Defense Secretary Nominates New Army and Navy Chiefs - U.S. National Security and Military News Review
- Get link
- Other Apps
Defense Secretary Nominates New Army and Navy Chiefs
Pro-Russian rebels participate in a military training exercise / AP
BY: Reuters
By Adrian Croft
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – NATO’s chief said on Monday that Russia had built up forces on the border with Ukraine and sent more military hardware into eastern Ukraine, enabling pro-Russia separatists to launch attacks with little warning if they chose.
“There has been a Russian build-up, both along the borders between Russia and Ukraine but also inside eastern Ukraine, with a steady flow of heavy equipment, tanks, artillery, ammunition, air defense systems and a lot of training,” alliance Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference.
“So they have the capacity, the capability to launch new attacks with very little warning time. But of course no one can say anything with certainty about the intention.”
A NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Turkey this week is due to discuss Ukraine.
Relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest ebb since the end of the Cold War due to Moscow’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in March 2014 and its backing for the rebels. The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia, triggering retaliation by Moscow.
Russia denies Western and Ukrainian accusations, which they say they have documented, that it is arming the separatists.
Stoltenberg said Russia’s support for the separatists was a “blatant violation” of the Minsk ceasefire accord.
“INTIMIDATION”
He said there had been a rise in ceasefire violations, more deaths, and obstruction of monitors.
“Just the existence of these (Russian) forces along the border, but also inside eastern Ukraine, is in itself a violation of the Minsk agreement but it is also intimidating and putting pressure on Kiev and on Ukraine,” he said.
NATO’s top commander, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, said last month that Russia might be taking advantage of a lull in fighting in eastern Ukraine to lay the groundwork for a new offensive.
Ukraine has also said the threat of large-scale fighting in the east is growing.
Stoltenberg urged Russia to stop supporting the separatists and called for the withdrawal of heavy weapons and for OSCE monitors to be given full access and security guarantees.
He said it was “of great concern that we have seen this steady build-up of military presence and support for the separatists over such a long time”.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will discuss the Ukraine crisis on Tuesday in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi, RIA news agency quoted a diplomatic source as saying.
(Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Read the whole story
· · ·
A U.S. serviceman walks past Bradley IFVs ahead an official opening ceremony of the joint U.S.-Georgian exercise Noble Partner 2015 at the Vaziani training area outside Tbilisi / Reuters
BY: Reuters
By Margarita Antidze
TBILISI (Reuters) – U.S. and Georgian forces began two weeks of military exercises in the South Caucasian republic on Monday, a move that is likely to irritate Georgia’s former Soviet master Russia.
About 600 U.S. and Georgian soldiers were taking part in the maneuvers, for which the U.S. army for the first time transported an entire mechanized company, including 14 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, across the Black Sea from Bulgaria.
“This represents a big step in our training and a big step in our interoperability,” Brigadier General Mark Loeben, director of exercises at U.S. European Command, told reporters.
Georgia has U.S. backing for its bid to join the Western NATO alliance. But the move is firmly opposed by Russia, which fought a five-day war with Georgia in 2008 and supports separatist authorities in two Georgian breakaway regions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The exercises are based at the Vaziani military base near the capital Tbilisi, which was a Russian air force base until Russian forces withdrew at the start of the last decade under a European arms reduction agreement.
Defence Minister Tina Khidasheli said Georgia was “not preparing for war with anybody”.
“This is not against anybody. We are preparing for peace,” she told reporters. “That’s why we need to have a Georgian army that is strong, capable, and proud of defending and protecting freedom and independence of this country.”
Russia, which plans to hold naval drills with China shortly in the Mediterranean, did not offer any immediate reaction to the Georgian exercises.
(Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Read the whole story
· ·
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh alleged in a long-rumored 10,000-word story published Sunday that the United States and Pakistan lied about major details about the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but the CIA and White House are both rejecting his account.
Hersh, writing for the London Review of Books, reported that Pakistan and the United States collaborated closely on the mission, and hatched a cover story afterward that held that Washington called for it unilaterally. Starting in 2006, bin Laden, Hersh alleged, was actually a prisoner of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the compound in Abbottabad, where he was killed, and not hiding from authorities.
A CIA official told The Washington Post that Hersh’s story is “utter nonsense.” White House spokesman Ned Price said it had “too many inaccuracies and baseless assertions” to fact-check each one, and added that the premise that bin Laden was killed in “anything but a unilateral U.S. mission is patently false.”
