Afghanistan Elections and the Taliban Threat

AFGHANISTAN

In the election run-up, the Taliban has increasingly set the agenda in the region with a spate of high-profile attacks. 

By Rajeev Agrawal

April 05, 2014

In the lead up to the presidential elections in Afghanistan, which get underway today, the Taliban has upped the ante in the region, especially in Afghanistan, with a spate of high-impact attacks in March. An attack on March 29 hit the heart of the election process when the Taliban stormed a building next to the Independent Election Commission headquarters in Kabul, making very clear the threat it posed to the elections. Beginning with an attack on a famous Lebanese restaurant in Kabul on January 18, which killed 13 foreign nationals, the Taliban has been cleverly choosing targets and patterns this year that leave the international forces and the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) struggling to react.

Across the Durand Line, in Pakistan, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) seems to be toying with the Pakistani establishment, oscillating between attacks on the Pakistani army to accepting cease fire and peace talks proposals. A broad overview of the situation does indicate towards one clear pattern: the Taliban are on the offensive and are setting the agenda, forcing both, Afghanistan and Pakistan to react and follow.

Afghanistan’s transition in 2014 is built on three important pillars: elections, the handover of security responsibilities to the ANSF, and reining in the Taliban. While the latter two are ongoing efforts, the presidential elections are a clear landmark. Successful elections would benefit the Afghanistan peace process and undermine Taliban influence. It could also lead to the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United States, which despite having been successfully negotiated and even passed by the Loya Jirga in November last year, awaits signing by President Hamid Karzai, who so far has refused. While the Afghanistan government, the U.S. and the Taliban all understand the significance of the elections, the difference lies in its execution. The U.S. simply wants this process to be done, and is more focused on the withdrawal timetable and the various scenarios for leaving troops behind, which stretch from a “zero option” to a figure of 10-15,000 troops. The ANSF and the Afghan government are more focused on the process of the elections and the safety of the candidates, while keeping the transition process in motion.

Where does that leave the Taliban? While everything that the U.S. and the Afghanistan do has a direct bearing on the Taliban, unlike the past three years, at present there is no clearcut campaign strategy against the Taliban nor are there any ongoing military operations to clear Taliban strongholds or target its leaders. In past few months, the process of “reintegration and reconciliation” also seems to have been lost in the din of transition and elections.

How Obama Lost Afghanistan

04.05.14 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html 

He said it was ‘the right war.’ Then he did everything he could to screw it up. 

Despite the violence and uncertainty surrounding this Saturday’s election for a new Afghan President, there’s one positive —Hamid Karzai, the sitting president and the architect of much of the country’s unrest, is not on the ballot this time. But while Karzai must cede power under the rules of the Afghan constitution, the other leader whose mismanagement helped tank Afghanistan abandoned his influence in what he once called “the right war” a long time ago. That leader is President Barack Obama. 

An outright winner is unlikely on Saturday, unless one campaign is far superior in the art of vote fraud. The most dramatic political comeback belongs to Dr. Ashraf Ghani, a technocrat economist who previously served as Karzai’s Minister of Finance. Known for a volatile temper—according to former colleagues, he once broke his wrist by slamming his hand into a meeting table—Ghani only earned three percent of the vote against Karzai in 2009. Today, Ghani polls as the frontrunner, dividing the margin of Karzai’s heir apparent, former National Security advisor and Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul, and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, an ophthalmologist with a fondness for flashy Italian suits. He gathered 30 percent of the vote in 2009, but declined to participate in a run-off against Karzai. 

The best scenario is a May run-off between the two top candidates—the opposite of the chaos of 2009 that left Karzai with a third term. Instead of a statesmanlike exit as father of a new democracy, Karzai’s re-election imploded his already troubled legacy. On an election day the UN characterized as Afghanistan’s worst episode of violence in fifteen years, Western diplomats accused Karzai and his cronies of at least 100,000 fictitious ballots and over 800 fake polling sites. 

Some level of corruption is to be expected in a post-conflict war zone, but the rancorous back and forth between Karzai and the Obama administration was a disastrous turning point. Dismissing voting irregularities as “totally fabricated,” Karzai dedicated his next five years to severing his relationship with the United States. Always a pacifist—a nuance neglected when drafting plans for a more aggressive war strategy—Karzai went increasingly public with his anger over civilian casualties, night raids and what he saw as American rejection to take the fight to Pakistan. 

Over the last year, Karzai refused to sign a security pact setting the terms for a long-term American troop presence, leaving the decision of keeping American forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to the next president. Only a month ago, Karzai told the Washington Post, “There is no war to be fought in Afghanistan. I believe that much of the conflict is a creation in which the Afghans suffer.” 

Pakistan’s Deal With the Devil And The Taliban Shadow Surge

Jacob Siegel

04.05.14 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/pakistan-s-deal-with-the-devil-and-the-taliban-shadow-surge.html 

On March 1, the Islamabad government cut a deal with the Taliban. And since then, all hell has been breaking loose in neighboring Afghanistan. 

In the last month, the Taliban has killed dozens of people in a string of attacks timed to destabilize Afghanistan ahead of the presidential elections on Saturday. 

Most recently, a suicide bomber breached the heavy security at the Interior Ministry building and blew himself up, killing six police officers. And that may be just a preview, if local Taliban commanders are to be believed. 

“We told Afghans not to vote,” said Haji Shakor, a Taliban commander in central Afghanistan. “If we found out you voted, you won’t take your five fingers home.” 

But the real accelerators of this violence aren’t Shakor and his fellow Afghanistan-based militants, local intelligence and security officials tell The Daily Beast. Instead, it’s Taliban insurgents streaming over the border from Pakistan that have enabled the group’s recent killing spree in Kabul. And they say the Pakistani government is to blame for the incursion. 

