From Turkey To The Baltics, NATO Faces Up To Russia

http://econintersect.com/pages/contributors/contributor.php?post=201510102155&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Global+Economic+Intersection+Newsletter+Feed&utm_content=Daily+Global+Economic+Intersection+Newsletter+Feed+CID_2fecbae0e681283fdb4e8cc14cb41c3c&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=From+Turkey+To+The+Baltics+NATO+Faces+Up+To+Russia

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by David J Galbreath, University of Bath

Jens Stoltenberg, secretary general of NATO, has said the organisation is "ready and able to defend all allies, including Turkey against any threats". This followed incursions into Turkish airspace by Russian planes. On the same day, UK defence secretary, Michael Fallon announced that around 100 British troops would be deployed to the Baltic region.

Arguably these actions and others are a response to what Admiral Mark Ferguson, the commander of US Naval Forces Europe, described as Russia's "arc of steel" - a chain of air, land and sea defence assets stretching from the Arctic to the Middle East.

These gestures herald what many in NATO see as an ominous new turn in Russia's behaviour. This sea change in NATO-Russia relations has its roots way back in the Kosovo conflict, but finally seems to be coming full circle - first in Ukraine and now in Syria.

Deteriorating relations

Russia has reportedly had both regular and irregular troops operating in eastern Ukraine, not to mention Crimea, and has now entered into the civil war in the air over Syria to help prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, along with the Iranians and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Now both Ukraine and Syria are being used to illustrate how Russia is a growing threat to European security. NATO's role is to give reassurance to not only the Baltic States and Poland but also now to Turkey.

Can Afghan Forces Resist the Taliban?

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/can-afghan-forces-resist-taliban/p37108

Interviewee: Stephen D. Biddle, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Defense Policy

Interviewer: Zachary Laub, Online Writer/Editor

October 9, 2015

The Taliban's brief seizure of Kunduz marked its first capture of a provincial capital in the fourteen years since the U.S. invasion. It also signaled the vulnerability of Afghan security forces, which were able to reclaim Kunduz only with U.S. air support. Ultimately, the only acceptable outcome is a negotiated settlement between the government and Taliban, says CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Stephen Biddle, but that could be a long time off, given turmoil within the Taliban. Ahead of any talks, Afghan forces will have to maintain a stalemate with the Taliban, says Biddle, but without air power and hobbled by political divisions, they will require U.S. support well beyond the narrow mission that President Barack Obama articulated in June 2014.

Afghan National Army officers at a training exercise in Kabul. (Photo: Ahmad Masood/Reuters)

Kunduz was the first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban since 2001. What does that say about Afghan forces' ability to hold territory beyond Kabul?

If you want to defend everywhere, it requires a lot of people. The United States has been trying for a long time to get the Afghan government to make decisions about places that it doesn't need to hold so that it can concentrate in places that matter, but the Afghan government is reluctant to give up any territory, and it has ended up overextended.

Is Caspian Sea Fleet a Game-Changer?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/10/11/caspian-sea-russia-navy-missiles-attack-strike-military-naval-syria-frigate-corvette-lcs-littoral-combat-ship/73671188/

By Christopher P. CavasOctober 11, 2015 

WASHINGTON — Few naval strategists would count Russia’s Caspian Sea flotilla among significant units in an order of battle. The inland sea features naval forces from the four bordering countries — Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkmenistan in addition to Russia — but most vessels are small missile-armed or patrol craft, nearly all well under 1,000 tons. The forces have been viewed purely as local craft.

But that changed on Oct. 7, when four Russian warships in the Caspian Sea launched a reported 26 Kalibr SS-N-30A cruise missiles at targets in Syria, nearly 1,000 nautical miles away. While most analysts dismissed the military effects of the missile strikes, the fact that such small, inexpensive and relatively simple craft can affect ground operations that far away is significant.

“It is not lost on us that this launch from the Caspian Sea was more than just hitting targets in Syria,” said a US official. “They have assets in Syria that could have handled this. It was really about messaging to the world and us that this is a capability that they have and they can use it.”

The Kalibr missile used in the strikes is an improved version of the Granat land-attack cruise missile, similar to the US Navy’s Tomahawk, that travels at subsonic speeds. Designated 3M-14T by the Russians — SS-N-30A is the NATO designation — the Kalibr long-range version has only recently reached operational status. A submarine-launched version is in service, along with a ship-launched version equipping larger ships, including the Project 1161K Gepard-class light frigate Dagestan, which took part in the operation. But until now it was not clear that smaller ships, including the Project 21631 Buyan-M corvettes that also took part in the Oct. 7 attacks, could operate the weapon.

Wake up India: Neglecting science could kill it one day

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/wake-up-india-neglecting-science-could-kill-it-one-day/story-Wh7Zusj2KdRrDfBfZRtp6N.html

Sumit Bhaduri, Hindustan Times | 

Updated: Oct 11, 2015 

Google honours Sir CV Raman the Nobel laureate physicist on his 125th birth anniversary. (Photo courtesy: Google) 

October is that month when institutions in Sweden and Norway, including the Swedish Academy of Sciences, announce the winners of the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics and peace. The awards in physics, chemistry and medicine have a long history and it is probably this long tradition, rather than their monetary value, that gives the Nobel Prize the extraordinary power to influence public perceptions of the scientific profession.

A question sometimes asked, though perhaps less often than it should be by Indian politicians and the intelligentsia, is why, despite our much-touted scientific acumen, no Nobel Prize in science has been won by an Indian for work done in India for more than 80 years — as Sir CV Raman won the physics Nobel in 1930.

