*** Accession Day Marks True Aspirations of the People of J&K

By Col Jaibans Singh

26 Oct , 2016

Source Link

October, 26, is celebrated as Accession Day in Jammu and Kashmir, across the country and the world. It was on this day that Maharaja Hari Singh, the last ruler of the state, signed the Instrument of Accession and legally acceded to India under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947.

The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh was no different in content and spirit than what had been signed by other princely states, but due to some misconceptions the then Government of India agreed to conduct a referendum or plebiscite to determine the future of the state. This plebiscite or referendum was to determine the relationship between the state and the Government of India and not the accession of the state to India or Pakistan which was, in any case, legally accomplished in India’s favour by the by the Instrument of Accession.

The very next day on October, 27, the Indian army landed in Srinagar airport and, against great odds, saved the people of Kashmir from large scale massacre, rape, loot and arson in the hands of the mercenary hordes of Kabilies (Tribal’s of the North West Frontier province) sent by Pakistan under the leadership of its army to annex the state.

The Indian troops who fought the war had only the safety and security of the people of Kashmir in mind. They did not know or care about how politics would play out in the long run. Their only concern was to ensure that the barbarians were thrown out in the shortest possible time without causing any further damage. In this, they were singularly successful, but not without paying a heavy price including loss of lives of many soldiers.

United States Should not be Strategically Diverted from Asia Pacific 2016

By Dr Subhash Kapila

26 Oct , 2016

Source Link

The United States stood strategically distracted from Asia Pacific in the last decade resulting in China’s unimpeded militarisation of the South China Sea and the emergence of China as a maritime power—both impinging on stability and credibility of US security architecture.

The United States seems to be once again strategically distracted from the Asia Pacific by Middle East turbulence and now locked in a geopolitical tussle with Russia in Syria and also in Ukraine and Crimea. The United States in doing so seems to be oblivious to the fact that in doing so it is repeating the creation of a security vacuum in the Asia Pacific which China is hopping mad to fill in.

In the21st Century, Asia Pacific security should be the foremost geopolitical and strategic concern of the United States. Simply, because China as a revisionist power amassing exponential military power seems intent to prompt the United States exit from the Western Pacific to begin with so as to limit any possible military intervention by against China by the application of overwhelming massive American naval and air power for close-in offensives on China’s Pacific littoral

China’s military rise still is not in a position to challenge United States status as the global strategically predominant power though China is engaged in reducing the asymmetric differentials of United States military power in the Asia Pacific. As a global power unquestionably, the United States has to shoulder global responsibilities in maintaining security and stability.

However, even the United States has to face the daunting challenge of strategic choices so that US application of force and military resources are best focussed at that global point where United States supremacy is more challenged and not dissipated in penny packets all over the world.

India should not Gloat over a Moderate Tactical Success

By Lt Gen Kamal Davar (Retd)

26 Oct , 2016

Source Link

The last three weeks may not have been historically momentous, as some in the establishment would like us to believe, but certainly India has been in the news, both within and globally, and more for good reasons. The reported surgical strikes conducted by India on September 29, 2016 at seven Pakistani terror-camp locations across the volatile Line of Control (LoC) changed the mood of the nation in one swift master-stroke. That all political parties in India, cutting across party lines, unequivocally feted the Indian Army and the Modi government for this timely initiative to teach a perennially treacherous Pakistan a befitting lesson, showcased to the world Indian unity when confronted with a national challenge. 

However, like any succulent dish, happy tidings have a nasty habit of not lingering for long. With the euphoria of India’s ‘macho’ actions against a terror-exporting Pakistan gradually receding, the mood in India’s agitated political environment is back to its not-so-cordial normal.

Electronic media channels, naturally looking for better TRPs, seemed to exacerbate the eternal political divide by pinning down some political parties with awkward and insolent questions on the parties’ sense of nationalism and their degree of support to the government, as if it is a quantifiable commodity.

Most political outfits seem to have walked into the media trap with the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), chest-thumping themselves as the sole repository of fiery patriotism leaving other political dispensations in the country far behind in self-assessed jingoistic formulations. Anyway, the media does not direct national policies and hence it is time for the nation to leave behind the cacophony of proving one’s patriotism, introspect and seriously plan for the myriad challenges looming ahead.

Why Sectarian Violence Is Resurging in Pakistan

Abdul Basit

October 24, 2016

Source Link

After a decline in scale and casualties, the anti-Shia sectarian violence is once again resurging in Pakistan. In the last two weeks, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) Al-Alami, an anti-Shia extremist outfit, has claimed responsibility for the targeted assassinations of four women of the ethnic Hazara Shia community in Quetta and the attack on a Shia Imambargah in Karachi. Alarmingly, during the same period, two deadly attacks of almost similar modus operandi were witnessed against the Shia worshippers in Afghanistan, one in Kabul and the other in the northern Balkh province. Since 2014, sectarian terrorism—spearheaded by Khurasan chapter of the Islamic State (IS)—has emerged as a new potent threat in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban insurgency.

