Should America Be More Willing to Go to War?

Doug Bandow

September 7, 2016

Source Link

A couple of RAND Corporation scholars have discovered America’s problem vis-à-vis Russia: Washington isn’t willing to use its military as much. This has given Moscow an apparently unfair advantage in challenging America. Maybe Washington should reconsider its policy, they suggest.

Vladimir Putin appears to be working overtime to thwart U.S. policy in Ukraine and Syria. His actions have sparked economic sanctions and military countermeasures. The panicked Baltic states have demanded garrisons like other alliance members. NATO summits revolve around what is seen as a renewed security threat from Moscow.

Most Americans remain remarkably unaffected by Russia’s new assertiveness, however. The Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts are tragic for the victims, but have little impact on U.S. security. The only liberty Americans have lost as a result of the two imbroglios is the opportunity to trade with Russia.

However, Moscow’s actions are viewed as very bad news in Washington. Contend William Courtney and David Shlapak, Russia’s gains “suggest that the West may be doing less than it should to dissuade Russia from undermining Western interests.” They note that “a key reason” for Moscow’s success “is that Russia is more willing to use military power even though it has less of it,” and advocate a U.S. reassessment in response. Which presumably means America using its military more.

Actually, only in Georgia, Iraq and Syria has Washington been less belligerent than Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has intervened militarily in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq (thrice, counting the battle against ISIS), Afghanistan, Libya, and (counting drones) Pakistan and Yemen. American forces have been involved in smaller operations elsewhere, such as Africa and the Philippines. Washington also has threatened to visit death and destruction on states that posed no obvious threat to the United States, such as Iran. By any normal standard, there is no more warlike nation on the planet.

Split the Difference in Congress's Defense-Budget Fight

Michael O'Hanlon

September 7, 2016

Source Link

As Congress returns to work after a long summer recess, one of the big issues it needs to settle concerns next year’s defense budget. Right now, the House and Senate are about $18 billion apart in how they would fund the Department of Defense in 2017. That difference of opinion could produce a serious standoff in the weeks ahead. Congress needs to compromise on this matter in the short term—and prepare to work with a new president to address the real culprit, the 2011 Budget Control Act, come January.

Here is the essence of the dilemma. Before the new fiscal year begins on October 1, lawmakers must triangulate between three positions. President Obama’s national defense budget, including about $60 billion in war costs and other “overseas contingency operations” (OCO) funds, calls for a total of $610 billion for 2017. That figure also includes the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities (but not Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs).

The Senate Armed Services Committee passed a bill of similar amount to what the president had requested. But Chairman John McCain has called for adding nearly $20 billion to that figure, even though last fall’s budget deal between Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Obama would not allow it.

RESTRAINED STRATEGY, LOWER MILITARY BUDGETS

BENJAMIN H. FRIEDMAN

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/restrained-strategy-lower-military-budgets/

Editor’s Note: Welcome to the eighth installment in our new series, “Course Correction,” which features adapted articles from the Cato Institute’s recently released book, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role. The articles in this series challenge the existing bipartisan foreign policy consensus and offer a different path.

Despite five years of official complaints about “sequestration” budgets, U.S. military spending remains historically high. In 2016, U.S. military spending will be $607 billion, including $59 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, the fund that ostensibly finances wars but also funds non-war (or base) accounts. Barring a new budget deal, the fiscal year 2017 budget, now stuck in Congress, will be virtually the same size.

In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, Americans spend more on the military today than at any point in the Cold War, except the brief peaks during the Korean War and the 1980s. Current military spending is 36 percent higher in real terms than in 2000, with two-thirds of the growth in base spending. The United States spends more than double what Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea collectively spend on their militaries.

U.S. military spending is so high because U.S. security ambitions remain too broad. The strategy of primacy fails to guide choices among military responses to danger. It requires a large U.S. military, with units permanently deployed in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, and with the capability to quickly strike anywhere with air, naval, and ground forces. It sees threats everywhere and prescribes U.S. forces everywhere to meet them. As such, primacy is less a strategy, which prioritizes resources to achieve specific goals, than a vague invocation to try to use U.S. military forces to manage the world. A strategy of restraint, by contrast, would make more choices, involve the United States in far fewer potential fights, and lead to vast savings.

USAF Becoming Increasingly Dependent on Contractors to Fly Its Drone Fleet

Michael S. Schmidt

September 6, 2016

Air Force, Running Low on Drone Pilots, Turns to Contractors in Terror Fight

An Air Force pilot, left, prepared to launch a Predator drone from an American military base in the Persian Gulf region in January. Credit John Moore/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The American military’s extensive use of drones against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups has resulted in a shortage of Air Forcepilots and other personnel to operate the aircraft, leading the Pentagon to rely more on private contractors for reconnaissance missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Pentagon has used contractors to perform many duties traditionally carried out by uniformed personnel, like protecting military bases and feeding service members. The contractors who are now serving as drone pilots are based in the regions where the drones are flown, and they are legally prohibited from being “trigger pullers” and firing weapons, Air Force officials said. But there is no limit on the type of reconnaissance they can perform, and they are providing live video feeds of battles and special operations.