This question is an important one since the teaching and doing of science require substantial resources that come from the tax payer. An obvious answer is that for Indian science to reach such prize-winning calibre we require not just ‘outstanding’ discoveries in science but also what it takes to come up with them and that these requirements have undergone changes beyond recognition since the Raman era. The question we should rather be asking today is what kind of science allows individual excellence to thrive, bring glory to the nation, and deliver tangible benefits to society.

America's Grand Strategy to Contain China: The Trans-Pacific Partnership?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-grand-strategy-contain-china-the-trans-pacific-14053

Aaron L Connelly

October 12, 2015

Is the TPP an effort to contain China?

If you've been reading the papers or glancing at social media recently, you could be forgiven for thinking so. The New York Times didn't quite use the word containment, but argued that the agreement was a “win for the United States in its contest with China.”

There is a strategic dimension to the American push to conclude the TPP, but it's not about containing China. Rather, the TPP is part of the Obama Administration's broader Rebalance strategy to update and reinforce the liberal international order in the Asia-Pacific. 

On the political side of things, this means the peaceful resolution of disputes, ensuring freedom of navigation, and the freedom to access information. On the economic side, it means, inter alia, updating the trading rules to reflect technological advances that have increased the value of information relative to resources in global trade. These changes have required negotiators to go beyond tariffs and address behind-the-border rules that affect trade.

Those pushing a containment narrative note that the pact excludes China, but ignore the fact that American officials have repeatedly said that they are open to China's eventual accession to the agreement. The President himself made this point last December:

“And by the way, there's been some suggestion that by doing TPP we're trying to contain or disadvantage China. We're actually not. What we are trying to do is make sure that rather than a race to the bottom in the region there's a reasonable bar within which we can operate. And we hope that then China actually joins us in not necessarily formally being a member of TPP but in adopting some of the best practices that ensure fairness in operations.”

That said, negotiators have had to be realistic, recognizing that it would have been very difficult for China to sign up to these standards at the start. Better, then, to create the partnership now with governments that are ready to go, demonstrate the agreement's value, and entice other countries, including China, to sign on to the agreement or adopt some of the standards it sets as their own.

Why Russia Needs Syria

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/oct/08/why-russia-syria/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR+Humboldt+Verdi+House+Republicans+Russia+and+Syria&utm_content=NYR+Humboldt+Verdi+House+Republicans+Russia+and+Syria+CID_f7b3331c238840318a1320be42f28e85&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=Why%20Russia%20Needs%20Syria

Amy Knight

Top, AFP/Getty Images; bottom, AP Photo/Sergei Chirikov, Pool

Top, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev, 1980; bottom, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, 2005

Russia’s entry into the Syrian conflict has fundamentally changed the dynamic of the four-and-a-half-year-old war there. With a bombing campaign that now includes launching cruise missiles into Syria from Russian warships in the Caspian Sea, the Kremlin is gambling that it can preserve the weakened Assad regime. The move brings Russia into a costly and intractable civil war, raises the threat of terrorism by Islamist groups in Russia, and puts Russian forces in direct confrontation with the US-led coalition that is arming moderate Syrian rebels and fighting ISIS. 

So the question arises: Why is Russia doing this now? According to a high-level source in the Kremlin, the decision to intervene in Syria was urged on Putin this summer by three senior members of his team: Sergei Ivanov, head of the Russian Presidential Administration, Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Nikolai Patrushev, former head of the FSB and now the leader of the Russian Security Council. Assad’s regime was increasingly in danger, facing not only ISIS, but al-Nusra, and holding, by some estimates, less than 17 percent of Syria’s territory. Even members of Syria’s Alawite minority, to which the Assad family belongs and which are a crucial base of his support, had begun fleeing the country. With the conflict in Ukraine still unresolved and Putin increasingly isolated by the West, intervention in the Middle East was intended to reassert Russia as a major world power and act as a counterforce to Western support for the Ukrainian government in Ukraine. 

It was no surprise that the principal targets of Russian bombing raids in Syria have not been ISIS, but rather other rebel groups that the US and its Western allies support. (Though Russian cruise missiles have now also been directed as ISIS targets.) Putin, in his appearance at the UN in late September, stated unequivocally that Russia was committed to keeping the Assad regime in power, and from the Kremlin’s point of view, this makes sense. Russia fears the total collapse of the Syrian state, which would end a decades-old alliance and threaten its strategic position in the Middle East. And it views Islamic insurgents as not only a threat to Assad, but also a potential threat at home. 

Reviewing the Week: ISW Intelligence Summary

The Week in Review

October 11, 2015, Institute for the Study of War

Key Take-Away

Russia has escalated its military actions against NATO from its new airbase in Syria. Russian warplanes have violated Turkish airspace twice, repeatedly locked Turkish F-16s in their radar, and intercepted three U.S. Predator drones over Syria. Russian warships in the Caspian Sea also launched cruise missiles against targets in Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace on October 7 without warning the U.S., its coalition allies, or Iraq. NATO Ministers met for a second time within a week; Secretary-General Stoltenberg reaffirmed that NATO forces are prepared to deploy to “wherever is needed” including Turkey. NATO’s response is otherwise aimed at long-term deterrence. Russia will likely continue to test the boundaries of NATO’s will to invoke Article 5 on collective defense.

Russia is trying to marginalize the United States by deepening its relationships with other regional states. Russian volunteers will likely support the Syrian regime and Iranian forces in their ground campaign in central Syria. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has wavered as other Iraqi Shi'a politicians and Iranian-backed proxy militias have endorsed Russian airstrikes and demanded Russian assistance. Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry publicly approved the Russian air campaign and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin on October 8 in order to help reach “political settlements to the crises in the region at the soonest possible time.” Senior Russian political and military figures also met with officials in Jordan and Israel to discuss efforts to coordinate their activities against terrorism in Syria and throughout the Middle East. Russian likely intends to lure traditional U.S. partners in the Middle East towards its alliance with Iran and Syria, undermining the position of the U.S.