On March 1, the government in Islamabad agreed to a month-long ceasefire with Pakistan’s Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The truce was supposed to be a chance to revive stalled peace talks but its timing, just ahead of Afghanistan’s elections, suggests that it may also have been a way to reposition forces before the vote. 

By increasing violence ahead of the election, the Taliban is trying to discourage voting and convince Afghans that the government is incapable of providing security. It’s a tactic the Taliban has used in the past before big political events, but this time to pull off its plan the group used some shrewd foreign diplomacy. 

There are, broadly speaking, two Talibans, one in Afghanistan and one in Pakistan. The two groups operate semi-autonomously but both fall under the leadership of the Quetta Shura leadership council. And major moves, like this ceasefire, would undoubtedly be blessed by the Quetta Shura. 

In a recent interview Srtaj Aziz, Pakistan’s advisor on foreign policy and national security, responded to allegations that Pakistan was responsible for Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. 

“We told Afghans not to vote. If we found out you voted, you won’t take your five fingers home.” 

Interview: Lobsang Sangay The Diplomat speaks with the prime minister of Tibetans in exile.

By Anuradha Sharma

April 07, 2014

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/interview-lobsang-sangay/

On April 26 it will be three years since you won the historic elections that made you the first political leader of the Tibetans, a post relinquished by the Dalai Lama. What has the experience been like?

The first year was anxious but I told myself this is my karma and I had to do the best I could to fulfill the aspirations of Tibetans in exile and Tibet. The 400-year-old institution of the Dalai Lama was changing course. All of a sudden His Holiness had decided to pass on the baton of political head and that came to someone like me: young, new to politics and without much administrative experience. I was anxious about the transfer of political authority and so were the Tibetan people. In the second year, the anxiety subsided but it continued to be very hectic, and so it has been since then. Except Sikkim, I have been to all the Tibetan settlements in India, all Tibetan schools, 90 percent of the monasteries and around 80 percent of old-age homes. In North America and Europe, I’ve visited all major Tibetan communities except three or four places. I am still working hard and intend to continue doing so; the rest I leave to the collective karma of the Tibetan people.

What is it like managing a ‘nation’ without physical boundaries? What are the challenges and opportunities?

The major challenge is the travelling that is required to reach out to the Tibetan population across the globe in five continents. It’s a grueling schedule every time—seven countries in 13 or 14 days in Europe and seven states in eight days in the U.S. The normal schedule is 8 am to 8 pm, followed by dinner and informal interactions with the local Tibetan communities. By the time you go to sleep, it is past midnight and the next morning you wake up early to travel to another city or country. The good part of it is the opportunity to meet different kinds of people, the exposure to different cultures and political systems.

Beijing’s Arctic Play: Just the Tip of the Iceberg

CHINA POWER

China has clearly signaled that it has a strong interest in the Arctic region. 

By Elizabeth C. Economy

April 05, 2014

If you pay attention, Chinese foreign policy rarely surprises. Of course there is the odd moment when Beijing catches the world unaware: for example, its declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea in late 2013. Generally speaking, however, the Chinese telegraph their long-term strategic intentions through their smaller tactical maneuvers. It is just that the rest of the world sometimes misses the signals or doesn’t know what to do with the information. Such is the case with China’s emerging play in the Arctic.

Over the past several years, China has begun to stake out its claim to the Arctic. No part of China actually touches the Arctic, but as a recent International Institute for Strategic Studies commentary points out, Chinese scholars routinely describe their country as a “near-Arctic” state, and Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo has argued that the “Arctic belongs to all the people around the world, as no nation has sovereignty over it… China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world’s population.” This is a signal of Chinese intent.

There are a number of reasons for China’s interest in the region, but four stand out in particular. First, of course, the region is rich in resources: oil and gas, fish, and minerals among them. According to one estimate, the region holds one-third of the world’s natural gas reserves, and resource-hungry China has recognized the region’s potential. China is in talks with Denmark to take stakes in a copper mine in Greenland; China National Offshore Oil Corporation has partnered with Iceland’s Eykon Energy for oil exploration; and China’s Sichuan Xinye Mining Investment Company will be working with London Mining to exploit the country’s iron ore reserves. Uranium and rare earths are additional potential targets for Chinese investment; Greenland has enormous reserves of both, including the capacity to meet 25 percent of world demand for rare earths.

China is also interested in the Arctic for trade reasons. As the climate changes and the Arctic ice melts, three new trade routes may open up that will dramatically reduce cargo transport time and help avoid the security challenges of traditional routes such as the Strait of Malacca. Already, Denmark and China are discussing cooperation to explore these new routes.

China Lashes Out at North Korea

ZACHARY KECK

China’s media offers withering criticism of North Korea as tensions mount between the erstwhile allies. 

By Zachary Keck

April 05, 2014

Tensions appear to be quickly mounting between the erstwhile allies North Korea and China.

Last week I noted that North Korea has reportedly begun hanging banners declaring that China is “a turncoat and our enemy” at its Kang Kon Military Academy. The characterization of China as a “turncoat and our enemy” was coined by Kim Il-Sung, North Korea’s eternal leader, in 1992 but has been invoked by Pyongyang on a number of occasions since to express its displeasure toward Beijing.

The feeling seems to be mutual these days, if the Global Times—a state-run Chinese newspaper—is any indication. As my colleague Shannon noted earlier today, the Global Times published an editorial on Thursday that contained unusually harsh criticism of North Korea. Although the editorial focused primarily on North Korea’s nuclear program, it also includes some other more general criticisms of Pyongyang. For example, it stated: “If Pyongyang continues to follow this [nuclear] path, it will suffer long-term isolation by the international community and the country’s poverty will never be eliminated. The risks these factors pose to the Pyongyang regime can hardly be offset even if North Korea truly becomes a nuclear state.” North Korea has been extremely critical of foreign leaders that characterize North Korea as being wrecked by poverty.

