deadline will be far more significant than a gift timed to coincide with what it sees as an American holiday. After all, anything can happen in the remaining six days of 2019 after Christmas. And presents can be delivered any time the giver feels so compelled.

North Korea has been sending some clues as to what it might do to show its displeasure if its deadline passes without the right American response. For the past several weeks, Pyongyang has been telegraphing that it might resume intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches: It tested engines that could power ICBMs or satellite launch vehicles, touting that the regime has bolstered its “strategic nuclear deterrent,” which is code for a nuclear-tipped ICBM.

But Pyongyang can select from a range of weapons to test in 2020. It’s anybody’s guess what will be inside Kim’s future gift package, and when it might be delivered.

A mixed bag of gifts. If it decides to continue testing weapons, North Korea can choose from two general categories in the new year. It can continue with the same level of dangerous actions as this year, testing short-range ballistic missiles and missile engines and perhaps even launching a satellite into orbit or firing a missile over Japan. Or it can take actions that will be widely seen as more provocative: testing ICBMs or detonating a nuclear-tipped missile over the Pacific Ocean in an atmospheric test, which the North hinted it might conduct in 2017. Pyongyang could, of course, decide to conduct all of the above tests over the course of the new year. If past procedures continue to be followed, any missile the North does test will likely include a qualitatively new component, feature, or function.

But North Korea does not necessarily need to conduct visible tests for political purposes. Out of public view, it will almost surely “mass-produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles,” as ordered by Kim Jong Un in his 2018 New Year’s Day address. While it certainly could, Pyongyang also does not need to start off the new year with a big bang; it can gradually escalate tensions.

North Korea’s choice will depend on its perception of Washington’s intentions and objectives before 2019 is out. Its calculations will be based on a risk assessment—both geopolitical and military—of how Washington might then respond to its actions. Pyongyang had warned that it could seek a “new path” if Washington did not present an acceptable deal to implement the 2018 Singapore summit statement. Escalating tensions in the second half of 2019 and Kim’s repeated warnings and threats will later justify any actions Pyongyang might take in 2020 that are more provocative: Kim can blame Washington for a breakdown in diplomatic talks that forced it to take stronger actions.

Emboldened and taking a “new path.” Kim will likely decide on his “new path” at an extraordinary meeting of his Workers Party this month and unveil details in his New Year’s Day address. Washington’s response will depend on Pyongyang’s choice of action. But the United States, Europe, and Japan appear prepared to further strengthen “maximum pressure” sanctions if the North chooses the more provocative path of testing ICBMs or nuclear devices. Chinese, Russian, and European interlocutors should quietly warn North Korea against taking such steps, even if diplomacy breaks down. They should also urge Pyongyang to refrain from a satellite launch, even though Trump has not included these in his “red line” of prohibited testing (yet), because the international community will view it as an ICBM test in disguise. Even better for reducing tensions in the region would be for Pyongyang to refrain launching more short-range missiles that threaten Japan, South Korea, and American troops and expatriates and other foreign nationals living in those two countries. But backing off from short-range tests would be an extremely hard sell, because of the Kim regime’s announced national priority of possessing a reliable nuclear deterrent.

Since the February Hanoi summit, Pyongyang has been demanding Washington change its age-old negotiating approach by using a “new calculation.” Since the first nuclear crisis of the 1990s, the basic give-and-take formula applied to negotiations and resulting agreements was denuclearization first, then benefits: North Korea would first take, or agree to, some significant, verifiable steps toward denuclearization, and would then receive corresponding benefits.

Pyongyang is now demanding big concessions before it considers taking significant, verifiable denuclearization measures. In particular, it wants Washington to agree to lift key UN sanctions and end joint military drills with South Korea in the first stage of a deal. Unlike his father and grandfather, Kim likely believes he now has sufficient leverage in negotiations to make such demands, armed with confidence in the technological achievements of his nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Pyongyang’s “new path,” however, will not necessarily be focused solely on Washington. North Korea has a bigger national agenda that does not heed to events in its external environment. The regime’s foremost goal is achieving economic and military might through self-reliant means—encapsulated by its state ideology, juche. And the North under Kim Jong Un’s leadership aims to be perceived as a normal state, enjoying international prestige and developing relations with “socialist countries and… countries that are friendly to” Pyongyang. Kim might also believe that time is on his side in the long game of becoming a nuclear and economic power over what he assumes will be the next several decades of his rule. So Kim might take relatively measured steps in order not to provoke Trump, perhaps thinking that may help his reelection, if he believes Trump is the only American president who is willing to conclude a significant agreement with Kim. But the North Korean leader may instead conclude he can survive without striking a deal with any American leader. In that case, there is no way for anyone outside the Kim regime to know the shape and size that provocations might take.

What gift may come. Unilateral gift-giving and hospitality are an integral part of Korean culture. Gifts are given at any occasion, imaginable and unexpected — major holidays like New Year’s and Chuseok (Korean Thanksgiving), commemorative days, in business meetings with foreigners, after receiving a first paycheck, at weddings and funerals, at birth, and just because. The word “gift” (seonmul) is spoken of quite often in the Korean language. In the world of foreign affairs, South Korean pundits and officials often wonder what “gift” will be presented by one or all parties involved in major government negotiations or a summit to break a deadlock or advance relations.

For decades, North Korea has given all sorts of gifts, depending on whether it felt Washington and Seoul were naughty or nice—or to extract concessions from its adversaries. These gifts ranged from cooperating diplomatically, to taking the first baby steps towards denuclearization, to lodging insults, violating agreements, testing nuclear devices and missiles, hacking servers, blowing up civilian airlines, and shelling a South Korean island.

The road to 2020 remains uncertain. And North Korea does not need a holiday—it will continue to be the gift-giver that keeps on giving. The challenge is creating an environment that elicits a welcome gift from Pyongyang and satisfies the interests of all stakeholders involved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

A commitment to never use nuclear weapons first will not make us safer
By Iain King, opinion contributor — 12/26/19 05:00 PM EST 231
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

250

Nuclear threats did not end with the Cold War, and they could be getting even more dangerous in the modern era today. North Korea has illegally developed an atomic and ballistic missile program, Russia is brandishing a new range of nuclear delivery systems, and China continues to build up its strategic arsenal. Meanwhile, measures which have helped to keep the world safe for years, such as the half century old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other arms control agreements, are facing several challenges.

This worrisome state of nuclear affairs is leading some, including policy thinkers in the three Western democracies armed with nuclear weapons, which are the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, to consider taking new steps to limit the risk of nuclear weapons use. However, some of these supposed precautions, for instance the doctrine of “No First Use,” could actually make the world even less secure. “No First Use” is a public commitment to never to use nuclear weapons, except in response to their use by another power. It has been the declared stance of China and India, although recent remarks by the Indian government raise complications. “No First Use” was also briefly adopted by the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

The case for “No First Use” seems simple. If all states armed with nuclear weapons agree to never use them first then, in theory, they would never be used at all. It may develop the commitments by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China to use nuclear weapons only defensively. “No First Use” could even offer a new route toward a world without nuclear weapons, to which all nuclear powers are committed.

However, upon closer examination, these benefits are illusory. “No First Use” is almost impossible to verify in peacetime. In a crisis situation, few would trust any adversarial nuclear powers to keep their “No First Use” pledge. Instead, they would expect them to qualify their commitments to gain leverage because interests, not stated commitments, will remain a much more trustworthy guide to their behavior. Finally, how could a “No First Use” policy deter the use of other weapons of mass destruction? It may embolden adversaries to attack by increasing the odds of success.

The last point here is most notable, particularly for the United Kingdom and France, which are democracies with limited conventional forces and nuclear arsenals kept at a “strict sufficiency” level. If massed forces were threatening the vital interests of the United Kingdom or France, then they might have to consider signaling a possible nuclear response. For both countries, “No First Use” is neither practical nor credible. Moreover, even if the United States adopted the posture, the United Kingdom and France would have to demur, creating a possibly damaging split in the alliance.

Further, for the United States to adopt a “No First Use” stance would call into question their extended deterrence guarantees and other security commitments. This could tempt some adversaries to attack United States allies without fearing an escalation, therefore transforming a tactical win against some of those same allies into a strategic victory against Western democracies. It could even invite doubt in the minds of our adversaries whether the “one for all, all for one” Article Five commitment at the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was still valid. To offset such a risk, significant conventional reinforcements would be required, which would have a large impact on resources and could also be destabilizing.

In extremes, allies may feel it necessary to develop nuclear programs of their own. Far from limiting nuclear dangers, “No First Use” could actually spur proliferation. Because of these real dangers, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization considered “No First Use” in 1999, it had rejected the policy decisively. President Obama, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, offered a credible path toward a world free from nuclear weapons, declaring his firm conclusion that “No First Use” was not the way to go.

There are far more promising ways to make the world safer from nuclear threats. The United States can reaffirm that nuclear weapons are purely defensive and designed only to preserve vital national interests. Officials can intensify the dialogue on doctrine among the leading nuclear powers to minimize the risks of any misunderstanding. Preserving existing arms control regimes and promoting new initiatives should also be priorities.

These steps might not be easy to take, but they would increase stability, while “No First Use” could undermine the function of nuclear weapons as means of deterrence. The challenges in the modern era posed by nuclear weapons and proliferation need to be contained, and progress on nuclear arms control has become as urgent as ever. But for the United States to conclude that it should adopt a “No First Use” policy would be a strategic mistake, and would invite greater nuclear dangers on itself and its allies.

Iain King is a visiting fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and was defense counselor in the British Embassy in Washington.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

World
Russia Rejects Extending Iran Arms Embargo, Defying U.S.
Bloomberg
December 27, 2019, 6:53 AM PST


(Bloomberg) -- Russia, seeing prospects for multi-billion dollar deals, ruled out extending a United Nations-approved arms embargo on Iran that expires in October next year, despite U.S. warnings that lifting the restrictions will jeopardize global security.

“We’re not ready to do the bidding of our American colleagues,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency in an interview published Friday.

U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo earlier this year warned that allowing renewed weapons sales to Iran will mean the country will be “unleashed to create new global turmoil.”

The removal of the UN arms embargo within five years was part of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which the U.S. withdrew from last year. President Donald Trump’s administration has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran in a bid to force the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table. Russia, China and European powers have tried unsuccessfully to salvage the landmark accord curbing Iran’s nuclear activities, though formally it’s still in existence.

Ending the ban on military sales “is important for Russia as it will bring it closer to Iran and opens up the world’s last big untapped weapons markets,” said Ruslan Pukhov, head of the Center of Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a defense-industry consultancy in Moscow. According to a recent report published by the think-tank, Iran could become a major customer for Russian hardware, including fighter jets, submarines and air-defense systems.

The arms embargo bars Iran from buying offensive weapons. Russia has sold its S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran after ending a self-imposed moratorium that it put in place at Israel’s request.

Iran wants to purchase weapons “it has largely been unable to acquire for decades” when the embargo expires, an assessment released by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in November.

Iran is already targeting military supplies, primarily from Russia but also from China, the Pentagon report found. Iran’s potential acquisitions include Russian Su-30 fighters, Yak-130 trainers and T-90 tanks. Iran has also shown interest in buying the S-400 air-defense system and Bastion coastal defense system from Russia, it said.

(Adds U.S. assessment of likely Iran arms deals in last two paragraphs)
To contact the reporter on this story: Henry Meyer in Moscow at hmeyer4@bloomberg.net
 

Zagdid

Veteran Member

fair use
Tribune News Service
Published: 6:49am, 28 Dec, 2019

The day after Christmas, a Chinese man in the United States said he rose early because he wanted to take photographs of the sunrise on the grounds of the Naval Air Station in Key West, Florida.
It was only a matter of time before witnesses spotted Liao Lyuyou at 6.50am on Thursday walking around a perimeter fence and entering the military facility from the rocks along the water.
They warned Liao he was trespassing in a restricted area, known as the Truman Annex, as he took photographs of government buildings near “sensitive military facilities”, according to a federal criminal complaint filed on Thursday.
Then US Military Police saw him snapping photos with the camera on his cellphone, approached him and took a look at the pictures.

The police officers immediately called a federal agent, who arrested Liao on a charge of entering naval property for the purpose of photographing defence installations.


Liao agreed to waive his Miranda rights and told the agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in broken English that “he was trying to take photographs of the sunrise”, according to the complaint affidavit.

But when Liao provided the pass code to his cellphone and allowed the agent to look at the images, he “observed photographs of Truman Annex on the camera”.

Liao, 27, had his first federal court appearance Friday afternoon in Key West via a video link with Magistrate Judge Patrick Hunt in Fort Lauderdale and Assistant US Attorney Karen Gilbert in Miami.

Hunt appointed the federal public defender’s office to represent Liao and scheduled his pretrial detention hearing for January 6. His arraignment will be a week later.

Liao’s arrest marks the second time since last year that a Chinese national has been charged with taking photos of defence installations at the Naval Air Station in Key West.

In September of last year, Zhao Qianli, who claimed to be a music student from China, got caught by the Key West police for trespassing onto the high-security Naval Air Station.
He later told federal authorities that he lost his way on the tourist trail and did not realise it was a military base.

Investigators found photos and videos on Qianli’s cellphone as well as on his digital camera that he had taken of government buildings and a Defence Department antenna field on the military base.
Qianli, 20, pleaded guilty in February to one count of photographing defence installations at the Key West military facility and was sentenced to one year in prison by US District Judge K. Michael Moore.
The judge gave him the maximum sentence, which was higher than the sentencing guidelines between zero and six months. The US attorney’s office sought nine months in prison.

The following March, a Chinese woman was arrested at US President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach after she bluffed her way into Mar-a-Lago to attend a purported “United Nations friendship” event that she knew had been cancelled before she left China.
Zhang Yujing, 33, was charged with trespassing in a restricted area and lying to a federal agent. In September, Zhang was convicted at trial and sentenced in November to eights months in prison – or the time she had been in custody since her arrest – by US District Judge Roy Altman.
Another Chinese woman, Lu Jing, 56, was charged earlier this month with misdemeanour counts of loitering or prowling and resisting arrest without violence, after being caught trespassing at Mar-a-Lago
 

jward

passin' thru
US carries out ‘defensive strikes’ in Iraq, Syria against Iran-allied militia
bdcfd7b9-38b7-4bac-8e42-fd8660888bd1_16x9_788x442.jpg
The US military has carried out “defensive strikes” in Iraq and Syria against the Kataib Hezbollah militia group, the US Pentagon said on Sunday, two days after a US civilian contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base.

The Pentagon said it targeted three locations of the Iranian-backed Shiite militia group in Iraq and two in Syria. The locations included weapons storage facilities and command and control locations the group had used to plan and execute attacks on coalition forces.

The United States had accused the group of the 30-plus rocket attack on Friday that killed the US civilian contractor and injured four US service members and two members of the Iraqi Security Forces near the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

“In response to repeated Kata’ib Hizbollah attacks on Iraqi bases that host Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces, US forces have conducted precision defensive strikes ... that will degrade KH’s ability to conduct future attacks against OIR coalition forces” chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in the statement.

In Iraq, several Iraqi militia fighters were killed on Sunday in an air strike on their headquarters near the western Qaim district on the border with Syria, military sources and militia commanders told Reuters.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iranian-backed forces for a series of attacks on bases in Iraq and warned Iran that any attacks by Tehran or proxies that harmed Americans or allies would be “answered with a decisive US response.”




Last Update: Sunday, 29 December 2019 KSA 20:56 - GMT 17:56





وكالة أنباء العراق الدولية-واعد

@wa3ediq


#عاجل: ارتفاع عدد قتلى مليشيا "حزب الله " اثر القصف الامريكي في مدينة #القائم غربي #العراق الى "8" واكثر من "20" جريحاً.
Translated from Arabic by
#عاجل : The death toll of the "Hezbollah" militia has increased due to the American bombing in the city #القائم western #العراق To "8" and more than "20" wounded
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Taliban council agrees to cease-fire in Afghanistan
By KATHY GANNON and RAHIM FAIEZ
25 minutes ago

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Taliban’s ruling council agreed Sunday to a temporary cease-fire in Afghanistan, providing a window in which a peace agreement with the United States can be signed, officials from the insurgent group said. They didn’t say when it would begin.

A cease-fire had been demanded by Washington before any peace agreement could be signed. A peace deal would allow the U.S. to bring home its troops from Afghanistan and end its 18-year military engagement there, America’s longest.

The White House said it would have no comment.

The U.S. wants any deal to include a promise from the Taliban that Afghanistan would not be used as a base by terrorist groups. The U.S. currently has an estimated 12,000 troops in Afghanistan.

The Taliban chief must approve the cease-fire decision but that was expected. The duration of the cease-fire was not specified but it was suggested it would last for 10 days. It was also not specified when the cease-fire would begin.

Four members of the Taliban negotiating team met for a week with the ruling council before they agreed on the brief cease-fire. The negotiating team returned Sunday to Qatar where the Taliban maintain their political office and where U.S. special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has been holding peace talks with the religious militia since September, 2018.

Talks were suspended in September when both sides seemed on the verge of signing a peace pact. However, a surge in violence in the capital Kabul killed a U.S. soldier, prompting President Donald Trump to declare the deal “dead.” Talks resumed after Trump made a surprise visit to Afghanistan at the end of November announcing the Taliban were ready to talk and agree to a reduction in violence.