The geopolitical struggle between Russia and the U.S. has overshadowed Afghanistan’s deteriorating security. The main Taliban faction continued its offensive in the north. Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have clashed fiercely with Taliban militants in Kunduz City, which fell on September 28. General John Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, testified that security situation in the country warrants considering a residual U.S. troop contingent of three-to-five thousand after 2016 rather than the 1,000 that the White House has approved. Nonetheless, these numbers appear insufficient as Afghanistan descends into further violence while 9,800 U.S. troops remain. Russia bolstered its military forces in the capital of Tajikistan on October 7 as the Taliban’s northern offensive continued. Russia has a security agreement protecting Tajikistan, but it may also seek to assert itself in the anti-ISIS fight in Afghanistan.

Obama Administration Backs Down in Battle With Silicon Valley Over Encryption

October 11, 2015

Obama Won’t Seek Access to Encrypted User Data

Nicole Perlroth and David E. Sanger

New York Times, October 11, 2015

CUPERTINO, Calif. —  The Obama administration has backed down in its bitter dispute with Silicon Valley over the encryption of data on iPhones and other digital devices, concluding that it is not possible to give American law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to that information without also creating an opening that China, Russia, cybercriminals and terrorists could exploit.

With its decision, which angered the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, the administration essentially agreed with Apple, Google, Microsoft and a group of the nation’s top cryptographers and computer scientists that millions of Americans would be vulnerable to hacking if technology firms and smartphone manufacturers were required to provide the government with “back doors,” or access to their source code and encryption keys.

That would enable the government to see messages, photographs and other data now routinely encrypted on smartphones. Current technology puts the keys for access to the information in the hands of the individual user, not the companies.

The first indication of the retreat came on Thursday, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the administration would not seek legislation to compel the companies to create such a portal.

But the decision, made at the White House a week ago, goes considerably beyond that.

While the administration said it would continue to try to persuade companies like Apple and Google to assist in criminal and national security investigations, it determined that the government should not force them to breach the security of their products. In essence, investigators will have to hope they find other ways to get what they need, from data stored in the cloud in unencrypted form or transmitted over phone lines, which are covered by a law that affects telecommunications providers but not the technology giants.

Russia's Syrian entanglement: Can the West sit back and watch?

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/10/09-russian-military-experiments-syria-baev?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=22758092&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--qVyghA9L4fFmh81Vva_L___pw0HMao5xYjS5LvsjGNLpKZNEmVedDssf5JaIhO7ckJM427x4FgfezyBkUk9v2XC81EA&_hsmi=22758092

Pavel K. Baev | October 9, 2015 

For observers who are confined by the boundaries of conventional strategic sense, every day of Russia’s military intervention in Syria brings fresh surprises. Indiscriminate strikes against Turkey-backed andCIA-trained opposition groups (which could not possibly be mistaken for ISIS) were followed by deliberate violations of Turkey’s airspace, and then by the spectacular cruise missile salvo from warships in the Caspian Sea. More astonishing turns are almost certain to come, prompting more reevaluation of the power projection capabilities that Russia brings to bear in this high-risk enterprise.

Good morning, Latakia

The intervention, which President Vladimir Putin preferred not to announce in his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 26, could become an exemplar of achieving maximum political effect from very limited application of force. The three dozen or so combat planes deployed to the hastily prepared airbase outside Latakia perform 20 to 30 sorties a day. That would not have made much of a difference in the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIS that has been going on for more than a year. What makes a difference is targeting opposition groups of various persuasions that were not anticipating such treatment. This tactical surprise is by definition short-term, and in order to continue making a difference—and for the campaign to really resonate—Russia needs to escalate. 

The intervention...could become an exemplar of achieving maximum political effect from very limited application of force.

Obama Puts the Asia Pivot on Pause

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obama-puts-the-asia-pivot-pause-14049?page=show

U.S.-China relations may be entering something of a holding pattern for the next two years.

John Richard Cookson

October 12, 2015

The White House state dinner for Chinese president Xi Jinping on the evening of September 25 was a formal, uneventful affair. No major announcement of future collaboration, no great project between the world’s first and second largest economies, was expected, and none came. Given the calls from some quarters to cancel the dinner, avoiding a bad outcome is something of a diplomatic achievement in itself. Yet, neither that evening nor the two weeks since have done much to shed light on where the United States and China go from here.

Four years ago, uncertainty was much less of an issue. In October and November 2011, President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, through an orchestrated series ofspeeches and essays, announced a U.S. pivot to Asia. In Canberra, President Obama stood before the Australian parliament and said, “After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region.”

Donilon was the most thoughtful and nuanced in his explanation of the plan. Favoring “rebalancing” over “pivot,” he later described the goals as “economic engagement” and “sustained attention to regional institutions and defense of international rules and norms.” However, these goals became muddled over time, and the pivot became more about whether or not the United States could shift attention from the Middle East to Asia at all, and less about anything it could achieve in Asia with that reoriented attention.

Crisis Over Ukraine Contingency Planning Memorandum Update

Author: Steven Pifer, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Download Now

PublisherCouncil on Foreign Relations Press

Release DateOctober 2015

In early 2014, Russia began supporting armed separatist forces in the eastern—predominantly Russian-speaking—part of Ukraine. Subsequent fighting was halted in September 2015 by a cease-fire agreement known as Minsk II. But, despite ongoing diplomatic efforts, few other aspects of the agreement have been implemented. Heavy fighting could resume and precipitate an even deeper crisis between Russia and the West. As a 2009 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Contingency Planning Memorandum "Crisis Between Ukraine and Russia" argued, a major Ukraine-Russia confrontation has significant implications for the United States.