There are operational linkages between anti-Shia outfits in Karachi, Balochistan, and those operating across the western border. According to reports, the IS-Khurasan assigned the killing of the Hazara women in Quetta to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) Karachi chapter, which then outsourced it to the LeJ-al Alami in Balochistan.

According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal database, Pakistan witnessed a peak in sectarian violence between 2007 and 2013, which left 2,714 people dead in as many as 905 violent incidents. Since then, the sectarian attacks decreased sharply across Pakistan in 2014 and 2015. In these two years, the sectarian incidents and casualties came down to 144 and 484 respectively.

The attack on APS Peshawar in December 2014 was a turning point, which resulted in a slump in sectarian violence in Pakistan. Under the National Action Plan (NAP), Pakistan’s 20-point counter-terrorism strategy, and Zarb-e-Azb operation, Pakistani security forces hit different modules of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi hard in Karachi, Balochistan, Punjab and other parts of the country.

Afghan Military Continues to Be Dependent on U.S. Airpower in Fight Against Resurgent Taliban

W.J. Hennigan

October 24, 2016

Taliban’s deadly onslaught across Afghan provinces draws increased U.S. air power

One after another, American fighter jets and armed drones screech down the runway at this mountain-fringed northern military outpost, launching missions around the clock to support Afghan forces battling militants aligned with Islamic State and the Taliban.

More than 700 U.S. airstrikes have been carried out this year against the militants, twice as many as last year, as Afghan soldiers and police have struggled to contain a perpetual insurgency. 

The ferocity of the fighting, more than 15 years after the U.S.-led military invasion, highlights Afghanistan’s deepening security crisis and unremitting reliance on the United States. The Taliban has waged a campaign of attacks on government-held provincial capitals throughout the country and is expected to continue its assault well into the winter months, beyond what was historically referred to as the “fighting season.”

The Afghan military, riddled with corruption and taking orders from President Ashraf Ghani’s fragile government, lacks intelligence-gathering and other essential capabilities to ward off attacks. As a result, the security forces depend upon American air power and special forces to help them in their fight, two years after President Obama formally ended U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.

In June, the White House authorized changes to restrictions on airstrikes against Taliban and Islamic State targets, which would be hit only as a self-defense measure to protect forces from harm. The new authorization gave U.S. commanders the power to launch a strike if it promises to bring “strategic effects” on the battlefield.

The move widened the air war by expanding the U.S. military’s ability to provide close air support to the Afghans as they maneuver on the battlefield.

Afghan Military Continues to Be Dependent on U.S. Airpower in Fight Against Resurgent Taliban

W.J. Hennigan

October 24, 2016

Taliban’s deadly onslaught across Afghan provinces draws increased U.S. air power

One after another, American fighter jets and armed drones screech down the runway at this mountain-fringed northern military outpost, launching missions around the clock to support Afghan forces battling militants aligned with Islamic State and the Taliban.

More than 700 U.S. airstrikes have been carried out this year against the militants, twice as many as last year, as Afghan soldiers and police have struggled to contain a perpetual insurgency. 

The ferocity of the fighting, more than 15 years after the U.S.-led military invasion, highlights Afghanistan’s deepening security crisis and unremitting reliance on the United States. The Taliban has waged a campaign of attacks on government-held provincial capitals throughout the country and is expected to continue its assault well into the winter months, beyond what was historically referred to as the “fighting season.”

The Afghan military, riddled with corruption and taking orders from President Ashraf Ghani’s fragile government, lacks intelligence-gathering and other essential capabilities to ward off attacks. As a result, the security forces depend upon American air power and special forces to help them in their fight, two years after President Obama formally ended U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.

In June, the White House authorized changes to restrictions on airstrikes against Taliban and Islamic State targets, which would be hit only as a self-defense measure to protect forces from harm. The new authorization gave U.S. commanders the power to launch a strike if it promises to bring “strategic effects” on the battlefield.

Pentagon Metrics on Afghan War are Useless

Shawn Snow

October 22, 2016

Pentagon Metrics on Afghan War are Useless

What is going on in Afghanistan? After 15 years of U.S. and NATO involvement in the war torn country, many of Afghanistan’s cities find themselves surrounded and under siege by a resurgent Taliban force.

The train, advise, and assist mission known as Resolute Support, still contends that Afghan forces are capable of defending major cities and population centers. During a visit to the embattled city of Lashkar Gah, the commander of Resolute Support General Nicholson promised that the provincial capital of Helmand would never fall to the Taliban.

