No, a new surge isn’t the solution to ISIS

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/no-new-surge-isnt-the-solution-isis-15779?page=show
Bonnie Kristian , April 14, 2016

How do you solve a problem like ISIS? To hear Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tell it, the solution is putting huge numbers of American troops on the ground in the Middle East right now.
“I bore witness to the failed policy of gradual escalation that ultimately led to our nation’s defeat in the Vietnam War,” McCain recently wrote to Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Now, he added, “I fear this administration’s grudging incrementalism in the war against the Islamic State (ISIL) risks another slow, grinding failure for our nation.”
Though McCain’s letter brings up some important points—like how many Americans are presently on the ground in Iraq, a figure about which the White House has been exceedingly imprecise—his central contention is made with no regard for cost, consequence, or recent history. It is an irresponsible approach to foreign policy that the last decade and a half has found more than wanting. Indeed, the whole war on terror is arguably a “slow, grinding failure,” and throwing good money after bad isn't going to change that. Worse yet, what McCain proposes is exactly what ISIS itself hopes to provoke, while polling data suggests it will only turn local hearts and minds against us.

There was a time, perhaps, when McCain’s argument would have been less absurd. That time was before we’d spent trillions (and mysteriously lost billions) of dollars on fifteen years of quagmire—all while the $19 trillion national debt mounts ever higher, no matter which party is in charge. It was before we’d deployed hundreds of thousands of Americans halfway around the globe to fight wars which seem to have no end in sight. It was before nearly 8,000 of them died in the process.
It was before Washington brought the war on terror home by running roughshod over the Constitution (plus rule of law more broadly) with mass surveillance of innocents and groping of babies and old ladies at the airport. It was before we conducted so many airstrikes on ISIS that our military is now literally running out of bombs.
It was before we’d done precisely the sort of surge McCain seems to be advocating only to end up a few years later plagued by ISIS anyway.
It was before we realized the sort of reckless foreign policy McCain avows isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s not affordable; it’s not restrained; and it’s certainly not effective.

Soviet Group of Forces in Syria More Capable Than Before, Analysis

On ground in Syria, scant evidence of draw down trumpeted by Kremlin
Reuters, April 15, 2016
The Russian Navy’s landing ship Saratov sails in the Bosphorus, on its way to the Mediterranean Sea, in Istanbul, Turkey April 14, 2016. Picture taken April 14, 2016.
MOSCOW A month since Vladimir Putin announced the withdrawal of most Russian forces from Syria, his military contingent there is as strong as ever, with fewer jets but many more attack helicopters able to provide closer combat support to government troops.
A Reuters analysis of publicly available tracking data shows no letup in supply missions: the Russian military has maintained regular cargo flights to its Hmeimim airbase in western Syria since Putin’s declaration on March 14.
Supply runs have also continued via the “Syrian Express” shipping route, Russian engineering troops have been deployed to the ancient city of Palmyra and further information has surfaced about Russian special forces operating in Syria - suggesting the Kremlin is more deeply embroiled in the conflict than it previously acknowledged.“There hasn’t been a drawdown in any meaningful way,” said Nick de Larrinaga, Europe Editor of IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly. “Russia’s military presence in Syria is just as powerful now as it was at the end of 2015.”
Announcing a drawdown gave Putin some breathing space from Western political pressure over the operation, and an opportunity to carry out maintenance on heavily-used jets.
But by keeping a strong military force in place, Putin is maintaining his power to influence the situation in Syria by shoring up President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s closest ally in the Middle East.
He will also want to secure Russia’s role in efforts to broker a resolution to the conflict - a process the Kremlin has used to reassert itself as a global political power after being ostracized by the West over the Ukraine crisis.

As recently as Thursday, photos and video footage taken by Turkish bloggers for their online project Bosphorus Naval News showed a Russian Navy landing ship - the Saratov - en route to Russia’s Tartous naval facility in the western Syrian province of Latakia loaded with at least ten military trucks.
The Saratov is a regular feature on Russia’s “Syrian Express” shipping route, which Moscow has used to transport increased supplies and equipment to Syria since the military draw down was announced.
The Russian Defence Ministry did not respond to written questions submitted by Reuters

“MORE FORMIDABLE FORCE”
Russian troops and equipment have also been deployed to Syria by air in recent weeks.
An Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane operated by the Russian Air Force under registration number RA-78830 has flown two supply trips a month to Syria since December. Its last flight to Russia’s Latakia airbase was on April 9-10 according to tracking data on website FlightRadar24.com.
Able to carry up to 145 people or 50 tonnes of equipment, Il-76 planes have been used to transport heavy vehicles including helicopters to Syria, a Russian Air Force colonel told Reuters, bolstering the number of gunships in the country as Russia’s jet force deployment is wound down.

Can Ukraine Achieve a Reform Breakthrough?

05 April 2016
The key question is whether Ukrainians themselves can overcome the chief impediment to reform – the capture of the state by a narrow class of wealthy business people and their associates.
Summary
Ukrainians showed impressive resilience in 2014 in the face of revolution and Russian aggression that led to war. With strong Western support, the new government was able to stabilize Ukraine’s perilous financial situation and start a reform effort designed to shift the country onto a European path of development. Inevitably, it did not take long for the revolutionary zeal of the ‘Maidan’ to collide with Ukraine’s deeply embedded problems of governance. These slowed the momentum of reforms in 2015, leading to the breakdown of the ruling coalition in early 2016.
It is easy to characterize Ukraine’s latest attempt to reform as a repeat of the unrealized potential of the 2004 Orange Revolution. This view is premature and disregards the fact that Ukraine has changed significantly since then. The country today has a much stronger sense of independent identity, symbolized by its rapidly developing civil society. The external environment is also markedly different. Moscow’s break with Europe and its efforts to compel Ukraine to be part of a Russian sphere of influence have finally forced Ukrainian elites to make a choice between modernization on a Russian or a European model. Fearful of the danger of Ukraine’s destabilization, Western countries are also showing an unprecedented level of support for its reform efforts.