The Global Times editorial also suggested that North Korea’s claims about its nuclear progress were exaggerated, and warned against trying to exploit the divergence between China and America’s approaches towards its nuclear program. “The North’s nuclear issue has caused some divergence between China and the US,” the editorial stated. “If Pyongyang thinks this provides an opportunity for it to further develop its nuclear capabilities, it should give up such fantasies.”

At other points in the piece, the Global Times characterized North Korea’s heavy reliance on missile and nuclear tests as a clear demonstration of its overall weakness. “Nuclear tests and missile launches have become Pyongyang’s only diplomatic cards, which is unfortunate for Pyongyang and the entire Northeast Asia.” Similarly, it said the reason why North Korea emphasizes its nuclear program so much is because “Pyongyang’s deterrence is so weak that it has no other ‘leverage’ than nuclear weapons.” Nonetheless, the Global Timesdismissed North Korea’s nuclear technology as primitive, and said that it is “not enough to truly deter Washington.” As a result, the Global Times said that North Korea should abandon its long followed path of isolation in Northeast Asia.

China has not limited itself to media criticisms of North Korea, however. As I noted earlier today, in response to North Korea’s medium-range ballistic missile tests last week, the UN Security Council openly condemned Pyongyang. This would not have been possible without China’s acquiesce (North Korea responded by threatening to conduct a “new form” of nuclear test, which was the proximate impetus for the Global Times’editorial).

4 Ways China Can Prepare for War in East Asia

CHINA POWER

Northeast Asia has become a potential powder keg. What should China do to prepare itself for possible conflict? 

By Yang Hengjun

April 04, 2014

Over the past decades, the fuse for the powder keg of war moved from the Balkans to the Middle East. Now it has shifted to China’s backyard without us even noticing. Five years ago, if someone had told me that Northeast Asia would become the world’s leading powder keg, even more dangerous than the Middle East, I wouldn’t have believed it. But now, such a statement seems more and more like the truth.

After the U.S. military conquered Iraq, the “Arab Spring” bloomed in the Middle East and North Africa. Although the internal turmoil suffered by countries in this region shows no signs of abating, in terms of geopolitics the Middle East crisis has been greatly alleviated. Nowadays, there is only one “troublemaker” left – Iran, which would find it hard to cause a crisis without support ( not to mention Iran is not up to fighting with the United States and Israel). Iran’s recent willingness to give up its nuclear weapons program foreshadows a shift in the winds.

In contrast, the situation in Northeast Asia is decidedly not optimistic. Almost every responsible country in the world has age requirements for its top leader, usually requiring top leaders to be at least 40 years old. But North Korea is now under the control of a 30-year old young man. After taking office, this leader “lived up the the world’s expectations” — that is to say, he refused to follow China’s road of reform and opening up and refused to act according to common sense. He eliminated dissenters without a scruple, and will most likely continue to develop nuclear weapons.

And on top of that, add the problem of Japan.

On December 17 of last year, Japan passed its first National Security Strategy as well as revising its National Defense Program Guidelines and Mid-Term Defense Program. In these documents, it’s easy to see a posture of arms expansion and war preparation aimed at the “China threat.” A few days later, one of my Japanese friends from Tokyo’s Waseda University sent me a half-joking message: “Mr. Yang, the sleeping lion of Japan is finally awake. Thanks to China for waking him up.”

I didn’t think this joke was very funny. I replied to him that I had only heard of the Napoleon quote that China is Asia’s sleeping lion. Who said that Japan is another “sleeping lion”? Was it Hitler?

A war of words was inevitable after that. However, I have to admit that the “sleeping lion” of China seems to be “sleeping in,” or at least after waking up it’s still confused, thinking it’s still dreaming. Could little Japan actually be more worthy of the name “sleeping lion”? Since the Meiji Restoration, it has won almost every war it’s fought, and even Japan’s final defeat was grand in scale: Japan became the only nation to have been beaten by atomic bombs. After World War II, although oppressed by the U.S. military occupation and a “peace constitution,” it rose rapidly to become a world power, with the second largest economy. Over the past years, because of the end of the Cold War and the rise of China, Japan’s international status has been steadily deteriorating and economic achievements have been hard to come by. It’s no wonder that some Japanese believe Japan can only renew it power by developing its military, raising its political status, and becoming a “normal country.”

Sun Tzu in Contemporary Chinese Strategy

By Fumio Ota | April 01, 2014

DOWNLOAD PDF

ABSTRACT

Sun Tzu permeates modern Chinese strategy, influencing everything from deception to espionage while downplaying civilian control in favor of a general’s on-site decisions and pushing “initiative, resulting in a Chinese Air Force inclination to take this initiative through offensive operations and raising the specter of Beijing developing a preemptive strategy despite protestations that the national defense policy is “purely defensive in nature.” Countering Chinese strategy calls for using Sun Tzu against Beijing. For example the general enshrined moral influence to bring the people in line with their leaders’ vision. That can be undermined through an exposé of the leaders’ real lives versus the fable and other discrepancies between public posturing and private actuality. 

Sun Tzu wrote 2,500 years ago during an agricultural age but has remained relevant through both the industrial and information ages. When we think about security, Japan’s greatest strategic concern is China, and we cannot discuss Chinese strategy without first discussing Sun Tzu. In this article, I demonstrate how contemporary Chinese strategists apply the teachings of Sun Tzu and his seminal The Art of War.1

Statue of Sun Tzu in Yurihama, Tottori, Japan

Why Sun Tzu?