New Concerns

Aside from the recent cease-fire in eastern Ukraine, Russia has done little to implement the Minsk II provisions. As of September 2015, Russian military personnel and heavy weapons remain in the eastern Donbas region, while major questions persist about Russia’s support for other aspects of Minsk II. The likely prognosis is a frozen—or not-so-frozen—conflict, which will pose substantial risks for Europe and U.S. interests.

Moscow could choose to escalate tensions in eastern Ukraine by applying additional military pressure in an effort to further destabilize Kiev, force the West to relax its sanctions on Russia, and/or distract the Russian public from a deteriorating economic situation at home. Fighting in the Donbas could also be ignited by local separatist forces seeking to change the status quo.

The unsettled conflict makes it more difficult for Kiev to pursue reforms and turn around the faltering Ukrainian economy. Gross domestic product is expected to decline by more than 10 percent this year, and domestic politics have become more complicated as the public becomes increasingly frustrated with austerity measures and the slow fight against corruption. Meanwhile, right-wing political forces oppose Minsk II and a negotiated settlement. A new political crisis in Ukraine would hinder Kiev’s ability to pursue reform. It could also tempt Moscow to make further efforts to weaken Kiev’s position at a time when Ukrainian public opinion toward Russia has hardened and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is less free to maneuver. The crisis also continues to complicate U.S.-Russia relations, which are at their lowest point since the Cold War. Russian military activity near North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) borders has also markedly increased, raising the risk of a deadly accident or miscalculation.

Policy Implications

Private NSA Army is Attacking YOU!

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/private-nsa-army-is-attacking-you/

Oct 11, 20

Oct 11, 2015 

In the first part of this article series, the post 9/11 rise of a private NSA was detailed. Some started in reaction to the twin tower attack. They aren’t connected with the government, intelligence, or homeland security. They are private citizens that have no security clearances in any western country.

They use the free OSINT software found on the internet to find or decide who is a terrorist. Many of them enjoy the feeling of power they from getting people fired from their jobs and put on terrorist investigation lists.

They are freelancers with no oversight or rules. They are only accountable to themselves and their employers. These freelancers thrive on their ability to remain hidden from the public eye. In reality, they could be your socially inept, angry neighbor down the street who is afraid of their own shadow in person. But give them a keyboard and they’ll take your job, your bank account and your freedom.

These freelancers have carved a niche for themselves at the bottom of the OSINT and hacking professions. Today these people who feel so insignificant in their own lives are the cyber warriors for hire by anyone who has an ax to grind and the means to pay them. 

They are Hate for Hire.

Freelance Cyber Soldiers

“Our view is that cyber is another operational domain, much as the seas are, much as the land is, much as space is.”Admiral Mike Rogers – Commander US Cyber Command, Director of the NSA, Chief of CSS

Cyber in this context goes way beyond hacker attacks aimed at taking down a website. It is meant to cause damage and even death as a military tool. Because this new frontier is so new, the laws governing “Cyber-war” have yet to drawn up. What has been done so far are a set of guidelines that define who and what can and can’t be targeted.

CSI: PENTAGON — WHO KILLED AMERICAN STRATEGY?

ADAM ELKUS

OCTOBER 12, 2015

Who killed American strategy? Discussion about American security and defense today often resembles TV shows likeCrime Scene Investigation and its numerous spinoffs. There’s a dead body, a list of suspects, and a convoluted plotline that somehow has to be resolved in one hour of screen time and commercial breaks. Like detectives on CSI, defense writers are at the scene of the proverbial crime, collecting evidence and speculating about the culprit. The dead body belongs to American strategy, horrifically murdered by an unknown assailant. Who — or what — is responsible?

The shocking twist on tonight’s episode of CSI: Pentagon is that we — the defense analytical community — killed American strategy. While American strategy certainly lived a troubled life and the list of “usual suspects” is fairly long, it was nonetheless a victim of our own unrealistic expectations and inability to deal with the messy reality of what strategy is and what it can do. Whoever killed strategy, our inability to make choices and recognize tradeoffs surely made us an accessory to the crime. And unless we come to grips with the inherent flaws, difficulties, and problems of making strategy, the killer in this crime — our adherence to a romantic, unrealistic, and empirically dubious view of strategy — will surely claim more victims.

American strategy’s troubled life

TV crime procedurals often begin with the premise that the victim had a perfect life, only to reveal later on that the victim is hiding sordid secrets that figure into the circumstances leading up to the murder. For example, the victim had a drug addiction or was behind on paying a debt to a local mobster. Sometimes the victim led a double life; countless murder mysteries often reveal that the victim was cheating on his wife and thus was being blackmailed by a prostitute or mistress. Of course, these failings and imperfections do not necessarily explain who killed the victim, but they often yield valuable clues.

Certainly American strategy had no shortage of admirers. Every government agency in DC and public policy think tank attaches the word “strategy” or “strategic” to what it does, and countless op-eds are penned saying that we need strategy. There are numerous civilian and military educational institutions where it is taught or referenced as a core subject. American strategy’s respectability and accomplishments, however, was an elaborate façade that concealed serious underlying problems.