These external factors will not alone determine whether Ukraine’s reforms will reach a critical mass. The key question is whether Ukrainians themselves can find the will and the means to overcome the chief impediment to reform – the capture of the state by a narrow class of wealthy business people and their associates.
Ukraine’s weak institutions and its experience of 25 years of misrule since independence place an extraordinary burden on reformist forces. The pressures driving reform at present marginally outweigh those impeding them. However, the struggle of the ‘new’ against the ‘old’ is playing itself out slowly and painfully, making it impossible to judge definitively at this point whether Ukraine’s reforms are destined to succeed or fail.

Research Paper: Can Ukraine Achieve a Reform Breakthrough?

PDF | 312.23 KB

- See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/can-ukraine-achieve-reform-breakthrough#sthash.vixkEX6L.dpuf - See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/can-ukraine-achieve-reform-breakthrough#sthash.vixkEX6L.dpuf

Where is In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm, Investing Its Money?

The CIA Is Investing in Firms That Mine Your Tweets and Instagram Photos
Lee Fang, The Intercept, April 14, 2016

SOFT ROBOTS THAT can grasp delicate objects, computer algorithms designed to spot an “insider threat,” and artificial intelligence that will sift through large data sets — these are just a few of the technologies being pursued by companies with investment from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm, according to a document obtained by The Intercept.
Yet among the 38 previously undisclosed companies receiving In-Q-Tel funding, the research focus that stands out is social media mining and surveillance; the portfolio document lists several tech companies pursuing work in this area, including Dataminr, Geofeedia, PATHAR, and TransVoyant.

In-Q-Tel’s investment process.
Screen grab from In-Q-Tel’s website.
Those four firms, which provide unique tools to mine data from platforms such as Twitter, presented at a February “CEO Summit” in San Jose sponsored by the fund, along with other In-Q-Tel portfolio companies.
The investments appear to reflect the CIA’s increasing focus on monitoring social media. Last September, David Cohen, the CIA’s second-highest ranking official, spoke at length at Cornell University about a litany of challenges stemming from the new media landscape. The Islamic State’s “sophisticated use of Twitter and other social media platforms is a perfect example of the malign use of these technologies,” he said.
Social media also offers a wealth of potential intelligence; Cohen noted that Twitter messages from the Islamic State, sometimes called ISIL, have provided useful information. “ISIL’s tweets and other social media messages publicizing their activities often produce information that, especially in the aggregate, provides real intelligence value,” he said.
The latest round of In-Q-Tel investments comes as the CIA has revamped its outreach to Silicon Valley, establishing a new wing, the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which is tasked with developing and deploying cutting-edge solutions by directly engaging the private sector. The directorate is working closely with In-Q-Tel to integrate the latest technology into agency-wide intelligence capabilities.

Germany Thinks Cyber

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13755.19.0.0/world/military/germany-thinks-cyber
April 16, 2016 •

“Defending Germany’s Freedom in Cyber Space” is the new slogan for the German Bundeswehr’s advertising campaign. The campaign’s goal is to raise awareness of the 800 new job openings for soldiers in the information technology (it) sector, as well as 700 job openings for it administrators in the military and civilian sectors. Right now, the Bundeswehr is looking for experts.
Although the Bundeswehr is already Germany’s largest employer of it specialists, with 21,000 occupied positions, it is investing another $4.1 million in advertising campaigns to attract German it experts. This might be a result of the 71 million cyberattacks that were directed against Bundeswehr servers during 2015. Spiegel wrote in March that these cyberattacks caused the Bundeswehr to react: “In the future, the Department of Defense will strike back with its own cyberforce, so it is looking for it professionals” (Trumpet translation throughout).
Defense Minster Ursula von der Leyen saw the need to strengthen the cyber forces last year. announcing in September actions to do so. Süddeutsche Zeitung described her plans as gathering cyber resources from every different sector into one separate military organization. The new organizational sector would be on the same level as the Army, Air Force and Navy. In other words, this new cyber department is equally as important to the safety of the country as the Army.

As these plans were brought to the public’s attention, von der Leyen explained that this new Cyber Command would enable Germany to cooperate on the same level with other nations, such as the United States.
The Bundeswehr’s it department will also work on its offensive cyber skills. The goal is not to merely deal with the consequence of a hacker’s attack, but to completely prevent one. Since 2005, Germany has had 60 IT experts stationed in the Tomburg Caserne in Rheinbach where they practice attacks on foreign systems. This is one of the sectors that will be integrated into the rest of the cyber department.
Although such an increased focus on cyber protection is crucial, there are quite a few critics. Andrej Hunko, a member of parliament of the left, is one of them. He expressed his concerns in a recent ard report published on April 8:

Swedish air controllers debunk cyber attack disruption theory Solar storms blamed for outage

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/15/sweden_air_traffic_cyberattack_debunked/
15 Apr 2016 at 19:20, John Leyden
Sweden's civil aviation administration (LFV) has concluded that radar disruptions that affected services in Stockholm and Malmö last November were down to the effects of a solar flare, scotching rumors reported by El Reg and others earlier this week that a hacker group linked to Russian intelligence might be to blame.
Radar stations were not relaying the correct data to air traffic control during the afternoon of November 4, prompting controllers to switch over onto a different way of managing the aircraft, and to restrict the number of planes allowed into Swedish airspace. The disruption lasted for around 90 minutes.