Europe first discovered Sun Tzu during the late 18th century. Wilhelm II, the emperor of Germany, supposedly stated, “I wish I could have read Sun Tzu before World War I.” General Douglas MacArthur once stated that he always kept Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass on his desk. At the end of the Cold War, the United States borrowed from Sun Tzu when it created “competitive strategy,” which aimed to attack the Soviets’ weaknesses with American strengths.2 This is exactly Sun Tzu’s meaning when he said an “Army avoids strength and strikes weakness.” I have also heard that this idea is referred to as a “net assessment” strategy in the Pentagon.

When I was a student at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, I studied Caspar Weinberger’s “six tests.” When I first considered his tests I immediately thought, “This is the teaching of Sun Tzu.” Let us consider Weinberger’s six tests and the comparable ideas found in The Art of War(see table).

General Colin Powell added a few tests of his own with the so-called Powell Doctrine, and his tests also have comparable passages in Sun Tzu. For instance, Powell’s questions “Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?” and “Have risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?” are similarly mentioned in chapter 2 of The Art of War.

Sound and Fury on the Bosphorus

As chaos swirls around Turkey's embattled prime minister, can the opposition take advantage?

BY Lauren Bohn

MARCH 28, 2014

Lauren Bohn is a multimedia journalist based in Istanbul and co-founder of Foreign Policy Interrupted, an initiative dedicated to amplifying female voices in foreign policy. She's the founding assistant editor of the Cairo Review of Global Affairs in Egypt, where she was a Fulbright fellow and Pulitzer Center grantee.

ISTANBUL, Turkey — In one of Istanbul's cosmopolitan districts on the winding Bosphorus Strait, two female campaigners stood armed to the teeth with campaign gear -- pamphlets, pins, balloons, and a trailer booming patriotic beats. "Here's the plan," said a soft-spoken Gulsun Karsli. "We'll go house to house and remind people why the Justice and Development Party (AKP) is the best."

"But first," she paused and smirked, "We'll take a selfie."

Turkey is currently in the hectic throes of election season. On March 30, voters will go to the polls to elect the mayors of Istanbul, Ankara, and local municipalities across the country. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party appears poised to come out ahead, with polls projecting that the AKP holds roughly a 10-point lead over its main rival, the Republican People's Party (CHP).

Tensions, however, are high. In an increasingly polarized political landscape, the vote is essentially a referendum on not only Erdogan's increasingly white-knuckled grip on the country, but on the very identity of modern Turkey.

But even in Kadikoy, a district that AKP historically loses, the team of AKP campaigners -- a brigade of sharp-tongued, smart-phone wielding women -- isn't worried.

"Look, Erdogan's transformed this country and turned it around completely from when I grew up," says Seyda Ertem, a businesswoman who studied at Barry University in Miami. She says her long, blonde hair and penchant for trendy clothes come as a surprise to many, who don't expect an unveiled, stylish woman working for the Islamist AKP. She says that she has been asked derisively how much money she's being paid to support the party.

"It's all just noise," she says, rolling her eyes. "There is no solid opposition, just noise."

Indeed, there's been quite a bit of noise in Turkey this year. Last summer, Erdogan's government fired tear gas and water cannons at demonstrators protesting against his plans to demolish Gezi Park, a beloved green space in Istanbul, to make way for yet another mega-mall. The protest wasn't merely about trees, but a larger fight over the identity of the country and who ultimately decides upon that identity. The park became yet another battleground in the country's perennial struggle between Erdogan's self-proclaimed pious constituency and a secular elite rooted in the military.

Since then, major rifts have emerged between the AKP and its erstwhile ally, an Islamic movement led by Fethullah Gulen, a reclusive cleric based in Pennsylvania. The tug-of-war has culminated in a stream of leaked audio recordings, which reveal an extensive and sticky web of state corruption. In one purported leak, Erdogan tells his son to dispose of large sums of money. In the most recent leak, high-level security Turkish officials discussed potential military operations in Syria.

Nuclear Zero After Crimea

George Perkovich

April 5, 2014

On April 5, 2009, in Prague, President Barack Obama proclaimed the goal of freeing the world from the unique dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The massive Czech crowd applauded, as did many others around the world. Six months later, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Obama its Peace Prize.

Today, five years after Prague, the idea of seeking to eliminate all nuclear weapons has nearly evaporated from international politics. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine inflames memories of the Soviet invasion of Prague in 1968. Russia’s bullying leaders cling to nuclear weapons as badges of great power and bulwarks against Western and Chinese coercion. In Asia, China and Japan mobilize air and naval forces to contest disputed islands in the East China Sea, prompting the U.S. to buttress capabilities and resolve to defend Japan while warning both sides not to precipitate a crisis.

Long before Crimea and the Senkaku islands entered their consciousness, Republicans in the U.S. Senate determined to block ratification of new treaties. They refuse even to discuss limitations on ballistic-missile defenses and other forms of arms control that could motivate Russia and China to limit and perhaps reverse the modernization of their forces.

Meanwhile, France bristles at anything that might complicate its perpetual retention of nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India expand their nuclear arsenals. North Korea rattles its nuclear sabre. And non-nuclear-weapon states such as South Africa and Brazil that could have been expected to support the disarmament agenda by strengthening nonproliferation rules and their enforcement instead stand on the sidelines and grumble.

In this environment it is tempting to dismiss the goal of nuclear abolition as a fleeting dream of a new president and international do-gooders. However, turning away from fundamental questions about the future role of nuclear weapons cedes too much importance to transient political trends and neglects issues of great strategic import. The happenings of the past five years should not be allowed to foreclose serious analysis and debate looking to the future.

Defenders of nuclear weapons (and opponents of Obama) emphasize that nuclear weapons deter warfare. The president knows this, of course. In Prague he said, “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies—including the Czech Republic.”