Even its friends were unaware of its history of failures, such as its haphazard management of low-intensity conflictsand frequently flawed attempts to measure its adversaries’ military capabilities. A psychologist examining the victim also noted that the victim suffered from a number of psychological problems and issues, such as a tendency to mirror-image its opponents and commit to losing battles out of an emotional concern for its reputation and the blood and treasure it had already committed to the fight. Others familiar with the victim’s life observed that American strategy had an unhealthy obsession with technology and a tendency to conflate technology with the political aims that ought to have guided its use. Finally, American strategy has always been indifferent to the local politics and institutions of the foreigners that it interacts with, despite the critical nature of such forces for success and failure in its wars.

But this only scratches the surface of the problems that plagued American strategy during its tragic life. Understanding American strategy isn’t just a matter of understanding the military and its tactics and techniques. To truly understand American strategy one also needs to understand the political elites who helped make it and their incentives, tendencies, and motivations. This shady crowd was motivated largely by their own self-interest, and hadalways been in some shape or form. Why did American strategy associate with such a dangerous and unreliable crowd? Couldn’t it just put politics aside and focus on achieving the national interest? Unfortunately, one cannot have strategy without politics.

ISIL death toll at 20,000, but 'stalemate' continues

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led bombing campaign has killed an estimated 20,000 Islamic State fighters, an increase from the 15,000 the Pentagon reported in July, according to a senior military officer.

Airstrikes from the American-led campaign, which began in August 2014, have rattled the militants from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, said the official and another Pentagon official familiar with intelligence. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The second official said intercepted communications show ISIL militants to be fearful of the allied air attacks, which have forced them to change their tactics.

But despite the higher number of casualties and the airstrikes' erosion of morale among ISIL fighters, the militant group continues to draw new fighters to Iraq and Syria. The overall force, the first official said, remains about where it was when the bombing started: 20,000 to 30,000 fighters.

The estimate of 20,000 dead Islamic State fighters seems accurate, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The overwhelming percentage of the dead are likely Islamic State militants, not civilians, he said.

Why is government forcing LCA down Indian Air Force's throat?

The IAF has itself to blame for its predicament.

12-10-2015

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/iaf-lca-fighters-make-in-india-rafale-drdo-india-pak-nuclear-war/story/1/6732.html

MANOJ JOSHI

The government's decision to insist that the Indian Air Force induct a large number of light combat aircraft (LCA) fighters is the kind of shock treatment that was needed to push the Make in India project. A news report says that the government has rejected the IAF's demand for 44 more Rafale aircraft, in addition to the deal for 36 announced by the government earlier this year.

Instead, the IAF has been told that the kind of numbers it wanted could only be met by inducting the LCA.

The IAF has itself to blame for its predicament. The medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) was originally intended to be a stop-gap measure to enable the LCA project to be completed. However, the IAF rigged the competition by including the heavier, more capable two-engine fighters and knocking out the best option, the Swedish Gripen. As a result, a competition for a $8 billion stop-gap fighter morphed into a huge buy involving 126 Rafales which would have cost the nation anywhere between $25-30 billion.

Requirements

Critics cite a CAG report of May 2015 claiming that the aircraft had 53 shortcomings in respect of the IAF's requirements such as an integral self-protection jammer and a radar warning receiver. They also noted that the aircraft weighed more than it should and had a lower internal fuel capacity.

The Paradox of Power in the Network Age Who, exactly, will claim the virtual high ground?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/09/the-network-paradox-islamic-state-nsa-warfare/

The Paradox of Power in the Network Age
Who, exactly, will claim the virtual high ground?
BY DAVID ROTHKOPFOCTOBER 9, 2015
There’s a whole lotta technophilia going on.

The wave upon wave of digital disruptions buffeting and inalterably changing global society — we have been told by a chorus of Silicon Valley CEOs, hyperventilating best-selling authors, and digital fan-boys and -girls — will be democratizing, will undercut the brutes who traditionally have wielded and abused power, will lift up the masses. This power of connection, so it goes, will transform such masses, educate them, and elevate us all above the boundaries and barriers that have separated us throughout history. Consequently, they say, we will find ourselves in a future in which we will work less and laugh more.

It’s a great era in which to be alive.

But as any student of even the very best chapters of human history might expect, with progress come new, sometimes greater challenges. That is, having all the world’s people linked to the Net can empower and educate them, but it can also expose them to new threats and potentially open the door to new kinds of exploitation and domination.

Acceleration plus amplification produces volatility. Connection breaks down barriers and brings us closer, but it also creates new vulnerabilities. Redistribution plus decentralization of power can produce the Islamic State, the world’s first open-architecture terrorist group; it has recognized that the most effective force multiplier is using modern communications techniques to let anyone join, harnessing the power of the alienation of thousands by co-branding it with a single perverse and evil message. It is a leap forward from the ways of hierarchical, closed, club-like terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda or the FARC. But it is hardly the kind of progress we wanted to be making.

5 Billion-Dollar Defense Companies That Dominate The Industry

http://taskandpurpose.com/5-billion-dollar-defense-companies-that-dominate-the-industry/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today

By Sarah Sicard

on October 13, 2015

Here’s a rundown of the top five defense industry giants.

A number of defense contractors continue to decry the budget cuts enacted in 2011, citing the need to modernize capabilities to stay ahead.

There is clearly a recognition by the lawmakers that I speak to that we have so many global security challenges and needs to modernize our defense capabilities that we need to increase spending above the budget caps,” Lockheed Martin’s chairman, president, and CEO, Marillyn Hewson, recently told Defense News.

Still, companies like Lockheed Martin have managed to generate billions of dollars from its work with the defense sector. In fact, Lockheed Martin and 99 other companies were chosen by Defense News in its annual Top 100 Report for the ability to generate massive profits from their U.S. defense programs. The top five alone brought in more than $215 billion total revenue in 2014, which affords them a great deal of influence in Washington, D.C. Here’s a breakdown of the five defense contractors with the biggest Department of Defense-fueled revenues of 2014.