An investigation by LFV did consider the possibility that a cyber attack against the system might be behind the disruption, but this theory was quickly discounted by aviation experts.
"Early on in our investigation we had this as one ... hypothesis," said Ulf Thibblin, technical director at LFV in an official statement.
"But there was nothing in our radar data or internet traffic logs to support or confirm a possible cyber attack. Also, we had the relationship in time [translation problem –ed] with space weather, plus there were a few more technical reasons which excluded a cyber attack," he added.
Political cynics may say never believe anything until it's officially denied, but it's more honest to admit a lapse in our normally skeptical perspective on anything that smacks of cyberwar hype. Norwegian blogger site aldrimer.no, the original source, based its story on a single unnamed NATO source, who said that although a solar storm was blamed even at the time, behind the scenes the Swedes were notifying NATO about a serious, ongoing cyber attack.

The digital pressures weighing on telecoms

McKinsey Quarterly April 2016
By Jacques Bughin
Advances in communications devices and new business models are weakening the industry’s hold on consumers, a survey of executives suggests.
Digitization is profoundly changing the competitive boundaries of the telecommunications industry. Core voice and messaging businesses have continued to shrink, in part because of regulatory pressures, but also because social media has opened new communications channels beyond traditional voice service.
Today, companies face another wave of change, from new digital devices and more robust models for delivering telecom services—a point confirmed by a recent survey of 254 executives from companies representing more than a third of global revenues in telecommunications, media, and technology.1 We asked the respondents about three areas of industry disruption: new consumer touchpoints created by devices based on Internet of Things technologies, over-the-top (OTT) business models that disintermediate existing communications platforms and services, and the potential of these changes to commoditize the incumbents’ brand positions (exhibit).


Exhibit


Over the near term, respondents note a pair of challenges that will affect these companies’ ability to control consumer touchpoints. A range of technologies, including those embedded in watches, apparel, and glasses, are vying to occupy the interface with telecom customers. Fortified with communications capabilities, these devices create new forms of engagement with consumers—beyond the forces unleashed by smartphones—offering location-based innovations from health monitoring to new ways of targeting ads and promotions.2 Executives also foresee rising adoption levels for smart home technologies that measure energy usage, food consumption, the physical condition of appliances, and more, establishing new platforms for a range of services mediated by machines. Both sets of technologies open the door to new digital competitors that may take over the telecom players’ direct relationships with their customers.

Inside the new era of warfare: Exploring the 'cyber arms race' with Mikko Hyppönen

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/inside-new-era-warfare-exploring-cyber-arms-race-mikko-hypponen-1555084

By Jason Murdock April 16, 2016
Chief research officer of F-Secure, Mikko Hypponen of Finland gives his lecture in Theatre Hall of the MOM cultural center, in Budapest,
Not many security experts like the term 'cyberwar', and Mikko Hyppönen used to be one of them. But in the wake of recent attacks on critical infrastructure in Ukraine and a rise in the sophistication of nation-state hacking, something changed along the way.
"I have changed my opinion about cyberwar," Hyppönen told IBTimes UK. "I used to hate the word and I would always explain to people that whenever you hear or see headlines about cyberwar it's never war – it's typically spying or espionage – which is not war. Even if its nation states doing it, that's not war."
Hyppönen, who has been the chief research officer at Helsinki-based security firm F-Secure since the early 1990s, is well known in security circles for both his knowledge of malware and programming, and his straight-talking attitude when it comes to issues relating to state-sponsored spying, hacktivism and cybercrime.

He told IBTimes UK it was the hacking incident in Ukraine last year that changed his mind on the nuances of the much-criticised term. "When you look what happened in Ukraine, when you have two countries that are at war and you have an attack on critical infrastructure that is not stealing anything, but [instead] shutting down power for 200,000 people, that's not espionage, that's not spying – in my book that's cyberwar," he says.
To this end, Hyppönen believes we are now "at the very beginning of the next arms race". This – he argues – will bring clear advantages for the governments large enough to conduct cyber-operations, although it could mean trouble for the citizens caught in the middle.

Time Wasted and Lessons Learnt

April 12th, 2016 by A Junior Officer Contribution

It takes considerable knowledge just to recognise the extent of your own ignorance.
Thomas Sowell[1]
Introduction

The leadership, readiness, resilience, mental toughness and moral courage of Army’s junior leaders are topics that entice passionate debate. The result of these robust discussions often concludes with a clear outline of the faults of junior officers: ‘they didn’t rehearse,’ ‘they walked past poor standards,’ ‘they are overly familiar with their soldiers,’ and ‘they lack moral courage’. In writing this post, I offer no excuse for poor leadership and decision making. Rather, I offer a small collection of thoughts gathered during a year of awakened perspective as a Platoon Commander. It was a year in which my once strongly held view of military leadership was challenged and overturned.[2]
I have had to come to terms with being responsible for or associated with very poor examples of leadership. Truly accepting this realisation has been a difficult process, but one that has been important. Important because as I look back at my time in command of soldiers, I ask:
What could I have done better?
How do I help educate others on the mistakes I made?
Junior leaders can create their own adversity so psychological preparedness from the beginning of training is important. Ultimately, it was my lack of mental preparedness that led to me being, what I would consider ‘below worn rank’ as a leader in my first attempt at command. This post offers some thoughts on ways to enhance the experience of junior leaders by discussing:
Leadership and readiness
Training:
Disciplined
Simple
Resilience
Reality based
360 degree reporting

