Sri Lanka: A New Base for ISI against India?

N Manoharan 

http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/sri-lanka-a-new-base-for-isi-against-india-4665.html 

The recent arrest of Sri Lankan national Arun Selvarajan in Chennai by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for spying on behalf of Pakistan’s ISI is concerning. He is the third Sri Lankan arrested for spying in the past over one year. Earlier, two Sri Lankan Muslims (Mohammed Sakir Hussain and Suleman Hussain) and an Indian (Thameen Ansari) were apprehended on similar charges. The arrestees confessed that their handlers were agents posted at Pakistani High Commission based in Colombo. Previously, it was Amir Zubair Siddiqui, who was posted as visa counsellor, and later it was Haji alias Siraj Ali.

Sri Lanka and the ISI

Sri Lanka may not be conniving with Pakistan against India, but is being used as a base by the ISI. Sri Lanka never allowed its territory for any anti-India activities and the ISI operations may be happening without Colombo’s knowledge. 

Why Sri Lanka has been chosen as a base by the ISI? Why are the Sri Lankans citizens involved? What is the purpose behind the Colombo module? What is the state of counter-intelligence capability of India? 

The ISI has been operating from some of the neighbouring countries of India like Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar and even Maldives. The southern front of India remained unpenetrated for quite some time. Sri Lanka could be the best base to do that for two specific reasons: 

• Given the proximity and similarity of language and appearance, Sri Lankan Tamils and Sri Lankan Muslims, who also speak Tamil, would not find it difficult to reach Tamil Nadu and mix-up with the local population. Presence of large number of Sri Lankan refugees is yet another facilitating aspect. 

• Pakistan’s activities in Sri Lanka have not been seen with suspicion by the security establishment of the island state. Sri Lanka-Pakistan relations have been good without any irritants. Sri Lanka is ever grateful to Pakistan for all the military support during the Eelam War. In addition, when Sri Lanka was hauled by the international community for human rights excesses during that War, Islamabad rendered unstinted diplomatic support.

ISI and the Involvement of Sri Lankan Citizens

There are various reasons for the involvement of Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims in the spy ring. The primary motivation is financial. Unemployed youth are easy targets. There is a theory that argues that part of the reason for the involvement of Sri Lankan Muslims in ISI’s spy network is their increasing radicalisation. But, the theory may explain if they are involved in spying western targets based in India, but not acting against Indian targets.

Maritime Piracy Continuing to Decline Off Somalia, But Rising Off the Nigerian Coast

Maritime Piracy Threatens Some Parts of African Coast

Government Accountability Office )GAO)

Arghh, matey! September 19 may be International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but modern pirates continue to threaten commercial shipping lanes and fishing boats, particularly along the coasts of Africa. In 2014, we assessed the problem of piracy and the U.S. role in counterpiracy efforts off the Horn of Africa and in the Gulf of Guinea.

(The above interactive graphics from GAO-14-422 represent the Gulf of Guinea and Horn of Africa regions on Africa’s west and east coasts. To interact with the graphics, download the pdf version of the report).

Piracy Declining in East Africa

Incidents of piracy, including robbery, kidnapping, and hijacking, have declined overall off the Horn of Africa and the coast of Somalia in East Africa after reaching unprecedented levels in 2008. In 2010, we reported on counterpiracy efforts in the region (listen to our 2010 podcast for more details).

While reports of piracy incidents off the Horn of Africa increased steadily from 2008 to 2011, they sharply declined after that point, according to the International Maritime Bureau. Vessels and companies operating in the area reported 235 piracy incidents in 2011, but only 15 in 2013.

Inside the Mind of an ISIS Jihadi

Jamie Dettmer

09.21.14 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/21/inside-the-mind-of-an-isis-jihadi.html 

An FBI profiler and other experts talk about the psychopaths and the deluded young Westerners who join the savage army of the so-called “caliphate.” 

Some take videos of themselves burning their Western passports. They say they don’t care if they are stripped of their British or French citizenship. They boast of enslaving Christian and Yazidi women. They decapitate those men deemed foes of their faith and celebrate the gore online holding up the severed heads. One group of British-born recruits to the so-called “Islamic State” has killed two Americans and one of their own countrymen. They are now threatening to execute another. 

Is it too much to say that this Al Qaeda breakaway widely known as ISIS or ISIL is really just a collection of serial killers? A vast gang of psychopaths? Certainly that's not the whole explanation for the group’s singular place, so recently and quickly acquired, in this century’s annals of terrorism. But, for sure, it is part of the picture. 

For the British-Pakistanis who participated in the horrific beheadings seen round the world there are feelings of reckless exhilaration, according to former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole. They are likely to be very full of themselves just now: “They have been cultivated to feel important, and taking on the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain in such an aggressive way will fuel that sense of importance.” 

For U.S. and European leaders the flow of Western recruits prompts fears of blowback. In explaining his reasons for intervening, President Barack Obama warned Americans starkly that these murderers “could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.” 