Curbing Violence in Nigeria (II): The Boko Haram Insurgency

Read full report (pdf)

Africa Report N°2163 Apr 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Boko Haram’s four-year-old insurgency has pitted neighbour against neighbour, cost more than 4,000 lives, displaced close to half a million, destroyed hundreds of schools and government buildings and devastated an already ravaged economy in the North East, one of Nigeria’s poorest regions. It overstretches federal security services, with no end in sight, spills over to other parts of the north and risks reaching Niger and Cameroon, weak countries poorly equipped to combat a radical Islamist armed group tapping into real governance, corruption, impunity and underdevelopment grievances shared by most people in the region. Boko Haram is both a serious challenge and manifestation of more profound threats to Nigeria’s security. Unless the federal and state governments, and the region, develop and implement comprehensive plans to tackle not only insecurity but also the injustices that drive much of the troubles, Boko Haram, or groups like it, will continue to destabilise large parts of the country. Yet, the government’s response is largely military, and political will to do more than that appears entirely lacking.

Most Nigerians are poorer today than they were at independence in 1960, victims of the resource curse and rampant, entrenched corruption. Agriculture, once the economy’s mainstay, is struggling. In many parts of the country, the government is unable to provide security, good roads, water, health, reliable power and education. The situation is particularly dire in the far north. Frustration and alienation drive many to join “self-help” ethnic, religious, community or civic groups, some of which are hostile to the state.

It is in this environment that the group called Boko Haram (usually translated loosely as “Western education is forbidden”) by outsiders emerged. It is an Islamic sect that believes corrupt, false Muslims control northern Nigeria. The group and fellow travellers want to remedy this by establishing an Islamic state in the north with strict adherence to Sharia (Islamic law).

Boko Haram’s early leader, the charismatic preacher Mohammed Yusuf, tried to do so non-violently. While accounts are disputed, the narrative put forward by Boko Haram and now dominant in the region is that around 2002, Yusuf was co-opted by the then Borno state gubernatorial candidate, Ali Modu Sheriff, for the support of his large youth movement, in exchange for full implementation of Sharia and promises of senior state government positions for his followers in the event of an electoral victory. Sheriff denies any such arrangement or involvement with the sect. As the group rose to greater prominence, the state religious commissioner was accused of providing resources to Yusuf, while the government never implemented full Sharia.

The Worst Place in the World for MH370 to Go Missing

Pool photo by Rob Griffith

04.05.14 

Hope to find MH 370 was virtually destroyed by a month of bungled searching. The only saving grace was one lonely satellite company’s brilliance. 

It’s now a month since Malaysian Flight MH370 became modern aviation’s greatest mystery. Certain things are clear and many of them are disturbing. 

First, the oversight of commercial air space in this part of Asia is chaotic. Jealously preserved divisions of power within each state made it impossible to achieve the kind of open, rapid and efficient exchange of information between the states themselves that is essential in an emergency. As s result, too much time has been spent chasing false leads, some of them dubiously motivated, and assessing data that turned out to be badly flawed. 

As long as any physical evidence remains out of reach this is not only the most demanding sea search for an airplane ever undertaken, it’s a virtually impossible forensic challenge. 

The initial failure to report radar sightings of what was probably Flight MH370 had costly consequences in a time-critical situation. Days were wasted searching the South China Sea, not the Indian Ocean. 

It took at least a week to produce anything resembling a reliable time line of the Boeing 777’s course after the last contact between it and controllers. 

It turned out that the Malaysian military had noted an unidentified airplane flying west, not north toward China, but did not report this to the civilian authorities for two days. The Thai military tracked what was almost certainly the same unidentified flight continuing out over the Indian Ocean but did not report it for ten days “because it wasn’t asked.” 

As enraging as these lapses are, they should not come as a surprise. They are not the result of momentary negligence or incompetence. They reflect a long and deeply embedded status quo in the way international aviation is handled in one of the busiest air spaces in Asia. 

None of the nations involved is technically backward. Thailand, for example, not only manages, and manages well, one of the world’s busiest international hubs, Bangkok, a key gateway between Asia, the Middle East and Europe, but has two regional airports into which thousands of tourists fly safely every day, Phuket and Chiang Mai. All these airports are in the process of upgrading their navigation aids to future international standards. 

In this case the behavior is made even more complex by the shadowy role of Western intelligence agencies. 

There are, however, throughout the region, sealed compartments of military and civilian authority—the Thai military radar, for example, covers swathes of airspace beyond the areas allotted for commercial traffic. Not only national security is involved. The interdiction of drug traffic and piracy is involved. Separate branches of the military—air force, navy, and army—have high degrees of autonomy and are not used to sharing information with politicians. 

So it’s really not so shocking that when the need arises for states to share information, some of which may be classified, in a transparent and timely manner they simply don’t have the means, experience, or inclination to do so. 

America the Gentle Giant

How the United States can shape the world without boots on the ground and bombs in the air. 

BY Kristin Lord 

APRIL 2, 2014 

Vladimir Putin's cynical efforts to annex Crimea and intimidate the fledgling government of Ukraine make it all too clear that naked aggression in world affairs is not a thing of the past. The United States and its allies must respond firmly when such aggression occurs. But there are other perhaps less dramatic instances of resorting to force of arms. These include unresolved disputes between states -- or ethnic, tribal, and religious disputes within states -- that degenerate into armed conflict. 

In many instances these conflicts can be prevented, and there is every reason to try to do so. First, violent conflict has cascading security, political, and economic consequences in addition to offending universal values of justice and human dignity. Second, in most circumstances the use of military force alone provides no easy or attractive solutions. The United States, our allies and friends, and international institutions should therefore invest in equally effective means of preventing conflict, whether used in concert with or in lieu of force. These tools are necessary now. Trends such as the diffusion of global power, the rise of non-state actors, and the spread of potent technologies will only increase their relevance. 