As the Obama administration has accelerated its campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and Libya over the past 10 months, the Pentagon has added four drones flown by contractors to the roughly 60 that are typically flown every day by uniformed Air Force personnel.

***Should India be Concerned about Sino-Pak Nexus?

By Bharat Lather

07 Sep , 2016

Source Link

The relation between China and Pakistan goes back to Chinese civil war, where communist forces took over main land China, while the existing government fled to Taiwan. Pakistan was the first Muslim country to recognize the new Chinese government and to break ties with the one in Taiwan.

China’s only overland link to Pakistan began in 1967 and got completed in 1979. Since that time, China and Pakistan have forged an important relationship.

The Sino-India War of 1962 served as a catalyst for Sino-Pak nexus in South Asia. By the end of 1962, both China and Pakistan had fought wars against India; the first being Indo-Pak Kashmir War of 1947-48 and the other being Sino-India War of 1962. Ultimately, to contain India, a strategic relationship was established between China and Pakistan. Their relationship can also be referred to Maoist-era strategy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Since, 1962, China continues to be in occupation of around 38000 square kilometers of Indian Territory in the Aksai Chin region of Jammu and Kashmir; another 5180 square kilometers ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 border agreement. Having built the roads in Tibet by 1960s, China decided to link Pakistan and Xinjiang by a land route passing through Khunjerab pass which later came to be known as Karakoram Highway (KKH), China’s only overland link to Pakistan began in 1967 and got completed in 1979. Since that time, China and Pakistan have forged an important relationship. On one side, Pakistan provides an important link for China to the United States as well as to the Muslim countries in the area.

In fact, Pakistan was instrumental in facilitating President’s Richard Nixon first visit to China in 1972. This visit shifted the balance of the Cold War, an aligned communist China with the U.S. against the Soviet Union. In international relations, the two countries support each other unilaterally. China backs Pakistan’s claim in the Kashmir region against India; while Pakistan advocates for China’s authority over Tibet and Taiwan.

** The Euro-American Immigration Crisis

By George Friedman 

Sept. 6, 2016 

Anti-immigration sentiments are growing stronger to the detriment of mainstream parties. 

On Sept. 4, Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was defeated in its race to control the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania state government. The CDU finished third, after the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party, which came in second. This defeat is significant because this was the home region for Angela Merkel, who has been German chancellor for over a decade. Last week, Donald Trump met with the Mexican president and, upon his return to the U.S., delivered a major address on immigration. Also, the Hungarian and Serbian prime ministers met this week and warned of increasing migration into Europe, discussing plans to stem the tide.

Merkel’s party’s defeat in her home region comes exactly a year after Hungary, overwhelmed by the inflow of migrants from Syria, tried to block their movement, and Merkel redefined European policy on immigration by opening German borders to all refugees. The election result shows not only the political unpopularity of her move in Germany. It also drives home that the reaction against immigration in both Europe and the United States is not dying down. It has not yet reached a point where anti-immigration sentiment is taking widespread political control in most countries involved. But it has become a transnational movement that cannot be ignored and is not going away.

Dominant mainstream parties’ first strategy to marginalize anti-immigration elements was to identify them as racists. The assumption was that if anti-immigrant forces were equivalent to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, those who saw themselves as mainstream would shun the anti-immigrant movement. The strategy had little effect. The anti-immigration sentiment was sufficiently strong and widespread that the charge of racism did not deter it. The movement was large enough that it could not be marginalized by the label. I would argue that the label had, to some extent, an effect opposite to that which was desired. The anti-immigration faction would not shift and took the position that if that meant they were racists, well and good. For those opposed to immigration, the charge tended to legitimize racism, rather than marginalize the anti-immigrant movement. The mainstream parties had lost the power to define the mainstream. 

AFSPA: The Army needs it!

September 06, 2016 

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/afspa-the-army-needs-it/20160906.htm

'Army personnel must be given immunity but such immunity must not be absolute, nor is it so under the present Armed Forces Special Powers Act.' Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (retd) lists why India must not do away with the controversial AFSPA, but ensure enough transparency to avoid confrontation with human rights.

Referring to the continuation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, senior political leaders no longer in government have insinuated on national television that the Indian Army has been given a veto over the decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Security. Can this ever be true?

The army, navy and air force chiefs are not even permanent invitees to meetings of the CCS; they attend only those meetings to which they are invited by name.

It is the army chief's rightful responsibility to give his recommendations on issues on which his advice is sought by the defence minister and it is up to the latter and the prime minister to accept or reject it.