It is clear that my thoughts on these topics, with such little personal experience, are by no means original or complete but there are benefits in adding to the continuing passionate debate.
Leadership and Readiness

This post does not presume to have the answer. Select pieces of text can be cited and shining examples of leadership and courage can be placed onto paper in colloquial rhetoric, but for words to take effect we must be honest. Honest with ourselves, our peers, our subordinates and our superiors. If we consider the true implication of air-land operations in a digital age pitted against a peer enemy in a foreign and austere environment, everyone of us must answer the questions:
Are we ready?
Have we ensured that our soldiers are ready?

Excellence in leadership is never more necessary or crucial than in the military.[3] In Jim Fredrick’s Black Hearts, there is a clearly identifiable story line of a difficult situation made worse by the lack of attention to detail and the lack of moral courage in the junior leaders of Bravo Company, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. It was “life and death stuff…and if we don’t change how we lead soldiers, and we don’t honestly look at what caused this to happen; it’s going to happen again.”[4]

In reading this open and honest account of battlefield leadership, I assessed and interrogated the numerous instances in my own past where I had ‘let things slip’ or ‘walked past a poor standard’ not willing to do the right thing. It is only through honest self reflection that we can start to understand where we went wrong. Leadership influences the group’s outlook – if the leader does not care about robust training, the soldiers do not care, and if the soldiers do not care then training benefit and a readiness mindset are lost.
One merely has to open the first page of Julian Thompson’s No Picnic: 3 Commando Brigade in the Falklands to understand the importance of ensuring that you personally, and your organisation, are as prepared as possible to achieve the mission.

The Secret U.S. Army Study That Targets Moscow A quarter century after the Cold War, the Pentagon is worried about Russia’s military prowess again. By Bryan Bender April 14, 2016 Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/moscow-pentagon-us-secret-study-213811#ixzz45pJh4EXS

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/moscow-pentagon-us-secret-study-213811#ixzz45pJp8KBZ

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster has a shaved head and gung-ho manner that only add to his reputation as the U.S. Army’s leading warrior-intellectual, one who often quotes famed Prussian general and military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz. A decade ago, McMaster fought a pitched battle inside the Pentagon for a new concept of warfare to address the threat from Islamist terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and other trouble spots. Now, his new mission is more focused. Target: Moscow.

POLITICO has learned that, following the stunning success of Russia’s quasi-secret incursion into Ukraine, McMaster is quietly overseeing a high-level government panel intended to figure out how the Army should adapt to this Russian wake-up call. Partly, it is a tacit admission of failure on the part of the Army — and the U.S. government more broadly.

“It is clear that while our Army was engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia studied U.S. capabilities and vulnerabilities and embarked on an ambitious and largely successful modernization effort,” McMaster told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “In Ukraine, for example, the combination of unmanned aerial systems and offensive cyber and advanced electronic warfare capabilities depict a high degree of technological sophistication.”

In Ukraine, a rapidly mobilized Russian-supplied rebel army with surprisingly lethal tanks, artillery and anti-tank weapons has unleashed swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles and cyberattacks that shut down battlefield communications and even GPS.

The discussions of what has been gleaned so far on visits to Ukraine—and from various other studies conducted by experts in and out of government in the U.S. and Europe—have highlighted a series of early takeaways, according to a copy of a briefing that was delivered in recent weeks to the top leadership in the Pentagon and in allied capitals.

Walsh: Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/14/walsh-marines-may-protect-tanks-with-active-and-ew-protection-systems-much-like-ship-self-defense

By: Megan Eckstein

April 14, 2016 6:30 AM • Updated: April 14, 2016 7:18 AM

Cpl. Henry Estrada a gunner with 1st Tank Battalion from Lewisville, Texas, guides an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank off the Landing Craft Air Cushion during rail operations at Dogu Beach, Republic of Korea, on March 15, 2016. US Marine Corps Photo

As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.

Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.

“When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.

“Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”

To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.

Catastrophic cyber attack on U.S. grid possible, but not likely

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3056724/security/catastrophic-cyber-attack-on-u-s-grid-possible-but-not-likely.html

Anything is possible in the cat-and-mouse game of probing and protecting the online weaknesses of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But security experts say the U.S. grid is resilient enough to make a “cyber Pearl Harbor,” highly unlikely
Taylor Armerding  Apr 15, 2016
Warnings about U.S. critical infrastructure’s vulnerabilities to a catastrophic cyber attack – a cyber “Pearl Harbor” or “9/11” – began more than 25 years ago. But they have become more insistent and frequent over the past decade.
They have also expanded from within the security industry to the mass media. It was almost a decade ago, in 2007, that the Idaho National Laboratory demonstrated that a cyber attack could destroy an enormous diesel power generator – an event featured in a 2009 segment on the CBS news magazine “60 Minutes.”MORE ON NETWORK WORLD: 26 crazy and scary things the TSA has found on travelers

Late last year, retired “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel warned in his book "Lights Out" of possible catastrophe – thousands of deaths – if the U.S. grid is ever taken down by a major cyber attack.
And just this month, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a national campaign to warn U.S. utilities and the public about the danger from cyber attacks like the one last December that took down part of Ukraine’s power grid.
The worst-case scenario, according to some experts and officials, is that major portions of the grid could go down for months, or even a year.
Yet, nothing close to that has happened yet – the damage over the past decade from natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes has been much more significant than any cyber events.
All of which raise the obvious question: Why? If a hostile nation state like Iran could deal the “Great Satan” a crippling blow, why wouldn’t it?