And the recruits themselves are eager to fuel those fears, baiting and raging at the West on their social media accounts and urging those like-minded militants who have not undertaken the hijrah (religious migration) to the “caliphate” to mount “lone-wolf” attacks back home. Or in the words of Aqsa Mahmood, a 20-year-old Glaswegian woman jihadist, “If you cannot make it to the battlefield, then bring the battlefield to yourself.” 

Intelligence analysts estimate, roughly, that here are some 3,000 Western recruits in the ISIS ranks, including some 200 women. But the analysts are not confident at all about estimates of how many of those 3,000 veterans of the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields might bring their violence back to the streets Western Europe or the United States. A Norwegian study found that between 1990 and 2010 one in nine Western militants who fought overseas subsequently became domestic terrorists. Former FBI agent Martin Reardon cautions that “if only a few of them morph from being foreign fighters into terrorists, that will be a big challenge.” 

It’s conceivable the alarm about Western recruits is misplaced -- at least in the short term. Researchers at the Middle East Media Research Institute, a U.S.-based non-profit that monitors jihadists, argue in a study of the organization's official writings and speeches that its program differs from al Qaeda. “Unlike Al Qaeda, the IS places priority not on global terrorism, but rather on establishing and consolidating a state, and hence it defers the clash with the West to a much later stage.” 

U.S. Training Kurdish Forces on New Heavy Weaponry and Passing More Intelligence Info on ISIS

Joe Parkinson and Dion Nissenbaum

September 22, 2014

U.S., Allies Training Kurds on Using Sophisticated Weaponry Against Islamic State

ERBIL, Iraq—The U.S. military and its allies have launched an urgent effort to train Kurdish forces to use sophisticated weapons that the West is expected to supply in the coming months for a stepped up counteroffensive against the extremist group Islamic State.

For the past month, American, British and French advisers have been training fighters from the semiautonomous Kurdistan region in battlefield techniques at military bases across northern Iraq.

The conflict with Islamic State insurgents has laid bare the weaknesses of the forces known as Peshmerga, who not only lack military hardware but also have a strategic deficiency. Steeped in guerrilla warfare, the forces have little experience defending long front lines or fighting in urban environments, Kurdish officials said. 

One goal of the broader U.S.-led training program is to transform the Peshmerga from an irregular force into a more organized one that can more effectively fight Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

"Training is welcome but we need it to expand," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, politburo member of the Kurdistan Union Party. "The problem is that we have a heritage as a guerrilla force, but we need to learn how to control cities and to fight ISIS."

The narrowly tailored training program, detailed in interviews with The Wall Street Journal, is an example of how the U.S.-led alliance against Islamic State insurgents is already at work on the ground. It involves dozens of advisers from a growing number of Western allies.

It is the cornerstone of a campaign to train Kurdish forces expected to serve as the international coalition’s front-line proxy force so the U.S. doesn’t have to send in American ground forces to confront Islamic State fighters.

Five ways ISIS, al Qaeda differ

By Kristina Wong

09/20/14 

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218387-five-ways-isis-is-different-than-al-qaeda

The Obama administration is targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) under the same authority it is using to target al Qaeda, arguing that the ISIS is an “associated force” of al Qaeda since ISIS used to be al Qaeda in Iraq. 

But al Qaeda disowned ISIS earlier this year, and both Democratic and Republican lawmakers say using the 2001 AUMF against ISIS is a stretch.

Here’s a look at five critical differences between al Qaeda and the new threat of ISIS.

Structure

ISIS is fighting more like a conventional army than al Qaeda ever did.

It has seized territory and declared a caliphate in northern Syria and Iraq. ISIS is also employing more conventional military tactics, using assault rifles and grenades.

Al Qaeda has not sought to hold on to territory as much as it has been focused on carrying out spectacular attacks that would seize attention from international media. Since the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon it has continued to carry out high-profile, complex attacks, such as last year’s assault on the Westgate Mall in Kenya. 

Al Qaeda also wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate, but it has taken a long-term approach, and has discouraged affiliates from going out and doing so.

This is also one of the major reasons why al Qaeda disowned ISIS — it wanted ISIS to wait on establishing a caliphate.

Brutality

Can America Save the World Order?

By James R. Holmes

September 21, 2014

Kissinger says the current world order is under threat. To rebuild it the US must first rebuild itself. 

There’s an old joke among professors. Asked whether he’s read a certain book, the oldtimer replies, “Read it? I haven’t even reviewed it yet!”

The Naval Diplomat hasn’t read Henry Kissinger’snew book World Order yet. Nor will I presume to review it. What I will presume to do is offer some thoughts dredged up by the synopsis he ran in the Wall Street Journal shortly before the book debuted. As befits someone who also published a book with World Order in the title — though without Kissinger’s sales, damn his eyes — I riffed on some of these same themes this week while presenting my ultrasecret anti-China battle plan to the shadowy figures overseeing U.S. strategy in the Pacific.