“The Afghan government and security forces are getting stronger each day and eventually they will be able to secure the entire province,” Nicholson said.

On October 11, 400 reinforcements for Afghan forces were spearheaded to the capital to prevent its collapse after a suicide bomber destroyed a police station and Taliban militants briefly entered the city.

In Farah city, Afghan forces continue to struggle against a Taliban onslaught as militants captured the city gateway and threatened to collapse the entire city, despite airstrikes carried out by Afghan forces on Monday that reportedly killed 27 Taliban militants.

Afghan forces are still struggling to push back an attack on Kunduz that occurred last Monday as Taliban forces launched coordinated attacks; and on Tuesdaylocal reports indicate that Gormach district in Faryab province fell to militants as Afghan forces retreated from the area.

The poor performance of Afghan forces despite overtures from the Resolute Support mission that Afghan forces continue to “grow stronger each day” questions the reporting and metrics utilized by coalition forces to highlight strengths and current health of Afghan security forces.

Taliban's deadly onslaught across Afghan provinces draws increased U.S. air power

W.J. Hennigan

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-afghan-20161023-snap-story.html

One after another, American fighter jets and armed drones screech down the runway at this mountain-fringed northern military outpost, launching missions around the clock to support Afghan forces battling militants aligned with Islamic State and the Taliban.

More than 700 U.S. airstrikes have been carried out this year against the militants, twice as many as last year, as Afghan soldiers and police have struggled to contain a perpetual insurgency. 

The ferocity of the fighting, more than 15 years after the U.S.-led military invasion, highlights Afghanistan’s deepening security crisis and unremitting reliance on the United States. The Taliban has waged a campaign of attacks on government-held provincial capitals throughout the country and is expected to continue its assault well into the winter months, beyond what was historically referred to as the “fighting season.”

The Afghan military, riddled with corruption and taking orders from President Ashraf Ghani’s fragile government, lacks intelligence-gathering and other essential capabilities to ward off attacks. As a result, the security forces depend upon American air power and special forces to help them in their fight, two years after President Obama formally ended U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.

In June, the White House authorized changes to restrictions on airstrikes against Taliban and Islamic State targets, which would be hit only as a self-defense measure to protect forces from harm. The new authorization gave U.S. commanders the power to launch a strike if it promises to bring “strategic effects” on the battlefield.

The move widened the air war by expanding the U.S. military's ability to provide close air support to the Afghans as they maneuver on the battlefield.

M-9 Reaper drones, F-16 fighter jets and other aircraft here along the windswept flight line at Bagram have dropped about 1,000 bombs so far this year, according to the U.S. military.

Japan's Master Plan to Defend Itself from China

Kyle Mizokami

October 23, 2016

Source Link

For decades, Tokyo’s plans to defend the homeland were frozen in amber. During the Cold War it was assumed, that in the event of war the Soviet Union would invade the northern one-third of the country. A powerful tank corps to contest a Soviet landing, a strong air force to beat back city-destroying bombers and a strong destroyer force to keep open the sea-lanes would be all that was needed to hold out until the Americans arrived.

The defense plan staggered on after the end of the Cold War like a zombie, even after the evaporation of the Soviet threat, for lack of anything better to plan for. Now the rise of the Chinese military and Beijing’s claims on what Japan calls the Senkaku Islands have Japan reorganizing its forces to face new potential threats to the south.

Sino-Japanese relations were relatively good for decades, even as China’s defense budget grew a solid 10 percent annually for eighteen years. In 2010, Beijing abruptly began to press its claim to what it calls the Diaoyu Islands, also known to Japan as the Senkaku Islands. Suddenly, China’s defense buildup—including Type 071 amphibious ships and a new fleet of destroyers and frigates—began to look a lot more menacing than a nonexistent Soviet Union.

The so-called “Dynamic Defense Plan” is a total turnaround, in practically every way. Instead of the northern island of Hokkaido, Japan’s focus is on the the southern Senkaku and Ryukyu island chains. While the old plan envisioned a tank-heavy defense centered around the Seventh Armored Division, the new plan involves a newly created brigade of rapidly deployable marines.

Are Saudi Arabia's Sovereign Bonds a Game Changer?

Scott B. MacDonald

October 24, 2016

Source Link

October’s $17.5 billion sovereign bond deal launched by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was an emerging-markets record, eclipsing Argentina’s $16.5 billion deal earlier this year. According to the Financial Times, demand for the Saudi deal was well in excess of its size, reaching $67 billion. The size and success of the Saudi deal reflects the increasingly risky nature of global securities markets and has significant geopolitical implications.