Khalilzad returned to Doha at the beginning of December. It was then that he proposed a temporary halt to hostilities to pave the way to an agreement being signed, according to Taliban officials.

Taliban officials familiar with the negotiations spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media outlets.

A key pillar of the agreement, which the U.S. and Taliban have been hammering out for more than a year, is direct negotiations between Afghans on both sides of the conflict.

Those intra-Afghan talks were expected to be held within two weeks of the signing of a U.S.-Taliban peace deal. They will decide what a post-war Afghanistan will look like.

The first item on the agenda is expected to address how to implement a cease-fire between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s National Security Forces. The negotiations, however, were expected to be prickly and will cover a variety of thorny issues, including rights of women, free speech, and changes to the country’s constitution.

The intra-Afghan talks would also lay out the fate of tens of thousands of Taliban fighters and the heavily armed militias belonging to Afghanistan’s warlords. Those warlords have amassed wealth and power since the Taliban were ousted from power in 2001 by the U.S.-led coalition. They were removed after Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The Taliban had harbored bin Laden, although there was no indication they were aware of al-Qaida’s plans to attack the United States.

Even as the Taliban were talking about ceasing hostilities, insurgents carried out an attack in northern Afghanistan on Sunday that killed at least 17 local militiamen.

The attack apparently targeted a local militia commander who escaped unharmed, said Jawad Hajri, a spokesman for the governor of Takhar province, where the attack took place late Saturday.

Local Afghan militias commonly operate in remote areas, and are under the command of either the defense or interior ministries.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack.

Last week, a U.S. soldier was killed in combat in the northern Kunduz province. The Taliban claimed they were behind a fatal roadside bombing that targeted American and Afghan forces in Kunduz. The U.S. military said the soldier was not killed in an IED attack but died seizing a Taliban weapon’s cache.

The U.S. military in its daily report of military activity said airstrikes overnight Sunday killed 13 Taliban in attacks throughout the country.

Taliban as well as Afghan National Security Forces aided by U.S. air power have carried out daily attacks against each other

The Taliban frequently target Afghan and U.S. forces, as well as government officials. But scores of Afghan civilians are also killed in the cross-fire or by roadside bombs planted by militants. The United Nations has called on all sides in the conflict to reduce civilian casualties. The world body said increased U.S. airstrikes and ground operations by Afghan National Security Forces, as well as relentless Taliban attacks, have contributed to an increase in civilian casualties.

Last year, Afghanistan was the world’s deadliest conflict.
___
Gannon reported from Islamabad.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

US re-ups support for Sinai mission
Jack Detsch December 27, 2019


The Donald Trump administration has renewed US commitments to supporting the peacekeeping effort in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula despite growing Pentagon concerns of Russian influence in the region.

The State Department notified Congress of plans to obligate $10 million for the Multinational Force Observers mission, a State Department official told Al-Monitor, a third of the yearly costs that are split with Egypt and Israel.

“These funds will enable the MFO to continue its mission to monitor implementation of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and related security arrangements by providing uninterrupted support to the MFO,” the official said, using an acronym for the mission now funded through March 2020.

The United States also puts up money to protect 500 US civilians and military units serving in the area since Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1979.

The Trump administration has reaffirmed longstanding US ties with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi strained after the 2013 massacre of protesters in Cairo’s Rabaa Square, approving the release of $1.3 billion in American military aid despite human rights concerns. Trump also granted the Egyptian head of state a White House visit as he sought to extend his rule until 2030 ahead of a successful referendum in April.

In his first meeting with a foreign counterpart as defense secretary in July, Mark Esper also urged his Egyptian peer to wage a counterinsurgency-style fight in the Sinai Peninsula.

Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch reported 20 extrajudicial killings of detainees in North Sinai and the arbitrary arrests of 50 people, the majority of whom the group said had been forcibly disappeared.

In its annual report on human rights, the State Department said the Egyptian government “did not comprehensively investigate” alleged human rights abuses by security forces, which contributed “to an environment of impunity.”

The Pentagon and other US agencies have also threatened Egypt, floating the possibility of sanctions against Russian weapons buyers after Sisi planned to purchase Sukhoi fighter jets from Moscow. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also begun directly pressing Sisi’s government for the release of American prisoners such as Moustafa Kassem, a former New York taxicab driver seized during the Rabaa Square demonstrations.

Russia and Egypt have also both supported eastern warlord Khalifa Haftar’s advance on the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Top administration officials have signaled they are more concerned about the growing relationship between Moscow and Cairo than Russia’s expanding influence in Syria.

“Not as much, because they’ve had a pretty solid footprint there for five years,” Esper told lawmakers at a hearing earlier this month when asked about Pentagon concerns over Russia’s role in Syria. “I’m more concerned about Russia’s expansion into Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other places.”

Current and former US officials have long complained that despite investing in the MFO mission, American inspectors have gotten irregular access to the peninsula. Islamic State affiliates in the area recently affirmed their loyalty to a new leader after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed during a Delta Force raid in Syria earlier this year.

Found in: peacekeeping forces, us aid, us-egyptian relations, russian influence, sinai peninsula, sinai




Jack Detsch is Al-Monitor’s Pentagon correspondent. Based in Washington, Detsch examines US-Middle East relations through the lens of the Defense Department. Detsch previously covered cybersecurity for Passcode, the Christian Science Monitor’s project on security and privacy in the Digital Age. Detsch also served as editorial assistant at The Diplomat Magazine and worked for NPR-affiliated stations in San Francisco. On Twitter: @JackDetsch_ALM, Email: jdetsch@al-monitor.com.

Read more: US re-ups support for Sinai mission
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment

Navy Confirms Boat Swarm Seen Alongside Carrier Group In This Satellite Image Was Iranian

The image shows 18 small craft sailing next to the USS Abraham Lincoln and her escorts in the Strait of Hormuz earlier this month.

By Joseph Trevithick
December 27, 2019

he U.S. Navy has confirmed that "multiple" small Iranian boats running alongside the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and other ships from her strike group as she sailed through Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman earlier this month, as seen in commercial satellite imagery. The service has rejected reports that any of the Iranian craft harassed or otherwise acted provocatively toward the carrier, saying the activity was within "normal behavior patterns." Still, the image of 18 small boats in very close proximity to Lincoln and her escorts is eye-opening and a stark reminder of the inherent risks of each transit through the Strait.
A PlanetScope satellite belonging to private satellite imagery firm Planet Labs, part of a constellation that takes images of much of the Earth every day, caught Lincoln making the transit out of the Persian Gulf by way of the Strait of Hormuz on Dec. 4, 2019. The image circulated for days in various formats on social media, causing considerable debate within the open-source intelligence community about what exactly was going on in the frame. Some media outlets, including in Iran, picked up on the narrative that the IRGC had "harassed," or at least "escorted," the Carrier Strike Group out of the Strait in a successful challenge to the United States amid a new spike in tensions between the two countries. We can now put this debate to rest.




Iran To Practice Blockading Strait Of Hormuz As Saudis Say Mandeb Strait Is No Longer SafeBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
U.S. Seizes Missile Parts Headed To Yemen Amid Reports Of New Iranian Threats (Updated)By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Marine Anti-Drone Buggies On USS Boxer Knocked Down "Threatening" Iranian Drone (Updated)By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Cluster Bomb Toting F-15Es Are Patrolling The Persian Gulf To Counter Small Boat SwarmsBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Here's Why Naval Convoys Are An Ideal Solution Hated By EveryoneBy Chris Harmer Posted in The War Zone
"During the transit, multiple Iranian vessels followed the U.S. ships through the strait," U.S. Navy Commander Joshua Frey, a public affairs officer for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), told the War Zone in an Email. "Their activity was within normal behavior patterns for Iran and did not threaten the Abe [Abraham Lincoln] strike group."

The satellite image shows what could be as many as 18 boats following Lincoln around 20 miles northwest of Oman's Musandam Peninsula and some 30 miles from Iran's Qeshm Island.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577484044479-rcad.jpg

Google Earth
Location of the carrier in the December 4th satellite image.
The bulk of the Iranian boats were in a neat formation to her rear, off the port side of the Ticonderoga class cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, which was also sailing behind the carrier. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Farragut was leading the three-ship group. Other craft are seen alongside the port side of the carrier and the destroyer, as well as trailing behind to the starboard side. Some of them appear to be very close to the Navy ships, around approximately 1,000 feet in some cases.
No other American ships or boats, or any allied or partner vessels, were accompanying these elements of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, according to Commander Frey. Planet Labs' satellite also captured a commercial oil tanker sailing separately in the shipping lane in front of the American warships.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577475231026-colored.jpg

PHOTO © 2019 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION
A filtered and enhanced version of the Planet Labs image that has been circulating online showing USS Abraham Lincoln in the middle of USS Farragut, sailing in front, and USS Leyte Gulf, following behind. A commercial tanker is seen sailing at the top right. The multitude of small Iranian boats are also clearly visible all around.
https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577476646177-original.jpg

PHOTO © 2019 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION
The original, unedited image.
Commander Frey categorically said "no" in response to a query about whether the Iranian boats had made any provocative maneuvers toward the carrier or its escorts, harassed it, or otherwise impeded its transit into the Gulf of Oman. "Interaction between U.S. and Iranian vessels was limited to routine queries via bridge to bridge radio," he added.
This sounds similar to an incident that occurred in September 2018 in the Strait of Hormuz involving the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and her escorts. In that case, Iranian state media released video footage purportedly showing small boats "harassing" the carrier. The Navy does not appear to have ever responded to those claims.

Continued.....
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Continued.....

The following month, an Iranian anti-ship cruise missile-armed Peykaap class fast attack craft sailed with 300 yards the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Essex while then-U.S. Army General Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at the time, was on board. "I think they're trying to watch what we're doing, they're trying to understand what's happening out here, they're trying to characterize it to fulfill their own [intelligence] collection responsibilities," Votel subsequently told reporters.

The exact number and type of Iranian boats that shadowed Lincoln in the Strait of Hormuz this month remains unclear. The naval component of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGCN, operates a wide variety of speedboats and other small craft, including types armed with anti-ship missiles, such as the Peykaaps, and semi-submersibles capable of carrying mines and torpedoes. These fleets of small boats also often carry anti-armor guided missiles, shoulder-fired man-portable surface-to-air missiles, and unguided rockets, among other weapons. The U.S. government has accused the IRGCN of using some of its small boats to launch a number of attacks on commercial oil tankers using limpet mines in the Gulf of Oman earlier this year.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577472811827-boats.jpg

USN
A portion of an official US Navy identification guide for Iranian warships and smaller craft, including the various boats in the IRGCN's inventory.




On Dec. 17, the Navy did release pictures of a pair of Mk VI patrol boats escorting Lincoln out of port in Manama, Bahrain, where NAVCENT is headquartered. The captions for these pictures said that the Mk VIs had conducted a "high value asset (HVA) escort transit" with the carrier, initially suggesting that these boats, which have range of 750 nautical miles, might have accompanied the carrier all the way into the Gulf of Oman. However, an HVA escort transit simply refers to when naval security forces ensure that larger, high-value ships, such as carriers, safely enter and exit harbors, which are inherently constrained environments where the risks of close-in threats, such as explosive-laden suicide boats, are especially pronounced.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577472986813-mkvi.jpg

USN
A US Navy Mk VI patrol boat, seen at the bottom right, conducts "high value asset (HVA) escort transit" with the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on Dec. 2, 2019.
https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577479787938-mkvi-2.jpg

USN
Another Mk VI pulls alongside of the USS Abraham Lincoln in Manama, Bahrain.
https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577479826168-mkvi-4.jpg

USN
A view of the carrier from one of the Mk VI patrol boats during the high value asset (HVA) escort transit on Dec. 2.
https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577479864876-mkvi-3.jpg

USN
The two Mk VIs that took part in the high value asset (HVA) escort transit sailing together in Manama, Bahrain on Dec. 2.
"U.S. Navy warships making this kind of transit anywhere in the world are always prepared to defend themselves," Commander Frey, the NAVCENT public affairs officer, said. "In light of recent provocative, irresponsible and illegal actions in the maritime domain, we always maintain a heightened state of readiness when operating in the vicinity of IRGCN forces."
Photos the Navy released earlier in December of the transit itself do not show any of the Iranian boats, but typical close-in force protection measures are visible. This includes personnel keeping watch onboard Farragut, as well as an MH-60R Sea Hawk equipped with a .50 caliber machine gun and four Hellfire missiles leaving the destroyer for a patrol around the elements of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group. The helicopter's armament would have been ideal for engaging small boats.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577473166464-5995794.jpg

USN
An MH-60R Sea Hawk takes off from the USS Farragut as the destroyer leads the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Leyte Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.
The large number of Iranian boats that were present as Abraham Lincoln transited the Strait of Hormuz this month is particularly notable given that, in recent years, the Iranians have all but abandoned the long-standing practice of actively harassing American ships in the region with small boats in favor of doing so with drones and, to a lesser extent, with manned aircraft and helicopters. Employing unmanned aircraft carries significantly lower risks for the regime in Tehran.
In July, amid another period of heightened U.S.-Iranian tensions, Iran flew at least one small drone within a "threatening range" of the Navy's Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Boxer. Marines on that ship subsequently used an electronic warfare jamming system to bring down the unmanned aircraft.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577473442620-5590722.jpg

USN
Activity onboard the USS Boxer during its transit in July 2019. The electronic warfare jamming system that Marines used to knock down an Iranian drone is visible at on the flight deck to the right.
Though no other friendly ships accompanied the Lincoln, Leyte Gulf, and Farragut, aerial assets, including U.S. military manned aircraft and drones almost certainly monitored their progress. Maritime patrol planes and unmanned aircraft, as well as bombers and combat jets, have also been flying regular patrols in the region with a particular eye toward Iran for much of the year. This has included U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles armed with cluster muntions, a loadout that is also well suited to engaging boat swarms, something The War Zone was first to report.


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1577473595725-f-15rs.jpg

USAF
US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles carrying cluster munitions and other weapons refuel during a maritime patrol in the Middle East in June 2019.
Regardless, the large number of IRGCN boats in the general vicinity of Lincoln and her flotilla earlier this month, actively threatening her or not, only underscores the very real threats that these small craft pose to Navy ships, as well as other warships and commercial vessels, in the narrow confines of the Strait of Hormuz. That the Navy considers this "normal behavior patterns" only further reinforces this. The boats also represent just one of the capabilities that Iran could bring to bear in the waterway. Anti-ship cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, midget submarines, suicide drones, mines, and more all also present significant threats, which you can read about in more detail in this past War Zone piece.
Iran has also long specifically threatened the U.S. carriers that regularly deployed to the Persian Gulf, as well. The IRGCN notably conducted a swarming boat attack against a mock aircraft carrier during its "Great Prophet IX" exercise in 2015.






This all raises questions about why the Navy did send one of its most prized and politically sensitive military assets through the Strait without its own small boat escorts, such as the Mk VIs, to provide screening. The service also has larger Cyclone class patrol craft forward deployed in the region, as well as various types of other boats that are smaller than the Mk VI that could still have provided additional close-in security for at least portions of the transit.
It also shines a light on the still limited capabilities of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships, which the service had envisioned being forward deployed to the Middle East to provide exactly this kind of additional support. The main mission sets for the Surface Warfare Modules for the two classes of LCS was supposed to be defeating swarming boat attacks. Eleven years after the first Littoral Combat Ship was commissioned, the class of ships still does not deploy to the Middle East.
All of this is even more glaring considering that the transit occurred at the same time that flurry of reports emerged about new U.S. intelligence about potential attacks on American forces throughout the Middle East from Iran or its regional proxies. The Lincoln Carrier Strike Group had only moved into the Persian Gulf in late November 2019 in the first place, the first time it had done so since arriving in the region in May, almost certainly due to the increased risks the ships would face simply by being in this constrained littoral environment.
It's possible that things may only become more complex in the future, as well. Tomorrow, the regular Iranian Navy will begin its first-ever trilateral naval exercise with Russian and Chinese forces, which could point to increased maritime cooperation between those three countries in the region. The United States itself is also still looking to expand the number of participants in its latest maritime security construct in the region, known as Operation Sentinel, which is ostensibly aimed at deterring Iranian aggression. A number of American allies and partners have or are planning to send forces to the region to conduct their own independent operations.

Looks like the Chinese destroyer Xining has arrived in the Gulf ahead of exercises with Russia and Iran.

I believe this is Chabahar Port in southeastern Iran, but not totally certain.

pic.twitter.com/DPlEaySW12
— Henry Jones (@hthjones) December 27, 2019
"The Strait of Hormuz and Arabian Gulf are international bodies of water and the U.S. conducts all transits and operations in full compliance with international law," Commander Frey, the NAVCENT spokesperson, said. "Our presence demonstrates the U.S. and its regional partners’ commitment to the free flow of legitimate commerce, maritime regional security, and freedom of navigation."
Increasingly harsh U.S. sanctions on Iran, which have already further fueled tensions and provocative behavior, such as restarting uranium enrichment activities earlier this year, make it very unlikely that the IRGCN's "normal behavior patterns" toward Navy ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz will change any time soon. So, despite the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group's safe transit into the Gulf of Oman earlier this month, the large number of Iranian boats shadowing it shows that there certainly remains a real risk that, if the security situation were to seriously devolve, it could lead to much more dangerous closer encounters.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

In strategic Djibouti, a microcosm of China's growing foothold in Africa

Max Bearak, The Washington Post

Published 6:02 am EST, Monday, December 30, 2019

DJIBOUTI - Above ground in this tiny but strategically located country, signs of China's presence are everywhere.