The army has been and continues to remain scrupulously apolitical and senior political leaders, whether in the government or not, must not create false perceptions.

As for AFSPA, the Act has been under review for quite some time.

Fortress Kabul and Afghanistan’s Warlords

Shawn Snow

September 6, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/fortress-kabul-afghanistans-warlords-17582?page=show

Afghanistan is once again embattled in another bloody fighting season. Major population centers, to include Kunduz city and Lashkar Gah, are under threat of falling to the Taliban. U.S. and NATO forces continue to brief that Afghanistan still holds the major population centers and that the Taliban are unable to hold terrain. However, reports emanating from the battlefield indicate that Afghan forces are merely occupying a handful of administrative buildings throughout Helmand, effectively creating a fortress Lashkar Gah as the last bastion of government force in the province.

The same could be said of Kunduz city, where Taliban forces have effectively surrounded the populous city and captured most of its surrounding villages.

As each year passes by, Afghan forces continue to lose ground to the Taliban, though as indicated by Brigadier General Charles H. Cleveland, the Pentagon spokesman for Operation Resolute Support, the Taliban have been ineffective this fighting season—as he described the combat in Helmand, “15 to 20 Taliban would assault a checkpoint or a district center, a smaller group of Afghan forces at the location would withdraw, the Taliban would loot the place, then the Afghan forces would come back and move them out.

“What we see is the Taliban are not able to hold any specific terrain. Most important is, they are not able to hold any of the population centers and that's really what the Afghans have built their entire strategy on for this campaign season, is being able to secure key population areas as well as key infrastructure, “Cleveland said.

This description of the combat situation in Helmand does not seem to effectively explain how the Taliban now control the majority of Helmand Valley and Kunduz province. As Afghanistan continues to lose ground around the country, U.S. and NATO forces continue to apply a Western notion of military success by detailing to the public that all is well because the Afghan government still controls the major city centers of Lashkar Gah, Kunduz, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Herat, and Mazar-e-Sharif, while the countryside and rural Afghans are besieged and controlled by the Taliban.

Why PoK Elections are Important to Understand Kashmir Unrest

By Tilak Devasher

07 Sep , 2016

Source Link

The July 21, 2016 elections to the Legislative Assembly in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pakistan seeks to call it – went almost unnoticed in India. The Indian media’s attention being drawn almost exclusively to the situation in the Kashmir Valley, these elections, the results and the possible impact on India, continues to be ignored here. 

The PoK Legislative Assembly has 41 directly elected seats: 29 in POK itself and 12 for the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir (6 each for Jammu and the Kashmir Valley) in different parts of Pakistan (nine in Punjab, two in Sindh and one in Peshawar). In addition, there are five seats reserved for women and three, one each for technocrat, overseas Kashmiri and Ulema-Mashaikh elected by the elected members making it a 49 member Legislative Assembly.

The PML (N). the ruling party of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, won 31 out of the 41 seats as against 11 seats in the outgoing assembly. Its tally included 22/29 in PoK and 9/12 from the refugee constituencies, of which eight were from Punjab and one from Karachi. The PPP got three as against 29 seats in the outgoing assembly. Of these two were from POK and one from Karachi. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) won two (Lahore and Peshawar) as against one previously; the Muslim Conference got three (all PoK) as against five earlier; the MQM got no seats against two previously, both from Karachi; one seat each was won by the Jammu Kashmir Peoples Party (JKPP) and an independent.

Two factors have dominated elections in POK and the recent elections were no exception. First, as always, ‘biradari’ played a vital role. Biradari in PoK is not merely an identity but a category vital to procure government jobs, to exert influence on the police, the administration and the judiciary.

Taliban Capture Another District in Eastern Afghanistan

Bill Roggio

September 5, 2016

The Taliban and Afghan officials confirmed that the jihadist group overran the district of Omna in the eastern province of Paktika after Afghan forces retreated earlier today. The district is the second in the east to fall to the Taliban in the past week as the group continues to press operations in all areas of the country.

Afghan soldiers and “special unit personnel” were sent to the district to halt the Taliban advance, but “beat a tactical retreat,” an anonymous Afghans security official told Pajhwok Afghan News. An Afghan official confirmed the Taliban had seized control of Omna.

The Taliban said it was able to “completely liberate Omna district” after four days of fighting in two separate statements that were released on its official website, Voice of Jihad.

“The attack in which heavy and light weapons were used resulted in the district administration buildings and all 6 defense posts overrun, 7 enemy personnel killed, 5 wounded and the rest utilizing the dark to flee,” one statement declared. “Similarly Mujahideen also seized 6 pickup trucks, a motorbike as well as a sizable amount of weapons and ammunition.”

The Taliban also claimed that 21 Afghan security personnel were killed and 16 more were wounded, while five of its fighters were killed and four were wounded. The Taliban’s claims on casualties cannot be independently confirmed; the group frequently exaggerates casualties sustained in its operations.