Lockheed Martin

An F-35B Lightning II from the Pax River Integrated Test Force conducts weapons environmental testing along the Atlantic Test Range on July 22, 2015.

CEO: Marillyn Hewson, since 2013

Headquarters: Bethesda, Maryland

2014 Defense Revenue: $40 billion

Lockheed Martin launched in 1995 with the merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta. Both companies are offshoots of early aerospace manufacturing companies that began building planes in 1912. The Lockheed Propulsion Company designed and built the solid propellant launch escape motor and the pitch control motor for the Apollo spacecraft that put the first man on the moon.

Notable Contracts

F-35 Lightning II Program: Known as the joint strike fighter, the F-35 is the Defense Department’s solution in next-generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The $1.3 trillion contract will produce aircraft for each of these services by 2037. Though it has been constantly in flux, the cost per unit estimated now to be roughly $337 million per plane, according to a report by Winslow Wheeler, a longtime program analyst with the Project On Government Oversight. BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman are also involved in the delivery of the aircraft. The F-35 will be delivered to 11 other countries, including Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada.

YES, SOMETIMES THERE ARE MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO POLITICAL PROBLEMS

http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/yes-sometimes-there-are-military-solutions-to-political-problems/

BRENDAN GALLAGHER, OCTOBER 13, 2015

Leading up to the 1999 Kosovo War, some critics argued that Western military intervention would fail. One foreign policy analyst predicted it would “mire Americans in another internecine conflict,” since Kosovo consisted of“incompatible ethnic interests that are unlikely to be dislodged by an American presence.” Another analyst suggested a military intervention was “misguided in the extreme” and “the strife in Kosovo is precisely the sort of conflict that Washington should avoid,” shortly thereafter arguing that the United States “sought to micromanage a guerrilla conflict while ignorant of the realities on the ground.” Another pundit asserted that violence in the Balkans was merely “the continuation of the deconstruction of the Ottoman Empire” and so “if you wish peace, stay out of the Balkans.” One week into the NATO bombing, another piece argued that “as in numerous ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and elsewhere, the opposing sides’ objectives cannot be reconciled” and that the overall U.S. rationale for intervention remained “unconvincing.”

Such arguments helped advance a general notion that the violence in Kosovo was a symptom of deeply rooted ethnic grievances. It seemed Western military power would be ineffective or even counterproductive because no military solution could resolve the intractable political problems.

Today, the headlines are quiet when it comes to Kosovo. Why? Because NATO’s military intervention was a success. Kosovo became a dog that didn’t bark — the chaos dissipated, so there was little for journalists to report. Although the situation remains far from perfect, the widespread killing stopped and security vastly improved. To this day the United States is extraordinarily popular in Kosovo, as symbolized by the presence of Bill Clinton Boulevard in the capital city of Pristina, with a prominent bronze statue of the former American president nearby.

BRITISH COMPANIES BUILD JAMMING SYSTEM TO TAKE DOWN DRONES

http://www.popsci.com/british-companies-build-anti-drone-jamming-system

SECURITY THROUGH GOOD CAMERAS AND BAD SIGNALS

By Kelsey D. Atherton Posted October 10, 2015

Anti UAV Defense System Brochure Image

LiteEye Systems

The United Kingdom is ready for robot-on-robot warfare. A new anti-drone weapon system called the “Anti UAV Defense System," which was developed by Blighter Surveillance Systems, Chess Dynamics, and Enterprise Control Systems Ltd, is a combination radar, camera, and jamming system all built into device.

Here’s how it works. First, the radar identifies and tracks the flying drone. Then, once the drone is within camera range, the electro-optical camera follows the drone, keeping it in focus at all times. Finally, the jamming device attacks it: Three antennas send out a radio frequency signal to the targeted drone, trying to cut it off from its original controller. In seconds, the jammed drone stops in the air and then crashes to the ground. Like this:

The radar can find drones up to five miles away, even ones as small as 15 square inches. This is good, because the system seems to mostly work on small, commercial drones, and not the high-flying Predator-types used by militaries. A brochure about the system says it “may be used in remote or urban areas to prevent UAVs being used for terrorist attacks, espionage, or other malicious activities against sites with critical infrastructure.”

If the system works, maybe the White House should invest in one. Another drone crashed nearby earlier today. Watch a video of the system below:

Is America’s Military Slowly Becoming Obsolete?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/america%E2%80%99s-military-slowly-becoming-obsolete-14054

James Hasik

October 12, 2015

In The Australian last November, David Kilcullen argued that “the West’s failed counter-terrorism strategy requires a complete rethink.” Set aside for the moment James Fallows’ screed in The Atlantic last December. Thirteen years of not-quite-winning two wars in the Middle East and South Asia, despite overwhelming material advantage, is not a good track record for national strategy. At this point, the air campaign against ISIS may be holding the line, but it is not rolling anyone back, and cannot do so alone. Frankly, as I argued here more narrowly a few days after Kilcullen (see “Software is Eating the War,” 3 November 2014), the West's whole defense-industrial strategy could use a thorough rethinking too. Ominously, though, shifting economic and technological trends are rendering questionable its hitherto highly successful massed-precision way of war-fighting. If technological rescues aren’t available soon, a fundamental reorganization of the forces may be necessary.