Chinese entities have financed and built Africa's biggest port, a railway to Ethiopia and the country's first overseas naval base here. Under the sea, they are building a cable that will transmit data across a region that spans from Kenya to Yemen. The cable will connect to an Internet hub housing servers mostly run by China's state-owned telecom companies.


Beijing's extensive investments in Djibouti are a microcosm of how China has rapidly gained a strategic foothold across the continent. Western countries, including Africa's former colonizers, for decades have used hefty aid packages to leverage trade and security deals, but Chinese-financed projects have brought huge infrastructural development in less than a generation.






The construction is fueled mostly by lending from China's state-run banks. Spindles of Chinese-paved roads have unfurled across the continent, along with huge bridges, new airports, dams and power plants as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's 152-country Belt and Road Initiative.




Overall, Chinese companies have invested twice as much money between 2014 and 2018 in African countries as American companies, spending $72.2 billion, according to an analysis by Ernst & Young.


"The Chinese are thinking far into the long-term in Djibouti and Africa in general," said David Shinn, a former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia who was also the State Department's desk officer for Djibouti as far back as the late 1960s. "Djibouti is one node in an economic chain that stretches across the northern rim of the Indian Ocean, from ports in Cambodia to Sri Lanka to Pakistan. They have a grand, strategic plan. We don't."




In Djibouti, that strategic plan is all the more evident because of the country's location at the entrance to the Red Sea, where about 10 percent of oil exports and 20 percent of commercial goods pass through the narrow strait right off Djibouti's coast on their way to and from the Suez Canal.


That location has made it a crucial waypoint for undersea cables, which transmit data between continents. China's investment in Internet infrastructure here comes as the region surrounding Djibouti is just starting to come online, including some places that are entirely reliant on Djibouti as a transit point for data transmission.




Opening the door to a small room with three servers, Habib Daoud Omar, an engineer who manages the site said, "You are looking at all of Somaliland's Internet," referring to the autonomous region of northern Somalia. In another room, all of Yemen's Internet. Ninety percent of powerful-but-landlocked Ethiopia's Internet passes through the main chamber.


The transformative presence of China on so many fronts has loosened many African countries' dependence on Western governments for development.


Chinese loans come without the demands for improvements on human rights that often accompany American aid. China's inroads have helped it gain access to vital mineral resources, a vast market looking for its cheap goods located at the center of the world map, and reliable backing at global institutions such as the United Nations.


But critics of Chinese loans allege that they catch vulnerable, developing countries in "debt-traps," depleting government coffers and sticking generations of taxpayers with gigantic bills, or else China's banks take ownership of the key strategic assets they built. Beijing now holds over 70 percent of Djibouti's gross domestic product in debt.


African governments have fiercely denied that such takeovers could happen, despite recent precedent in Sri Lanka, where a port in the president's strategically located but commercially unviable hometown was handed back to the Chinese company that financed its construction.


The Trump administration has sought to counter China's growing influence with a push for private investment, called Prosper Africa, though the investments envisioned would pale in comparison to Chinese loans. In Djibouti, even the commander of U.S. armed forces in Africa has appealed - if obliquely - for greater caution in dealing with China.


"We look to build enduring relationships, not short term, nor transactional ones," said Gen. Stephen J. Townsend on a visit to Djibouti this summer. "We lead with our values, hard work and a desire to strengthen partnerships on the African continent."


The U.S. military's main base in Africa, home to 4,000 personnel and a fleet of unmanned drones, has been in Djibouti for two decades. The United States has essentially paid hundreds of millions of dollars in rent for its base, where it stages fitful attempts to degrade al-Shabab in neighboring Somalia, but has done little else to develop the country.


While many African governments, including Djibouti's, have expressed hope for greater American investment, Beijing puts its money where its mouth is, and cash-strapped African governments have turned east almost in unison. The Chinese leader now hosts an annual Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, attended by nearly all of Africa's 54 heads of state. At the launch of Prosper Africa in Mozambique this year, the United States failed to send even a Cabinet secretary.


"Yes, our debt to China is 71% of our GDP, but we needed that infrastructure," said Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, Djibouti's foreign affairs minister, in a phone interview on the sidelines of a meeting in New York earlier this month, where Djibouti was pushing to gain a nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.


"It was quite natural that we raise our partnership with China. Neither Europe nor America were ready to build the infrastructure we needed. We're projecting our country into the future, and looking after the well-being of our people. Even the United States has trillions of dollars in debt to China, you know," said Youssouf.


The most significant investment China has made in Djibouti is Doraleh Port, Africa's biggest and deepest. As with Internet through the data center, a full 90 percent of landlocked Ethiopia's imports now transit Djibouti, giving the minuscule country, with a population of less than a million, leverage over its gigantic, 100-million-strong neighbor.


And it isn't just that Chinese banks control Africa's largest port. Chinese companies are its main users.


"The majority of our shipping is coming from China," said Aboubaker Omar Hadi, chairman of the Djibouti Ports and Free Zones Authority.


The paradox for many in the United States is that it is precisely the authoritarian political system in China, much maligned in Washington, that gives it an upper hand in economic competition. An added local irony for American policymakers is that the United States initially welcomed China's presence in Djibouti as part of an international force to defeat rampant piracy in the region. Almost all of China's investments in Djibouti have come after that mission ended.


"Trade, investment, politics, military are all closely linked in China's foreign policy - that's the way it is under the Communist Party," said Joshua Eisenmann, an expert on China at the University of Notre Dame.


American banks are too risk-averse to make the large loans in Africa that China's state-operated banks do, Eisenmann said. Especially under an administration that has been hawkish toward countering China on the global stage, there's a fear that China could even one day use its leverage to hamper American access in places like Djibouti to its own bases.


"China has tools that the American government doesn't - namely government-backed financing of loans," said Shinn, the former U.S. ambassador. "I don't care what Trump says - American trade in Africa is falling off a cliff. The whole Africa policy has that central flaw."
 

jward

passin' thru

Will It Be War? US Airstrikes Hit Iran-Backed Militias As Pentagon Warns More Military Action Coming
A lot of people seem to have forgotten that we were literally on the brink of war with Iran earlier this year. Back in June, President Trump cancelled a major U.S. bombing mission against Iran at the last minute, and things seemed to settle down quite a bit since that time. But now tensions are rising once again. On Sunday, U.S. airstrikes targeted Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria that U.S. officials believe have been behind recent rocket attacks against U.S. forces. Of course those Iranian-backed forces never would have launched such attacks in the first place if they did not have permission from Tehran itself.

The Iranians love to hide behind proxies, and for now the U.S. is only conducting airstrikes against those proxies. But at some point President Trump’s patience is likely to run out, and at that point we could start hitting Iran itself. Over the past six months, the U.S. has sent 14,000 more troops to the Middle East, and it is being reported that “the Pentagon is considering deploying additional forces to the region”. The drumbeats of war are starting to get louder again, and many believe that eventually one side is likely to push the other side a bit too far.

Jailed French, Australian academics go on hunger strike over Iran crackdown

The attacks that we just witnessed were supposed to send a very strong message to Tehran. According to the Daily Mail, five separate targets were hit, and at least 19 people were killed…
US air strikes left 19 people dead in Iraq and Syria on Sunday in retaliation against an Iranian-backed militia group blamed for a rocket attack two days earlier that killed an American contractor.
F-15 Strike Eagles hit five targets associated with Kataib Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia group, said Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
These airstrikes were launched to directly retaliate for the casualties that U.S. forces suffered from a rocket attack on one of their bases in Iraq on Friday
Officials with the U.S.-led mission to defeat ISIS said Friday that a U.S. civilian contractor was killed and several American troops were wounded in a rocket attack targeting an Iraqi base in Kirkuk.
The attack, which occurred Friday around 7:20 p.m. local time in Iraq, also wounded several Iraqi personnel, officials with Operation Inherent Resolve told Military Times in an emailed statement.
But of course that attack was just the latest in a series of rocket attacks that have targeted U.S. forces lately
U.S. officials believe Iranian-backed militias are behind a recent spate of rocket attacks that have targeted U.S. bases and interests in Iraq over the last couple months.
A U.S. official told Military Times that Iran-backed militias are now using more lethal and longer range 122 mm rockets in their attacks.
Friday’s attack on Kirkuk is at least the eleventh rocket attack targeting an outpost housing American forces in the last two months.

I am certainly not a fan of military conflict, but if I am sitting in the White House and someone keeps lobbing rockets at my troops I wouldn’t wait two months to hit them back.
So why did President Trump wait so long?
As I noted earlier, these Iranian-backed militias wouldn’t be doing anything without approval from Tehran. If Trump really wants these rocket attacks to stop, Iranian leaders need to be sent a message that will be clear and unmistakable.
And it appears that U.S. officials may be starting to lean in that direction. In fact, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told the press on Sunday that more military action “could be warranted”
Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and General Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared briefly in a club ballroom to comment on the airstrikes.
Esper termed the offensive “successful,” but said that Trump was informed that a further military response could be warranted.

Personally, I don’t know what the Iranians are thinking.
Perhaps they believe that if they use their proxies to make things uncomfortable enough for U.S. forces that Trump will eventually pull them out of the region.
But if that is what they are really thinking, they have badly miscalculated.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to get cozy with Russia and China. In fact, the three nations are currently conducting “their first-ever joint naval drills”
This weekend, China, Iran, and Russia began their first-ever joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman. The training exercises were announced by China’s defense ministry on Thursday, as all three nations continue to have strained relations with the United States and its allies.
The Russians have developed a very strong military presence in the Middle East in recent years, and Russia and China have both warned about what a war between the U.S. and Iran would mean for the entire region.
A major war in the Middle East would have very serious implications for the entire globe, and it would risk sparking a much wider conflict.
Right now our relations with Russia are already the worst that they have been since the end of the Cold War, and they just continue to deteriorate.

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Most Americans don’t spend too much time thinking about a potential war with Russia, but over in Russia there is lots of talk about a possible military confrontation. In fact, Russia’s top general recently warned that the western powers are preparing for a “large-scale military conflict”
Russia’s top general has warned a big war is coming in a chilling prediction amid ongoing tensions with NATO.
Valery Gerasimov, the chief Vladimir Putin’s general staff, has said he believes the West are preparing for a “large-scale military conflict”.
He was speaking at a senior briefing for the military – saying that the West has assigned “adversary status” to Russia.
Ultimately, one of the big reasons why Trump may have been so hesitant to be more aggressive with Iran is because he realizes that it could potentially spark World War 3.
Because once we go to war with Iran, the Iranians are going to start launching missiles directly at Israel, and Israel would undoubtedly strike back with overwhelming force.
Once the dominoes start falling, it could very easily set off a sequence of events that nobody is going to be able to control.
We definitely live at a time of wars and rumors of wars, and peace could be taken from the Earth very easily.
So let us hope that cooler heads prevail.

But if the Iranians keep pushing their luck, it is only a matter of time before Trump gets fed up, and when he decides to hit them directly he is going to hit them exceedingly hard.

Posted for fair use
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

U.S. Intelligence Agencies Prepare to Pull Back Officers From Africa
An expected withdrawal of military forces would lead the C.I.A. and other agencies to reduce their presence, leaving some officials and experts fearful of a gap in stopping terrorist threats.

By Julian E. Barnes
  • Dec. 30, 2019
WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies face a significant reduction in their counterterrorism collection efforts in Africa if a proposed withdrawal of United States military forces is carried out by the Pentagon, intelligence officials said......
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/12/31/kim_calls_on_military_diplomats_to_prepare_unspecified_offensive_measures_114955.html
Kim Calls on Military, Diplomats to Prepare Unspecified 'Offensive Measures'

By Kim Tong-Hyung
December 31, 2019

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un called for his military and diplomats to prepare unspecified “offensive measures” to protect the country’s security and sovereignty, the North’s state media said Monday, before his end-of-year deadline for the Trump administration to make major concessions to salvage a fragile nuclear diplomacy.

During a ruling Workers’ Party meeting Sunday, Kim also “comprehensively and anatomically analyzed” problems arising in efforts to rebuild the North’s moribund economy and presented tasks for “urgently correcting the grave situation of the major industrial sectors,” the North’s official Korean Central News Agency said.

The plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee, which began Saturday, is being closely watched amid concerns that Kim could suspend his deadlocked nuclear negotiations with the United States and take a more confrontational approach by lifting a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests.

The North has said the meeting, which will continue for at least another day, is intended for discussions on overcoming “manifold and harsh trials and difficulties.”

Kim, who has said the North would pursue a “new path” if Washington persists with sanctions and pressure, is expected to announce major policy changes during his New Year’s address on Wednesday.

The KCNA report did not describe any decisions made at the meeting or mention any specific remarks by Kim about the United States.

The North’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper published photos of Kim, wearing a white dress shirt and horn-rimmed glasses, speaking from a podium as hundreds of government and military officials jotted down his comments.

“Emphasizing the need to take positive and offensive measures for fully ensuring the sovereignty and security of the country as required by the present situation, (Kim) indicated the duties of the fields of foreign affairs, munitions industry and armed forces of the DPRK,” KCNA said in its English report, referring to North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

KCNA’s Korean-language report said Kim called for “active and offensive” measures.

Kim also “comprehensively and anatomically analyzed the problems arising in the overall state building including the state management and economic construction in the present time,” KCNA said.

“He stressed the need to reasonably straighten the country’s economic work system and order and establish a strong discipline and presented the tasks for urgently correcting the grave situation of the major industrial sectors of the national economy,” the report said.

It added that Kim stressed the need for a “decisive” increase in agricultural production and gave out instructions for improving science, education and public health standards.

Lee Sang-min, a spokesman of South Korea’s Unification Ministry, said Seoul is closely watching the North Korean party meeting, but he didn’t speculate on what Kim’s call for active and offensive security measures would have meant.

Cheong Seong-Chang, a senior analyst at South Korea’s private Sejong Institute, said it was the first time under Kim’s rule that a plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee continued for more than a day.

Kim has an urgent need to make major policy changes in the face of persistent U.S.-led sanctions and pressure, especially with a global crackdown on North Korean labor exports further straining his broken economy, Cheong said.

It’s also likely that Kim during the party meeting reaffirmed a commitment to strengthen his nuclear and missile program, considering the commander of the North Korean army’s strategic force was seen during Saturday’s meeting, Cheong said.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration still believes it “can find a path forward to convince the leadership in North Korea that their best course of action is to create a better opportunity for their people by getting rid of their nuclear weapons.”

“We’re watching what they’re doing here in the closing days of this year, and we hope that they’ll make a decision that will lead to a path of peace and not one towards confrontation,” Pompeo said in an interview Monday morning with “Fox and Friends.”

Kim has met President Donald Trump three times in two years of high-stakes summitry, but the diplomacy has progressed little beyond their vague aspirational goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. At their last meeting in June, they agreed to resume talks. A working-level meeting in Sweden in October broke down with the North Koreans blaming their American counterparts for maintaining an “old stance and attitude.”

The North said earlier this month it conducted two “crucial” tests at its long-range rocket launch facility, raising speculation it has been developing a new long-range missile or preparing a satellite launch.
© copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 

TammyinWI

Talk is cheap
US sending additional forces to protect embassy threatened by protesters in Iraq

By Caroline Kelly and Ryan Browne, CNN


Updated 2:48 PM ET, Tue December 31, 2019

(CNN) The United States will send "additional forces to support our personnel at the Embassy" in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a written statement Tuesday, as attacks broke out among hundreds of protesters in response to airstrikes in Iraq and Syria conducted by US forces on Sunday.

Esper said the US has "taken appropriate force protection actions to ensure the safety of American citizens, military personnel and diplomats" serving in Iraq.

"As in all countries, we rely on host nation forces to assist in the protection of our personnel in country, and we call on the Government of Iraq to fulfill its international responsibilities to do so," Esper added in the statement.
The US has also sent two Apache helicopters to fly over the embassy in a show of force, a US official told CNN. The additional forces are expected to come from Kuwait, but the official told CNN that an additional military unit based in the United States has also been put on standby to deploy if the situation in Baghdad significantly deteriorates.

The move comes amid fallout over US airstrikes against five facilities the Pentagon says are tied to an Iranian-backed militia blamed for a series of attacks on joint US-Iraq military facilities housing American forces.

Two sources at the demonstration on Tuesday witnessed an attempt to break into the premises, adding that security personnel fired tear gas to repel the attack. Video footage shows demonstrators smashing windows, burning items outside and throwing rocks over the walls. The embassy, in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, has been put under lockdown, but protesters have not been able to breach the compound, an embassy spokesperson told CNN.

The airstrikes occurred at about 11 a.m. ET Sunday, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Killing at least 25 people and wounding 51, they stand as the first significant military response in retaliation for attacks by the Shia militia group, known as Kataib Hezbollah, that have injured numerous American military personnel, according to US officials.

Esper briefed Trump Saturday before carrying them out with the President's approval, according to a US official familiar with the strikes.

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman described the strikes against the group as "precision defensive strikes" that "will degrade" the group's ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces.

President Donald Trump confirmed Tuesday that the airstrikes were a response to a recent attack that killed a US contractor. He blamed Iran both for the contractor's death and Tuesday's attack on the embassy.

"Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!" Trump tweeted.

CNN's Barbara Starr, Jamie Crawford, Kareem Khadder, Arwa Damon and Angela Dewan contributed to this report.