Omna is the second district in the Afghan east to fall to the Taliban since Aug. 26. On that day, the Taliban overran Jani Khel in neighboring Paktika province after laying siege to the district center for more than two weeks. Afghan officials in the district pleaded for reinforcements to prevent the collapse of the district but the Ministry of Defense failed to send any. [See LWJ report, Taliban storms district in eastern Afghanistan.]

China Developing New Strategic Bomber

Gareth Jennings

September 6. 2016

China Developing New Strategic Bomber

China is to build a new strategic bomber aircraft to enhance the country’s long-range strike capabilities, national media reported on 3 September.

The news was announced by the commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), General Ma Xiaotian, who said that the new aircraft was in development and will be fielded “sometime in the future,” according to the China Daily. No further details were disclosed.

The PLAAF currently fields approximately 120 XAC Hongzhaji (H)-6 bombers. Essentially an upgraded version of the 1960s-era Soviet Tupolev Tu-16 ‘Badger’, the H-6 is powered by two Russian Soloviev D-30KP-2 turbofan engines and can carry a bomb/missile load of up to 9,000 kg in an internal weapons bay or on six underwing hardpoints out to a combat radius of 3,500 km (for the latest H-6K variant).

It is not clear from General Ma Xiaotian’s comment whether the new bomber will be a clean-sheet design, or a further development of the H-6. While conceptual drawings of a futuristic bomber have appeared online in China, there is no indication that there has been any official input into these designs. If the platform turns out to be a newly upgraded variant of the H-6, it will join the 13 already developed, built, and fielded by the PLAAF to date.

Hillary and the Case of the Chinese Defector

Bill Gertz

September 6, 2016

Clinton Turned Away High-Level Chinese Defector to Assist Beijing Leaders

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton turned away a high-ranking Chinese defector who sought political asylum after the communist police chief sought refuge in a U.S. consulate in southwestern China four years ago.

Critics say Clinton’s handling of the defection of Wang Lijun, a close aide to a regional Communist Party leader, was a blunder and lost opportunity for U.S. intelligence to gain secrets about the leaders of America’s emerging Asian adversary.

Instead of sheltering Wang and granting him political asylum, Clinton agreed to turn him over to Chinese authorities in Beijing, and claimed he was not qualified for American sanctuary because of his past role as a police chief accused of corruption.

However, the defector’s case highlights Clinton’s policy of seeking to preserve U.S. ties with China’s communist leadership instead of pursuing much-needed intelligence gathering on China at a time when Beijing is emerging as an increasingly threatening power.

Clinton defended the betrayal of Wang in her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices. The former secretary and current Democratic presidential nominee revealed in the book that the U.S. government agreed to keep secret all details of Wang’s sensational defection attempt in order to help Beijing’s Communist rulers avoid public embarrassment over a major internal power struggle and high-level corruption scandal months ahead of then-Chinese leader Hu Jintao’s transfer of power to current supreme leader Xi Jinping.

Details of the mishandling of the Wang defection have been kept secret by the Obama administration, and Clinton’s version of events were contradicted by U.S. officials and the official Chinese account. Instead of gaining long-term access to a valuable defector with inside knowledge of Chinese strategy and policies, Clinton contacted the Chinese government in Beijing and allowed security officials to take Wang into custody outside the U.S. consulate some 30 hours after he entered the property in a daring bid to flee China for the United States.

China's High-Stakes Korea Conundrum

Lyle J. Goldstein

September 5, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-high-stakes-korea-conundrum-17576?page=show

Even the promising trilateral meeting recently of South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese foreign ministers could not dispel the dark cloud over the Korean Peninsula. As the annual South Korea-U.S. joint military exercises got underway, Chinese news commentators discussed in detail which U.S. Air Force bombers deployed to Guam had which type of relevant nuclear payloads. Of course, there was also the disquieting news item that North Korea successfully launched a ballistic missile recently from a submarine – an event that hardly registered for the busy candidates in the U.S. presidential election contest. Meanwhile, this summer also witnessed significant protests in South Korea as Seoul announced that it would deploy Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile systems over vocal objections from Beijing. Compared to various incidents involving fishing boats and coast guard vessels in the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula might justifiably claim priority on the attention of strategists across the Asia-Pacific.

It is widely understood that the key dyad in the Korean Gordian Knot is Beijing’s tie to Pyongyang – a point underlined in this column more than once. With the conviction that U.S. leaders need to have the most complete possible picture of China’s approach to North Korea, this edition of Dragon Eyeexamines another “shot across the bow” from Beijing’s hot internal debate about its future relationship with Pyongyang that was published in an early 2016 edition of Northeast Asia Forum [东北亚论坛] by Wang Junsheng, a researcher of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The paper is identified as the product of a “National Social Science Fund Project” [国家社科基金项目].