**** Jointness, Reorganization and Indian Armed Forces

“Separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight it in all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort.”

           Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D Eisenhower after the end of Second World    War

More than 70 years have passed since the end of second World War. Who does not know in modern times without jointness no war can be fought. Every modern armed forces of the world have changed accordingly. Even the Chinese is going in for integrated commands in a big way. The most honourable exception is Indian Armed forces. Second largest Army, fourth largest Air Force and sixth largest Navy of the world refuse to change! They still want to fight the war service wise from their own service centric Operations Rooms. Led by a Committee. In 21st century. All Command HQs of all the three services are located at different places! Not a single one is co located. For example in a conflict with China Eastern Army will fight from Kolkata, Eastern Navy from Vizag and Eastern Air Force from Shillong.

Post Kargil, Group Of Ministers Report recommended jointness. HQ Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) was established. It is at best a half baked interim measure without any teeth. How can a service Chief go against his own service HQ view as Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee. One Commandant of US Marine Corps very succinctly summed up the problem of chairman of such committee : "Being loyal to your own service as well as the joint services is like being loyal to your wife and mistress at the same time." In 2002-3 when I was undergoing LDMC Course at College of Defence Management in a seminar on Jointness ( a very popular subject, plethora of such seminars happen every year) I asked a question quoting this. A former Naval C in C who was chairing the session tongue in check told me that in hoi polloi of Delhi some of them manage to do both! That was two yug,14 years back. I wonder they can still do it. If you don't believe ask Gen Petraeus! It will continue to remain so till some “shove” comes from political masters. This is the reason any major decision cannot be taken where any of the services HQ has some reservations. Can you tell me which are the critical operational issues where the three services HQs will be unanimous. It is not that HQ IDS does not do much. In fact, in spite of many systematic problems it has slowly made its presence felt and taken a number of initiatives which would have never been done without its existence. At least purple colour has been propagated to all and sundry.

Whenever the issue of lack of jointness comes up at the highest levels, one often hears, it has to come from top meaning political leadership. I have never heard more ‘daft’ reasoning. You know the problem, you know the solution. But won’t do anything, pass the buck to political leaders, sit back, relax and play golf. Typical of No Action Talk Only (NATO) forces. I often wonder is it too much for the political leadership to kick the butt of some people responsible and get a road map moving. Of course, they have to be clear in mind what they want to do with jointness.

How Does Reorganisation Happen, Some Examples

Future of the Army

In recent times two key issues which were bugging Pentagon on US Army. US Congress ordered a study to answer these questions: What should the size of the future Army be? And how should the Amy apportion its aviation fleet between the regular Army and the Army National Guard? National Commission on the Future of the Army came out with a report in one year flat. The hyper link would get you the report of 9 MB. Since I have been blocked by US Army to access any document I requested my Naval chela to send me the document which he sent me pronto with his comments. I have a fair idea how many in Indian Army's Think Tank are reading these reports. Of course there are observation / criticism. Conrad C Crane has raised the following seven Issues the Future of the Army Commission should Have Spent More Time On :

a) Once cut, the Army is not easily expansible

b) Deeper analysis on options to better integrate the active and reserve components

c) A more thorough discussion of deficiencies in force structure and capabilities

d) Expanded discussion of stability operations and counterinsurgency

e) Explicit analysis of force size and structure recommendations

f) A real discussion of risk

g) Contractors on the battlefield

Maj Gen Robert H. Scales (Retd) ex Commandant Army War College writes :

And I was pleasantly surprised. The document is good. The commission members were faithful to their congressional charter. Fifteen years of continuous warfare have changed the Army’s culture. Decades of regular–National Guard mutual commitment have co-joined the services into a joint fighting force unparalleled on the planet. One cannot find a serving senior soldier who fails to appreciate the amplifying power of “jointness.” Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has compelled the Army to discover new dimensions of war by embracing the role of the interagency, so called “whole-of-government” contributions to wars fought in the gray regions of conflict.... Virtually hidden in the report are a few additional jewels that should raise awareness among our political leaders. The commissioners write about capability “gaps” and the consequences for “risk.” In essence, the commission is warning that the fighting abilities of the nation are being impeded by several very serious shortcomings that have grown and festered during our recent wars. The first is air defense. In Ukraine and Syria, the Russians have clearly shown that they understand our “gaps” in air defense and have worked effectively to exploit them. In both places, the Russians have created an enormously complex, layered array of integrated air defenses that, in the hands of a Russian or Russian surrogate force, might deny our air forces access to the close fight. If the air forces are late to the battle, the Army will be unable to shoot down attacking aircraft and drones because it has virtually no low- and medium-altitude air defenses. This is a serious shortcoming. The Army must field a robust air defense capability immediately. ..... The second critical commission observation deals with a painful self-inflicted wound: neglect of our artillery force. The Russians have rediscovered artillery. In 2014, Russian multi-battalion artillery “fire strikes” virtually destroyed a Ukrainian tank unit within minutes. The “Little Green Men” employed sophisticated electronic means to locate the Ukrainians and followed their movements using layers of orbiting drones.