 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Taliban says it ‘has no intention of declaring a ceasefire’

By Bill Roggio | December 30, 2019 | admin@longwarjournal.org | @billroggio

The Taliban has denied press reports indicating the group was on the cusp of declaring a ceasefire in Afghanistan, saying this is “false and baseless.”
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid issued an official statement (reproduced in full, below) denying the reports, which claimed that the group’s ruling council has approved a ceasefire, thereby opening the door for possible intra-Afghan negotiations. However, it was unclear if the reported ceasefire would include Taliban attacks against the Afghan government and security forces.
The reported ceasefire agreement was sourced to “Taliban officials familiar with the negotiations” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media,” the Associated Press reported on Dec. 29.
Mujahid chastised the media for “publishing false and baseless reports about a ceasefire by the Islamic Emirate,” the name the Taliban calls its official government.
Mujahid also denied that there is a “supposed schism within the Islamic Emirate on the issue of a ceasefire.”
“The reality of the situation is that the Islamic Emirate has no intention of declaring a ceasefire,” he continued. Mujahid said the Taliban’s Rabhari Shura, which better known as the Quetta Shura, was considering “a reduction in the scale and intensity of violence,” which was requested by the U.S. negotiating team.
Since 2013, the U.S. government has been attempting to negotiate a so-called peace deal with the Taliban in order to cover its withdrawal from Afghanistan. In reality, an agreement will not result in peace in Afghanistan, but merely facilitate the evacuation of U.S. troops from the country.
The Taliban has refused to negotiate with Afghan government and has repeatedly said it will not share power with it. The Taliban’s fighters wage jihad to resurrect their Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the implementation of its harsh version of sharia, or Islamic law.

Full text of the Taliban’s response to reports of a pending ceasefire:
Clarification by spokesman of Islamic Emirate concerning propaganda about ceasefire

For the past few days, a number of media outlets have been publishing false and baseless reports about a ceasefire by the Islamic Emirate.
Propaganda by some outlets has even reached heights of supposed schism within the Islamic Emirate on the issue of a ceasefire.
The reality of the situation is that the Islamic Emirate has no intention of declaring a ceasefire. The United States has asked for a reduction in the scale and intensity of violence and discussions being held by the Islamic Emirate are revolving solely around this specific issue.
The leader of the Islamic Emirate has not yet issued a final decree and neither is there any differences within the Islamic Emirate related to this issue.
It is hoped that our compatriots pay no heed to the malicious reports being propagated by the enemy media.
Some intelligence circles are utilizing the media in an effort to generate anxiety, false optimism and sabotage the ongoing negotiations process through the dissemination of misleading information.
The Islamic Emirate will take every necessary and appropriate step that ensures the higher interests and Jihadi aspirations of our homeland in the light of Islamic Shariah in both the military and political fronts, Allah willing.
The Islamic Emirate shall keep its nation informed of any progress through its official channels.
Spokesman of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
Zabihullah Mujahid
04/05/1441 Hijri Lunar
09/10/1398 Hijri Solar 30/12/2019 Gregorian


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
Posted for fair use.....

North Korea leader promises look at new weapon soon
By Tong-hyung Kiman
hour ago

800.jpeg

In this Monday, Dec. 30, 2019, photo provided by the North Korean government, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks during a Workers’ Party meeting in Pyongyang, North Korea. Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image distributed by the North Korean government. The content of this image is as provided and cannot be independently verified. Korean language watermark on image as provided by source reads: "KCNA" which is the abbreviation for Korean Central News Agency. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet in nuclear negotiations and warned that his country will soon show a new strategic weapon to the world as its bolsters its nuclear deterrent in face of “gangster-like” U.S. sanctions and pressure.

The North’s state media said Wednesday that Kim made the comments during a four-day ruling party conference held through Tuesday in the capital Pyongyang, where he declared that the North will never give up its security for economic benefits in the face of what he described as increasing U.S. hostility and nuclear threats.

Kim’s comments came after a monthslong standoff between Washington and Pyongyang over disagreements involving disarmament steps and the removal of sanctions imposed on the North.
“He said that we will never allow the impudent U.S. to abuse the DPRK-U.S. dialogue for meeting its sordid aim but will shift to a shocking actual action to make it pay for the pains sustained by our people so far and for the development so far restrained,” the Korean Central News Agency said, referring to the North by its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Kim added that “if the U.S. persists in its hostile policy toward the DPRK, there will never be the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and the DPRK will steadily develop necessary and prerequisite strategic weapons for the security of the state until the U.S. rolls back its hostile policy,” according to the agency.

However, Kim showed no clear indication of abandoning negotiations with the United States entirely or restarting tests of nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles he had suspended under a self-imposed moratorium in 2018.

He did issue a warning that there would be no grounds for the North to get “unilaterally bound” to the moratorium any longer, criticizing the United States for continuing its joint military exercises with rival South Korea and also providing the South with advanced weaponry.

“In the past two years alone when the DPRK took preemptive and crucial measures of halting its nuclear test and ICBM test-fire and shutting down the nuclear-test ground for building confidence between the DPRK and the U.S., the U.S., far from responding to the former with appropriate measures, conducted tens of big and small joint military drills which its president personally promised to stop and threatened the former militarily through the shipment of ultra-modern warfare equipment into (South Korea),” the KCNA quoted Kim as saying.

Some experts say North Korea, which has always been sensitive about electoral changes in U.S. government, will avoid engaging in serious negotiations for a deal with Washington in coming months as it watches how Trump’s impending impeachment trial over his dealings with Ukraine affects U.S. presidential elections in November.

Kim and President Donald Trump have met three times since June 2018, but negotiations have faltered since the collapse of their second summit last February in Vietnam, where the Americans rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of its nuclear capabilities.

Kim’s speech followed months of intensified testing activity and belligerent statements issued by various North Korean officials, raising concerns that he was reverting to confrontation and preparing to do something provocative if Washington doesn’t back down and relieve sanctions.

The North announced in December that it performed two “crucial” tests at its long-range rocket launch site that would further strengthen its nuclear deterrent, prompting speculation that it was developing an ICBM or planning a satellite launch that would provide an opportunity to advance its missile technologies.

North Korea also last year ended a 17-month pause in ballistic activity by testing a slew of solid-fuel weapons that potentially expanded its capabilities to strike targets in South Korea and Japan, including U.S. military bases there. It also threatened to lift a self-imposed moratorium on the testing of nuclear bombs and ICBMs.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Mexico’s Zapatistas host “Women Who Fight” gathering
By ISABEL MATEOS
yesterday

CARACOL MORELIA, Mexico (AP) — More than 3,000 women came together in an autonomous Zapatista enclave in the southern Mexico state of Chiapas over the weekend to unite against the patriarchy, violence and capitalism.

The Zapatistas have self-governed over a large swath of Mexico’s southern-most state since the rebels rose up in arms to demand greater indigenous rights in January 1994. The administration of President Carlos Salinas negotiated a truce more than 25 years ago, and over time the rebels have adopted other causes of civil resistance.

This four-day“Second International Meeting of Women Who Fight” was inaugurated by a Zapatista who called herself Comandanta Amada.

“It seems simple to say, but we know there are few places in the world where we can be happy and safe. For that reason we are here, because our pain and our rage has brought us to this point, because of the violence that women suffer for the crime of being women,” Amada said in an inaugural speech. The Zapatistas generally do not provide their full names as a security measure.

Clad in brown shirts and green pants with ski masks covering their faces, their image has long been admired in certain activist circles. Women guarded the gate with bows and arrows, a militarized but antiquated look to a movement that has continued to draw international attention.

Women attended the meeting from as far away as Algeria and Siberia, the Zapatista National Liberation Army said in a statement. Attendees slept in camping tents erected amid the lush green mountains that ring the encampment. They spoke before crowds of hundreds at a time about the violence they had faced in their communities, including childhood abuse and forced migration. In the more light-hearted moments, they slipped away to dance classes, embroidery workshops, and self-defense training.

“We’re seeing the force of women who rose up permanently to defend their rights, and not from a neoliberal standpoint, but as people who belong to and protect this territory. They’re an example of rebellion for the rest of Latin America,” said Alba Vanegas, 27, a social worker from La Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia, who works with victims of her country’s armed conflict.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted by Jward on the Persian Gulf Trouble thread....

Posted for fair use.....

Published 49 mins ago
Up to 4,000 US troops could deploy to Middle East amid Baghdad unrest: officials
By Lucas Tomlinson | Fox News

The U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division’s alert brigade has been issued orders to deploy rapidly to Kuwait amid the unrest in Baghdad, three U.S. defense officials told Fox News on Tuesday.

At least 500 paratroopers are already making their way to Kuwait, Fox News is told.

The alert brigade of roughly 4,000 paratroopers, known as the DRB -- the Deployment Ready Brigade -- has been told to pack their bags for a possible deployment in the days ahead after hundreds of Iranian-backed militiamen tried to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad Tuesday.

Within that alert brigade, three rifle battalions have a certain alert sequence, 18 hours, 36 hours and 54 hours for the third. The entire brigade has a 96-hour alert window to deploy.

TRUMP THREATENS IRAN AFTER ATTACK ON EMBASSY COMPOUND: ‘THEY WILL PAY A VERY BIG PRICE!’

The Pentagon is expected to issue a statement in the coming hours about the deployment.

Some of the paratroopers already have left their base in Fort Bragg, N.C., to fly overseas in Air Force C-17 cargo planes, according to officials.

The U.S. Army has kept an alert brigade of roughly 4,000 paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne for crisis response like this.

U.S. PRESSES IRAQ TO PROTECT AMERICAN PERSONNEL AFTER EMBASSY ATTACK: ‘THERE WILL BE NO BENGHAZIS’

There are roughly 5,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to Iraq now, among the roughly 60,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to the region. According to the Pentagon, 14,000 have been added since May as the threat from Iran increased.

The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman has been in the Gulf of Oman, its strike group armed with hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles in addition to the dozens of strike aircraft aboard Truman.

More than 100 U.S. Marines arrived at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad earlier Tuesday to help bolster security after the mob of Iranian-backed Shite militiamen tried to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
The crowd attacked the embassy following funerals for 25 Iranian-backed fighters killed in U.S. airstrikes Sunday in Iraq and Syria--retribution for an American defense contractor killed in Iraq Friday, according to U.S. defense officials.

Lucas Tomlinson is a Pentagon correspondent for Fox News Channel. Follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Attack on US Embassy in Iraq shows stark choices for Trump
By ROBERT BURNS and ELLEN KNICKMEYER17 minutes ago




1 of 10
Protesters burn property in front of the U.S. embassy compound, in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2019. Dozens of angry Iraqi Shiite militia supporters broke into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad on Tuesday after smashing a main door and setting fire to a reception area, prompting tear gas and sounds of gunfire. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The attack on the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad by Iran-supported militiamen Tuesday is a stark demonstration that Iran can still strike at American interests despite President Donald Trump’s economic pressure campaign. Trump said Iran would be held “fully responsible” for the attack, but it was unclear whether that meant military retaliation.
“They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!” Trump tweeted later in the afternoon. He also thanked top Iraqi government leaders for their “rapid response upon request.”
Defense Secretary Mark Esper later announced that “in response to recent events” in Iraq, and at Trump’s direction, he authorized the immediate deployment of an infantry battalion of about 750 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to the Middle East. He did not specify their destination, but a U.S. official familiar with the decision said they will go to Kuwait.




Esper said additional soldiers from the 82nd Airborne’s quick-deployment brigade, known officially as its Immediate Response Force, are prepared to deploy over the next several days. The U.S. official, who provided unreleased details on condition of anonymity, said the full brigade of about 4,000 soldiers may deploy.

View attachment 1577842047163.png

Youtube video thumbnail


“This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today,” Esper said in a written statement.

The 750 soldiers deploying immediately are in addition to 14,000 U.S. troops who have deployed to the Gulf region since May in response to concerns about Iranian aggression, including its alleged sabotage of commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Tuesday’s breach of the embassy compound in Baghdad, which caused no known U.S. casualties or evacuations, revealed growing strains between Washington and Baghdad, raising questions about the future of the U.S. military mission there. The U.S. has about 5,200 troops in Iraq, mainly to train Iraqi forces and help them combat Islamic State extremists.

The breach followed American airstrikes Sunday that killed 25 fighters of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. said those strikes were in retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor and the wounding of American and Iraqi troops in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that the U.S. blamed on the militia. The American strikes angered the Iraqi government, which called them an unjustified violation of its sovereignty.








Trump blamed Iran for the embassy breach and called on Iraq to protect the diplomatic mission even as the U.S. reinforced the compound with Marines from Kuwait.

“Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many,” he tweeted from his estate in Florida. “We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”

Even as Trump has argued for removing U.S. troops from Mideast conflicts, he also has singled out Iran as a malign influence in the region. After withdrawing the U.S. in 2018 from an international agreement that exchanged an easing of sanctions for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, Trump ratcheted up sanctions.

Those economic penalties, including a virtual shut-off of Iranian oil exports, are aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate a broader nuclear deal. But critics say that pressure has pushed Iranian leaders into countering with a variety of military attacks in the Gulf.

Until Sunday’s U.S. airstrikes, Trump had been measured in his response to Iranian provocations. In June, he abruptly called off U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets in retaliation for the downing of an American drone.

Robert Ford, a retired U.S. diplomat who served five years in Baghdad and then became ambassador in Syria, said Iran’s allies in the Iraqi parliament may be able to harness any surge in anger among Iraqis toward the United States to force U.S. troops to leave the country. Ford said Trump miscalculated by approving Sunday’s airstrikes on Kataeb Hezbollah positions in Iraq and Syria — strikes that drew a public rebuke from the Iraqi government and seem to have triggered Tuesday’s embassy attack.

“The Americans fell into the Iranian trap,” Ford said, with airstrikes that turned some Iraqi anger toward the U.S. and away from Iran and the increasingly unpopular Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

The tense situation in Baghdad appeared to upset Trump’s vacation routine in Florida, where he is spending the holidays.

Trump spent just under an hour at his private golf club in West Palm Beach before returning to his Mar-a-Lago resort in nearby Palm Beach. He had spent nearly six hours at his golf club on each of the previous two days. Trump spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi and emphasized the need for Iraq to protect Americans and their facilities in the country, said White House spokesman Hogan Gidley.

Trump is under pressure from some in Congress to take a hard-line approach to Iranian aggression, which the United States says included an unprecedented drone and missile attack on the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry in September. More recently, Iran-backed militias in Iraq have conducted numerous rocket attacks on bases hosting U.S. forces.

Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and supporter of Trump’s Iran policy, called the embassy breach “yet another reckless escalation” by Iran.

Tuesday’s attack was carried out by members of the Iran-supported Kataeb Hezbollah militia. Dozens of militiamen and their supporters smashed a main door to the compound and set fire to a reception area, but they did not enter the main buildings.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blamed Iran for the episode and faulted Trump for his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

“The results so far have been more threats against international commerce, emboldened and more violent proxy attacks across the Middle East, and now, the death of an American citizen in Iraq,” Menendez said, referring to the rocket attack last week.

By early evening Tuesday, the mob had retreated from the compound but set up several tents outside for an intended sit-in. Dozens of yellow flags belonging to Iran-backed Shiite militias fluttered atop the reception area and were plastered along the embassy’s concrete wall along with anti-U.S. graffiti. American Apache helicopters flew overhead and dropped flares over the area in what the U.S. military called a “show of force.”

The U.S. also was sending 100 or more additional Marines to the embassy compound to support its defenses.

The embassy breach was seen by some analysts as affirming their view that it is folly for the U.S. to keep forces in Iraq after having eliminated the Islamic State group’s territorial hold in the country.

A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is also a long-term hope of Iran, noted Paul Salem, president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

And it’s always possible Trump would “wake up one morning and make that decision” to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq, as he announced earlier with the U.S. military presence in neighboring Syria, Salem said. Trump’s Syria decision triggered the resignation of his first defense secretary, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, but the president later amended his decision and about 1,200 U.S. troops remain in Syria.

Trump’s best weapon with Iran is the one he’s already using — the sanctions, said Salem. He and Ford said Trump would do best to keep resisting Iran’s attempt to turn the Iran-U.S. conflict into a full-blown military one. The administration should also make a point of working with the Iraqi government to deal with the militias, Ford said.

For the president, Iran’s attacks — directly and now through proxies in Iraq — have “been working that nerve,” Salem said. “Now they really have Trump’s attention.”

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee, Darlene Superville and Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.
 

jward

passin' thru
EMBASSY ATTACK FALLOUT
More US troops prepare to deploy to Iraq as top general warns anyone who attacks embassy will 'run into a buzz saw'
Jeff Schogol
January 02, 2020 at 12:16 PMNEWS

U.S. Army Paratroopers assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, deploy from Pope Army Airfield, North Carolina, Jan. 1, 2020. (U.S. Army/Capt. Robyn J. Haake)

The U.S. military could send more troops to the Middle East following a recent attack on the American embassy in Baghdad, said Army Gen. Mark Miley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Defense Department has already sent about 100 Marines with a Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force to the embassy and about 700 paratroopers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, to Kuwait in case they are needed in Iraq.
"We've alerted other forces," Milley told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. "They haven't yet been decided to deploy. But there's a variety of forces that are alerted and prepared, if necessary, depending on the situation, as we move forward."