There's Still a Lot We Don't Know About the Iran Deal

Emily B. Landau

September 6, 2016

Source Link

The latest report issued by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reveals confidential exemptions that Iran was granted by the Joint Commission in order to meet its requirements for implementing the Iran deal last January. The report has sparked a debate over whether there were in fact exemptions, and what they entailed. But the more serious issue raised by this report—and emphasized by its authors—regards the question of secrecy and confidentiality surrounding elements of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its implementation. From this perspective, the ISIS report is only the latest in a string of episodes over the past year in which issues involving secrecy (or lack of disclosure) have been exposed. Sometimes the issues have related directly to JCPOA provisions, and sometimes to the U.S. administration’s portrayal of events or policies related to the deal.

In their eagerness to block any criticism of the Iran deal, JCPOA supporters immediately denounced the ISIS report and attacked its credibility—not an easy task, considering David Albright is one of the most reputable voices on this topic. In a worrisome exchange with reporters, State Department spokesperson John Kirby denied any exemption for Iran, or that Iran had accumulated more than three hundred kilograms of “usable” low-enriched uranium—employing a new term that does not exist in the deal itself. On the question of secrecy, experts who support the deal have been arguing on social media that not only do they not view secrecy as a problem, but that it is a common element in arms-control agreements, citing U.S.-Soviet/Russian arms-control treaties as a case in point.

Saudi Arabia's Yemen War Isn't About Sectarianism

Michael Duffy

September 6, 2016

Source link

The Yemen War seldom punctuates our current news cycles here in the West. When it does, it often depicts the narrative of sectarianism; Sunni versus Shia, Saudi Arabia versus Iran.

The conflict is complicated, to say the least. It involves a series of fractious actors and alliances, each with their own agendas and ambitions. Reductionist analysis too often boil it down to the aforementioned sectarian tilt. This, whilst certainly playing a part, too often misses the mark.

So what is the reasoning behind Saudi actions in Yemen? First we must address the sectarian tendencies of the conflict to see exactly what role it encompasses.

The Houthis, Hezbollah and Iran

The Houthis are Zaydi Shia tribe, primarily located in northern Yemen’s Saada governorate. Zaydism is theologically closer to Sunni Islam than the Twelver Shiism practiced in Iran, their supposed patron. Unlike their Twelver cousins; the Zaydis only believe in five imams, not twelve, reject the idea of the Mahdi and do not celebrateAshura. As such, Zaydi Shiism is recognised as being more moderate. More so, the sectarianism which defines much of the region is not so apparent between the Sunni and Shia communities in Yemen; spotting both Sunni and Shia praying in the same mosques is not uncommon. Not the ideal environment for revolutionary religious fundamentalism to take hold.

Nevertheless, the Houthi movement’s incorporation of more radical elements is arguable. Former leader Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi (of which the group is named after) studied at the Badr Religious Centre where he was influenced by aspects of Twelver Shiism, and imbued these ideas throughout his following. This included the reformation of the Zaydi imamate, which ruled Yemen from its foundation in 897 until its overthrow in 1962. How much this idea has permeated the current Houthi movement is unclear. Its adopted slogan, which echoes Iranian prescriptions, "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam" potentially gives indications to its potential immoderation, though many experts dispute this.

What If Islamic State Becomes Stateless? – OpEd

BY NEVILLE TELLER 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

http://www.eurasiareview.com/07092016-what-if-islamic-state-becomes-stateless-oped/

The grandiose dreams of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of Islamic State (IS) who envisioned a jihadist caliphate encompassing the entire globe under his leadership, appear to be crumbling. In parallel with Adolf Hitler’s “thousand year Reich” which in fact lasted barely twelve, IS’s initial period of amazing success and swift territorial gain has been followed by a slow but steady attrition of those early victories. It is estimated that since its heyday in mid-2014, IS has lost about half its territory in Iraq and some 20 percent in Syria. On September 4, 2016, IS was chased from the last of its holdings on the Syrian-Turkish border, depriving it of a key transit point for recruits and supplies.

Its leaders, moreover, are being eliminated, one by one. The latest, and perhaps most significant, loss was that of Abu Muhammad al-Adnani on August 30, 2016. Adnani, the leading IS strategist, was the mastermind behind many of its spectacular terror attacks against Western interests. In September 2014 he called on Muslims in the West to kill Europeans wherever and however they could, warning foreign governments: “We will strike you in your homeland, especially the spiteful and filthy French.” And he urged them to do it in any manner they could: “Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car.”

Recent Losses Along Syrian-Turkish Border Mean That ISIS Is Cut Off From the Outside World

September 6, 2016

IS Loss of Border Area With Turkey Sharply Harms Group

BEIRUT — Expelling the Islamic State group from the last territory it controlled along the Syrian-Turkish border has effectively cut the militants’ supply lines from the outside world. That could affect their ability to protect their last bastions — the cities of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

The area under IS control has been shrinking for months, under assault from forces determined to wipe out the self-declared “caliphate.” The fight for Mosul appears to be imminent, with U.S.-backed Iraqi forces closing in, and Raqqa will probably be in the crosshairs for an attack possibly led by Kurdish militias in the near future.