*** Those Who Are (and Are Not) Sheltered From the Panama Papers

Analysis April 8, 2016 |
(Stratfor)
Summary
On April 3, the Panama Papers hit media outlets around the world, and the fallout was swift. A prime minister lost his job, and other global leaders are under mounting pressure to account for their actions. But the effects of the leaks are not evenly spread; the documents contained far more information about the offshore activities of individuals in the developing world than in the developed world. Whatever the reasons for the imbalance, it will likely limit the papers' impact. In the developing world, long histories of corruption have dulled the public's sensitivity to scandal, and repressive governments leave little room for popular backlash.
So although less information was released on Western leaders, it is already doing more damage. Iceland's leader has left his post, and relatively minor revelations have had a disporportionately large impact in the United Kingdom and France. Meanwhile, in the developing world, the Panama Papers' effects have been most strongly felt in the former Soviet Union, a region in which political tensions were already high. The leaks' results have been more mixed in China, where they have provided new targets for the anti-corruption drive already underway but have also implicated figures close to the administration's upper ranks.

This is only the beginning. The Panama Papers are the largest information dump of their kind, and the information that has been released so far appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. They are also the latest in a string of public leaks that seem to be happening more and more frequently. As revelations continue to surface, calls for greater global transparency will only get louder.
Regions
Former Soviet Union
Europe
Latin America
Asia-Pacific
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
Analysis
Former Soviet Union

The publication of the Panama Papers has drawn leaders and elites from five former Soviet states into corruption scandals. In Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Azerbaijan, politicians — or their family members or friends — have been accused of having ties to offshore accounts or corruption. This will be worse news for some leaders than for others.
Azerbaijan
As in Russia and Kazakhstan, corruption charges are a perennial feature of Azerbaijani politics. President Ilham Aliyev, the son of Azerbaijan's third president, and his wife, Mehriban, both come from influential families with extensive business connections at home and abroad. Several members of the president's family, including his wife, children and sister, have now been linked to secret offshore companies.
Nonetheless, little will come of the reports in Azerbaijan. The political opposition is too weak to challenge the Aliyevs, and the media have already begun to spin the accusations as Western propaganda. Given the country's poor economic conditions, the scandal could spark protests, which Baku can quickly quell.
Georgia

Former Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili's foreign business dealings are also included in the Panama Papers. Allegations of corruption have plagued Ivanishvili ever since he threw his hat into the political arena in 2011. But until now, the accusations had centered on his activities in Russia.
Ivanishvili's power in Georgia has been steady for the past four years. In Tbilisi, he remains a kingmaker, planting his followers in all the country's top positions. His Georgian Dream coalition is fracturing, however, holding only a slight majority in the legislature. With parliamentary elections set for this fall, accusations are already flying between Georgia's various political parties. Although most of the country's population has ignored the news so far, the Panama Papers will fuel the opposition's politicking. Moreover, if it gains more traction among the people, the scandal could erode Ivanishvili's influence at a time when his ruling coalition is already falling apart.
Kazakhstan

Allegations of corruption, particularly concerning President Nursultan Nazarbayev and his family and friends, are constant and widespread in Kazakhstan. But because the country is on the verge of both economic recession and a succession of power, the fresh accusations could have greater impact than usual.
Nazarbayev's grandson Nurali Aliyev is accused of ties to offshore accounts. Just two weeks ago, Aliyev stepped down as deputy mayor of Astana to return to business, inviting speculation within the Kazakh media over his motives. Aliyev has long been considered a possible eventual successor to the presidency, although he is still too young to take a top government position.
On the other hand, his mother, Dariga, is a viable successor and already one of the most powerful figures in Kazakh politics. Following the March 20 parliamentary elections, she unexpectedly did not take a position in the legislature. This has led to speculation that she is jockeying for a more influential position before the formal succession commences. As the power struggle in Kazakhstan begins in earnest, rival political elites could use corruption charges provided by the Panama Papers against Aliyev or his mother.
 

Russia
In Russia, the loudest corruption allegations concern President Vladimir Putin. Although the president's name does not appear in any of the 11.5 million documents published, those of three of his closest friends — Sergei Roldugin, Arkady Rotenberg and Boris Rotenberg — do.
Longtime intermediaries for Putin's business, the Rotenberg brothers are unsurprising inclusions in the Panama Papers. Among Russia's elite, the brothers are not decision-makers. Nonetheless, they are considered to be some of the country's highest-ranked loyalists, trusted to handle Putin's furtive financial and business affairs. Roldugin, a cellist, is also outside of Russian politics. But he, too, is a loyalist and one of Putin's trusted associates; in fact, he is godfather to Putin's eldest daughter. Following the Panama Papers leaks, Roldugin stands accused of moving more than $2 billion for the president.