Milley did not specify how many troops could be sent to Iraq or which units they might come from.
The soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division are part of a rapid reaction force and their mission is defend U.S. personnel, equipment, and facilities, Milley said.
When asked if more soldiers from that brigade could be deployed to the Middle East, Defense Secretary Mark Esper replied, "We'll take it day by day."
It was not immediately clear if Iraqi government would have to approve an increase in U.S. troops. Both the United States and Iraq had previously agreed to cap the number of U.S. service members in the country at roughly 5,200.
Tuesday's attack on the Baghdad embassy was reportedly carried out by members of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which are Shiite militia fighters that Iran has used as proxies in Iraq and Syria.

Esper accused Iran and its proxies of launching a dozen attacks U.S. and allied bases over the past two months. He added that he expects these attacks to continue.

"Do I think they may do something? Yes. And they will likely regret it," Esper warned. "We are prepared to exercise self-defense and we are prepared to deter further bad behavior from these groups, all of which are sponsored and directed and resourced by Iran."

The U.S. military recently launched airstrikes against Kata'ib Hezbollah, an Iranian militia that is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces, after a Dec. 27 attack on a U.S. base at Kirkuk that left an American contractor dead and several service members wounded.

"We know the intent of this last attack was, in fact, to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines," Milley said on Thursday. "Thirty-one rockets aren't designed to be warning shots. That's designed to inflict damage and kill."

Milley also accused Kata'ib Hezbollah of carrying out the attack against the heavily fortified embassy as "a demonstration, so to speak … for the cameras" that was meant as a media stunt.

"We are confident that the integrity of that embassy is strong and it is highly unlikely to be physically overrun by anyone," Milley said. "There is sufficient combat power there for air and ground that anyone who attempts to overrun that will run into a buzz saw."

Posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
Perhaps interesting old look at the new Quds Force Commander, "dead man walking" Esmail Qaani...j
Esmail Qaani: the next Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander?
FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICYMIDDLE EAST
January 11, 2012

Should Major General Qassem Suleimani, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force (IRGC QF) commander, pursue a political career ahead of Iran’s 2013 presidential election, he may be replaced by Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, IRGC QF deputy. Qaani is uncharismatic and a less distinguished military commander than Suleimani, but his operational battlefield experience, network within the IRGC, and long history of acquaintance with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei qualify him for such an appointment.

Key points in this Outlook:

  • A rift among ruling elites, harsher sanctions, and the threat of strikes against its nuclear facilities means the Tehran regime is looking for a leader like Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force (IRGC QF) Commander Qassem Suleimani to unify the nation.
  • Should Suleimani pursue politics, he may be replaced by his deputy, Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, who is believed to be directing the IRGC QF’s activities in Afghanistan.
  • While Qaani has the battlefield-hardened credibility to command the Quds Force, his focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and central Asia raises important questions as the United States is planning its military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
This is the fourth in a series of Middle Eastern Outlooks about the IRGC QF.[1]


The Iranian media’s coverage of Major General Qassem Suleimani, IRGC QF commander, reached new heights after calls for his assassination in two expert testimonies presented at the October 26, 2011, session of the US House Committee on Homeland Security.[2] The media attention was followed by the Iranian parliament’s November 2, 2011, declaration of support for the IRGC QF.[3]

The intense media exposure of Suleimani in Iran may be a sign that he is the choice of the Iranian political leadership’s for the next head of the executive branch. He may not be a great statesman, but in the face of increased military threats against Iran’s nuclear program and a heightened level of friction between the civilian leaders of the Islamic Republic, Suleimani, the hero from the war with Iraq, could serve as a unifying figure.

There is no information available about succession patterns in the IRGC QF command, but should Suleimani leave his position as IRGC QF commander and pursue a political career, he may be replaced by Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, IRGC QF deputy, about whom little is written in English-language open-source material. This Middle Eastern Outlook, the fourth in a series about the IRGC QF, presents data on Qaani extracted from Persian-language open-source material and discusses Qaani’s relationship with Suleimani.

Esmail Qaani: A Biography

According to Green Movement opposition sources, Qaani was born in Bojnord in North Khorasan province,[4] which corresponds with his military career in various IRGC units from the province and his frequent presence in the Razavi Khorasan and North Khorasan provinces.[5] (See appendix.) Qaani’s date of birth is unknown, but he appears slightly older than the fifty-four-year-old Suleimani.

Qaani has at least one son, Ali Qaani, who is supposedly a student of electrical engineering at the Mashhad branch of Azad University.[6] This source also writes that the son was allegedly arrested for participating in anti-government rallies in 2009 at university campuses in Mashhad. Qaani has dismissed this claim.[7] The open-source materials also refer to a certain “Dr. Ghaani”—the alternative Latin transliteration of Qaani—who is the principal of the Shi’a Islamic College in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and may be related to the IRGC QF deputy.[8] It would make sense that a relative of Qaani is engaged in religious missionary work of the Intelligence Ministry.

“The intense media exposure of Suleimani in Iran may be a sign that he is the choice of the Iranian political leadership’s for the next head of the executive branch.”
–Ali AlfonehThe earliest record of Qaani’s activities in the IRGC dates back to December 1982, when then IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai tasked a leading IRGC commander from Isfahan, Morteza Qorbani, to identify competent guardsmen to form a division from Khorasan province.[9] Qorbani presented three individuals to Rezai who would compose the nucleus of the newly established division, which was later called the Fifth Nasr Division: Nour-Ali Shoushtari, a key IRGC commander who was assassinated on October 18, 2009, in Pishin in Sistan va Baluchestan province;[10] Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, currently mayor of Tehran; and Qaani.[11] Toward the end of the war with Iraq, Rezai appointed Qaani Fifth Nasr Division commander, replacing Qalibaf.[12]

In the immediate aftermath of the war, on August 17, 1988, Rezai appointed Qaani division deputy of the IRGC Ground Forces’ eighth operational zone, headquartered in Mashhad.[13] The Persian-language open-source material does not provide any information about Qaani’s activities from August 1988 to the late 1990s, but one can safely assume that Qaani was involved in suppressing the June 1992 social unrest in Mashhad.[14] It is equally likely that Qaani was involved in the IRGC’s operations against drug cartels infiltrating Khorasan province from Afghanistan[15] and in the IRGC’s support to the Jebhe-ye Mouttahid-i Islami-yi Milli Bara-yi Nijat-i Afghanistan [United Islamic National Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan], also known as the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban in the late 1990s.

The earliest documented reference to Qaani as an IRGC QF commander appears in Mohammad Mohaddessin’s 1993 edition of Islamic Fundamentalism—The New Global Threat, in which Qaani is identified as Fourth Ansar Corps of the IRGC QF commander.[16] According to Mohaddessin, the Fourth Ansar Corps is “responsible for Guards Corps’ activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Asian republics,”[17] which supports the hypothesis on Qaani’s engagements with the Northern Alliance in the 1990s.

A second reference to Qaani—this time as IRGC QF deputy commander—appears in an Iraqi intelligence schematic of the QF organization, dated 2000,[18] which has a striking resemblance to Mohaddessin’s IRGC QF organizational chart. It is, therefore, likely that Qaani was appointed QF deputy commander during the escalation of Iran and the Taliban sometime between 1993 and 2000.

Later reports on Qaani’s military career appear contradictory. On May 6, 2006, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi appointed Qaani IRGC counterintelligence deputy, serving under Hojjat al-Eslam Gholam-Hossein Ramezani,[19] but in press reports since May 6, 2006, Qaani is presented as IRGC QF deputy. (See appendix.) The dual function of Qaani as both IRGC QF deputy and IRGC counterintelligence deputy is unusual, but not implausible.

Qaani’s War-Era Experiences and Leadership

In the course of the war against Iraq, Qaani and the Fifth Nasr Division participated in successful operations such as Ashura (October 18–22, 1984),[20] liberating the Fasil and Garkoni heights in the north of Meimak;[21] the Valfajr VIII operation (February 9–April 29, 1986),[22] capturing al-Faw Peninsula;[23] Karbala I (June 30–July 10, 1986),[24] liberating Mehran;[25] Nasr VIII (November 20–21, 1987),[26] stabilizing the Iranian positions around Maoot;[27] and Karbala V (January 9–March 3, 1987),[28] capturing Shalamcheh.[29] However, Qaani also participated in the disastrous Beit al-Moqaddas VII operation (June 25, 1988),[30] which resulted in the Iranian debacle at Majnoun peninsula.[31] Qaani is at least partially to blame for the defeat at Majnoun, since he served as Fifth Nasr Division commander during the operation.

Qaani seems to share Suleimani’s ability for improvisation in military operations. While planning the Nasr VIII operation, for example, Qaani suggested alternative ways of transporting automobiles to the other side of the Qal’e-Cholan River even before the bridge had been built.[32] Another characteristic Suleimani and Qaani share is their participation in high-risk reconnaissance missions prior to military operations.[33] Like Suleimani, Qaani stresses the importance of the IRGC commanders acting as the vanguards of the forces during attacks rather than leading from behind.[34]

Qaani’s war-era record does not display the same degree of distinction as Suleimani’s, but at times Qaani has displayed the courage to question the wisdom of decisions made by his superiors. On September 29, 1987, Qaani engaged in a fierce debate with Ali Shamkhani, IRGC Ground Forces commander, over the ability of the IRGC to fight in the Maoot operational zone.[35] The day after this meeting, Qaani questioned the ability of the IRGC Logistics division to provide food for his men.[36]

However, the war-era records also indicate fundamental differences between Suleimani and Qaani. While Suleimani was a charismatic leader universally loved by the men under his command—a theme often referred to in the open-source materials—only one source describes Qaani as a popular commander.[37] Another source describes the young Qaani as “a thin youth with an innocent face . . . a humble man.”[38] Qaani also seems to have faced many challenges from his men, who wanted to fight on the southern front to escape the cold, poor provisions and the Kurdish insurgents in the north.[39]

“Decision makers planning US military withdrawal from Afghanistan can safely assume that an IRGC QF led by Qaani would engage much more aggressively in Afghanistan and central Asia.”
–Ali AlfonehIdeological Tenets of Qaani’s Thinking

Suleimani’s and Qaani’s speeches reveal both their similarities and differences. They both extensively use the standard IRGC praise of the martyrs from the war with Iraq and make only passing remarks to internal Iranian affairs. More recently, both men have started commenting on the Arab Spring, or “the Islamic awakening” in the Islamic Republic’s official parlance.

However, their styles are also remarkably different. While the charismatic Suleimani, particularly in his youth, managed to move men with his simple vocabulary and deeply personal and humble style, Qaani’s speeches seem completely impersonal and rehearsed and do not reveal much about him.

While Suleimani is usually more direct in his speeches, Qaani hides behind official rhetoric. This is particularly true of Qaani’s few remarks on internal affairs in Iran.[40] Also, Qaani’s statements on regional developments closely echo the platitudes of the political level: “The Islamic Republic is the safe haven of all [world revolutionary] movements,” Qaani said on one occasion.[41] The same goes for Qaani’s statements about martyrs,[42] and standard mantra on the Arab spring as continuity of “the path of Iran’s Islamic revolution.”[43] He has even claimed that “the sacred defense” (the Iran/Iraq War) is the “role model of the current Islamic awakening [Arab Spring] in the region.”[44]

Qaani’s Network

Qaani and Suleimani belong to the same network,[45] but Qaani also seems to have a long history of relations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In a recently published booklet commemorating Khamenei’s war-era activities, Qaani is one of eight surviving war veterans who describes his encounter with Khamenei during the war.[46] Qaani reveals that Khamenei, a native of Mashhad, would lead mourning ceremonies for Imam Reza, the eighth Imam of the Shi’a buried in Khorasan, with “the boys from Mashhad,” who served in the Fifth Nasr Division during the war with Iraq.[47] Qaani and Khamenei are also indirectly connected through Qaani’s superior Shoushtari, who knew Khamenei even before the revolution.[48]

Suleimani and Qaani: Physical Presence

A survey of the whereabouts of Suleimani and Qaani since the end of the war with Iraq in 1988, drawing on available open-source materials, provides strong indications of the division of labor between the two, with Qaani’s primary responsibility being Afghanistan. (See appendix.)

The survey has produced about 135 entries concerning the physical whereabouts of Suleimani and Qaani: 68 references to Suleimani and 67 references to Qaani. According to this data, since the end of the war with Iraq in 1988, Suleimani and Qaani were present at the same time and place on only a single occasion: the September 28, 2009, Quds Day celebration in Kerman. This may be a security measure so that in case of an assassination plot at least one of the two would survive. This could also mean that Qaani conducts the day-to-day administration of the IRGC QF when Suleimani attends ceremonial events.

According to the data, Suleimani and Qaani spend significant time in their respective hometowns. Since 1988, we find eighteen references to Suleimani’s public appearances in Kerman and twenty-nine references to Qaani’s public appearances in Razavi Khorasan province in the same period. The Iranian press does not refer to Suleimani and Qaani’s visits to IRGC QF bases, but Qaani’s significant presence in Razavi Khorasan province is of great importance. According to the Iraqi intelligence report, the QF has four regional commands dedicated to the areas immediately surrounding Iran, and the Fourth IRGC QF base is in Mashhad, the capital of Razavi Khorasan.[49] One can therefore assume that Qaani’s presence in Mashhad is due to his role as commander of the Fourth QF Corps.

There are also other factors indicating Qaani’s engagement in Afghanistan: The Iranian press has reported that significant numbers of Afghan refugees and immigrants attend Qaani’s speeches in Razavi Khorasan.[50] Other references in the Iranian press document Qaani’s participation in poetry evenings with Afghan Mujahedeen—and Guantanamo Bay detention camp veterans such as Seyyed Ali-Shah Mousavi Gardizi.[51] According to Gardizi, the United States Army accused him of working to topple “the government [of Afghanistan], plan a popular uprising and surrender Paktia [province in eastern Afghanistan] to the opponents.”[52] Such associations may provide further indication of Qaani’s charge over the IRGC QF operations in Afghanistan.

There are twelve references to Suleimani’s presence in Tehran since 1988 and only two references to Qaani’s presence in the capital in the same period, which may be because of Suleimani’s functions as IRGC QF commander. Other provinces in which Suleimani and Qaani have made public appearances are Bandar Abbas, Fars, Gilan, Isfahan, Kurdistan, North Khorasan, Qom, Semnan, and Yazd.

Few sources refer to the international travels of Suleimani and Qaani, but these deserve mention. The open-source materials refer only once to Qaani’s international travels. On November 23, 2009, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accompanied by “200 business leaders,”[53] flew to Brasilia from Gambia for a twenty-four-hour stay, before continuing on to Bolivia, Venezuela, and Senegal.[54] Since Brazil considers the IRGC QF a terrorist organization, Qaani’s presence proved controversial. In a later inquiry, Brazilian Senator Eduardo Azeredo, chairman of the Joint Committee for the Control of Intelligence Activities, asked the Brazilian justice minister if Qaani was part of Ahmadinejad’s entourage during the visit to Brazil.[55] The justice minister dismissed Qaani’s presence in Brasilia, but the Brazilian Federal Police Department later admitted that Qaani had accompanied Ahmadinejad and was granted a transit visa by Brazilian authorities.[56]

Slightly more references exist to Suleimani’s international travels. Suleimani’s earliest documented foreign visit was on January 21, 1999, to Tajikistan,[57] which probably served the purpose of arming the anti-Taliban Afghan groups. The second reference in the open-source materials is Suleimani’s April 2006 visit to the Green Zone in Baghdad.[58] Around May 1, 2008, Suleimani held negotiations with Iraqi authorities in the Iran/Iraq border area,[59] and on September 10, 2009, Suleimani allegedly held talks with the Iraqi president in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq.[60] Suleimani’s latest documented trip is his December 2009 visit to Damascus, Syria.[61]

Without additional information about Qaani’s international travels, one cannot draw any conclusions, but based on this information Qaani may oversee the IRGC QF activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and central Asia, along with more distant countries in Africa and South America, while Suleimani attends to the security concerns in western Iran, such as developments in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Conclusion

In the face of increasing divisions among the ruling elites of the Islamic Republic, ever-harsher sanctions against Iran, and the threat of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the regime is in search of a public figure capable of unifying the nation. Few people other than Suleimani can play such a role, and the intensified press coverage of his public appearances may suggest that Suleimani will soon leave his position in the IRGC QF and pursue a career in politics. Therefore, it is all the more important to pay attention to Qaani, who may replace Suleimani as IRGC QF commander.

The relationship between Qaani—the potential IRGC QF commander—and Suleimani—the potential chief executive—may be too early to predict. Qaani’s battlefield experience, network within the IRGC, and long acquaintance with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may aid him as Suleimani’s replacement, but there is no doubt that the uncharismatic and less distinguished Qaani would have great difficulties filling Suleimani’s boots.

That Qaani directs the IRGC QF’s activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and central Asia may also provide an indication that he would focus primarily on Afghanistan as IRGC QF commander. Decision makers planning US military withdrawal from Afghanistan can safely assume that an IRGC QF led by Qaani would engage much more aggressively in Afghanistan and central Asia.