A strong national defense is essential to peace. But the use of force is costly, in both lives and dollars, and it is not appropriate to every task. When our nation does use force, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the gains won by our troops are often best sustained using non-military means. Few things honor the sacrifice of our troops more than protecting what they fought for, and, wherever possible, keeping them out of war in the first place. 

We urge the president, his administration, and the U.S. Congress to prioritize non-military efforts of conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution. Done well, such efforts can avert or reduce the need to use force while advancing U.S. interests in ways that are both potent and cost effective. They can help other countries resolve conflicts through politics and the rule of law rather than through violence, which devastates lives and livelihoods, and empowers extremists and criminals. They can help non-violent citizen movements address the drivers of conflict -- such as corruption and the violation of minority rights -- in their own societies. 

The White House's Faulty Math on Gas Exports

The U.S. will soon be an energy exporter. But administration officials are overselling that potential. 

BY Keith Johnson

APRIL 3, 2014 

The Obama administration has a simple message for European countries fearful that Russia might use its energy might as a weapon: Don't worry, because the United States can export as much natural gas in a day as the entire continent uses every 24 hours. It's a comforting message for allies wondering whether to alienate Moscow by backing Ukraine's fragile government. Unfortunately, it's also wrong.

The confusion began with President Obama. On March 26, after a meeting with European leaders, the president said that future overseas sales of American natural gas could reduce Europe's dependence on fickle energy suppliers like Russia.

"The United States is blessed with some additional energy sources that have been developed in part because of new technologies, and we've already licensed, authorized the export of as much natural gas each day as Europe uses each day," Obama said.

Secretary of State John Kerry made a similar claim in Brussels on Wednesday after a summit with European Union officials that was specifically dedicated to energy issues.

"Our new capacities as a gas producer and the approval of seven export licenses is going to help supply gas to global markets, and we look forward to doing that starting in 2015. And we will supply more gas than all of Europe consumes today," he said.

Neither statement, as expressed, is correct. For the moment, the U.S. is a net importer of natural gas, which means America consumes more gas than it produces. Down the road, the U.S. will produce enough natural gas to begin selling significant amounts to foreign countries. That could meet some of Europe's gas demand, but not all of it.

Math is always fun, so here are the numbers in question. In 2013, the 28 countries of the European Union consumed about 44.7 billion cubic feet per day. In 2013, Europe imported about 4.6 billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas aboard massive tankers, which is the way U.S. firms would send natural gas to the continent. They get the remaining 38.7 billion cubic feet per day from other sources, including local production and by pipelines.

To be sure, American overseas sales will soon start to grow somewhat significantly. The Department of Energy has approved seven natural gas terminals in recent years which can export a total of about 9.2 billion cubic feet per day. The department is considering whether to sign off on the construction of 30 other plants which would allow American firms to theoretically export nearly 27 billion cubic feet per day more to the EU's member nations. In practice, many of those terminals will never be built, and much of that gas will likely be sold to customers in Asian countries in any event.

World Population Trends Signal Danger Ahead

April 5, 2014

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2014/04/05/world_population_trends_signal_danger_ahead_110414.html

By Barry Mirkin

The United Nations has released population data confirming the continuation of long-term global demographic trends and a larger global population than previously projected. Nations cannot afford to ignore trends including reduced fertility among most nations and limited family planning for others, and growing ranks of the elderly and accelerated urbanization pose new challenges.

The world population is larger. Global population achieved a milestone in 2011, hitting the 7 billion mark. Currently at 7.2 billion, the world is projected to increase by almost another billion people, climbing to 8.1 billion by 2025.

The population is older. Countries continue to age substantially, with those aged 60 or older the fastest growing segment. In developed countries, almost one in four is an older person, with more older people than children. Fertility is lower and family size smaller. The decline in population growth at the world level is the consequence of near universal reduction of fertility. Women are marrying later or not at all, postponing childbearing and having fewer or no children, and fertility has fallen to 2.5 children per woman. People are also living longer. Life expectancy is higher in most countries due to systematic progress against mortality. One can expect to live to age 77 in developed countries and to age 67 in developing countries.

The world is more urbanized. More than half of the world's population consists of urban dwellers, and this is expected to climb to two-thirds by mid-century. International migration is increasing in both volume and impact. Although the increase in the number of migrants has faltered in the aftermath of the global economic recession, more people than ever reside in a country other than where they were born. There are 232 million international migrants, 3 percent of world population.

The Joint Force Commander’s Guide to Cyberspace Operations

By Brett T. Williams | April 01, 2014

DOWNLOAD PDF

ABSTRACT

Commanders must grasp the role of cyberspace in national security, but that is a challenge without a ready way to visualize it. There is hope insofar as we can use extant ideas and language to conceptualize and teach cyberspace operations. That transition is only possible by first developing an underpinning theory and “narrative,” with the theory expressing the omnipresence of cyberspace and its interface with the government and civilian sectors. Additionally it must span the range from national security policy to minute technical details while inculcating the tensions caused by its own relentless evolution. The second necessity is overcoming rivalries and committing sufficient resources to continuously man, equip, and train the cyberspace force and integrate it with the other domains. 

Joint force commanders (JFC) earn the right to command because, regardless of their “native” domain, they are able to direct joint operations in the land, maritime, air, and space domains to achieve campaign objectives. Commanders must develop the same capability to direct operations in the cyber domain since mission success increasingly depends on freedom of maneuver in cyberspace. The preeminent JFC requirement for freedom of maneuver in cyberspace is command and control (C2). It is impossible to fully employ today’s joint force without leveraging cyberspace. Other examples include the fact that cyberspace is heavily used to support shaping and influence operations, particularly in the realm of deterrence. The ability to collect, analyze, and use intelligence information depends on cyberspace. Moving data from sensor to shooter and getting access to information all the way to the tactical edge are fundamental requirements for cyberspace. Finally, there are evolving opportunities to project power in and through cyberspace to support attaining campaign objectives. Since cyberspace operations are fundamental to success, commanders cannot continue to run the risk of inappropriately delegating key operational decisions because they and their staffs lack an understanding of the domain. This article argues that despite the technical complexity of cyberspace, the JFC can and should direct cyberspace operations at the operational level of war using current operational doctrine and existing planning and execution processes.