International financial markets are dominated by the search for yield. A number of factors are at play: a growing number of people in the West and Japan are trying to retire and tap retirement and pension plans, wages in many advanced economies have stagnated for an extended period, and near-zero or negative-interest-rate policies by major central banks have increasingly penalized savers, pension funds and insurance companies. In the latter case, highly accommodative monetary policy has taken away the option of would-be retirees to generate interest-rate income, which is making many work longer and contributes to social angst, giving impetus to populist political parties and leaders in Europe and the United States.

To find yield, investors are being forced to assume greater risk, a situation that benefits sovereign issuers such as Saudi Arabia. The plunge in oil prices since 2014 has hurt the Middle Eastern country in terms of larger fiscal deficits (over 10 percent of GDP last year), lower export revenues and painful cuts in public expenditures. Yet the kingdom remains solidly investment-grade, continues to have a comparative advantage in pumping cheap oil and has enjoyed a relative degree of political stability. Moreover, a young, well-educated group of royals is implementing long-needed structural reforms to diversify the economy. The new bond issue will add to the country’s rising debt (up from $38 billion in December 2015 to $73 billion in August 2016), but will replenish foreign-exchange reserves and be used to help reforms.

Don't Blame NATO for Libya

Christopher J. Fettweis

October 23, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/dont-blame-nato-libya-18152?page=show

In mid-March 2011, as Libyan government troops were closing in on Benghazi, the de facto capital of the rebellion that had started the month before, NATO decided to act. Its bombardment, which followed votes of support in the Arab League and UN Security Council, turned the tide of war. Seven months later Muammar el-Qaddafi was dead and his regime in tatters. Once this initial intervention came to a close, outsiders seemed to lose interest in the future of Libya. Despite initial optimism, no successor government has been able to unify the country’s various ethnic groups, tribes and fundamentalists. Now, five years after the fall of the tyrant, Libya is one of four failed states in the Arab world, and no end to its suffering is in sight.

Criticism of the two NATO decisions – to intervene and then to leave – has been widespread, reaching from the campaign trail to the pages of elite policy journals. President Obama himself told Chris Wallace of Fox News that the worst mistake he made in office was “failing to plan for the day after” in Libya. Whether by commission or omission, therefore, critics contend that the disasters that followed are largely the fault of the United States and its allies.

A little more thought is warranted before these conclusions are allowed to become conventional wisdom. The low-cost NATO intervention was hardly the disaster that its critics portray; the decisive moments in the destabilization of Libya had already occurred, and the country was unlikely to return easily to the pre-rebellion status quo. More importantly, no amount of post-intervention activity on the part of the West could have produced a better outcome. Rebuilding the Libyan state was not something outsiders could do. 

TURKEY’S SYRIA INTERVENTION: NO GUARANTEE OF EASY VICTORY AT AL-BAB

RAO KOMAR

OCTOBER 24, 2016

Source Link

With all eyes on the Battle of Mosul, fewer observers of the war against ISIL are paying attention to a major anti-ISIL offensive underway in Syria that may soon reach a crescendo. With the capture of the town of Dabiq from ISIL in northern Aleppo, Turkish-backed Syrian rebels taking part in Turkey’s Operation Euphrates Shield have secured a 20-kilometer deep Syrian buffer zone along the Turkish border.

This is a major development in the wide-ranging Syrian war that offers Turkey two immediate benefits: ISIL won’t be able to lob rockets across the border towards the Turkish province of Kilis and ISIL fighters can no longer easily cross the border, making it harder for them to conduct attacks in Turkey and supply themselves from Turkish territory.

This buffer zone offers significant long-term benefits for Turkey as well. It provides ample territory for theresettlement of Syrian refugees and it prevents the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) — an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Turkish based designated foreign terrorist organization — from consolidating its territories along the Turkish border. All of this was accomplished with minimal casualties.

Ankara may be pleased with how this operation has gone so far, but problems are just around the corner. If ISIL chooses to offer serious resistance, Turkey will not have such an easy path to victory as it attempts to take al-Bab, an urban city south of their buffer zone. So far, ISIL has put up little effort in stopping advancing Turkish backed rebel forces, preferring to withdraw after placing mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Satellite imagery and information from key rebel sources on the ground suggest that ISIL has prepared al-Bab for siege.

POLITICAL AIRPOWER, PART I: SAY NO TO THE NO-FLY ZONE

MIKE BENITEZ AND MIKE PIETRUCHA

OCTOBER 21, 2016

http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/political-airpower-part-i-say-no-to-the-no-fly-zone/

There is an old adage about shortcuts: If they worked, they would simply be called “the way.” For military strategy, any shortcuts come with significant penalties. This is applicable across multiple domains, and it is the reason that operational flexibility is valued so highly in conflict. Since before World War II, advocates have trumpeted airpower as a strategic and tactical shortcut — the way to win battles and even wars without the messy complications inherent in the operations of other military arms. After the rise of airpower in World War II, it was invigorated by the lopsided victory in 1991’s Operation Desert Storm and propagated through repeated limited military air-centric actions. These conflicts reinforced the notion that airpower is the solution to all military challenges overseas. The problem with this view is that it is not supported by a century of evidence. Although airpower can prove decisive and has even been used as the primary method of settling conflicts, airpower is not the one-size-fits-all solution its most fervent proponentsmake it out to be. Air campaigns, just like naval and ground campaigns, must be carefully tailored to political and military objectives, the adversary, the environment, and the prevailing conditions. Over the last 25 years, there has been an evolving political infatuation with two pillars of “political airpower”: airstrikes and no-fly zones. While each can be effective, neither is a shortcut around a need for a comprehensive strategy — both are merely elements of one.