For Kissinger the bottom line seems to be that the United States should accept that its vision of a law-based international order commands grudging support at best in parts of the world. This runs contrary to traditional ways of thinking. Over a century ago, for instance, Theodore Roosevelt implored advanced nations to exercise an “international police power.” They should keep order in their environs while shepherding developing nations into the advanced world. Franklin Roosevelt envisioned “Four Policemen” during the closing stages of World War II. FDR, that is, hoped the victors would act as international lawmen. And indeed, the Big Four — the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China, joined by liberated France — became the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

Council members supposedly combined enlightenment with material power, furthering the common purposes codified in the UN Charter. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? But the Roosevelts and kindred world-order enthusiasts assumed that international lawmen would enforce a common body of laws. Deadlock in the Security Council has been commonplace since the United Nations’ inception at San Francisco. What if the forefathers of world order were wrong? What if each great power entertains a different worldview? If so, what happens at the seams between jurisdictions, what happens when police quarrel over where jurisdictional boundaries lie, and what happens when one policemen meddles in another’s precinct?

Trouble. This seems to be the trouble Kissinger is grappling with. He reminds us that China, India, Russia have their own traditions and histories. Dissimilar origins begat distinct views about what rules and precepts should govern the international system. They went along to get along after World War II, when the United States fabricated the current system of international law and institutions. Some among them, though, never grokkedthe Western-derived ruleset. It was an import, commanding middling allegiance at best. Notes Kissinger, “vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order.”

They need no longer acquiesce. New strategic vistas are opening before these nations as they amass great power. Economic growth gives rise to military power and political clout. Ambitions often swell as power does. Newly ascendant, newly confident powers, accordingly, may well try to enact rulesets of their own in their near abroads — if not beyond.

The Guardian view on the Scottish referendum: a big moment that demands a big response

When 45% of your citizens tell you they want out, they are saying that the system needs changing, as it must be and will be 

Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond says he will step down in November, following the country's vote against independence. Photograph: AFP Photo/The Scottish government

Scotland’s historic verdict was clear and decisive. So much so that, within hours, it toppled the man who has dominated Scottish politics for a decade. By 55% to 45%, a larger margin than polls had implied, Scots looked independence squarely in the eye on Thursday and said no. Most parts of Scotland voted no. The no side won 28 out of the 32 local government areas, with the majorities particularly strong in the Borders and in the northern islands. The vote sliced dramatically across electoral lines. SNP electoral strongholds in the north-east overwhelmingly rejected independence, while Labour’s deepest heartlands in the west equally emphatically embraced it. The fact that Scotland’s largest and traditionally reddest city, Glasgow, should have voted to leave the United Kingdom is particularly resonant, even though the conclusive votes for the union in so much else of Scotland – including Edinburgh, Aberdeen and the Highlands – delivered an incontrovertible final result.

That was a welcome outcome. It should settle the issue beyond argument. A narrow win for either side would have hung over Scotland for years to come, perhaps dooming the Scots to have to revisit the issue too soon. That is now unlikely, and was surely one of the reasons whyAlex Salmond announced his exit from the political stage Friday afternoon. Second, the whole process was so positive. The energy and commitment of the campaign has dazzled not just Scots themselves, but the rest of Britain too. Turnout on Thursday, at 85%, was awesome, a reprimand to fashionable political fatalism. The opening of the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds has also been thoroughly vindicated. Third, Britain can indeed confront its many defects better together than apart. The yes side may have run the better and certainly the noisier campaign, but the no side had the more solidly based arguments. Finally, the result, while decisive, was close enough to mean the minority cannot be brushed aside. When 45% of your citizens tell you they want out, they are saying that the system needs changing, as it must be and will be.

A new Scottish settlement

Israel Launches National Cyber-Defense Authority

By Tova Dvorin

9/21/2014

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/185349#.VB72avmSzb4

Historic move to protect civilians - not only the government - from cyber warfare surfaces after major hacking attempt during Gaza war.

In a landmark decision Sunday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced the establishment of a National Authority for Cyber Defense

The new authority will be headed by Dr. Eviatar Mattaniah, head of the cyber-defense staff, and will be responsible for the protection of Israeli civilians against cyber attacks.

Netanyahu's decision takes the already extensive work and thorough preparation to protect Israel's cyberspace against terror several steps further,drafting leading experts in the field to coordinate and lead the entire Israeli cyber-defense team.

Mattaniah was instructed to establish a team within 60 days, under Cabinet supervision, to begin the National Cyber Authority for a multi-year contract between defense experts and the government.

In his weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday, Netanyahu expressed his appreciation to all the entities involved in the matter, and stressed that this strategic move depends on the successful integration of different fields and abilities.

"I made a decision to develop a national authority to regulate the issue of cyber protection for all of the State of Israel," Netanyahu announced. "This means not only the increased protection of important institutes and defense agencies, but also of Israeli citizens."