Around Washington DC, the first question about any change involves budgets. But while Under Secretary Kendall may complain about being out-invested on half a trillion dollars a year, money isn’t the only factor driving innovation. After all, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Army and Navy Departments produced some pretty innovative concepts—fleet submarines, aircraft carriers, dive bombers, heavy bombers, fast tanks, and a whole suite of equipment and doctrine for amphibious assault. At the time, all the services were working without much money, and the Navy in particular within strong treaty limits.

In the 1950s and 1960s, money flowed freely to stop the Red Menace, and competition amongst the Army, Navy, and Air Force encouraged a similar burst of innovation, particularly in aircraft and missiles. Treaties didn’t bar much either. The resulting massive build-up of nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Massive Retaliation were together called the New Look, but they've since been recast as the First Offset strategy. There was, however, bound to be blowback—what to do when the Soviets returned fire with their own battlefield nuclear weapons? The brief answer was the Pentomic Division—a formation of five small infantry regiments with accompanying light artillery that could theoretically disperse widely and quickly in hopes of fighting through the glassing. (Maybe with Iron Man suits and Master Chief… but no.) In any case, the Pentomic organizational structure was widely considered to have hobbled the Army’s ability to fight a conventional conflict, and was thus abandoned by the mid-1960s. The follow-on was a structure similar to that of an armored division of the Second World War, just with more armor.

Why Angus Deaton Deserved the Nobel Prize in Economics

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/12/why-angus-deaton-deserved-the-nobel-prize-in-economics/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks

For development economists like me, Deaton was a revolutionary and a visionary.

BY CHRISTOPHER BLATTMAN OCTOBER 12, 2015

Every year, there’s a Monday in October when the world wakes up to the latest Nobel Prize winner in economics and collectively wonders: “Who?”

Even economists like me often have to scramble to figure out who the winners are and what they did, knowing my mom or a neighbor will expect me to have an intelligent answer at some point this week. For me, at least, this year is different than most, since the winner, Angus Deaton of Princeton University, is such a towering figure in my field of international development. This is a prize for advances in our understanding of poverty and inequality. It couldn’t be better deserved.

I’d never met Deaton in person until a couple of weeks ago, when he presented a paper at a small development economics seminar at Columbia University, where I work. (In retrospect, that might well have been his last normal, intimate academic talk. Ever.) But like many development economists, I can point to more than one time in my career where Deaton’s thinking had great influence. Speaking from personal experience, three times stand out, and all help to illustrate the work that got him the Nobel.

The first was almost 15 years ago. I was a master’s student at Harvard, more interested in economic history than anything else, when my econometrics professor, Rob Jensen, hired me to spend the summer in India to run a household survey — a questionnaire on every family member’s work activities, earnings, health, education, and what food and items they consumed. I didn’t know the first thing about household surveys, and so I bought a couple of books to bring with me.

One was Deaton’s Analysis of Household Surveys, a technical manual on analyzing poverty data. The other was Deaton’s hefty 3-volume manual on Designing Household Surveys, written with Margaret Grosh, which weighed probably 20 pounds in reality (and 50 in my memory). I needed a separate suitcase to bring them all to India. It’s only when I arrived I realized that Volume 1 held a CD on the back page with the full text of the books. Even so, I couldn’t bring myself to give away these paper treasures, and carted the heavy bastards around the country for four months.

Cyberwar Ignites a New Arms Race

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cyberwar-ignites-a-new-arms-race-1444611128

Dozens of countries amass cyberweapons, reconfigure militaries to meet threat

Defensive cyber operations at Petersen Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo. 

By 

DAMIAN PALETTA, 

DANNY YADRON and 

JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIESOct. 11, 2015

Countries toiled for years and spent billions of dollars to build elaborate facilities that would allow them to join the exclusive club of nations that possessed nuclear weapons.

Getting into the cyberweapon club is easier, cheaper and available to almost anyone with cash and a computer.

A series of successful computer attacks carried out by the U.S. and others has kicked off a frantic and destabilizing digital arms race, with dozens of countries amassing stockpiles of malicious code. The programs range from the most elementary, such as typo-ridden emails asking for a password, to software that takes orders from a rotating list of Twitterhandles.

The proliferation of these weapons has spread so widely that the U.S. and China—longtime cyber adversaries—brokered a limited agreement last month not to conduct certain types of cyberattacks against each other, such as intrusions that steal corporate information and then pass it along to domestic companies. Cyberattacks that steal government secrets, however, remain fair game.

This comes after other countries have begun to amass cyberweaponry on an unprecedented scale. Pakistan and India, two nuclear-armed rivals, regularly hack each other’s companies and governments, security researchers said. Estonia and Belarus are racing to build defensive shields to counter Russia. Denmark and the Netherlands have begun programs to develop offensive computer weapons, as have Argentina and France.

In total, at least 29 countries have formal military or intelligence units dedicated to offensive hacking efforts, according to a Wall Street Journal compilation of government records and interviews with U.S. and foreign officials. Some 50 countries have bought off-the-shelf hacking software that can be used for domestic and international surveillance. The U.S. has among the most-advanced operations.

Why Oil Price Could Spike Again

http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2015/09/why_oil_price_could_spike_again_111408.html

Posted by Andy Langenkamp on September 8, 2015

Andy Langenkamp is a global policy analyst for ECR Research.

With financial markets unnerved by an unpredictable Chinese slowdown, and a Chinese economy beset by bubbles liable to burst, we should not forget the critical part that the Middle East and North Africa region has yet to play. If rising tensions in the region push oil prices upward, China - the world's largest oil importer - is bound to be affected. High oil prices could tip the Chinese economy over the edge.

China is not the only vulnerable country. The ongoing Eurozone recovery masks underlying weaknesses, and European countries import most of their energy. An oil price surge could be very painful. The same applies to other major energy importers such as India and Japan.