“As we said at the time, knowledge of this operation was confined to a very small circle of senior U.S. officials,” Price said in a statement. “The President decided early on not to inform any other government, including the Pakistani Government, which was not notified until after the raid had occurred. We had been and continue to be partners with Pakistan in our joint effort to destroy al-Qa’ida, but this was a U.S. operation through and through.”
Pakistani boys play near demolition work on the compound where al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was killed May 2, 2011, in the town of Abbottabad. (Photo by AMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images)
Bin Laden was killed May 2, 2011, in a helicopter raid by Navy SEALs. The elite commandos flew in under cover of darkness from Afghanistan.
Hersh, citing American sources, alleged that two Pakistani generals knew about the raid in advance and made sure the American helicopters could cross into Pakistani airspace without triggering any retaliation. He added that the CIA did not learn about bin Laden’s location by tracking his couriers, as widely reported, but through a Pakistani intelligence official who betrayed his own government for reward money.
Hersh earned a Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for exposing the mass killing of civilians in the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in 1969, and later was credited with helping to expose the abuse of detainees by the U.S. military at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.
But reporting by Hersh, who stood by his report on Monday, has come under scrutiny in recent years. Peter Bergen, an analyst for CNN and author of a book about the raid, wrote Monday that the new article is a “farrago of nonsense that is contravened by a multitude of eyewitness accounts, inconvenient facts and simple common sense.”
Bergen and others, like Vox’s Max Fisher, noted that Hersh’s new story relies heavily on two sources: A retired Pakistani general, Asad Durrani, and a “retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.” It is not made clear how that American source learned about the raid.
Greg Miller contributed to this report.
White House: Bin Laden article ‘riddled with inaccuracies’(0:51)
White House press secretary Josh Earnest says the Obama administration is "not particularly concerned" about an article by Seymour Hersh that disputes their story surrounding the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. (Reuters)
Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.
Continue reading
world/national-security
checkpoint
Get the Today's Headlines Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Putin turns to Beijing as West assails him for Ukraine crisis
Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin / AP
BY: Daniel Wiser
China and Russia’s presidents signified the deepening ties between their two countries by appearing together at an event to commemorate the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, the Atlanticreports.
Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the seat next to him at the ceremony to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Despite acrimonious relations between the two countries for most of the Cold War period,Putin has turned to Beijing for support amid Western criticism of his destabilization of Ukraine:
As Russia’s relationship with the United States and its European allies grows worse, its ties to China have never been closer. On the eve of the parade last Friday, the two countries announced 32 separate bilateral agreements, including a non-aggression pledge in cyber warfare. The deals complement a $400 billion deal made last May, when Russia agreed to ship 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas each year between 2018 and 2048 to China. And next week, Russian and Chinese naval vessels will conduct live drills in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. […]Despite many differences and possible points of contention, China and Russia are united by a major strategic interest: disrupting the United States. Beijing and Moscow have found common cause on the United Nations Security Council, where they have repeatedly blocked U.S.-led foreign policy initiatives. And when Washington and its European allies slapped sanctions on Russia’s economy after Moscow’s forcible annexation of Crimea, Beijing remained neutral—despite non-interference being the bedrock principle of Chinese foreign policy.
“Decades ago, the Chinese and Russian nations shared weal and woe and forged an unbreakable war friendship with fresh blood,” Xi said on Thursday, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency. “Today, the two peoples will jointly move forward, safeguarding peace and promoting development, and continue to contribute to enduring global peace and the common progress of mankind.”
Read the whole story
· · ·
On Saturday, Russia staged a grand celebration in Moscow to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the country’s defeat Nazi Germany in World War Two. The occasion—which featured a military procession through Red Square—did not include the leaders of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, who declined to attend out of protest of Russia’s interference in Ukraine. But of the 30 or so world leaders who did arrive, only one had the privilege of sitting beside Russian leader Vladimir Putin: Chinese president Xi Jinping.