"This new authority is an 'Air Force' against new threats which will not solely rely on existing defense teams," he continued. "We are in a new world, we are organizing new forces, [and] it great significance for Israel's defense in the future."

Cyber-attacks on Israeli websites have become more and more frequent in recent years.

Major terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, together with Iran, have shown an increasing interest in the field of cyber terror.

The announcement surfaces after the IDF's cyber defense division was drafted in to mount a defense against a systemic hacker attack - sponsored by the Iranian government - during Operation Protective Edge in Gaza this summer.

The Israel Security Agency (ISA or Shin Bet) also recently revealed it had set up an elite cyber-defense unit to defend against an organized attack on Israeli cyberspace as well.

The Encryption Wars Continue

By Paul Rosenzweig

September 20, 2014 

For quite a while it has been the case that properly implemented encryption will defeat efforts to crack it(at least using current technology). Yet it has been the case for an equally long time that very few people actually use encryption to protect their vital secrets – not journalists, not criminals, and most assuredly not the (perhaps mythical) “average layman user.”

Why is that the case? Nobody knows for sure of course, but speculation reasonably focuses on a range of possibilities: ignorance; complexity; laziness and hubris lead the list. User error is a frequent issue. Of all of these, I tend to think complexity and laziness lead the list – that is, most encryption programs are difficult to use and need to be installed. They don’t have “one button” applications and they are not “on” by default.

That seems to be changing. And the reason is, as many have predicted, less about the utility of encryption and more about the business necessity of appearing resistant to government surveillance. That explains Apple’s recent decision to make encryption the default in its new operating system iOS8, that is being delivered in the new iPhone6. For data stored on a device the user (and only the user) will have the passphrase to unlock the data. The move is so widely lauded that Google moved quickly to follow with its own Android operating system.

There are a number of legal and practical implications of this transition, almost all of which reset the balance between security and liberty in a way that tends to favor more libertarian impulses: 

The transition will essentially render moot last terms decision in Riley v. California (proving once again that by the time the Supreme Court addresses a technological issue the issue is irrelevant!). Rileyheld that, as a general matter, law enforcement will need a search warrant to access data on a cell phone. While that certainly raises the bar for access, it does not do so to an impossible degree. Probable cause is, after all, a standard that law enforcement establishes every day around the country. 

By contrast, however, the new operating systems act technologically to divest Apple and Google of any ability to respond to a warrant – they can’t produce what they don’t have. So this Fourth Amendment question now becomes converted to a Fifth Amendment question – whether or not the owner of the cell phone can be compelled to unlock his phone by providing the passphrase. Unlike the Fourth Amendment context, this privilege is absolute. If courts recognize the Fifth Amendment protection then the data on the phone is absolutely unavailable to law enforcement – which would be a significantly greater crimp in law enforcement (or counter-terrorism) investigations.

 

GCHQ employs more than 100 dyslexic and dyspraxic spies

Alice Philipson

September 21, 2014

GCHQ employs more than 100 dyslexic and dyspraxic spies

GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham. 

GCHQ employs more than 100 dyslexic and dyspraxic ‘neuro-diverse’ spies to harness their analytical skills in the fight against terror.

The British intelligence agency uses their ability to analyse complex information in a “dispassionate, logical and analytical” way to combat threats such as foreign espionage.

While many people with dyslexia struggle with reading or writing, they are often extremely skilled at deciphering facts from patterns or events.

IT specialist Matt, 35, chairman of the dyslexic and dyspraxic support community at GCHQ, told The Sunday Times: “What people don’t realise is that people with neuro diversity usually have a ‘spikyskills’ profile, which means that certain skill areas will be below par and others may be well above,” he said.

"My reading might be slower than some individuals and maybe my spelling is appalling, and my handwriting definitely is … but if you look at the positive side, my 3D spacial-perception awareness and creativity is in the top 1% of my peer group."

Some 120 “neuro-diverse” staff employed by the intelligence agency.

Children are diagnosed with dyslexia for a range of reasons including those whose difficulty in reading is unexpected, those who show a discrepancy between reading and listening comprehension or pupils who do not make meaningful progress in reading even when provided with high-quality support.

The NHS estimates that 4-8 per cent of all schoolchildren in England have some sort of dyslexia.

Dyspraxia, which affects sufferers’ co-ordination, is diagnosed in around one in 20 children.

A GCHQ official said: “Neuro-diverse individuals can bring additional value to the full spectrum of roles and jobs across the department.”

Meet the Highest-Ranking Woman in U.S. Naval History

by Tara Bahrampour

Source Link

She has commanded warships, defeated pirates, and just made Navy history as the highest-ranking woman ever. Clear the decks for Admiral Michelle Howard!

Admiral Howard, photographed at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia

When Michelle Howard, a vice admiral, was summoned last year by the head of the Navy, she thought he'd be discussing a new assignment. Instead, he wanted to nominate her to the rank of four-star admiral—a position no woman in U.S. naval history had ever achieved.