Information-Sharing with the Private Sector

JFQ 73 

By Veronica A. Chinn, Lee T. Furches, and Barian A. Woodward | April 01, 2014

DOWNLOAD PDF

ABSTRACT

Since the release of the 2003 National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, Government efforts to attain prescribed intragovernmental and public-private information sharing have proved fractured and incomplete. Issues have ranged from a lack of concerted focus on cyber security in both the executive and legislative branches, to a lack of information sharing to and from the Intelligence Community, to a systemic tendency to overclassify cyber threat reporting information, to distracting considerations to center the lead for cyber security within the military. The Obama administration’s Executive Order 13636 and Presidential Policy Directive 21 made positive steps toward rectifying many shortcomings, but they are only a partial solution. Congress must provide complementary cyber security legislation to fill gaps in the public-private information sharing construct prescribed in the 2003 strategy. Only then will the United States be fully on the path to a whole-of-nation approach to meet the full scope of cyber threats.

Imagine logging onto your bank’s secure Web site using your personal computer to pay monthly bills or transfer money between accounts to pay your mortgage. When you enter the Web site address or try to access a favorite link, you receive an error message. You check to see if your router is working and then verify that your Internet service is connected. You check other Web sites, and they load without issue. You call your bank to report the problem and they tell you their service should be available as soon as they fix a technical issue. Meanwhile, time is ticking toward the due date on your bills. This is what can happen when a major bank is under a denial-of-service attack.

Airman maintains communications cabling including copper wiring, indoor and outdoor cabling, and telephone switches (U.S. Air Force/George Goslin)

At PNC, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and a host of other big-name banks, this problem occurred in September 2012 and again the following January.1Millions of customers could not reach their accounts online because so-called hacktivists were using this method of cyber ransom to prove what they were capable of and to make political points.2 Most major banks have some protection against such attacks. If they require assistance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has developed the capability to track down many criminal organizations involved in denial-of-service attacks. But what if would-be attackers, sponsored by terrorist groups, nonstate actors, or nation-states, organized themselves to conduct a concerted cyber assault of more than the financial sector? That might be more than even the FBI could handle.

The New Realm of Unmanned Drones

April 4, 2014

A new kind of drone war: UCAV vs UCLASS

Rosalyn Turner

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Blog

The Australian government recently approved the acquisition of a fleet of US NavyTriton surveillance drones [2] to patrol our oceans. Australia has mostly used Israeli drones to date, such as the Herons in Afghanistan. So as we dip our toes into the American UAV market, it’s worth taking note of a recent development that might be threatening US primacy in this area.

While the Predator and Reaper laid the groundwork for the use of armed drones in warfare, a question remains about the survivability of the technology against modern air defences. Developing a stealthy long-range drone with a decent weapons payload that could go beyond missions in Yemen and Pakistan appeared to be the next order of business for the US, especially in the future Asia-Pacific theatre. Projects like the demonstrator X-47B [3] unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) have shown promise in achieving those missions. But for now the US Navy has decided to go for an unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike (UCLASS) system that won’t have the stealth or payload to penetrate air defences.

The UCLASS system will be designed to provide Navy carriers with long-range surveillance and strike [4] capabilities to target terrorists in much the same way as the Air Force’s drones are currently doing from bases around the world. The capacity to carry out those missions without relying on foreign bases is driving this decision, along with lower costs [4]. But the UCLASS system will only operate over states that have limited air defences (because of UCLASS vulnerability) or have provided the US permission to conduct strikes. Al-Qaeda affiliates are on the rise in Syria, where the Assad regime is both hostile toward the US and has the capability to deny drones. This raises the question of how many states will fit this category.

JFQ-73

Tag: JFQ-73

JFQ 73 | Ike Skelton, 1931-2013: Champion of Military Education

April 01, 2014 — Education is persistently undervalued in most military institutions. This lack of attention is based on two realities of military life: education engenders the habit of questioning, while sound discipline, particularly in combat, requires unhesitating obedience; furthermore, education requires reflection, but war demands action. Thus, the military Services tend to draw broad lines of demarcation between their thinkers and their fighters. 

JFQ 73 | From the Chairman

April 01, 2014 — Representing Servicemembers who make up today’s Joint Force is my greatest honor as Chairman. As the principal military advisor to the President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council, I work to develop a shared understanding of our capabilities and the Nation’s needs in order to provide sound advice and to represent the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To be effective, I must build relationships of trust with those elected to make decisions about the use of military force. But I did not begin to establish relationships with civilian leaders only when I became Chairman. 

JFQ 73 | Are We Really Ever Off Duty?

April 01, 2014 — As we in the U.S. military continue to renew our commitment to the Profession of Arms, the title of this article asks a compelling question for everyone who wears the cloth of the Nation. While I believe the question has an easy answer, let us not downplay the significance of asking it at every level of professional development. Most serving in the Armed Forces understand the deeper meaning of the question, as well as the commitment to the profession and the American people that goes along with it. Therefore, most military professionals would provide the short answer: “No, we are never really off duty.”

Averting a second cold war

Posted on March 31, 2014

BY BRAHMA CHELLANEY, 

The Japan TimesThat we live in a world of rapid change has been confirmed by the way recent developments over Ukraine have transformed international geopolitics in just a few weeks. The looming cold war triggered by the U.S.-supported putsch in Kiev that deposed Ukraine’s constitutional order and by Russia’s muscular riposte, including annexing Crimea, portends the advent of a new era.U.S. President Barack Obama’s new sanctions approach toward Russia indeed sets the stage for a potential clash between Western democracy and what American ideologues call “Putinism.”