The Kremlin's reaction to the Panama Papers actually anticipated their release. Nearly two weeks ago, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned journalists that a Western "information attack" on Putin was forthcoming but that it would not be factually accurate. On April 5, two days after the release, Peskov went a step further, denouncing the Panama Papers as a demonstration of "Putinphobia" and claiming that the journalists' allegations were nothing new. Indeed, corruption charges against Putin and his close friends predate the president's rise to power. By now, they have been assimilated into the Russian people's mindset.
Peskov also called the papers an attempt to undermine Russia before its elections in September. In this, too, there is a hint of truth. Putin's administration has been concerned about the possibility of protests after the elections, on a scale comparable to — or perhaps worse than — the mass demonstrations that followed the 2011 parliamentary elections. In the 2011 protests, corruption in the Kremlin was a central theme. Renewed corruption accusations could compound public resentment over the weak economy in Russia, fueling larger protests.
To reduce the risk of protest, the Kremlin is trying to turn the Panama Papers into a rallying point. Russian media and the government continually highlight this as another attack on the country and its president. After the West imposed sanctions on Russia, similar rhetoric was used successfully, reviving nationalism across the country.
Ukraine

Of all the former Soviet states, Ukraine will likely see the greatest fallout from the Panama Papers, which allege that President Petro Poroshenko holds accounts offshore. In response to the revelations, Ukrainian politicians are already calling for an investigation into Poroshenko's hidden funds. The head of the Radical Party has even pushed for the president's impeachment. But Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General said the papers contain no evidence that Poroshenko committed any crimes. For his part, Poroshenko has gone on the defensive. In a string of tweets, the president called himself the first of Ukraine's leaders to take corruption seriously. At the same time, he has skirted the issue of his culpability, claiming that he handed management of his assets over to a consulting firm upon taking office.
The papers' publication came at an inconvenient time for Poroshenko. Over the past week, the president had been close to a deal on a parliamentary coalition between his party, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's People's Front and a group of independent lawmakers. In light of the scandal, Poroshenko's faction now believes the deal may not come through after all. Poroshenko had been lobbying for the new government, a prerequisite for Ukraine to receive its next tranche of money from the International Monetary Fund and increased financial assistance from the United States. Poroshenko's mention in the Panama Papers could not only further destabilize the fragile government, but it may also weaken the president's rule.


Europe
France

* Book Review by Mohan Guruswamy

At the crux of India-China conflict or rivalry is the larger question of the national identities of the two nations and when and how they evolved. The Imperial India of the Mughals spanned from Afghanistan to Bengal but did not go very much below the Godavari in the south or Brahmaputra in the east. The Imperial India of the British incorporated all of today’s India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, but had not Afghanistan, not for want of trying.

Despite the Simla Agreement of 1913, it was only in 1935, at the insistence of Sir Olaf Caroe ICS, then Deputy Secretary in the Foreign Department, the McMahon Line was notified. There was a hiatus again for it was only in 1944 that JP Mills ICS established British Indian administration in NEFA, but excluding Tawang. Tawang continued to be administered by the Lhasa appointed head lama at Tawang despite the fact that it lay well below the McMahon Line. This was largely because Henry Twynam, the Governor of Assam lost his nerve and did not want to provoke the Tibetans. In 1947 the Dalai Lama (the same gentleman who is now in Dharamsala) sent the newly independent India a note laying claim to some districts in NEFA/Arunachal, including Tawang.

On October 7, 1950 the Chinese attacked the Tibetans at seven places on their frontier and made known their intention of reasserting control over all of Tibet. As if in response, on February 16, 1951 Major Relangnao ‘Bob’ Khating IFAS raised the Indian tricolor in Tawang and took over the administration of the tract.

The point of this narration is to bring home the fact that India’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh doesn’t rest on any great historical tradition or cultural affinity. We are there because the British went there. But then the Chinese have no basis whatsoever to stake a claim, besides a few dreamy cartographic enlargements of the notion of China among some of the hangers-on in the Qing emperor’s court.

After independence the relationship between the US and India was cold and often thorny due to the USA’s Containment policy that sought active participation of Communist country neighbors in their ring fencing. Pakistan with its eye on India happily became a length of this ring fence. India-USA relations further soured with India actively and stridently espousing “Non-Alignment.” American officials perceived India's policy of non-alignment negatively. US Ambassador Henry F. Grady told Jawaharlal Nehru that the United States did not consider neutrality to be an acceptable position.

Nehru also rejected American suggestions for resolving the Kashmir crisis. India also rejected the American advice that it not recognize the Communist regime in China. India in the meantime established a warm relationship, or so it thought, with Maoist China. Using that as a footstool India tried to climb up into global diplomacy by acting as an honest broker to help end that war. India was also loud in its advocacy of China’s immediate membership in the United Nations and taking a seat on the Security Council instead of the Kuomintang led Republic of China.

But in 1959, the long festering Sino-Indian border dispute sprang into the open when the Dalai Lama once again sought refuge in India. The Chinese saw it as yet another proof of India’s inimicality towards it. There were other things happening that further convinced the Chinese of this. In 1950 the CIA office in Calcutta established a link with the Dalai Lama’s older brother, Thupten Norbu. The USA was keen to use Tibet to open up another front against China. Which is exactly what they did in 1957.

The CIA began training Khampa warrior tribesmen from Amdo, the home district of the Dalai Lama, in Colorado where the high altitude mimicked Tibetan conditions. The CIA established a forward base for them at the then Pakistani airbase at Kurmitola near Dacca. They then parachuted sticks of them into Tibet to lead the expected insurrection. Very few survived. The USA was also to later use this airbase, as well as the airbase at Peshawar, to launch U-2 flights over China and Russia.

The Chinese believed that the Tibetans were being air dropped by the Indian Air Force and protested several times about “Indian” air incursions. Delhi didn't seem to have a clue about what these protests were about. The Americans were quite happy to make the Chinese believe just that, as it served the added purpose of discomfiting the Nehru government, which had made the Pancha Shila doctrine its cornerstone for foreign policy.