If removed from power in the territory it controls, many fear it will turn even more decisively toward terrorist attacks against civilians in the region and in the West, operating from the shadows. It that way, it will be more like the group it developed from: al-Qaida.

A look at the current battle against Islamic State:

HOW DID THE SUPPLY LINES FROM TURKEY WORK?

After the Syrian conflict began in March 2011, people could evade Turkish troops on the border and sneak into or out of Syria. Many of those crossing into Syria were jihadis from around the world joining al-Qaida’s branch. Others, mostly Syrians, could use border checkpoints. Smugglers also were active, helping people cross over.

WHY DID TURKEY ALLOW THIS, AND WHAT CHANGED?

Exploiting ISIS Computers for Intelligence Purposes

September 6, 2016

Intelligence: How Naughty Naked Women Serve ISIL

Since September 11, 2001 the United States has been increasingly successful in capturing documents from Islamic terrorist groups. Early on (Afghanistan in late 2001) most of the documents were on paper. But even then some were on computers and since then Islamic terrorists have been found using a lot more computers (especially tablets, laptops and smart phones) filled with documents. That has caused some unanticipated problems. The one that is talked about is problems finding qualified translators for captured documents. That has been partially solved by better machine translation software. Another problem, that is less talked about openly, is the enormous amount of pornography found on Islamic terrorist computers and the potential problem with the possibility that some of it may contain hidden messages. 

This is called steganography (hide encrypted text messages in digital JPG, GIF or whatever images). Steganography has been around for a long time but only became really practical with the arrival of cheap and powerful PCs. Inexpensive commercial steganography software began to appear in 2001. These programs, like Camera/Shy in 2002, were basically very easy to use steganography tools that allowed any PC user to hide encrypted text messages in a digital image. Camera/Shy was created to make it easier for people to safely communicate if they lived in nations that censored and monitored the Internet. Camera/Shy was freeware (given away) and terrorists and criminal organizations began using it. That did not work out as intended because other software firms soon created commercial software (for police and intelligence agencies) that would quickly identify images that had messages inserted by Camera/Shy. This led to a software arms race with new and improved software that worked like Camera/Shy but was harder to detect and decrypt.

Intelligence agencies have not revealed how much steganography data showed up in captured Islamic terrorist image files but it was apparently enough to require American military intelligence analysts to spend a lot of time checking out all these captured porn files for hidden (by steganography) data. This has caused some morale problems among Intel personnel assigned to search for ISIL use of steganography in their porn. This takes a lot of effort, gets tiresome after a while (especially if the analyst is female or otherwise not interested).

Fall of ISIS at Manbij and its Implications on Syrian Conflict: An Analysis

By Harsh Upadhayay

07 Sep , 2016

Source Link

Introduction

After months of preparation and 10 weeks of fierce fighting, a US-backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab fighters, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), took full control of Manbij on 12 August 2016 after driving Islamic State (IS) militants from the strategic town.[1] The fall of Manbij following the fall of Fallujah, Palmyra, Ramadi, Shaddadeh, Sinjar and Sirte is a major setback to the Islamic State. Islamic State has lost nearly 10,000 square miles, accounting to nearly 50 percent of what it once controlled in Iraq and 20 percent of what they held in Syria.[2] The defeat of ISIS will definitely demoralize its fighters and damage its reputation among its sympathizers.

Manbij Offensives also known as Operation Martyr was launched on 31 May 2016 by the SDF backed by US coalition forces. The Offensive has succeeded in getting hold of the “Manbij Pocket”. Manbij is the second largest town in the northern province of Aleppo and is situated close to the River Euphrates and the Turkish border.[3] The SDF has been considered to be instrumental and the most effective force in the battle and victory for Manbij and is mainly constituted of Kurdish and Arab fighters but is dominated by Syrian Kurdish militia also known as YPG (Yekîneyên Parastina Gel‎) or People’s Protection Unit.

Why Manbij was Important?

As of now Manbij is the epicenter of the Syrian war and fight against ISIS. ISIS seized Manbij in January 2014, and due to the city’s strategic location, used it as a hub for recruiting and processing foreign fighters and for dispatching operatives across the Turkish border for potential use in external operations.[4] The defeat of ISIS in the course of “Manbij Offensives” is strategically significant as it was also the main supply route from the Turkish border to their de-facto capital, Raqqa.

The two important cities of Al-Bab and Jarablus, near the Turkish border are respectively located 50 and 30 kms south and north of Manbij. Manbij can serve as an important base for the SDF to capture both the cities and thereby shut down the entry and exit points for Jihadists in Syria.