Stunned, Howard, now 54, went home to think about whether she had the right skills "to move the Navy forward," she recalls. Her husband of 25 years, Wayne Cowles, a retired Marine and fellow Desert Storm veteran, encouraged her to accept. Her 81-year-old mother, who lives with them, said, "You need to do this." And so Howard got ready to break a gender barrier. When she called to order her women's four-star shoulder boards, the receptionist told her, "Uh, there aren't any," she recalls. "I go, 'Yeah, I thought that might be the case.' "

Howard was only 12 when she saw a documentary about the nation's military academies and became smitten. "My older brother—he was quite gleeful—told me they were closed to women," she says. "I had been so excited about what I was seeing, I hadn't even noticed it was all guys. That's such a mind-blowing experience at 12: Women can't do things because of the law?" Her mother counseled her not to give up, saying they could challenge the rule. But they didn't have to: The law changed when Howard was 16, and she was one of the first women admitted to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

"Admiral Howard is a trailblazer whose leadership and service are a credit to the Navy and our nation. Her command is a reflection of her merit and a historic signal of our progress in recognizing our women in uniform."

Who Gets to Decide When We Go to War?

Deborah Pearlstein

09.21.14 

Source Link

The Constitution’s framers went to considerable trouble to insure that it would be hard to take the country to war. Two centuries later, it’s easier than ever. What happened? 

While Congress votes this week on President Obama’s modest request for authority to train and equip Syrian rebels to battle ISIS on their territory, the legal debate most occupying the opinion columns remains more about what the President has not yet sought: broad authority to deploy American military force to seek out and destroy the terrorist group ourselves. 

The Constitution’s framers would have found the question whether the president needs congressional authorization for such an operation straightforward. Congress’s involvement is required not only because the Constitution expressly commands that war powers be divided between the political branches, but also because the war-weary framers shared a conviction woven throughout the document: taking the country to war should be a hard thing to do. 

The past 60 years of American practice has obscured this formal framework, supplanting arguments from constitutional text and history with arguments about the more recent reality of presidential habit and congressional acquiescence. Presidents have been using force on their own for decades already without Congress or the courts saying no; it must be constitutional by now. 

Whatever one makes of such arguments as a matter of law, the practical effect of these developments is clear: taking the country to war has never been so easy. How did it come to this? 

The Constitution’s framers gave Congress the power to “declare war,” along with the powers to provide for common defense, raise and support an army and navy, define and punish offenses against the law of nations, make rules concerning captures, and more. The president, in turn, was named commander in chief, a label understood at the time as giving him authority over the tactical direction of forces once authorized, but not more than this. Not that congressional action was always required. That Congress was given the power to “declare” war and not “make” war, as an earlier draft had suggested, was for a singular purpose—so that the president would have the power at least to “repel sudden attacks.” Acting in our defense, Jefferson could deploy frigates to protect American ships against Barbary attacks, Lincoln could engage Confederate troops attacking Fort Sumter, and Obama could draw on air power to protect U.S. consulates and personnel against ISIS advancements in Iraq—all without prior congressional approval. 

Obama Taps Star General To Build Syrian Rebel Army to Fight ISIS

BYJosh RoginEli Lake

09.21.14 

Source Link

General Michael Nagata is promising to build a new force to destroy ISIS but lawmakers worry he has been given an impossible mission. 

As lawmakers prepared to take a risky and fateful vote on Obama’s plan to train and equip the Syrian rebels, the man who assured them it could be done was Gen. Michael Nagata, Obama’s point man for the mission to build an ISIS-killing army in Syria. 

There are skeptics both inside and outside the government who doubt Obama’s new plan to arm the Syrian rebels can work. First of all, the administration has said for years that the moderate opposition can’t be a reliable partner for the United States in Syria. Only last month, Obama said that the rag-tag bunch of “former doctors, farmers, and pharmacists” could never win their civil war and the whole idea that arming them earlier would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy.” 

Then Obama made a complete reversal, announced that portions of the Free Syrian Army were now vetted enough to help the U.S. fight against ISIS, and called on Congress to vote to give him authority train and arm them. Congress went along, but only after hearing from Nagata, who briefed both House and Senate members and staffers in classified settings and told them how he would get it done. Those briefed said they were impressed by the General but remained concerned Obama’s plan was fatally flawed. 

Nagata has experience in the area. U.S. military officials say Nagata helped devise much of U.S. special operations support for Jordan. These officials also say Nagata also has worked on plans with the CIA at the secret Jordanian base used to train up Syrian rebels under the still secret but well reported joint DOD-CIA program that began in 2012. Nagata is currently in charge of special operations command for Central Command, the military command that includes Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. 

Lawmakers who have been briefed on the new Syrian train and equip program—which unlike the old one is entirely under military command as opposed to the CIA—raised concerns that it will suffer from the same flaws as the CIA program that began in 2012. 