The geopolitical tensions, military deployments and strident rhetoric point to the risk of preemptive moves and miscalculations sparking an accidental confrontation. We need only to recall how a spiral of actions and counter-actions led to World War I a hundred years ago.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s action in annexing Crimea violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity in breach of international law, even though it followed a referendum in this historically Russian region, where the majority of residents are indisputably with Russia.

Let us, however, not forget that the U.S. and NATO have flagrantly and repeatedly contravened international law in the past 15 years. It’s a long list — the bombing of Serbia, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without U.N. Security Council mandate, the overthrow of Moammar Gahdafi’s regime through aerial bombardment, the aiding of a still-raging bloody insurrection in Syria, and renditions and torture of terror suspects. The U.S. National Security Agency’s mass surveillance program also disregards international law.

An international system based on the rule of law cannot be good unless norms and rules are respected on all sides. Yet power often trumps international law. Neither the U.S. nor Russia respects international borders. America, for example, invoked its Monroe Doctrine to intervene, among others, in Panama, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

International law tends to take a back seat when a major power asserts a right to protect vital security interests. Indeed, when a great power needs a threat to justify its intervention in another state, it invariably finds one. There is thus a long political history of world powers quoting international law to others but ignoring it when it comes in their way. The Ukraine case illustrates the international law of convenience.

Hidden dragon on the high seas

Hidden Dragon on the high seas: China's deployment of a nuclear-powered attack submarine in the Indian Ocean sign als the beginning of its strategic encirclement of India

Sandeep Unnithan March 21, 2014 |  

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/china-nuclear-powered-attack-submarine-south-china-sea/1/350573.html

On December 8 last year, India's military attache in Beijing hurried out of the Foreign Affairs Office of the Ministry of National Defence and drove to the embassy at Chaoyang. The Brigadier-ranked officer was bearing an urgent message: China has just deployed, for the first time ever, a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) in the Indian Ocean. The submarine, the officer had been told, had sailed out a few days earlier to help with the People Liberation Army (PLA) Navy's anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf of Aden and Beijing was now informing New Delhi of it "to demonstrate respect for India". The news triggered alarm in the highest echelons of India's security establishment; Beijing, it seemed, had finally put steel into the string of pearls, a network of Chinese-built naval bases ringing India that stretch from Myanmar and Sri Lanka in the east to Pakistan in the west. Reports by RAW, the Defence Intelligence Agency and the Directorate of Naval Intelligence warned the government that the deployment, "seriously aggravates India's security concerns".

Shang-class SSNs at the PLA Navy base in Hainan IslandThough Beijing claimed the Shang-class SSN was part of a routine anti-piracy patrol-it returned to its base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea on February 20 after two months in the Indian Ocean-New Delhi read more sinister motives. "Nuclear-powered attack submarines don't take part in anti-piracy patrols," a senior government official tells india today. Naval analysts predict it is a precursor to the deployment of a full-scale carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean. The battle group, a mobile force comprising attack submarines, warships, tankers and troop ships, will be centred around two aircraft carriers currently under construction. Retired Rear-Admiral Raja Menon says as much. "It was a reconnaissance probe, the prelude to a full-scale deployment."

Breathing Fire

If, rather when, this happens, it will pose a direct threat to India's security and economic interests. India claims the region between the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Straits as within its sphere of influence, one that is vital for its maritime commerce as 80 per cent of the country's energy supplies, about 3.86 million barrels of crude oil per day, pass through it. And it's largely to secure these waters that the Navy has for years been demanding 25 per cent of the defence budget-it now gets 17 per cent-to acquire aircraft, warships and submarines. Naval planners dismiss speculation that this demand is driven by a desire to move into the South China Sea and emphasise that the navy "has neither the capability nor the intent" to do so. "The Indian Ocean remains our primary focus," says a senior official in the defence ministry.

Shift in balance of power?

Now, the Chinese have sailed in and altered the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Unlike conventional submarines, nuclear-powered submarines such as the Shang-class boats can operate submerged and almost undetected. Sailing at over 30 knots, they can attack warships, merchant vessels and use cruise missiles to hit targets on land. Chinese SSNs in the Indian Ocean can, thus, wreak havoc with India's naval plans, which rely mainly on a fleet of conventional diesel-electric submarines that are limited by range, endurance and size. A fleet of four such boats on a 'barrier patrol' can choke India's energy supplies, isolate the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and threaten the INS Vikramaditya carrier battle group. They can even impede deployment of the slower Arihant nuclear submarines from their base in Visakhapatnam into the Bay of Bengal and beyond. "India has no strategic capability yet to deter China," says retired Vice-Admiral K.N. Sushil, veteran submariner and former Southern Naval Command chief. "We are yet to sail the Arihant and are nowhere near starting our own SSN programme. We will, therefore, be self-deterred and without the capability to retaliate."

This despite the fact that deployment of the Chinese SSN in India's backyard was not entirely unexpected. Naval watchers were well aware of the three-phase strategy of military expansion, propounded by PLA Navy chief Admiral Liu Huaqing in the late 1980s-upgrade the navy into a blue water force or one capable of operating beyond territorial waters; deploy in the Indian Ocean between 2011 and 2020; and undertake global operations sometime between 2021 and 2049. The PLA Navy has since advanced this timeframe. Using piracy as an excuse, it has deployed warships to protect its merchant vessels and sailors in the Gulf of Aden since 2008. "For China, piracy has come as a huge opportunity," an Indian admiral told india today late last year. "Now they will continue their deployments on some pretext or the other."