Appendix: Tracking Suleimani and Qaani since the End of the Iran/Iraq War

Ali Alfoneh (ali.alfoneh@aei.org) is a resident fellow at AEI. The author thanks AEI scholars Danielle Pletka and Frederick Kagan, along with Michael Eisenstadt, Washington Institute for Near East Policy senior fellow, for their advice.

posted for fair use
notes at source
 

jward

passin' thru
Iranian-backed Bahraini militias eulogize Soleimani, Muhandis
BY CALEB WEISS | January 3, 2020 | weiss.caleb2@gmail.com | @Weissenberg7

Several Iranian-backed militias in Bahrain have released a joint statement eulogizing both Iranian Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the founder of the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades and deputy leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).

“The arrogant state of America and its idiot President Trump has committed a great and treacherous crime in the assassination of the Mujahid and great commander Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Qods Force, and the great Mujahid Abu Mahdi al Muhandis,” the joint statement begins.

In regards to the death of the two terror leaders, the groups state that “we send our condolences and blessings to the owner of the era and time, Imam Khamenei, and the Islamic Ummah [worldwide community].”

The statement continues with “we in the Islamic Resistance of Bahrain confirm that we are all as one faction in today’s battle, [which] is a battle of truth with falsehood and we cannot be divided in this battle.”

It goes on to say that the “battle” is also about “confronting the tyrants, at its head is America,” and that they “consider all of its interests and presence in Bahrain as legitimate targets.”

Ending its message, the militias say that “we confirm that the blood of the martyr Qassem Soleimani will intensify the will of the resistance in Bahrain more than ever before.”

Iranian-backed militias in Bahrain

Signing the message is Saraya al Ashtar, Saraya al Mokhtar, Saraya Waad Allah, Saraya Thair Allah, and Saraya al Muqawama al Sha’abiya (Popular Resistance Companies, PRC).

The PRC is Bahrain’s oldest militia within the “Islamic Resistance” branding, having begun military operations on the island in August 2012.

However, it has not claimed an operation since Dec. 2017. Though Bahraini authorities did state last year that it continues to train members in explosive making.

Both Saraya al Ashtar, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and Saraya al Mokhtar have longstanding ties to both Iran and its proxies inside Iraq.

Bahraini officials have alleged that the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades, which was led by Muhandis, and other Iraqi militias, as well as Lebanese Hezbollah, have provided extensive training to the groups.

While not explicitly mentioning the Brigades in its designation of the militia, the U.S. State Department did confirm that Saraya al Ashtar has indeed received training inside Iraq.

In 2017, the U.S. State Department designated two members of Saraya al Ashtar as global terrorists. State noted that one of the individuals, Hasan Yusuf, is an Iran-based senior member of the group.

Additionally members of Saraya al Mokhtar have been seen on the frontlines in Iraq and its leadership has toured facilities of several Iranian proxies in the country, including Kata’ib Imam Ali.

While Saraya Waad Allah, which has claimed several bombings inside Bahrain, is believed to be a front for Saraya al Ashtar.

And Saraya Thair Allah, the newest militia in Bahrain, has only claimed one attack so far in its existence. However, it recently changed its logo to be more aligned with the branding of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Caleb Weiss is a contributor to FDD's Long War Journal.


Posted for fair use
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
DOT.....

Posted for fair use.....

Marine Corps Offering Former Reserve Pilots $30K to Return to Service

2 Jan 2020

Military.com | By Gina Harkins

The Marine Corps is offering some former Reserve pilots lucrative bonuses to get them back in the cockpit.

Former captains and majors qualified to fly certain aircraft who are willing to rejoin a Marine Corps squadron can pocket up to a $30,000 lump-sum bonus if they agree to a three-year term in the Active Reserve. Those willing to serve two years in the Reserve are eligible for a $20,000 payout.

It's called the Active Reserve Aviator Return to Service Program, and it targets six types of fixed-wing, rotary and tiltrotor pilots "in order to fill critical aviation shortfalls," a service-wide message on the bonuses states.

Top priority will be given to former F/A-18 Hornet and MV-22B Osprey pilots, along with KC-130 Hercules aircraft commanders, according to the message. But the program is also open to former AV-8B Harrier, UH-1Y Venom and CH-53E Super Stallion pilots.

Related: Marines Offer Big Bonuses to Leathernecks Who Can Help Deceive the Enemy
"The retention incentive is distributed as a lump sum of 20,000 dollars for the 24 month service obligation or a lump sum of 30,000 dollars for the 36 month service obligation, less any applicable taxes," the message states. "Lump sum payment will not be paid out until the member is joined to the [Active Reserve] program."

The incentives will be paid out on a first-come, first-served basis "until funds are exhausted," it adds.

Only aviators who previously qualified for -- or had not yet applied for -- career designation are eligible. Those who applied for but were not offered career designation in the Active Reserve are ineligible, the message states.

Pilots who were already career designated on the Active Reserve will automatically be career designated upon re-accession. Those who hadn't previously applied for career designation will be able to do so once they rejoin.

Top assignments will involve flying operations at the squadron level across several Reserve units in the continental U.S., including California, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Maryland or New Orleans. Assignments aren't limited to those squadrons though, the message adds.

Captains who served more than 10 years of active-duty service who weren't previously considered for major on an Active Reserve promotion board are eligible to apply. So are majors who weren't previously considered for O-5 who served more than 12 years on active duty, and those who were considered for lieutenant colonel who served more than 15 years.

Earlier this year, the Marine Corps announced it would be offering big bonuses to active-duty pilots as well.

Top bonuses targeted Marines in the grades and communities with the biggest pilot shortages. Active-duty pilots were eligible to earn up to $280,000 bonuses if they agreed to keep flying for eight more years.

The bonuses targeted captains and majors who fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F/A-18 Hornet, AV-8 Harrier, MV-22 Osprey, C-130 Hercules, UH-1 Huey, AH-1 Cobra and CH-53 Stallion.

-- Gina Harkins can be reached at gina.harkins@military.com. Follow her on Twitter @ginaaharkins.

Read more: The Marines Are Doling Out Up to $280K in Bonuses to Keep Pilots Flying
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Congress Endorses Hypersonic Weapons as Development Ramps Up

Jan. 2, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Congress threw its support behind the Pentagon’s effort to design new hypersonic weapons and fully funded the Air Force’s two high-speed missile programs in the fiscal 2020 defense policy and spending bills.

Lawmakers want the military to speed up testing and development of hypersonic capabilities, ranging from aircraft propulsion to weapons. They echo the Pentagon’s concern that America’s adversaries are far outpacing the US at maturing weapons that can travel at least five times the speed of sound.

“Hypersonic weapons pose a dangerous new class of threat to national security,” appropriators wrote in the funding law enacted in mid-December. “They operate at exceptionally high speeds and can maneuver unpredictably, making them challenging to track and difficult to intercept. Potential adversaries, such as Russia and China, have recognized the value of hypersonic weapons to offset United States military capabilities and hold United States forces at risk.”

While the nuclear-tipped segment of intercontinental ballistic missiles can also reach those speeds, the hypersonic glide vehicles now in development would be harder to detect and destroy because they are built to change course more easily while arriving in 10 minutes or less, according to the Arms Control Association.

The Air Force argues that adds more options to its arsenal when firing from far away. Others say it’s the dawn of a new arms race that could make the world less safe.

This year’s appropriations bill fully funds the Air Force’s long-range strike prototypes known as the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon and Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, which called for $576 million in 2020. The service wants to have test assets ready in 2021, and the Army and Navy are working on their own hypersonic endeavors.

To streamline the Defense Department’s various plans, Congress provided $100 million to create a Joint Hypersonics Transition Office that would pursue an “integrated science and technology roadmap for hypersonics” and set up a consortium of universities that can fuel research and build a future workforce, according to the spending law.

Lawmakers also want to make sure policy for how to use the new tools is evolving alongside technology development. Congress called for briefings on how the Pentagon would continually review the legality of emerging technologies like hypersonic systems, artificial intelligence, and robotics. Military officials should also consider whether maturing and using the tech could clash with any existing treaties.

The new law boosted spending for a slew of projects related to hypersonic propulsion as well. Members offered extra money to look into thermal protection for hypersonic assets, low-cost manufacturing for their components, new test facilities, and ways to defend against the budding weapons.

Russia in late December said it had put its first nuclear-capable, hypersonic Avangard missiles into service, according to the Associated Press.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

CSIS Bad Idea: Assuming the ‘Small Wars’ Era is Over
Intended as a prudent reprioritization, the dramatic shift in demand for more “great power gurus” threatens to shelve the experience and institutional knowledge accumulated over the last two decades.

By Alexandra Evans and Alexandra Stark on December 31, 2019 at 11:01 AM

The return of ‘Great Power Competition.’ It’s practically a mantra these days from defense policymakers and military leaders. The 2021 budget is expected to be the nail in the coffin of The War on Terror, with the services all pouring funds instead into reorganization and new equipment for combatting peer adversaries Russia and China (and sometimes Iran is thrown in the mix, despite the fact that it is in no way a military peer.) Not so fast, say Alexandra Evans of RAND Corp. and Alexandra Stark of New America Foundation. In this installment of the Center for Strategic and International Studies “Bad Ideas in National Security” series, Evans and Stark caution that all those so-called ‘small wars’ of the last couple of decades are simply going to fade away.

To see where the foreign policy winds in Washington are blowing, look to DC’s graduate schools, where aspiring civil servants and future defense strategists compete for national security jobs. In 2010, entering students studied counter-insurgency strategies and terrorist networks, polishing language skills in Arabic, Pashto, and Dari. In 2015, their successors enrolled in classes on grey-zone warfare and limited interventions in order to get to the field’s cutting edge. Security studies students matriculating in 2020, however, know the market demands have shifted. What Washington wants now is expertise in strategic competition.

“After being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition [has] returned,” the 2017 National Security Strategy declared. Concerned by Russian revanchism in Eastern Europe and growing tensions with China in Asia, US scholars, commentators, and policymakers alike have convened conferences, tested historical metaphors, and probed the origins of the term itself. “For all the acrimony in Washington today, the city’s foreign policy establishment is settling on a rare bipartisan consensus: that the world has entered a new era of great-power competition,” Center for a New American Security CEO Richard Fontaine recently wrote in Foreign Affairs.


This revived interest in great power politics (and the attending risk of major war) comes with an important, if oft unstated, corollary: the problem of small wars, waged between asymmetric adversaries and through low-intensity but often prolonged campaigns, is now of secondary importance. From President Obama’s declaration that “America must move off a permanent war footing” and his administration’s vaunted “pivot to Asia,” to President Trump’s rhetoric of ending “endless wars,” the message is the same: the era of counter-insurgency, humanitarian interventions, and peacekeeping is fading, and a new period of great power competition has begun.

As the United States braces for the “needed course correction,” force planners have placed a corresponding emphasis on redesigning force structure to “deal with a potential great-power threat. This will require making significant changes in the way the US military is sized, shaped, postured, employed, and developed.” Were these changes to be fully realized, current trends suggest that they could come at the expense of US low-intensity capabilities.

We do not question that substantial reforms and investment are needed to restore the US competitive advantages and prepare American forces for the risk of a major war with a peer or near-peer competitor. Achieving these aims will require accepting uncomfortable trade-offs. But in framing the United States’ options as incongruous, the conversation may soon risk swinging too far in the other direction—inhibiting our ability to understand and manage a range of state and non-state threats in the near-future.

In seeking greater attention to the pressing challenges presented by peer and near-peer adversaries, those advocating for a strategic reorientation have (even if inadvertently) contributed to the dangerous notion that the United States need not continue to prepare to fight weaker adversaries like non-state militants and irregular forces and to conduct operations that fall below the threshold of major war. Intended as a prudent reprioritization, the dramatic shift in demand for more “great power gurus” threatens to shelve the experience and institutional knowledge accumulated over the last two decades.


We have had this debate before. During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration’s embrace of humanitarian interventionism spurred a backlash from those who argued the new peacekeeping and stability missions were eroding the military’s ability to conduct conventional operations. On the campaign trail, George W. Bush pledged to withdraw US troops from Haiti and the Balkans, and advanced the argument that the US interventions abroad were symptomatic of a dangerous strategic drift that weakened the US ability to maintain conventional strengths. Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which brutally revealed the power of a new generation of irregular threats and the costs of the US failure to generate tools to manage the low-intensity conflicts that had fueled al-Qaeda’s growth.

The failure of the US “big small wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the seemingly intractable conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, and the ongoing erosion in long-held American competitive advantages have strengthened the Pentagon’s desire to return to what it does best: high-tech, large-scale conventional conflict paired with targeted SOF operations. Counterintuitively, though, the techniques, tactics, and procedures associated with low-intensity warfare are only growing more important as the risk of a major confrontation with a peer or near-peer competitor increases.

The common assumption that a great power conflict would be conventional is flawed. No one denies that Russia and China are investing substantially in artificial intelligence, cyber assets, and space technologies—as well as missiles and air defenses—in an effort to winnow the US advantage and bolster their anti-access/area denial capabilities. However, as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis is fond of pointing out, the enemy also “gets a vote” in how the next war will be fought. Aware their militaries cannot hope to win a conventional battle against the United States in the near term, both Russia and China are also investing in substantial asymmetrical resources to exploit existing American vulnerabilities laid bare over the last two decades.

From its “little green men” in Georgia and Ukraine to its proxies in Syria and Libya, the Kremlin has demonstrated a hybrid maneuver strategy that involves deploying Russian advise-and-assist teams to support indigenous units, who bear the brunt of the fighting while receiving support from Russian conventional forces.

Likewise, Chinese strategists continue to emphasize asymmetric strategies, and the “Science of Military Strategy 2013,” a leading Chinese military tract, advocates the use of a variety of domains of conflict when engaging US conventional forces. Beijing’s use of “little blue men” to enforce its territorial claims in the South China Seas offers a preview of how it might mobilize civilian mariners in a future conflict. Should a future war reach land, it takes little imagination to conceive of the challenges of conducting urban warfare in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Shanghai.

And weaker adversaries are also investing in asymmetric capabilities. Iran has long compensated for its conventional weaknesses by developing robust paramilitary and surrogate forces, and a formidable arsenal of low-cost assets to swarm an adversaries’ superior naval or ground forces. Years of fighting in Syria, where Iran has deployed its own IRGC-Quds force, worked alongside its partner Hezbollah, and organized Shi’a militias on the ground, have only honed this strategy further. Neither sanctions nor negotiations have blunted Tehran’s asymmetric capabilities. The recent attack on an Aramco facility in Saudi Arabia demonstrates that Iran’s irregular tactics can force the United States onto its back foot.

Moreover, US policymakers’ stated desire to refocus on conventional adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran does not change the reality that a host of non-state actors continue to sow unrest throughout Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, undermining regional stability and threatening US and allied interests. Longitudinal data show that the vast majority of armed conflicts today are internationalized civil or sub-state conflicts, rather than conventional interstate wars.

The historical record is rife with instances in which localized crises escalated into wars between great powers, whether through alliance commitments, national rivalries or miscalculation. A succession crisis in Spain sparked the Franco-Prussian war; political instability in the Balkans triggered the First World War. And there have been near misses, like the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which could have triggered a nuclear exchange. Even the “long peace” of the latter half of the 20th century sowed bloody proxy confrontations between the United States, the Soviet Union and its surrogates across the Global South.

Whether today’s insurgencies, sectarian conflicts and other limited wars will escalate remains to be seen. Regardless of whether the United States decides to intervene directly, to work through regional partners, or to sit on the sidelines and manage the potential ramifications, any effort to respond to these challenges will require retaining (and improving) specialized knowledge and capabilities designed for low-intensity operations. Similarly, retaining expertise in stability, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations helps decrease the possibility of escalation. Put simply, peacekeeping is a tool for great power conflict resolution.

The national security community doesn’t need to deny the potential for future great power conflict—or neglect to prepare for it—in order to acknowledge the enduring reality of asymmetric threats. Indeed, some analysts are probing past irregular wars for lessons that could inform future confrontations among great powers. Others have found that existing conventional and irregular capabilities and approaches can be dual-use and may be equally applied across levels of conflict.

But the United States must be vigilant against letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction by focusing solely on a conventional, symmetric future conflict, and would be wise to acknowledge the coexistence of multiple categories of dangerous actors. Containing, resolving, and even preventing smaller conflicts is essential to avoiding bigger ones. Washington may face these wars for many years to come—and could have to prepare for the undesirable tradeoffs. The era of small wars is not over.

Comments 5

Continued.....
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Continued.....

Leroy3 days ago
Regional conflicts - the reason why the carrier is still relevant. We have eleven, plus our LHA/Ds, China and Russia few or zero (Russia). So the CVBG will remain the tip of the spear engaged in small hot-spots all around the world. Ready to project power against peers and non-peers, non-state if and when necessary.
I see smooth sailing ahead for Navy funding by Congress, even if some advocate for silly ideas like counting small roboships towards the total mandate of 355. Ain't no way our security can be maintained by cutting resources available to the USN. That's where the money needs to flow. My how little has changed since the days of the "Tall ships"! China is our emerging competitor in this domain. Russia? Not so much.