“They can show you lots of information on who they trained, where they came from and what kind of gear we gave them,” one lawmaker told The Daily Beast about the CIA training program. “But they can’t tell you what happens to them once they cross the border into Syria.” This lawmaker said this is because Obama has opposed embedding any U.S. personnel inside the opposition units once they are trained. “This is like throwing a bunch of guns over the border and saying, ‘Good Luck.’” 

Army Reservists Mutinied Twice in Recent History

Louisiana Guardsmen complained of bad chow and mean commanders

On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.

They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words — mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time.

The full-time Army has a strained relationship with the part-time Reserve and National Guard. There’ve been at least two reserve mutinies since 1991.

Military officials learned a valuable lesson about the consequences of long and irregular deployments during Vietnam. Bad morale, drug abuse and soldiers killing their own officers led the Pentagon to re-evaluate its deployment policies.

After the Vietnam War, the Pentagon implemented a Total Force Policy. Under this new directive, the Army would rely more on its reserve forces. The National Guard and Army Reserve would see more frontline combat, and lessen the stress on the regular Army.

The problem was the military didn’t back up the plan with more training. The Pentagon expected its reserve forces to perform like regular soldiers, but didn’t give the reserves proper support.

This lack of support and training has led to a wide range of discipline problems. The two largest mutinies in recent American military history both took place within the Army’s reserve forces.

For the soldiers of the 256th Infantry Brigade, the transition into a war-fighting force was a difficult one. The reservists went to Louisiana newspapers and TV stations and complained about life in the military.

Central Texas was cold and muddy, they said. The food was bad and their commanders were mean. The same stuff that everyone in the Army complains about.

But most soldiers don’t desert. Now these troops were in trouble and were making it worse by talking to the press.

America was fighting a war in the desert with a power-mad dictator. The troops’ whining didn’t go over well. The public turned against them, their commander called them “crybabies,” and the troops returned to Fort Hood to face punishment.

The return of the Eagle in West Asia

D. SUBA CHANDRAN

September 22, 2014

ReutersCOMPLEX: Closing down IS’s network requires significant international and regional cooperation, which poses another challenge. Picture shows a Kurdish fighter at a spot overlooking Baretle village on the edge of Mosul, and which is controlled by IS.

Bridging the trust deficit in West Asia is among the major challenges to the U.S. President’s new strategy against the Islamic State

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama outlined a new strategy to meet the challenge of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. In reality, the four-pronged approach would mean the return of the U.S. to the Middle East.

At the outset, it is a brave decision for which Mr. Obama deserves to be congratulated. Only a few weeks ago did he accept that the U.S. lacked a policy to deal with IS. Given the larger global implications and fallout of IS’ successes, it is imperative that there is coherent action taken to neutralise it. Will Mr. Obama succeed in his objective? There are at least five major challenges to the U.S. President’s new strategy.

Relying on air support

There is little doubt that this will be a long-drawn war. Though public opinion has turned around after the brutal killing of two journalists by IS, it may take yet another turn. Also, Mr. Obama, who is now being provided the necessary support of the U.S. Congress to arm the Syrian opposition to fight IS would need this to continue. But there is a larger debate taking place with the U.S. on the nature and extent of an American military presence.

There are already differences between Mr. Obama and his military on the use of ground forces in Iraq. Mr. Obama wants to rely only on “tightly controlled” air strikes whereas the military leadership would like to keep the option of engaging U.S. ground troops open. Military officials who have served under him have been quoted as saying in an Intelligence Committee of the House that “half-hearted or tentative efforts, or air strikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes.”

Second, Mr. Obama aims to weaken IS through “a systematic campaign of air strikes.” He has cautiously avoided deploying U.S. ground troops in Iraq, though he has also announced that American non-combat service members to “support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment” would be increased.

On energy, it can no more be business as usual

By R.K. Pachauri

The problem of India’s energy security is that it 

will become progressively acute over time. The writer calls for a slew of unconventional options, including greater reliance on natural gas, faster development of renewable energy and an innovative transport policy.

TWO major aspects of energy policy in India have not received the kind of attention that they merit. The first relates to energy access and the second to the issue of security of energy supply. As far as energy access is concerned, it is sad that around 300 million people in the country still do not have access to electricity, and perhaps an even larger number is subjected to erratic, irregular and unreliable supply in their households. What is even more serious is the use of poor-quality biomass for cooking in over 160 million households in the country.

FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: Tapping renewable sources of energy like solar energy is a safer and sustainable option to bank on rather than fossil fuels.

The use of kerosene and other combustion-based lighting, prevalent in rural parts of India, leads to harmful pollution, essentially affecting women and children. But what is even more serious is the health impact of cooking using poor quality biomass such as twigs, cow dung and agricultural residue, which leads to high levels of indoor pollution, extremely harmful to the health of those who are exposed. Some efforts are now in hand to address these problems. The programme on “Lighting a Billion Lives,” launched by TERI has covered almost 3,000 villages in the country and has brought solar-based lanterns, which use LED systems, to homes in the villages which have been covered. The introduction of improved cookstoves is also moving ahead with designs that essentially provide a flame as clean as that of LPG or natural gas stoves, even with wood as a fuel. The big benefit of these improved cookstoves is a substantial reduction in the use of firewood and, of course, cleanliness in homes which is the result of smokeless combustion and cooking. The Government of India and several state governments are also now focusing on this widespread problem of traditional lighting and cooking, which not only has harmful health and environmental impacts, but is also wasteful in the use of fuels.