As Russia’s relationship with the United States and its European allies grows worse, its ties to China have never been closer. On the eve of the parade last Friday, the two countries announced 32 separate bilateral agreements, including a non-aggression pledge in cyber warfare. The deals complement a $400 billion deal made last May, when Russia agreed to ship 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas each year between 2018 and 2048 to China. And next week, Russian and Chinese naval vessels will conduct live drills in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
In remarks published last week in Xinhua, China’s official news service, Xi Jinping ascribed the closeness between China and Russia to the their shared sacrifice in World War Two. “Decades ago, the Chinese and Russian nations shared weal and woe and forged an unbreakable war friendship with fresh blood,” he said. But in the seven decades since the war, relations between the two haven’t always been warm—when they existed at all. Ideological and geographical disputes triggered a Sino-Soviet split in 1960, and over the next three decades the two countries had a more adversarial relationship with each other than either had with the United States. This division was the primary geopolitical rationale behind Richard Nixon’s decision to re-engage China in 1972.By the late 1980s, Sino-Russian relations began to thaw, and in 2001 the two countries cemented ties through a landmark “friendship agreement.”
Despite many differences and possible points of contention, China and Russia are united by a major strategic interest: disrupting the United States. Beijing and Moscow have found common cause on the United Nations Security Council, where they have repeatedly blocked U.S.-led foreign policy initiatives. And when Washington and its European allies slapped sanctions on Russia’s economy after Moscow’s forcible annexation of Crimea, Beijing remained neutral—despite non-interference being the bedrock principle of Chinese foreign policy.
Read the whole story
· · ·
BY: David Rutz
President Obama is lashing out at Democratic critics from his left flank over his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, calling them “just wrong” and saying Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) in particular is ”absolutely wrong” about its provisions.
“When you break down the logic of their arguments, there’s not much ‘there’ there,” he told Yahoo! News’ Matt Bai Friday.
Obama addressed Warren’s claim that the TPP could potentially allow future presidents to roll back the Dodd-Frank regulation of Wall Street by blasting the American-Indian senator’s logic.
“She’s absolutely wrong,” he said. ”Think about the logic of that, right? The notion that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure that we don’t repeat what happened in 2007, 2008. And then I sign a provision that would unravel it? I’d have to be pretty stupid, and it doesn’t make any sense … There is no evidence that this could ever be used in this way. This is pure speculation. She and I both taught law school, and you know, one of the things you do as a law professor is you spin out hypotheticals.”
He added that “her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny.” Left-wing presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) is also among those in fierce opposition to the TPP, saying it “follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements that have cost us millions of jobs,” but Obama ripped that type of logic as being “based on fears.”
“We’re not going to shrink the overall economic pie just because we’re mad about some things that have happened in the past,” he said.
On the same day during a speech at Nike headquarters in Oregon, Obama ripped some of his “dearest friends” in the Democratic Party as ”just wrong” for opposing the TPP.
“There have been a bunch of critics about trade deals generally and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he said. “And what’s interesting is typically they’re my friends coming from my party. And they’re my fellow travelers on minimum wage and on job training and on clean energy and on every progressive issue, they’re right there with me. And then on this, they’re like whupping on me.”
In a speech last month to Organizing for Action, the liberal advocacy spinoff group from his presidential campaign, Obama showed vexed yet again with the left wing of the party.
“When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Obama said. “I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families. I’ve been working too hard at this.”
Obama’s efforts to gain support for the TPP, a free-trade agreement with 12 Asian nations, are described by the New York Times as his “most aggressive and sustained legislative push since the Affordable Care Act:”
The accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would reduce tariffs on a vast array of goods and services, reaching 40 percent of the global economy and affecting about 40 percent of America’s exports and imports. Mr. Obama has seized on it as “the most progressive trade agreement in history,” with labor and environmental standards written into its text and the potential to right the wrongs of past trade deals.
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
The Obama administration is urging lawmakers to pass a bipartisan bill that would end the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records, an effort that has been boosted by a federal appeals court’s ruling last week that the program was unlawful.
The White House’s support for the USA Freedom Act, which preserves the government’s ability to obtain more limited amounts of records, comes as the House is expected to pass it on Wednesday. That sets up a showdown in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing another bill that would maintain the NSA program of mass collection and renew it through 2020.
The attorney general and the director of national intelligence are expected to issue soon a letter of support for the USA Freedom Act, saying that they do not think it will undermine national security while its proposed reforms will enhance Americans’ privacy.
There is a sense of urgency because time is running out for Congress to act on the issue. If lawmakers fail to pass a bill by June 1, the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records will automatically expire. The Obama administration has concluded that the USA Freedom Act is the best opportunity to maintain the government’s power to obtain records of terrorist suspects with some measure of speed.
“Last week’s judicial decision just underscores the need for Congress to take action now, so that these important national security authorities are not subject to continued uncertainty,” said National Security Council spokesman Edward Price.