What Next: Al-Bab or Raqqa?

Saudi Arabia Wants to Roll Back Iran

Arash Reisinezhad

September 4, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/saudi-arabia-wants-roll-back-iran-17574?page=show

On July 9, Prince Turki bin Faisal, former Saudi intelligence head, unprecedentedly attended a rally for the notorious Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK) and called for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran. His remarks were immediately followed on July 30 by a meeting between the head of the MEK, Maryam Rajavi, and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Paris. Earlier before, in late March, the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), which has not taken up arms against Iran for roughly twenty years, suddenly waged a vicious insurgency against Tehran, leading to bloody skirmishes between the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian Kurdish peshmerga in northwestern Iran. These sequential events herald a new era in confrontation between Tehran and Riyadh.

The growing escalation between Tehran and Riyadh has been sometimes mentioned in the context of a new geopolitical “Great Game.” Both countries have been engaged in a decades-long strategic contest for regional supremacy in an area stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and Arabian seas. The two powers are backing different sides in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and finally Yemen.

In the pre-9/11 era, Saudi Arabia used to regionally contain Iran and its foreign policy of “exporting the revolution” by siding with the Baath regime of Baghdad and later with Kabul’s Taliban. Despite grave ideological differences, Riyadh’s leaders backed Saddam Hussein in the bloody eight-year war with Iran. Rooted in King Faisal’s financial support for the extension of Wahhabism in Pakistan and then backing the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–89), the Saudis had also a key role in establishing the fundamentalist Taliban in Kabul. By the late 1990s, Saudi Arabia’s achievements in containing Iran reached their peak.

Exploiting ISIS Computers for Intelligence Purposes

September 6, 2016

Intelligence: How Naughty Naked Women Serve ISIL

Since September 11, 2001 the United States has been increasingly successful in capturing documents from Islamic terrorist groups. Early on (Afghanistan in late 2001) most of the documents were on paper. But even then some were on computers and since then Islamic terrorists have been found using a lot more computers (especially tablets, laptops and smart phones) filled with documents. That has caused some unanticipated problems. The one that is talked about is problems finding qualified translators for captured documents. That has been partially solved by better machine translation software. Another problem, that is less talked about openly, is the enormous amount of pornography found on Islamic terrorist computers and the potential problem with the possibility that some of it may contain hidden messages. This is called steganography (hide encrypted text messages in digital JPG, GIF or whatever images). 

Steganography has been around for a long time but only became really practical with the arrival of cheap and powerful PCs. Inexpensive commercial steganography software began to appear in 2001. These programs, like Camera/Shy in 2002, were basically very easy to use steganography tools that allowed any PC user to hide encrypted text messages in a digital image. Camera/Shy was created to make it easier for people to safely communicate if they lived in nations that censored and monitored the Internet. Camera/Shy was freeware (given away) and terrorists and criminal organizations began using it. That did not work out as intended because other software firms soon created commercial software (for police and intelligence agencies) that would quickly identify images that had messages inserted by Camera/Shy. This led to a software arms race with new and improved software that worked like Camera/Shy but was harder to detect and decrypt.

Intelligence agencies have not revealed how much steganography data showed up in captured Islamic terrorist image files but it was apparently enough to require American military intelligence analysts to spend a lot of time checking out all these captured porn files for hidden (by steganography) data. This has caused some morale problems among Intel personnel assigned to search for ISIL use of steganography in their porn. This takes a lot of effort, gets tiresome after a while (especially if the analyst is female or otherwise not interested).

Against Democracy

Jason Brennan

September 6, 2016

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/against-democracy-17605?page=show

Just over twenty years ago Francis Fukuyama declared liberal democracy the end of history. But history marched on, revealing rot in democracy’s roots. Around the world, from radical leftists in Venezuela and Greece to American Trump supporters, bitter voters wave their banners around populist demagogues. Nationalist movements, echoing those that lead to the first world war, are on the rise. The working classes reject globalization, immigration and economic liberalism. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and other countries may soon follow suit. In the United States, the political parties are more polarized than ever before, with the most right-wing Democrat to the left of the most left-wing Republican. As a result, the United States faces gridlock and tribal politics rather than compromise solutions.

These movements are driven by low-information voters and the politicians who serve them. The past few decades have been perhaps the best in human history, with more people around the world rising out of absolute poverty than ever before. But many Western voters, ignorant of the social sciences or even of basic political facts, see change all around them, feel left behind and neglected, and strike out in fear and resentment.

When we take a close look at the science of voter behavior, we should not be surprised to see democracy producing poor results on occasion. What’s surprising is that democracies do not fare even worse.

Democracies contain an essential flaw. By spreading power out widely, they remove any incentive for individual voters to use their power wisely. In a major election or referendum, individual voters have no greater chance of making a difference than they do of winning Powerball. They have no incentive to be well informed. They might as well indulge their worst prejudices. Democracy is the rule of the people, but entices people to be their worst.