The Rise of Limited Intervention

In Korea, airpower played a valuable supporting role, particularly when ground forces were rocked back on their heels by major communist assaults. In Vietnam, airpower became a visible element of a strategy intended to apply gradually increasing force — the creeping incrementalism of Operation Rolling Thunder. Despite poor effectiveness when used this way, combat airpower evolved into the presidential choice of military force du jour, used in Cambodia, Libya, Panama, Lebanon, and Grenada in the 15 years after the fall of Saigon. Airpower application demonstrated political will while minimizing risk and masquerading as a strategy. In many ways, airpower changed the flavor of U.S. limited intervention from gunboats and marines to fighters and precision weapons.

Pentagon Expects Mosul Push to Unlock Trove of ISIS Intelligence

Eric Schmitt

October 23, 2016

Pentagon Expects Mosul Push to Unlock Trove of ISIS Intelligence

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is sending dozens of additional intelligence analysts to Iraq to pore over a trove of information that is expected to be recovered in the offensive to recapture Mosul from the Islamic State, data that could offer new clues about possible terrorist attacks in Europe.

The analysts will have several immediate priorities: Share with the Iraqi military any information crucial to the unfolding fight in Mosul; pass along insights useful to American officials planning an attack on Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital in eastern Syria; hunt for clues about the location of the group’s shadowy leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and search for any information about terrorist cells in Europe and any attacks they may be plotting.

Maj. Gen. Gary J. Volesky, the commander of American ground forces in Iraq, has called Mosul the Islamic State’s Iraqi “crown jewel.” Noting that the militants had been entrenched there for more than two years, he added on Wednesday, “Clearly, there’s going to be intelligence that will be able to be exploited.”

European intelligence and counterterrorism officials said they were eagerly awaiting data gleaned from computer hard drives, cellphones, recruiting files and other sources after Iraqi forces advance into the city in coming weeks. These officials fear an influx of foreign fighters fleeing the campaigns against Mosul and Raqqa.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Iraqi forces advance near Mosul as ISIS attacks western town

October 23, 2016

Iraqi forces advance near Mosul as IS attacks western town

KHAZER, Iraq (AP) – Iraqi and Kurdish forces advanced on a town near Mosul on Sunday as part of an operation to retake the northern city from the Islamic State group, which staged an assault in western Iraq that appeared to be another diversionary attack.

The Kurdish forces, known as peshmerga, said they launched a dawn offensive on two fronts to the northeast of Mosul, near the town of Bashiqa.

Maj. Gen. Haider Fadhil, of Iraq’s special forces, said they had also launched an assault on Bashiqa, surrounding it and seizing parts of the town. He said the Kurds had captured two villages near Bashiqa and a small Shiite shrine in the area.

Over the last week, Iraqi and Kurdish forces have been battling IS in a belt of mostly uninhabited towns and villages around Mosul, contending with roadside bombs, snipers and suicide truck bombs.

In western Iraq, IS militants stormed into the town of Rutba, unleashing three suicide car bombs that were blown up before hitting their targets, according to the spokesman for the Joint Military Command, Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasool.

He said some militants were killed, without giving an exact figure, and declined to say whether any civilians or Iraqi forces were killed. He said the militants did not seize any government buildings and that the situation “is under control.”

IS carried out a large assault on the northern city of Kirkuk on Friday, in which more than 50 militants stormed government compounds and other targets, setting off more than 24 hours of heavy fighting and killing at least 80 people, mainly security forces.

The IS-run Aamaq news agency had earlier said militants stormed the town from several directions.

Iraqi Christians Narrowly Escape ISIS

DANNY GOLD

10.24.16 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/24/iraqi-christians-narrowly-escape-isis.html

Erbil, Iraq — Monaly Najeeb and the other young women were hiding under their beds when they heard the ISIS fighters enter their house. Machine gun fire had woken them up around 4 a.m. that morning, and they had spent hours huddling in fear, trying to keep quiet and silently praying that the militants wouldn’t enter their house as firefights continued right outside their door.