  • Avatar
    gelceea Leroy3 days ago
    I was just admiring how the Virginia has evolved. The new block is neat, and the U.S. continues to pump them out, along with Arleigh Burkes and Fords. I agree with your thought on security, the USN is the gatekeeper. I hope they can improve the maintenance game some, to keep these assets deployed and ready.
    Robot ships, lol. Until I see one that is secure from cyber and EW attacks, with some kick ass AI in the event it becomes detached, and bristling with weapons and armor, I'll retain the view they are irrelevant except in the case of draining funding for real and effective naval platforms.
  • 1

  • Reply
  • Share ›







  • Avatar
    Duanea day ago
    Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that small wars will never again occur, or be necessary from time to time. However we started "small wars" that completely took our eyes off the ball with respect to actually defending the United States and our national interests. That was the humongous error that was made in Iraq, wherein we cost ourselves vastly more in blood and treasure than the payoff, even if it had occurred, would ever have been worth.
    It takes self discipline to avoid getting embroiled in stupid small wars. Self-discipline that was not exercised in the 2000s, as it was in the 1990s.
    Besides, it is up to our allies to build their own military capabilities, with US advice and assistance as needed, so that we don't have to do the heavy lifting ourselves. That is not so much an issue with our NATO allies and major IndoPac allies, but it IS an issue with some of our middle eastern allies, and some of our lesser IndoPac allies.
    This is not an argument to withdraw from foreign presence. But we must never again fall for the warmongering arguments of the Bush 43 administration that got us entangled in the horrible briar patch that Iraq became for us in the 2000s. That was actually not a "small war" but a middling sized war. We cannot afford such wars going forward if we are to maintain our edge to fend off Russia and China.


  • Reply
  • Share ›







  • Avatar
    originalone2 days ago • edited
    And just where are the peer to peer battles to take place? A show of force may be wise under the circumstances, but the WW 2 island hopping & land invasions wont work today or tomorrow. What lessons have been learned from the battlefront since WW 2? The mindset will take longer to change then anyone understands, save for the visionaries.


  • Reply
  • Share ›







  • Avatar
    VICTOR2 days ago
    Russia and China don't need carriers because they are not trying to project power all over the world. All they have to do is dominate their "near abroad".
    Can they(and Iran) do that with their emphasis on anti-ship missles and surface to air missles? Could a cheap Iranian anti-ship missle or small ship sink a US carrier? It is certainly possible that US defenses knock down 99% but one missle or ship gets through.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

January 3, 2020 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: Korea Watch Tags: North KoreaKim Jong-unDonald TrumpDPRK
Is Kim Jong-un Feeling Insecure?

Why did Kim allow the party plenary report to replace his traditional New Year’s Address? As with many things in North Korea, we do not know, forcing us to speculate. At least one possibility is that Kim Jong-un fears that his pattern of failures in 2019 has significantly undermined his position as the god of North Korea.


by Bruce W. Bennett Follow @bwbennett on Twitter L



Korea watchers have been surprised that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un failed to provide a 2020 New Year’s address, as he has done in the past. Instead, he has apparently substituted, without explanation, a report of the North Korean Workers’ Party Plenary meeting completed on December 31.

This report continues the North Korean regime’s long-term pattern of characterizing the United States as the enemy of the North Korean people. It characterizes the United States as waging a cruel war against the North Korean people. This is not new, the North Korean regime has long sought to portray the United States as a scapegoat for many of the regime’s failures. It also allows the regime to rally the North Korean people to achieve victory against their enemy.

And thus the North Korea regime has once again justified and explained itself by using deception. Indeed, North Korea has described itself as a “workers’ paradise” when in reality North Korean workers live an impoverished life while suffering from brutal political control. The report includes other deception such as claiming that the North Korean public health system is, “best in the world…,” an extreme deception. The North Korean regime appears to use such deceptions to maintain control and avoid internal dissent.
The specifics of the North Korean regime’s deceptions, intermingled with some truth, offer important insights on the regime’s thinking and attitude toward the United States and toward North Korean denuclearization. The regime’s deceptive vilification of the United States reflects the regime’s paranoia: “The DPRK-U.S. stand-off which has lasted century after century…”, the U.S. has applied “the most brutal and inhuman sanctions … over the past seven decades,” and the U.S. has made North Korea the “‘…target of its preemptive nuclear strike…’”

Of course, the biggest deception is that the sanctions and pressure on North Korea are solely from the North’s claimed enemy, the United States. The report never once mentions the United Nations having implemented many of the sanctions on North Korea, or that the sanctions are punishments for rogue behavior that, if terminated, would lead to sanctions removal. Kim cannot let his people know that the international community, and not just the United States, find his provocations unacceptable.
0

Ultimately, the key question is whether North Korea is prepared to make the nuclear weapon versus sanctions tradeoff. The report suggests that Kim is not: “If there were not the nuclear issue, the U.S. would find fault with us under other issue, and the U.S. military and political threats would not end.” “He solemnly declared that there is no need to hesitate with any expectation of the U.S. lift of sanctions...” The United States seeks “to completely strangle and stifle the DPRK.” Indeed, the report says that “the U.S. is raising demands....”
The United States may be increasing sanctions, but its key demand remains the same: North Korean denuclearization, exactly as Kim offered when in March 2018 he asked for a summit meeting with President Trump. In the April 27 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, Kim committed to the full denuclearization called for in the earlier 1992 Denuclearization Declaration which says the South and North will “not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons” or “possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.” The North Korean regime is in extreme violation of this element of the Panmunjom Agreement, having probably doubled its nuclear weapon destructive potential since March 2018 while eliminating no nuclear weapons or production facilities.

What are the implications for the United States and the international community? The North wants major U.S. concessions before it will even negotiate again. Yet the balance sheet of U.S. concessions since March 2018 vastly overwhelms the North Korean concessions, especially since the North has reneged on many of them. In a democracy like the United States, President Trump has gone about as far as he can go in giving North Korea unrequited concessions.

The North Korean regime does not seem to understand this. Instead, it appears prepared to launch a coercive campaign to secure more concessions, while offering little or nothing in return. The report threatens that the North will restart its missile and nuclear weapon tests, which of course it has already partially done with 25 missile tests in 2019. The report threatens to demonstrate a “new strategic weapon” in the near future. Such a demonstration could lead to an unwanted escalation spiral.

This report is, of course, another element in the North’s information campaign against the United States and South Korea. One of the biggest concessions the U.S./ROK have made to North Korea is to minimally respond to the North’s information campaign. This approach has left many people in the region confused by the North Korean deceptions that have not been countered, suggesting that the deceptions could be true. One of the best ways for the U.S./ROK to respond to the report’s threats could be to enhance their information operations, seeking to explain the North Korean deceptions.

In the end, a key question is: why did Kim allow the party plenary report to replace his traditional New Year’s Address? As with many things in North Korea, we do not know, forcing us to speculate. At least one possibility is that Kim Jong-un fears that his pattern of failures in 2019 has significantly undermined his position as the god of North Korea. He may have concluded that the statements made even by the rubber stamp Workers Party Plenary would be more authoritative than his own address. This is not to say that there is serious instability in North Korea, but rather that Kim Jong-un may be worried about the possibility of such instability. If this is true, Kim may be prepared to take more serious risks in the future because he is worrying about losing control of North Korea. This would potentially be very dangerous.

Bruce W. Bennett is a senior defense analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

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


Posted for fair use.....

Who’s Next? Trump Crossed a Line with Soleimani’s Assassination


12:25 PM ET

The Iranian was much more than a general. Who else is the U.S. president willing to kill?

There’s a reason why the United States never just killed Nikita Khrushchev. Or Fidel Castro. Or the ayatollah. In simplest terms: if we kill them, we make it easier for others to do the same to us.

By his title, Qassem Soleimani — the recently deceased leader of the Quds Force, the special ops component of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — may not have ranked among those heads of state. But in Iran, the Middle East, and the Muslim world, he was much more than a mere general. That’s true in the Pentagon as well. “Suleimani is arguably the most powerful and unconstrained actor in the Middle East today,” retired Gen. Stan McChrystal wrote in Foreign Policy a year ago. In August 2018, U.S. Central Command’s Gen. Joe Votel said, “Wherever you see Iranian activity, you see Qasem Soleimani, whether it is in Syria, whether it is in Iraq, whether it is in Yemen, he is there and it is the Quds force, the organization which he leads.” So killing him was not like killing, say, Votel’s successor U.S. Army Gen. Richard D. Clarke, who leads U.S. Special Operations Command, or even Russia’s military chief of staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov. In the eyes of many, Soleimani was far more.

So now that President Trump has crossed that line, who’s next?

Why not start with Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad? Many have argued — Republicans and Democrats — that had President Barack Obama ordered a strike on Damascus (or at least fully armed and supported the Syrian rebels when it looked like they had a real chance) to kill Assad, whether by intention or luck of the wind, it would have prevented the prolonged civil war that has caused half a million civilian deaths, created two million refugees, and fostered ISIS and terrorist attacks in European cities. There is clear evidence that Assad is a war criminal who gassed his own women and children. He is never going to leave voluntarily. He welcomed Washington’s strategic rival Russia into his country and the region. He’s rejected all peace offerings by outside negotiators and continued to threaten U.S. personnel and interests. He has no nuclear weapons, no air force, no real military power to speak of, no friends outside of Moscow and Tehran. Just bomb him.

Related: Iran’s Soleimani Killed in Trump-Ordered Airstrike

Kim Jong-un, well, he’s a bit trickier. For starters, he has nuclear weapons. But, hey, he doesn’t have any intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the continental United States, or the ability to miniaturize a nuclear bomb to put on board. At least, he hasn’t publicly shown he has that capability, although the Pentagon is treating him as if he does. Kim, more than Assad, is the leader of a nation that is half personality cult, half prison. There’s likely to be support in Pyongyang for his offing, should it fall from the sky. When he came to power, the willingness of top North Korean officials to turn on each other and clean house of any adversaires with cold-blooded assassinations should be encouraging.
Assassination is how they do business. The guy had his own brother killed. He killed his own uncle with a freakin’ artillery gun. The United States and the international community has made it clear it has no beef with the North Korean people; it just wants the country to stop threatening to nuke everyone else, open up its borders, and let its citizens live a free life Netflix-and-chilling among the global community for its own betterment. Killing Kim would help that along, and with the right propaganda North Koreans could be persuaded that Kim had taken them down a dangerous path. Of course, in the interim, tens of thousands of artillery shells may obliterate Seoul and U.S. bases in South Korea — but hey, as Defense Secretary Mark Esper said about Iran, enough is enough.

And just look at Xi Jinping. Smiling atop his Beijing palaces like he’s the next Mao. In the past few years, China’s leaders have taken a dark turn. Far from joining the liberal international order, the Chinese Communist Party has orchestrated a worldwide effort to infiltrate economic systems, technological structures, agricultural supplies, all while building military capability. They built islands in the ocean to expand their territory and influence, with runways to serve long-range strategic bombers — the kind that deliver nuclear weapons. The Hong Kong streets today are the living embodiment of China’s folly. Its leaders’ attempts to hold onto their iron-fisted dictatorship while living large among the global community of liberal democracies is driving the world toward conflict, not cooperation. Just ask a Uighur. China, as a matter of state policy, is undermining America’s economy, competitiveness, and ability to defend itself. It’s set its sights on Europe, Canada, and others. Enough is enough. U.S. bombers can reach Xi as fast as a drone found Soleimani. Oh, certainly, China has nuclear weapons. And ICBMs. But are they really willing to risk upsetting Donald Trump and receiving a total-wipeout retaliation of American warheads?

Finally, the most obvious next target of all: Vladimir Putin. What’s keeping Trump from dropping a bomb on Putin’s head? No, really, that’s a serious question. What do the Russians have on Trump?

Kidding. About all of this.

The killing of Qassem Soleimani is not the end of the U.S.-Iran conflict. It’s the beginning of a new era. This was no mere battlefield drone strike of a long-sought terrorist leader. Soleimani was arguably the most powerful secular leader of Iran; he operated in public internationally. Others can argue whether this technically counts as an assasination, but Trump has once again tossed a norm of political leadership out the window. The United States, in theory, does not assassinate world leaders because the international order is supposed to matter. Rule of law matters. That’s why the U.S. typically goes to Congress and international institutions like the United Nations and NATO to line up legal and political consensus and approvals before military strikes.

“Only the U.N. Security Council has the legal power to enforce international law,” said Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to President Jimmy Carter, laying out his case back in 1985, adding “and it in fact has no such power against the Soviet Union or the United States if either chooses to exercise its right of veto.” Cutler then points out that conservatives like columnist George Will were saying at the time that Americans shouldn’t care whether they’re following international law.

Many still feel that way, and yet the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Libya — and even Syria and strikes in far-off places like Somalia and Niger — come with some certificate of approval by others, just to be sure.

Trump, like any American president, has the right to drop a bomb anywhere at any time in the interest of national security, according to legal precedent, at least until that 60-day War Powers rule kicks in. But if Washington chooses when and where it wants to violate those rules, then, the argument goes, so can Moscow. So can Beijing. So can Pyongyang. So can Tehran. The place to solve crises with dictators is supposed to be at the United Nations and the Security Council. Or at world summits. Maybe the International Criminal Court. Or ballot boxes.

Trump is not a world leader who follows precedent. With the Soleimani assasination, Trump has ignored an unwritten rule meant to keep the world safer from political assassinations that lead to world wars. He broke a rule meant to keep him safer. In targeting his rival, Trump has made himself a target.
article-end.png


  • Kevin Baron is the founding executive editor of Defense One. Baron has lived in Washington for 20 years, covering international affairs, the military, the Pentagon, Congress, and politics for Foreign Policy, National Journal, Stars and Stripes, and the Boston Globe, where he ran investigative ... Full bio
 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru
Muqtada al Sadr reactivates Mahdi Army, Promised Day Brigade
BY BILL ROGGIO AND CALEB WEISS | January 3, 2020 | bill.roggio@longwarjournal.org


In the wake of the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani and important militia leader Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr has reactivated two of his longstanding militia forces in Iraq.

In his statement released online, Sadr says that “As an official of the great Iraqi national resistance, I order the mujahideen, particularly the Mahdi Army and the Promised Day Brigade, and whoever commands of us of the resistance factions, to be ready to fully protect Iraq.”

While offering his condolences to the Iranian government for the death of Soleimani, Sadr’s statement does not explicitly mention any revenge attacks against the U.S.

Sadr has worked hard to bolster his image as a Shia leader who is independent of Iran. Yet Sadr’s Mahdi Army is known to have received direct support from Soleimani and Qods Force. Sadr, aided by Qods Force, has fled to Iran multiple times after feeling threatened by the U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Even though Sadr has ordered the reactivation of the militias, it is not entirely accurate that the two have ceased operations. Sadr’s current militia, Saraya al Salam, or the Peace Companies, directly formed from the Mahdi Army/Promised Day Brigade network.

Sadr has claimed to have disbanded his militias in the past, only to have them revived in another form. The Mahdi Army was a driving force in the Shia insurgency in Iraq until Sadr claimed to have disbanded it in 2008 after the U.S. and Iraqi military assaulted it in Baghdad and southern Iraq in 2008. Some elements of the Mahdi Army fought under different names, such as Asaib al Haq, which was led by Sadr lieutenant Akram al Kaabi from 2007 to 2010, and Qais al Khazali from 2010 (Kaabi now controls another militia, Harakat al Nujaba, an offshoot of Asaib al Haq).

The core of the supposedly disbanded Mahdi Army became the Promised Day Brigades. It was tasked with targeting U.S. forces only, however it is known to have carried out many of the functions of the Mahdi Army.

Sadr formed Saraya al Salam in 2014 to combat the Islamic State as Iraqi forces in northern, central, and western Iraq disintegrated in its wake. In 2017, Sadr’s propagandist released videos of the deployment of its so-called “Rapid Intervention Brigade” in Salahadin province. Saraya al Salam fighters were driving tanks and other military vehicles.

While Sadr has not explicitly threatened U.S. interests in his recent statement, he has done so in the past. For instance, in 2016, as the militias and Iraqi security forces prepared to retake Mosul from the Islamic State, Sadr threatened to attack U.S. troops with his militia if additional soldiers were deployed to aid in the fight.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal. Caleb Weiss is an intern at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributor to The Long War Journal.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.

Posted for fair use

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Mahdi Army, Muqtada al Sadr, Peace Companies, Popular Mobilization Forces, Promised Day Brigade, Saraya al Salam
 

jward

passin' thru
US to hit ‘actual decision makers’ behind attacks on American targets with ‘lawful strikes’ – Pompeo
5 Jan, 2020 14:36


Washington has apparently decided to further raise the stakes in the already potentially explosive conflict with Iran, with Mike Pompeo saying the US will continue to target the “masterminds” plotting attacks against Americans.
The US will continue to “respond with lawful strikes” targeting “actual decision makers” if it perceives a danger to any American targets, the secretary of state said. The remarks came as he continued to defend the assassination of Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, which was ordered by President Donald Trump.

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Brand new beautiful equipment’ heading Iran’s way to hit harder ‘than ever before’: Trump goes hyperbolic on Twitter
Pompeo maintained that Washington had “all the authority” to do what it had done, but added that the White House would keep Congress informed about developments in the Middle East from now on. His view on the “legality” of the American strikes on Iraqi soil was clearly not shared by Baghdad, which even filed a formal complaint over the incident with the UN secretary general and the UN Security Council.

He also argued that the killing of Soleimani, which sent shockwaves across both Iran and Iraq, with thousands of people hitting the streets to mourn the slain general and condemn the measures taken by the US, was still the best course of action.
"The intelligence assessment made clear that no action - allowing Soleimani to continue his plotting and his planning, his terror campaign - created more risk than taking the action that we took last week," the state secretary told ABC’s ‘This Week’.
In an apparent attempt to calm things down a bit, Pompeo also said that he had “no doubt” the Iranian leadership “understands” Trump’s view of the situation and “gets the message clearly.” So far, however, the attack has only raised hostilities between Washington and Tehran to a whole new level.