Modi needs to treat Pakistan like a Test, not a T20 game

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/modi-needs-to-treat-pakistan-like-a-test-not-a-t20-game/20160416.htm
Modi has been wrong in thinking he can influence people and win friends in Pakistan through his high-octane brand of diplomacy.
That is why his Pakistan policy that started off on the high note of saree-and-shawl diplomacy now threatens to end with a whimper with cloak-and-dagger games, says Rajeev Sharma.
Indian leaders must understand that Pakistan floats like a butterfly, but stings like a bee. This is the key to understand Pakistan and warrants a slow grind approach much in Test cricket, not T20.
The Narendra Modi government faces acute embarrassment over its failed Pakistan policy and has put itself in a position wherein Pakistani envoy Abdul Basit has the temerity of announcing that the India-Pakistan peace process is 'suspended.'
The only way to deal with Pakistan is a two-stage cyclical process which will have to be played out inevitably -- governments after governments and generations after generations till the opportune time of substantive engagement comes.
The two-stage process is to keep Pakistan engaged in the labyrinthine of diplomacy which is high on symbolism and low on actual deliverables.
But that moment of substantive engagement is still a long way off. The Modi government is making the mistake of playing its political matches with Pakistan in the T20 format instead of like in Tests.

Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India for ten years and perceived to be a man of few words, emerges as the go-to man when it comes to the art of engaging with Pakistan. It was during his regime that India suffered its worst ever terror attack, its own 9/11, with the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008.
Dr Singh, who led a Congress-led coalition government, refused to engage with Pakistan till such time as it dropped its familiar card of using terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy.
So much so that during his two full tenures he did not visit two contiguous neighbours even once -- Pakistan and Nepal -- despite his best and sincere efforts to smoke the peace pipe with Pakistan.

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-china-dialogue-towards-new-realism-2755457/

Delhi seems ready to compete with Beijing where it must and cooperate where it can
The UPA government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh struggled to overcome many of the traditional weaknesses of India’s China policy
Written by C. Raja Mohan | Updated: April 16, 2016 

The Modi government’s most important departure from the past is in the framing of the China question itself.
As the Indian public discourse on China continues to oscillate between unmitigated romanticism and unreasonable hostility, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has settled down to a pragmatic engagement with Beijing. The NDA government’s three-way dialogue with the Chinese leadership next week, involving External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, is likely to reflect some of this new realism.
The UPA government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh struggled to overcome many of the traditional weaknesses of India’s China policy — the temptation to mask real differences, hide deep resentments in soaring rhetoric on friendship, pretend great convergence on global issues, and resist the natural expansion of India’s economic cooperation with China.

Modi has begun to turn this policy on its head. Delhi now acknowledges the enduring contradictions between the interests of the two countries at the bilateral, regional and global level, seeks to manage those responsibly, refuses to limit its relationship with other countries by looking over its shoulder at Beijing, and rolls out the red carpet for Chinese capital.
If the UPA believed a solution was at hand after multiple rounds of negotiations, the NDA government is quite sceptical. Modi is conscious that China’s rise over the last three decades put Beijing in a higher league than Delhi. He is aware that China is under no compulsion to make the kind of territorial concessions that India would need to to make a boundary settlement work.
Delhi also knows there is greater prospect for tension as India begins to match the Chinese modernisation of infrastructure on the long and contested border. Modi is, therefore, building on the mechanisms devised during the UPA years for better management of the border. The frequency and intensity of border incursions appear to have come down since President Xi Jinping visited India in September 2014.

All about the Obama Doctrine

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indias-foreign-policy-all-about-the-obama-doctrine/article8480472.ece?homepage=true
April 16, 2016 M. K. Narayanan
While President Obama’s strategic rebalancing of U.S. interests through the ‘Pivot to Asia’ entails a stronger embrace of India as a counterweight to China, New Delhi must be careful not to conduct its foreign policy through the American prism
The first decade and a half of the 21st century has witnessed a fundamental change in India-U.S. relations unparalleled in the history of the two democracies. President Bill Clinton demonstrated a tilt towards India during his second term, and subsequently the George Bush presidency brought about a transformational shift in the relationship. Relations have been on an upswing ever since, with the Obama presidency proceeding on the same course.
Discerning observers nevertheless see subtle differences in the approach of the Bush and Obama presidencies. Both Presidents have been warm towards India and appreciative of India’s democratic credentials. President Bush, early in his second term, dispelled any notions that the decision to reach out to India had a hidden subtext, viz. strengthening India to function as a counterweight to China. President Barack Obama has been more circumspect, as his world view includes a more accommodative attitude towards China.
The difference, according to strategic analysts, lies in their approach. Mr. Bush acted more on the basis of his instincts — an outstanding example being the manner in which he went out of his way to ensure the successful conclusion of the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Deal without seeking any quid pro quo. Analysts argue that Mr. Obama is more a practitioner of realpolitik and tends to see most issues through this prism.

Radical shift in priorities
In the light of this, recent references to an “Obama Doctrine” should be of vital interest to Indian policymakers. The so-called doctrine is embedded in a series of interviews that Mr. Obama gave to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine. Compiled into an essay, it takes on the character of a doctrine, though the President himself may be chary of acknowledging it as such.
Mr. Obama is hardly a “Beltway” politician. It was known even before he came to Washington that he held strong views on foreign policy issues. These differed from those of the foreign policy establishment in Washington — including of the powerful think tanks scattered across the city, and forming part of the “revolving door syndrome” familiar to Washington insiders.
That the President, while still being in office, should express his personal opinions in this manner in a series of interviews intended for publication is a surprise of sorts. One would have expected it to form part of his presidential memoirs, but clearly he intended his views to become known while still holding office. Hence, its value and the reference to an “Obama Doctrine”.