Now, as the men entered the kitchen that shared a wall with the room where she hid, all Monaly could do was hope that her cell phone wouldn’t make noise. The fighters were rummaging through the kitchen, eating, she thought, based on the noises. Soon, though, the militants left the kitchen and entered the room where Monaly and six other young women were hiding. An ISIS fighter than sat down, directly on top of the bed she hid underneath.

On Friday, ISIS militants launched a daring raid in the city of Kirkuk, located 90 miles from Mosul where coalition and Iraqi forces had just this week launched the biggest operation yet in the fight against ISIS. As ISIS began losing wide swathes of territory, they deployed a familiar tactic: focusing their attention on a more vulnerable area far from the main battles. Kirkuk, a bit far from Mosul but close enough to a smaller ISIS stronghold in the nearby city of Hawija, had been a target before for spectacular attacks. 

ISIS fighters fanned out at different points across the city. Estimates put the number involved between 70 and 100, although Kirkuk governor Dr. Najmaldin Karim told local media that as of Sunday, 74 bodies of ISIS militants had been recovered.

The Islamic State After Mosul

By HASSAN HASSAN
OCT. 24, 2016
Source Link

An oil field was set on fire Friday by retreating Islamic State fighters in Qayyarah, Iraq. CreditCarl Court/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — As an alliance of Iraqi and Kurdish forces pushes to retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State, there should be no doubt about what the group plans to do next. It will fight to the bitter end to defend its most populous and symbolic stronghold. After all, it was in Mosul that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — the city’s leader for two years before he became the Islamic State’s leader in 2010 — declared a caliphate from the pulpit of an iconic 12th-century mosque.

If the Islamic State loses Mosul, the group has a clearly articulated contingency plan, a strategy it has frequently broadcast on multiple platforms for the past five months: inhiyaz, or temporary retreat, into the desert.

The word “inhiyaz” appeared in May, in the last speech delivered by Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the group’s spokesman who was killed by an American airstrike in August. Mr. Adnani explained that territorial losses did not mean defeat and that militants would fight until the end and then retreat to the desert, preparing for a comeback, just as they did between 2007 and 2013.

Various Islamic State outlets picked up the theme. Al-Naba, the group’s newsletter, ran an article about the subject in August, recalling how the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq, the Islamic State’s predecessor, survived after they were driven out of Iraqi cities following the 2007 American troop surge and the tribal insurrection known as the Awakening.

While most militants retreated, according to the article, dozens of operatives remained to fom

As Racism Spreads And Economic Woes Increase, Is Tide Turning Against Brexit? – OpEd

BY ANDY WORTHINGTON 

OCTOBER 25, 2016

Source Link

On the face of it, only a little, but beneath the surface all is not right with the Brexit camp, as Britain — or perhaps, particularly, England — has settled into some horrible racist reality that ought to alarm all decent human beings. This week, as child refugees with relatives in the UK were finally allowed into the country after months languishing in the refugee camp in Calais (the so-called “Jungle”) because the government, up to that point, had done nothing, the response of our disgusting right-wing tabloid newspapers — the Mail, the Sun, the Express, the Star — was to claim that they were not children (I was reminded of Donald Rumsfeld and Chief of Staff Richard Myers claiming that the children held at Guantánamo were not children).

Then the disgusting ordinary racists of Britain got involved — the seemingly countless numbers of people empowered since the referendum result to be even more openly racist than previously, and, of course, those who, for many years now, have been exulting in their power to write whatever filth they want on social media, up to and including death threats, and mostly to get away with it.

Two particular targets of the online trolls were the singer Lily Allen, who had been reduced to tears after visiting the Calais refugee camp, and had apologised “on behalf of England”, and footballing hero and Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker, who so appalled by the media witch hunt and support for it that he tweeted, “The treatment by some towards these young refugees is hideously racist and utterly heartless. What’s happening to our country?” and then faced calls for him be sacked, which he fought back against admirably, His best response, I thought, was, “Getting a bit of a spanking today, but things could be worse: Imagine, just for a second, being a refugee having to flee from your home.”

In another tweet, Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk summed up the shameful racist position succinctly. “What we’re witnessing in coverage of Lily Allen and Gary Lineker,” he wrote, “is an attempt to make compassion towards refugees socially unacceptable.”

Does America Need Rodrigo Duterte?

Doug Bandow

October 24, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-rodrigo-duterte-18170?page=show

America’s alliance structure in Europe and Asia dates back more than six decades. A few of the smaller, less viable organizations collapsed (CENTO, SEATO), but since the end of the Cold War, Washington has expanded rather than contracted its treaty obligations. That includes in the Philippines, which two years ago approved a new agreement providing the U.S. military with bases and joining in exercises.

Now this alliance might finally be coming to an end.