Europe, Britain and America's Fading Primacy

Freddy Gray

September 2, 2016

Source Link

Who wants to be policeman of the world in the twenty-first century? America has tried the role, bless it, and the results have yielded little joy. The greatest military machine mankind has ever seen can’t seem to win a war. The conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq all proved to be great wastes of American treasure and blood. Even the apparently successful U.S.-led interventions, such as in Libya in 2011, have led to disaster. What the historian Andrew J. Bacevich calls America’s “War for the Greater Middle East” has proved to be its unmaking as the world’s undisputed superpower. America’s quest to spread its freedom, abundance and security has ended up reducing its freedom, abundance and security.

The age of American primacy, as we know it at least, is approaching its end. The “unipolar moment,” which followed the Cold War, was always fleeting. The American super-supremacy of the 1990s and early 2000s has faded. A strange, arguably “post-polar” world order, in which nothing is as it seems, has emerged in its place. The United States, under the presidency of Barack Obama, has adopted the strategy of “leading from behind”—much to the chagrin of neoconservatives everywhere. But what Obama really meant was America still trying to lead from the front, as before, but with added reluctance. China the rising giant, but its economic growth international ambitions are mysterious and opaque. Russia is often said to be a diminishing force—its economy too reliant on outdated fossil fuels—yet it is achieving its strategic goals where every other major power is failing. Thanks to a sophisticated information machine, the Kremlin’s soft power is more potent than at any time in the last thirty years.

The Russian Army Order of Battle in the Ukraine

September 6, 2016

The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Service has placed online a powerpoint presentation which includes a slide detailing the organizational structure of all Russian army units current operating along the border with the Ukraine as well as inside the pro-Moscow breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. There is also a complete order of battle and personnel roster of the Russian air defense unit which is widely believed to have behind the shootdown of Flight MH17. Very nice document to have stashed in your files.

The Ukrainian powerpoint presentation can be accessed here.

Europe, Britain and America's Fading Primacy

Freddy Gray

September 2, 2016

Source Link

Who wants to be policeman of the world in the twenty-first century? America has tried the role, bless it, and the results have yielded little joy. The greatest military machine mankind has ever seen can’t seem to win a war. The conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq all proved to be great wastes of American treasure and blood. Even the apparently successful U.S.-led interventions, such as in Libya in 2011, have led to disaster. What the historian Andrew J. Bacevich calls America’s “War for the Greater Middle East” has proved to be its unmaking as the world’s undisputed superpower. America’s quest to spread its freedom, abundance and security has ended up reducing its freedom, abundance and security.

The age of American primacy, as we know it at least, is approaching its end. The “unipolar moment,” which followed the Cold War, was always fleeting. The American super-supremacy of the 1990s and early 2000s has faded. A strange, arguably “post-polar” world order, in which nothing is as it seems, has emerged in its place. The United States, under the presidency of Barack Obama, has adopted the strategy of “leading from behind”—much to the chagrin of neoconservatives everywhere. But what Obama really meant was America still trying to lead from the front, as before, but with added reluctance. China the rising giant, but its economic growth international ambitions are mysterious and opaque. Russia is often said to be a diminishing force—its economy too reliant on outdated fossil fuels—yet it is achieving its strategic goals where every other major power is failing. Thanks to a sophisticated information machine, the Kremlin’s soft power is more potent than at any time in the last thirty years.

What is Putin Up to in the Ukraine?

By Kathleen Weinberger

September 5, 2016

Putin’s Gambit in Ukraine: Strategic Implications

Vladimir Putin has mobilized military forces in Crimea and on Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders. He has raised the level of fighting in eastern Ukraine to levels not seen in over a year and then arranged a ceasefire. He has moved advanced air defense systems into Crimea and is raising new Russian divisions near Ukraine. Analysts are baffled. Some note that this unprecedented mobilization makes little sense if Putin does not mean to fight Ukraine soon. Others dismiss it as the normal activities of a great power’s military. Neither view is correct. There is nothing normal about this mobilization, but neither does Putin desire a war with Ukraine. He intends, rather, to use this mobilization and escalation of conflict to create leverage to weaken EU sanctions, destabilize the Ukrainian government, undermine NATO, and present the next American president with a series of faits accomplis. He is likely to succeed in all these aims.

Escalation against Ukraine

Putin has maintained a significant military presence in Crimea and eastern Ukraine since the Russian invasion in 2014. Putin and the separatists he supports have failed to resolve the conflict by either military or diplomatic means. Putin has steadily increased Russia’s military presence in and around Ukrainian territory and the Black Sea since early 2016, with much of the groundwork having been laid in 2014. He announced plans to move the advanced S-400 air defense system to Crimea in July. The recent escalation, however, has been much more sudden, rapid, and substantial than his previous undertakings.