Blind spot?

Most economic analyses hint at low oil prices for years to come. These studies tend to ignore geopolitics. The oil price slump itself could drive up prices in the long term by creating huge problems for various regimes, which could easily result in instability and price rises. According to the Financial Times, "as examples including the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the Venezuelan election of 1998 show, there is no market that can translate financial volatility into political instability as effectively as oil."

If civil wars across the Middle East and North Africa spiral further out of control, oil prices could soar again. War itself tends to undermine oil production. Moreover, terrorists often use conflict areas to recruit and train members and to regroup before launching new attacks. In addition, civil wars can spawn new conflicts in and between neighbouring countries.

Raging wars

Wars are raging in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. In none of these conflicts is there hope that resolution could be imminent. Libya has broken apart in two de-facto states. It remains to be seen whether either of the two camps effectively represents all of the factions and militias under its umbrella. So even if agreement is reached, the fighting may well continue. Moreover, the Islamic State has made inroads into Libya.

Merkel Under Fire: German Conservatives Deeply Split over Refugees

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-under-fire-from-political-allies-in-refugee-crisis-a-1057066.html

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policies are increasingly coming under fire from those in her own party.

Conservative political allies are turning their backs on Chancellor Angela Merkel in the refugee crisis. Now, powerful Bavarian Governor Horst Seehofer has threatened to file a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.

Ingolstadt's Stadttheater is typically a place for light entertainment. At the end of the month, for example, the theater will be staging "Tartuffe," Molière's comedy about religion and hypocrisy during the period of French absolutism.

But last Wednesday, the 85 municipal politicians from Bavaria who gathered there were in no mood for fun. They were there for a meeting with Bavarian Governor Horst Seehofer and to report to him about how their communities are handling the many refugees who are currently flowing into Bavaria across the state's border with Austria.

In truth, of course, Seehofer knows the situation well since he speaks with municipal politicians from his party, the Christian Social Union, every day. But this is a political show -- working title: "The Bavarian Governor Takes On the Chancellor" -- and he needed a stage. Unsurprisingly, the complaints began immediately. One participant complained that capacity had been reached while others vented their anger with Austria for simply waving the refugees through to Germany. Ultimately, though, the spotlight was shone squarely on Angela Merkel and her refusal thus far to place an upper limit on the number of migrants Germany could accept.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE ISLAMIC STATE

CRAIG WHITESIDE

OCTOBER 12, 2015

Will McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State(St. Martin’s Press, 2015)

One year after the dramatic entry of the Islamic State onto the world stage of public notice, we continue to search for an understanding of how a brutal and anachronistic group has been successful at carving out a new state in the Middle East. Having struggled to contain the growth of this monstrosity, and having contributed in no small way to its rise in the first place, we are lucky to have a distinguished scholar in Will McCants to explain the group to us. Explanation will not be enough unfortunately, as he — correctly and honestly — raises more questions than he answers.

McCants’ book is based predominantly on primary sources in Arabic from jihadist websites, and his education in Islamic history at Princeton is most helpful in deciphering the importance of the Islamic State’s religious doctrine that informs their policies and strategies. His previous works, including an atlas of jihadi movement texts and a translation of the now famous Management of Savagery, make him uniquely qualified to be our guide in understanding the Islamic State.

ISIS Apocalypse is a short and well written account that flows effortlessly between the history of the movement and its founding by Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2002, the development of its ideology, the history of its flag and its design, and the importance of apocalyptic beliefs to its key leaders. McCants, unlike many others, truly understands the continuity and singularity of a movement that has changed names and form several times but remained remarkably true to its founder’s vision. For these reasons alone, the book is a must-read for anyone who is searching for ways to deal with this group.

Why Change Is Inevitable In Indian Banking

Tamal Bandyopadhyay

Adviser, Strategy at Bandhan Bank Ltd, & Consulting Editor, Mint

About five weeks after Kolkata-based Bandhan Bank Ltd started its operations, IDFC Bank Ltd had a quiet launch in Mumbai this month. They had fought it out with two dozen contenders, including a few corporate heavyweights, to get the Reserve Bank of India’s in-principle approval one-and-a-half years ago. Barring the fact that the bosses of both the new banks—Chandra Shekhar Ghosh, managing director and chief executive of Bandhan Bank, and Rajiv Lall, vice-chairman and managing director of IDFC Bank—are non-bankers, they are as different as apples and oranges.

Lall, 58, an Oxford University graduate in politics, philosophy and economics, did his PhD from Columbia University. Before taking over as MD and CEO of the erstwhile Infrastructure Development Finance Corporate Ltd in 2005, he was heading the Asian economic research wing of Morgan Stanley Asia Ltd. In the past, he had worked with the World Bank, Warburg Pincus and Asian Development Bank, besides teaching at Florida Altantic University. Ghosh, 55, is the son of a small sweet shop owner in Agartala, Tripura. After getting an MA in statistics from Dhaka University, he worked with BRAC, a non-governmental development organization in Bangladesh, before setting up Bandhan in West Bengal in 2001. He started out by giving micro loans from his own life savings of Rs.2 lakh.

Bandhan started operations with 2,022 doorstep service centres, 501 branches and 25 ATMs across India. About one-third of the branches are in rural and unbanked pockets. In the past few weeks, it has ramped up its branch network and added substantially to its legacy customer base of 6.7 million. It will continue to serve the so-called bottom-of-the-pyramid segment and add small and medium entrepreneurs to its loan portfolio while collecting deposits from all, including high-net-worth individuals and corporations. It does not want to dabble in corporate loans, at least during the initial stage.