No one knows what Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte will do next. He makes Donald Trump look like a deep thinker of notable civility and stability. Nevertheless, after spending the last month trashing President Barack Obama, the United States and the U.S.-Philippine relationship, Duterte announced he’d joined the opposing team while visiting Beijing.

America’s relationship with the Philippines always has been complicated. Americans arrived claiming to be liberators, ready to free the archipelago from its Spanish masters. Then Washington used even greater violence to suppress an indigenous independence movement. Several hundred thousand Filipinos died in the ensuing conflict.

Nevertheless, Washington eventually released its colony, and the two peoples fought together in World War II. Although the Philippine government was a model of how not to operate, military ties remained close, reflecting the 1951 “mutual” defense treaty as well as ongoing U.S. troop presence. Eventually rising nationalism, along with an ill-timed volcanic eruption, resulted in the closure of Clark Air Base and Subic Bay naval station.

Was North Korea Ready to Invade the South in 1983?

Edward Chang

October 24, 2016

Source Link

The stand-off between the United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) versus the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) can be traced, in part, back to the events of 1993 to 1994, when concern over North Korea’s nuclear program became front and center. After North Korea refused to cooperate with international inspections and threatened to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States and South Korea answered with threats of military action. A confrontation ensued and both sides braced for a resumption of Korean War, which originally began in 1950.

It took an eleventh-hour visit to Pyongyang by former President Jimmy Carter in June 1994 to bring dictator Kim Il-sung back to the negotiating table and defuse what had suddenly become a very dangerous situation. Carter’s diplomacy set the stage for the Agreed Framework, which afforded the North economic aid and the construction of two nuclear power plants for civilian usage in exchange for the cessation of its nuclear weapons program. Despite some successful implementation of the commitment, the Agreed Framework eventually broke down in 2003.

1994 might have been the closest in recent times that the United States, South Korea and North Korea came to resuming the Korean War. But over a decade earlier, the three countries might have come as close – maybe closer – if not for a twist of fate that spared one man’s life.

On October 9, 1983, a bomb exploded at the Martyr’s Mausoleum in Rangoon, the capital of Burma. As part of an official visit to the country, then-Republic of Korea President Chun Doo-hwan had been scheduled to visit the mausoleum to pay respects to Aung San, one of the founders of Burma. The results were devastating – 21 dead, 46 injured. Among the dead were prominent members of the South Korean government, including the deputy prime minister and foreign minister. Fortunately, the South Korean president survived.

Syria Is Not Ukraine

Mykola Murskyj

October 24, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/syria-not-ukraine-18168

Seen from the red-brick towers of the Kremlin, Syria and Ukraine look very different. But as the wars in both countries continue to drag on, some in the West have become accustomed to lumping Russia’s two interventions together. After all, Russia seeks a sphere of influence that includes both countries. However, its actions and motivations in Syria and Ukraine are vastly different, and confusing them runs the risk of derailing possible solutions.

Russia fueled a conflict in the Donbass and annexed Crimea as a matter of principle: the Kremlin believes that Ukraine rightly belongs within its sphere of influence. Ukraine, on the other hand, sees its European aspirations as part of its slow crawl out from under the yoke of its colonial oppressor. Russia has politically dominated Ukraine since the early 1700s, with only a brief break after World War I. For three hundred years, the two countries’ cultural and political leaders have operated in both spaces. Leonid Brezhnev was Ukrainian. In today’s Kiev, you’d be hard-pressed to find a TV or radio show on which the speakers don’t frequently switch languages between Ukrainian and Russian, sometimes mid-sentence. So President Vladimir Putin has difficulty imagining that a country so similar to his own might prefer a European future.

Crimea is particularly close to the hearts of many Russians. When it was still part of the Russian SSR, Joseph Stalin deported all 230,000 of the peninsula’s indigenous Sunni Muslims, the Crimean Tatars, in order to make room for Russian settlers. In commemoration of the three hundredth anniversary of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, Nikita Khrushchev transferred the Crimean Peninsula from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR. After independence, many Crimean Tatars returned and were granted the right of self-government by Kiev. All that changed after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014. After two years of mounting persecution of Crimean Tatars, this past April the Russian authorities declared the Tatar Mejlis, or parliament, an extremist organization. Russians, however, feel that the annexation of Crimea corrects Khrushchev’s mistake, and “Crimea is Ours” has become an important rallying slogan from Novgorod to Vladivostok.

Evan McMullin: Why I'm Running For President

Evan McMullin

October 24, 2016

Source Link

I am running for president because I believe that settling for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Just a few months ago, I was still one of millions of voters who refused to accept the depressing choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom is fit to serve as commander-and-chief. Like all those others, I was waiting for a true leader to stand up and give Americans a better choice. No one did.