Fossil fuels

The problem of energy security is one that is likely to become progressively more acute with time. Fossil fuels account for about 70 per cent of the primary energy supply in India. Import dependence in the case of oil was 76 per cent in 2011-12 and even coal is now being imported in substantial quantities. If the country continues on the path of energy consumption that represents business as usual, then oil imports alone would be around 10 million barrels per day by 2031-32, rising from around 2.5 million barrels per day in 2011-12. That would make India a major consumer of oil in the world, and with this substantial demand, India would also have an impact on the global price of oil in that year.

Coal imports

Coalition of the unwilling

Rajendra Abhyankar

September 22, 2014 

By any metric of credibility and effectiveness, the US strategy looks as though it will exacerbate the dangers rather than provide a resolution to the crisis. ( Source: Reuters )

At last week’s Paris conference on Iraq — attended by Russia, China, Japan, the European Union and the Arab League, among others — the US managed to cobble together diplomatic support for its plan for military (read aerial) action against the Islamic State (IS). But no mention was made of such action in IS havens in Syria, which US President Barack Obama’s strategy emphasises.

Even the coalition it has built is dodgy. Iran and Syria were kept out at the behest of the US. But Russia has made it clear that it considers military action without Iran’s cooperation and coordination with the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria to be illegal and dangerous. The British House of Commons opposes military action. Further, Turkey, a Nato member, has refused to close its borders, allowing money and supplies to reach Syrian opposition groups. Turkish border towns like Antakya, Kisil and Antalya have become hubs for foreign fighters. The largely Sunni Arab potentates prevaricate, believing that military action will weaken their IS tafkiri proxies and inevitably strengthen Syria.

The military action against the IS in Iraq is the latest of the US’s flawed strategies since the Iraq invasion in 2003. The advent of a democratic leadership there has seemingly made no difference. After the crises in Afghanistan and Libya, we now have Syria and the IS. After dithering on military action, Obama will authorise air strikes against the IS in its safe havens in Syria. That is a major change from keeping the IS in play to build pressure on the then Iraq prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to quit, a delay that ended up strengthening the IS with major field victories in Iraq and Syria.

By any metric of credibility and effectiveness, the US strategy looks as though it will exacerbate the dangerous situation in the Middle East rather than provide a resolution to the crisis. It is flawed in its goal, manner of execution, choice of partners, targets and outcome. At its root, the IS represents a fanatical and violent dimension of a major religion. It is not possible to “degrade and ultimately destroy” a stream of thought by military means; indeed, it might be granted a fresh lease of life. The persistence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was ruthlessly hunted by Arab autocrats three decades ago, is a case in point.

Iran seeks give and take on militants, nuclear programme

Sep 22, 2014

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said recently that he vetoed a US overture to the Islamic Republic to work together on defeating IS, but US officials said there was no such offer. 

Iran is ready to work with the United States and its allies to stop Islamic State militants, but would like to see more flexibility on Iran's uranium enrichment programme, senior Iranian officials told Reuters. 

The comments from the officials, who asked not to be named, highlight how difficult it may be for the Western powers to keep the nuclear negotiations separate from other regional conflicts. Iran wields influence in the Syrian civil war and on the Iraqi government, which is fighting the advance of Islamic State fighters. 

Iran has sent mixed signals about its willingness to cooperate on defeating Islamic State (IS), a hardline Sunni Islamist group that has seized large swaths of territory across Syria and Iraq and is blamed for a wave of sectarian violence, beheadings and massacres of civilians. 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said recently that he vetoed a US overture to the Islamic Republic to work together on defeating IS, but US officials said there was no such offer. In public, both Washington and Tehran have ruled out cooperating militarily in tackling the IS threat. 

But in private, Iranian officials have voiced a willingness to work with the United States on IS, though not necessarily on the battlefield. US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that Iran has a role to play in defeating Islamic State, indicating the US position may also be shifting. 

"Iran is a very influential country in the region and can help in the fight against the ISIL (IS) terrorists ... but it is a two-way street. You give something, you take something," said a senior Iranian official on condition of anonymity. 

"ISIL is a threat to world security, not our (nuclear) programme, which is a peaceful programme," the official added. 

Tehran rejects Western allegations that it is amassing the capability to produce atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme. 

Another Iranian official echoed the remarks. Both officials said they would like the United States and its Western allies to show flexibility on the number of atomic centrifuges Tehran could keep under any long-term deal that would lift sanctions in exchange for curbs on Tehran's nuclear programme. 

"Both sides can show flexibility that will lead to an acceptable number for everyone," another Iranian official said. 