ALSO ON RT.COM'Terrorist in a suit': Iran's information minister strikes back after Trump's Twitter threats
Iran called the American strike “an act of international terrorism” and vowed revenge. Both sides are now trading threats, with a senior commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps claiming that up to 35 “vital” US and Israeli targets are within Iran’s reach, while Trump threatened to strike 52 Iranian sites should Tehran follow up on its revenge plans - adding later that “brand new” American military hardware worth trillions of dollars would head Iran’s way in the event of retaliatory action.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

posted for fair use
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Roadside bomb attack kills five Malian soldiers

Issued on: 06/01/2020 - 16:58Modified: 06/01/2020 - 16:59

Five Malian soldiers were killed Monday in a roadside bomb attack, a government spokesperson said, in the latest violence to hit the West African country’s volatile central region.

The troops were travelling in the region of Alatona, near the border with Mauritania, when their convoy hit a homemade bomb and then came under fire.

Mali has been struggling to contain an Islamist insurgency that erupted in the north in 2012, and which has claimed thousands of military and civilian lives since.

More than 140 Malian soldiers died in jihadist attacks between September and December.

A Malian army refuelling truck that had left the town of Diabaly in the centre of the country hit the bomb early on Monday morning, said a non-commissioned officer who was sent in to reinforce the area.
Les #FAMa ont été victimes le 6 janvier 2020 d'une attaque terroriste à Alatona. une mission d'escorte administrative FAMa est tombée dans une embuscade avec emploi #EEI. Au cours de cette opération 05 FAMa ont trouvé la mort Les FAMa ont en outre enregistré 04 véhicules détruits pic.twitter.com/Trd6xYdLN6
— Forces Armées Maliennes (@FAMa_DIRPA) January 6, 2020
Militants, who were travelling on motorbikes and in cars, also fired on the soldiers.
“There were deaths on our side and on the side of the assailants,” the officer, who requested to remain anonymous, told AFP.

“The reinforcements came in time and we recovered our (dead) bodies and the wounded,” the officer said, adding that he was unaware of the total number of victims.

Four vehicles were destroyed in the ambush, according to government spokesperson Yaya Sangare.

Despite some 4,500 French troops in the Sahel region, plus a 13,000-strong UN peacekeeping force in Mali, the conflict has engulfed the centre of the country and spread to neighbouring Burkina Faso and Niger.

Hiding homemade bombs under well-travelled roads is a frequent means of attack used by jihadists. Otherwise known as improvised explosive devices, they kill and maim scores of victims every year in Mali.

The UN said in October that 110 civilians in Mali had died in roadside bomb attacks during the first six months of 2019.

(AFP)
 

jward

passin' thru
Pentagon awards $1.9B to Lockheed for F-35s

(Tribune News Service) — The U.S. Defense Department office that oversees development of the F-35 Lightning II combat jet has awarded project leader Lockheed Martin a $1.9 billion contract to support and sustain the expanding global F-35 fleet through 2020.

The contract — which is awarded annually but varies in value — finances a range of improvements to Lockheed Martin’s repair and maintenance network, according to company officials. This year, it will pay for advanced engineering work, fleetwide data analytics, pilot and maintainer training, supply chain management resources, and the services of industry sustainment experts at air bases and depots.

“The F-35 continues to deliver exceptional capabilities to the field, and this contract ensures F-35s are mission ready to meet warfighter needs,” said Greg Ulmer, the Lockheed Martin vice president who serves as general manager of the F-35 program. “The joint government and industry team continues to make significant progress improving readiness rates and reducing sustainment costs. … We are confident F-35 sustainment costs will be equal to or less than legacy jets.”

A chunk of the new funding will likely flow to Lockheed’s large network of subcontractors, including East Hartford-based Pratt & Whitney, which builds the F135 propulsion system used in the F-35 and services those engines at facilities around the world.

A lack of readily available spare engine parts has at times kept a sizeable portion of the global F-35 fleet grounded.

Under pressure from the federal government and its international partners to boost deliveries and rein in costs, Lockheed Martin in recent months has hired hundreds of engineers and technicians and stepped up production at its sprawling F-35 assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas. The facility is now churning out planes at the rate of one every three days, at a cost of around $85 million per unit, down from a one-time high of $95 to $100 million.

Lockheed announced this month that it exceeded its annual production quota of F-35s for the third time in 2019. The company had promised the Joint Strike Fighter program 131 aircraft for the year and ultimately delivered 134.

That figure represents a 47 percent increase in output from 2018 and a nearly 200 percent increase from 2016, when the project was lagging seriously behind schedule.

According to Lockheed Martin, more than 490 F-35s have been delivered to the U.S. military and partner nations since 2006. The aircraft is now operating from 21 bases around the globe.

©2020 Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn.
Visit Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn. at www.journalinquirer.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

A lack of readily available spare engine parts has at times kept a sizeable portion of the global F-35 fleet grounded.

Under pressure from the federal government and its international partners to boost deliveries and rein in costs, Lockheed Martin in recent months has hired hundreds of engineers and technicians and stepped up production at its sprawling F-35 assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas. The facility is now churning out planes at the rate of one every three days, at a cost of around $85 million per unit, down from a one-time high of $95 to $100 million.

Lockheed announced this month that it exceeded its annual production quota of F-35s for the third time in 2019. The company had promised the Joint Strike Fighter program 131 aircraft for the year and ultimately delivered 134.

That figure represents a 47 percent increase in output from 2018 and a nearly 200 percent increase from 2016, when the project was lagging seriously behind schedule.

According to Lockheed Martin, more than 490 F-35s have been delivered to the U.S. military and partner nations since 2006. The aircraft is now operating from 21 bases around the globe.

©2020 Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn.
Visit Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn. at www.journalinquirer.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


Posted for fair use

 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru
3 Hours From Alert to Attacks: Inside the Race to Protect U.S. Forces From Iran Strikes
Intelligence that foreshadowed the Iranian attack set off a tense, often confusing afternoon in the White House Situation Room.


WASHINGTON — The alert came to the White House shortly after 2 p.m. on Tuesday, a flash message from American spy agencies that officials sometimes call a “squawk.” In the coming hours, it warned, an Iranian attack on American troops was almost certain.
A blizzard of potential threats had already come throughout the day — of attacks with missiles and rockets, of terrorist strikes against Americans elsewhere in the Middle East, even one warning that hundreds of Iran-backed militia fighters might try to assault Al Asad Air Base, a sprawling compound in Iraq’s western desert.
But the specificity of the afternoon’s latest warning sent Vice President Mike Pence and Robert C. O’Brien, the White House national security adviser, to the basement of the West Wing, where aides were assembling in the Situation Room. President Trump joined shortly after wrapping up a meeting with the Greek prime minister.
Three hours later, a hail of ballistic missiles launched from Iran crashed into two bases in Iraq, including Al Asad, where roughly 1,000 American troops are stationed. The strikes capped a frenetic day filled with confusion and misinformation, where at times it appeared that a dangerous military escalation could lead to a broader war. Mr. Trump spent hours with his aides monitoring the latest threats. Military planners considered options to retaliate if Iran killed American troops.
The early warning provided by intelligence helps explain in part why the missiles exacted a negligible toll, destroying only evacuated aircraft hangars as they slammed into the desert sand in barren stretches of the base. No Americans or Iraqis were killed or wounded, and Mr. Trump, who indicated to advisers he would prefer to avoid further engagement, was relieved.
Afterward, the president and vice president spoke to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, and some urged Mr. Trump to try to dampen the crisis.
This account of the tense hours surrounding Tuesday’s attacks is based on interviews with current and former American officials and military personnel in both Washington and Iraq.
As it turned out, the missile strikes might end up being a bloodless close to the latest chapter in America’s simmering, four-decade conflict with Iran. Mr. Trump declared on Wednesday that Iran “appears to be standing down” after days of heightened tensions since the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, although few who closely follow the dynamics of the United States’ relationship with Iran foresee a peaceful future.
“If this is indeed the sum total of Iran’s response, it is a big signal of de-escalation that we should gratefully receive,” said Kirsten Fontenrose, who handled Middle East issues on the National Security Council earlier in the Trump administration.
Bracing for Retaliation

Hours before officials at the White House and Pentagon arrived at their desks on Tuesday, American troops in Iraq were preparing for Iran’s retaliation to avenge the death of the slain general.
Spy satellites had been tracking the movements of Iran’s arsenal of missile launchers, and communications among Iranian military leaders intercepted by the National Security Agency had indicated that the response to General Suleimani’s killing might come that day.
Al Asad base in Iraq’s Anbar Province was the focus of numerous vague threat reports, including one warning that hundreds of fighters from Kataib Hezbollah, an Iraqi militia trained and equipped by Iran, might launch a frontal assault on the base.
The base was relatively vulnerable; no Patriot antimissile systems protected it, according to an American military official. They had been deployed to other countries in the Middle East deemed more susceptible to Iranian missile attacks. So American commanders prepared to partly evacuate the base and assigned most other remaining forces to hardened shelters to ride out whatever attack would come.
By morning in Washington, the intelligence was still vague enough that White House officials decided to keep Mr. Trump’s planned schedule, including the meeting with the prime minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
Administration officials resumed their defense of General Suleimani’s killing amid increasing criticism that they lacked, or were unwilling to share, the intelligence that they said prompted the strike. At the State Department, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters at a packed news conference that killing General Suleimani “was the right decision.”
Days earlier, he had said the killing had been necessary to prevent “imminent” attacks. On Tuesday morning, he gave a different message, citing the death of an American contractor killed in late December when Iranian-backed Shiite militias fired rockets at a military base in Iraq.
“If you’re looking for imminence, you need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Suleimani,” Mr. Pompeo said.
Hours later, as Mr. Trump met with Mr. Mitsotakis, the White House received the “squawk” alert about a likely missile strike. Mr. Pence and Mr. O’Brien led the initial discussion in the Situation Room about how to confront the threat, assessing the intelligence about the Iranians’ likely targets.
Upstairs inside the Oval Office, Mr. Trump sat beside Mr. Mitsotakis as reporters peppered him with questions about the Iran crisis. The president hedged about threats he had made days earlier that the United States might consider targeting Iranian cultural sites — but he maintained a menacing tone.
“If Iran does anything that they shouldn’t be doing, they’re going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re totally prepared.”
Confusion and Misinformation

After the brief news conference ended, Mr. Trump descended several flights of stairs to the Situation Room.
With sandwiches piled on a sideboard in the room, the group that advised the president in the Situation Room at different times throughout the day included a handful of seasoned national security officials, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, an Army veteran of nearly 40 years; Keith Kellogg, a retired Army lieutenant general who serves as national security adviser to Mr. Pence; and Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence.
It also included Mr. Pompeo, who has become a driving force in the Trump administration’s Iran policy and an advocate of what he often calls “restoring deterrence” against Tehran’s aggression in the Middle East. As a forceful proponent of the Jan. 3 strike that killed General Suleimani, Mr. Pompeo had played an instrumental role in bringing Mr. Trump to the crisis point.
But others around the long, rectangular table in the Situation Room had only modest foreign policy experience — including Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff and a former congressman from South Carolina; and Mr. O’Brien, who was a Los Angeles lawyer before spending two and a half years as Mr. Trump’s chief hostage negotiator and assumed the post of national security adviser in September.
Appearing on a video screen was Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, who was monitoring the crisis from the agency’s headquarters in Northern Virginia. In the days before General Suleimani’s death, Ms. Haspel had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Ms. Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon.
Though Ms. Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Suleimani, officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East.
But at that moment days after his death, the president and his aides were confronting a flurry of conflicting information. Around 4 p.m., reports came in that a training camp north of Baghdad might have been hit. Officials at the White House and the State Department waited anxiously for the Pentagon to provide damage reports about the camp, Taji air base, where American troops are stationed. It was a false alarm, though American officials said on Wednesday that they believed that several missiles fired in the barrage a day earlier were intended for the base.
As the reports about Taji came in, loudspeakers at the American Embassy in Baghdad announced that an attack could be imminent. As they had in the previous days, American and Iraqi personnel inside the compound raced toward bomb shelters.
Roughly one hour later, the first missiles bound for Al Asad streaked over their heads.
A Hail of Missiles

At about 5:30 p.m. in Washington, the Pentagon detected the first of what would be 16 short- and medium-range Fateh 110 and Shahab missiles, fired from three locations inside Iran.
Several slammed into Al Asad but did only minimal damage. They hit a Black Hawk helicopter and a reconnaissance drone, along with parts of the air traffic control tower, according to a military official familiar with a battle damage assessment of the strike.
The attack also destroyed several tents.
Minutes later, a salvo of missiles hit an air base in Erbil, in northern Iraq, which has been a Special Operations hub for hundreds of American and other allied troops, logistics personnel and intelligence specialists throughout the fight against the Islamic State. The damage to that base was unclear, though no personnel were killed or wounded.
Why did the Iran strikes do such little damage? Mr. Trump attributed it to the “precautions taken, the dispersal of forces and an early warning system that worked very well.” A senior American military official dismissed the idea that Iran had intentionally avoided killing American troops by aiming instead for uninhabited parts of the two bases.
Still, American officials acknowledged that Iran’s leaders showed restraint in planning the missile strikes, especially after the fiery talk from Tehran after General Suleimani’s killing.
“We’re receiving some encouraging intelligence that Iran is sending messages to those very same militias not to move against American targets or civilians. And we hope that that message continues to echo,” Mr. Pence said during an interview on Wednesday evening with CBS News.
After the attacks subsided, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence made a round of calls to congressional leaders, and even some of the president’s hawkish allies said that Mr. Trump should be measured in his response to the Iranian strikes.
Recounting his conversation with Mr. Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he told the president, “Let’s just stand down and see what happens for a few days.”
Advisers also discussed whether Mr. Trump should give an address, and several aides, including Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, as well as Mr. Pence, worked on it Wednesday morning in the hours before he spoke on national television. More than a half-dozen drafts circulated, and Mr. Trump made edits right up until he stepped up to the lectern in the Grand Foyer of the White House in the late morning.
Reporting was contributed by Julian E. Barnes, Catie Edmonson, Michael Crowley, John Ismay and Helene Cooper from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.
 

jward

passin' thru
REPORT
Putin Moves to Heighten Russia’s Role After Suleimani Killing
The Kremlin is expected to leap at a chance to further undermine U.S. credibility in the Middle East.
BY REID STANDISH, AMY MACKINNON | JANUARY 8, 2020, 11:44 AM

Russian President Vladimir Putin shaking hands with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani.

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, in Sochi, Russia, on Feb. 14, 2019. SERGEI CHIRIKOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Since its pivotal intervention in the Syrian civil war in 2015, Russia has sought to position itself as a major player in the Middle East, establishing itself as a rare broker that is on good terms with all of the region’s feuding powers.
Now Moscow has a fresh chance to solidify that reputation. Russian President Vladimir Putin will look to boost his country’s standing in the Middle East following the Trump administration’s decision to assassinate the Iranian military leader Qassem Suleimani last week and Iran’s missile attack against U.S. air bases in Iraq on Tuesday, which have roiled the Middle East and pushed Iran and the United States to the brink of war. The escalating situation raises the stakes for Moscow’s calculus in the region significantly, but it also provides Putin with new opportunities to achieve two of his long-standing goals: undermining U.S. credibility and expanding Russia’s footprint across the Middle East.
“Putin sees pushing back against U.S. unilateralism as a personal mission and he is extremely opportunistic. He will therefore seek to capitalize on every opportunity he can to use the assassination of Suleimani and any ensuing instability to tarnish Washington’s reputation in the region,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank who previously served as deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council.

The killing sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity from Moscow. In phone calls with his American, Iranian, Chinese, and Turkish counterparts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the killing and characterized it as a gross violation of international law. On Tuesday, Putin made an impromptu visit to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and shore up Moscow’s patronage.

“The last thing Putin wants is to have to pick a side in the Middle East,” said Anna Borshchevskaya, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington-based think tank. “His best card is as a mediator and I suspect they are in a wait-and-see mode now. If Russia does something major, it will be diplomatically.” The killing of Quds Force leader Suleimani in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad airport on January 3 will likely stress test Moscow’s ability to be a friend to all major players in the region.

On Wednesday, Putin traveled to Istanbul to meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss escalating tensions in the Middle East. Despite not always seeing eye to eye on the future of the region, Erdogan and Putin have managed to cut deals in the past, such as when both leaders agreed to effectively carve up northeastern Syria last year following the Trump administration’s unexpected withdrawal. On Saturday, Putin will welcome German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Moscow for talks about the crisis. Both Russia and Germany are among the countries that have sought to prop up the Iranian nuclear deal following the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018.

The killing of the Quds Force leader Suleimani in a U.S. drone strike at the Baghdad airport on Jan. 3 will likely stress test Moscow’s ability to be a friend to all major players in the region. Russia and Iran have developed deep ties in recent years, working together in Syria to tilt the balance of power in favor of the Assad regime. Despite their shared interests, Moscow has simultaneously pursued deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia, Tehran’s foes, as well as with other players across the region.
“Moscow is trying to play this role as a reliable and stable player in the Middle East and this certainly helps its cause,” said Julia Sveshnikova, a Middle East expert and consultant at the PIR Center, a Moscow think tank. “But Moscow is also very concerned about this situation and will be looking to stay out of the middle East....( Rest behind paywall )

 
Top