As the deadlines for ballot access approached, I said that I would stand up, even if I had no national reputation, no personal fortune, and no party behind me. Now voters in 43 states can cast their votes on my behalf. My name is on the ballot in eleven states and I am eligible as a write-in in the others. Now, in what little time remains before Election Day, I have to let voters know who I am and what I stand for.

The answer to those questions begins with my family, which came to America in search of greater freedom and economic opportunity

My family came to America in search of greater freedom and economic opportunity. On my father’s side, the McMullins left Ireland in the 1600s to settle in what would become Massachusetts. Later they would cross the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains to seek a better life and the freedom to worship. The story of my family’s search for liberty is the prism through which I see America’s role in the world.

Of course, my family’s story is hardly unique. The same values of liberty and equality that brought my ancestors to America inspire billions—and not just those who immigrate here, but all those around the world who look toward to the United States as an example. Although far from perfect, we are a unique force for good in the world. That is why so many other countries welcome our protection rather than fearing our power.

POLITICS, POPULATION, AND HYDROCARBONS: PREPARING FOR MOSUL’S AFTERMATH

H. AKIN ÜNVER

OCTOBER 25, 2016

Source Link

“At once ride for Mosul. The Kurds are devouring one another like wolves. This must be stopped”

-Written order by Tahsin Pasha, Ottoman Principal Palace Secretary to Ebubekir Hazim Bey, the newly appointed Vali to Mosul, 1898.

By 1897, the feud between various Kurdish tribes of the Ottoman vilayet of Mosul had reached a troubling enough level that the palace decided replace the vali (governor) of the province. The Kurdish Artusiyah, Owramarah and Kahariyeh tribes were locked in a war over eminence. The chieftain of the Artusiyah tribe – Haji Agha – was a regimental commander within the Hamidiye cavalry irregulars, endorsed directly by Sultan Abdulhamid II to provide security in eastern Anatolia. In the sultan’s view, his own commanders were incompetent and not up to the task. While the logic of the Hamidiye regiments was to create a new source of rural power (mostly against Armenians), it destabilized the existing balance of power between Kurdish tribes themselves, deepening rifts between tthem. With the balance of power between Kurdish tribes — as well as Kurdish religious leaders (sheiks) and tribal leaders (agas) — disrupted, the Sublime Porte had to intervene.

Local Ottoman officials and military commanders watched warily as disorder spread even further. However, they had to be careful when intervening in tribal conflicts that involved Hamidiye regiment chieftains. If they punished these leaders, they could face the wrath of the sultan himself who was loathe to compromise a force he saw as necessary to counterbalance against the Armenians. The imperial administration’s inability to contain the feud of the Kurdish tribes around Mosul intensified and generated sufficient disdain against the empire that later on, British and Russian involvement in the region became strategically easier through playing these existing rivalries against the Ottoman state and against each other. The fact that the Ottomans had ruled the area for more than 400 years did not insulate them from the tribal troubles of Mosul and the wider regional-strategic problems brought by the city’s instability.

Perhaps predictably, the newly appointed governor Ebubekir Hazim bey would fail in bringing order to Mosul’s hinterland. He was replaced, and his successors were proved to be more ambitious or more heavy-handed. Under their leadership, the Ottoman administration became even more deeply entangled in tribal, sectarian and ethnic feuds and often conflicting administrative orders.

BRITAIN AND THE FATE OF THE EUROPE WE KNOW

LUIS SIMON

OCTOBER 24, 2016

http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/britain-and-the-fate-of-the-europe-we-know/

Theresa May’s announcement to formally invoke Brexit before March 2017 has set the table for what promises to be a long, protracted discussion between Britain and the European Union on the terms of their upcoming divorce and the foundations of their future relationship. Most continental European leaders insist on the need to dissociate those two questions and argue that the divorce must be formalized before any speculation on the future course of the relationship. May’s response is that an informal, exploratory conversation about the future could help smooth divorce settlement talks. Both positions seem to be driven by a negotiation logic in that the two parties want to exploit whatever leverage they feel they have and box the other into a corner. In other words, both Britain and its continental partners seem to think that this isn’t the time for musing about how much they need each other, but rather that it is the time to talk tough and appear uncompromising.

Any sort of analysis or prediction on the possible winners and losers of Brexit must be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. Everyone is in the dark. The upcoming negotiations will likely be mediated by domestic politics. Emotions may well end up clouding any inkling of a political vision or strategy on either side of the channel. As such, those same uncompromising but largely instrumental narratives and tactics could very well harden and develop a life of their own. That would make it seemingly difficult for the two parties to talk when the time comes — and come it will. David Cameron and his team experienced similar dynamics during their own Brexit gamble. The former prime minister’s public criticism of the European Union over the years, combined with his repeated assurances to the British public that he had yet to make up his own mind on a future in-or-out referendum, ended up undermining his case for remainwhen the chips fell down.