WEST WANTS TO KEEP ATOMIC TALKS SEPARATE 

Western officials told Reuters that Iran has not raised this idea in nuclear negotiations with the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China that resumed in New York on Friday. Diplomats close to the talks say they are unlikely to settle in New York on a long-term accord that would lift sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iranian nuclear work. 

The Western officials said it would be difficult for them to even discuss the point in the atomic negotiations as the United States and its allies are determined to keep the nuclear negotiations focused exclusively on atomic issues as the Nov. 24 deadline for a deal nears. 

Free Henning, wife pleads with ISIS

Kounteya Sinha

Sep 22, 2014

Alan was considering converting to Islam before he was kidnapped, according to a friend quoted by the Sunday Times.

LONDON: The wife of the British taxi driver being held hostage by the ISIS has issued a plea for his release. Alan Henning from Eccles in Salford was seized while on an aid mission to Syria last December while driving an ambulance.

In a statement released via Britain's foreign office, she said, "I am Barbara Henning the wife of Alan Henning. Alan was taken prisoner last December and is being held by the ISIS. Alan is a peaceful, selfless man who left his family and his job as a taxi driver in the UK to drive in a convoy all the way to Syria with his Muslim colleagues and friends to help those most in need. When he was taken he was driving an ambulance full of food and water to be handed out to anyone in need." 

Barbara added, "His purpose for being there was no more and no less. This was an act of sheer compassion. I cannot see how it could assist any state's cause to allow the world to see a man like Alan dying. I have been trying to communicate with the ISIS and the people holding Alan. I have sent some really important messages but they have not been responded to." 

The militants had issued their threat to kill the 47-year-old in a video released last Saturday which showed the killing of another British man David Haines. Alan was considering converting to Islam before he was kidnapped, according to a friend quoted by the Sunday Times.

Pakistan developing sea-based nuclear-arms

Sep 22, 2014

In a sign of that ambition, Pakistan in 2012 created the Naval Strategic Force command, which is similar to the air force and army commands that oversee nuclear weapons. 

ISLAMABAD/WASHINGTON: Pakistan is developing sea-based missiles and expanding its interest in tactical nuclear warheads to give it a "second-strike" capability if a catastrophic nuclear attack destroyed all its land-based weapons, according to a media report on Sunday. 

The next step of Pakistan's strategy includes an effort to develop nuclear warheads suitable for deployment from the Indian Ocean, either from warships or from one of the country's five diesel-powered navy submarines, The Washington Post reported quoting Pakistani and Western analysts.

In a sign of that ambition, Pakistan in 2012 created the Naval Strategic Force command, which is similar to the air force and army commands that oversee nuclear weapons. "We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability," the paper quoted Shireen M Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a Pakistani government-funded thinktank. 

Instead of working to enhance the range of its missiles, Pakistan is developing shorter-range cruise missiles that fly lower to the ground and can evade ballistic missile defences, analysts said. Pakistan has repeatedly tested its indigenously produced, nuclear-capable, Babur cruise missile, which has a range of 640km and can strike targets at land and sea, military officials said. 

In 2011 and last year, Pakistan also tested a new tactical, nuclear-capable, battlefield missile that has a range of just 60km. "This is the miniaturization of warheads," said Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic studies and nuclear expert at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. 

Pakistan's nuclear push comes amid heightened tension with US intelligence and congressional officials over the security of the country's nuclear weapons and materials, the Post said. The paper reported in September 2013 that US intelligence officials had increased surveillance of Pakistan in part because of concerns that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorists.

ISIS closes in on Syria border town

Sep 22, 2014 

Kurdish people clash with Turkish soldiers near the Syrian border after Turkish authorities temporarily closed the border. AFP

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) closed in on Syria’s third-largest Kurdish town on Sunday as tens of thousands fled in terror across the border into Turkey. The UN refugee agency said as many as 70,000 Syrian Kurds had poured into Turkey since guards cut barbed wire to open the border on Friday.

Kurdish fighters in the area, backed by reinforcements from Turkey, are battling to hold off the jihadists’ advance on the strategic border town of Ain al-Arab, known as Kobane by the Kurds.

Turkish security forces used tear gas and water cannon Sunday to disperse a Kurdish demonstration of support for fellow Kurds who fled a jihadist offensive across the border in Syria. Hundreds of young demonstrators fought back by hurling rocks and setting up barricades on the road leading to a nearby border crossing.

“We’ve come to support our brothers in Syria under attack by Daesh (ISIS),” Turkish Kurdish demonstrator Mehmet Eminakma said.

The ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, has seized large parts of Iraq and Syria, declaring a “caliphate”, imposing its harsh interpretation of Islamic law and committing widespread atrocities including beheadings and crucifixions.

Local officials have warned of potential massacres should ISIS extremists take control of further territory in Kurdish parts of Syria, and have pleaded for an international intervention.

But despite promises by Washington to expand its air campaign against ISIS in Iraq to Syria, there were no signs yet of US strikes in the country.