The administration has long contended that the collection program was lawful. But after its existence was leaked in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the public outcry forced President Obama to call for an end to the agency’s collection of so many records while seeking a way to preserve its access to the ones it needs. The government would serve a court order on phone companies for data on specific numbers or other “selection terms.”
The original program was begun in secret by the George W. Bush administration after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The NSA collects from major U.S. phone companies all records of customers’ phone calls and their lengths and times, but not the content.
McConnell has support from the most hawkish members of his party conference, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a presidential candidate who defended current practices in a USA Today op-ed Monday.
But most analysts say that McConnell’s bill is likely to fail. Other Republican senators, including Rand Paul (Ky.), also a presidential candidate, and Mike Lee (Utah), want curbs placed on the NSA’s surveillance authority. Paul has said that he would filibuster any bill that extends that authority without reforms. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has vowed to do the same.
On Monday, Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) urged McConnell to bring the House bill to the floor, saying it would be “irresponsible” to extend the current statute in light of the court ruling. “How can you reauthorize something that is illegal?” he said. “You can’t. You shouldn’t.”
Some former officials said that McConnell should take note of the modest value of the program. “How far out on a limb do you want to go for a program where the value is limited?’’ said one former national security official, who, like several others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I’m not going to say it’s nonexistent, but the value is limited.”
The statute authorizing the program is known as Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which requires that records sought by the government be “relevant” to an authorized investigation to protect against foreign terrorism.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ruled that the program violated the statute because the government’s collection of “all” call detail records by major U.S. phone companies cannot be said to be relevant to any particular investigation. Such an “expansive concept of ‘relevance’ is unprecedented and unwarranted,” said the opinion by a three-judge panel of the court.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the statute indeed contemplates such broad collection. And nearly 20 judges from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have agreed over the years.
But given the Obama administration’s goal of seeing the USA Freedom Act pass, the ruling is a boost. “It provides them the ammunition to say, ‘Look, if you want this [program] and you think there’s any value to this, this seems to be the legal way to do it,’ ” said the former national security official.
Some current and former intelligence officials are meanwhile expressing chagrin with the appeals court ruling, which declared the program illegal three weeks before the statute expires and then did not, as the former official said, “put their money where their mouth is” and issue an injunction to halt it.
“Everyone is angry and frustrated because I think there’s a sense that the opinion was a last-ditch attempt by three judges to insert themselves into the debate with nothing more than an advisory opinion,” said a former intelligence official. “This was just a purely political opinion and goes way beyond what judges are allowed to do.”
But former judge Patricia Wald, who served 20 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and is a member of the executive branch watchdog Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, said such action is not unusual. She said that the New York appeals court’s decision not to issue an injunction at this point is more “an act of judicial restraint.”
In its ruling, the New York appeals court also rejected the government’s argument that Congress ratified the program by twice reauthorizing Section 215, noting that many members and the public were unaware of how the legislation was being interpreted. But that argument has come under fire in recent days from current and former officials who say that senior national security officials held many briefings for lawmakers on the program.
“They didn’t all show up,” said a second former intelligence official. “But all the members had every opportunity to review the pleadings and come to meetings to hear how ‘relevance’ was being interpreted.”
Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.
Mike DeBonis covers Congress and national politics for The Washington Post. He previously covered D.C. politics and government from 2007 to 2015.
Continue reading
Get the Act Four Newsletter
Free twice-weekly updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir in Paris, France on May 8. Senior officials from several Persian Gulf nations want a firmer and more specific U.S. promise to protect them from external threats. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
Persian Gulf leaders, set to convene at a Camp David summit this week, are pressing President Obama to strengthen the U.S. security relationship with the region and expand military assurances to address their growing concerns about Iran, U.S. and regional officials said.
Senior officials from several gulf nations said they understand that a mutual defense alliance, similar to NATO, is not possible. At the very least, however, they want a firmer and more specific U.S. promise to protect them from external threats.
“In the past we have survived with a gentlemen’s agreement with the United States about security,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, ambassador to Washington for the United Arab Emirates, one of the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries participating in the summit. “Today, we need something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”
Other officials were less specific. “I don’t have a problem with written or non-written,” Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said Monday. “Our faith in America’s word is total.”
Obama announced plans for the summit last month, on the same day that world powers struck a tentative nuclear deal with Iran. Persian Gulf leaders are worried that the potential agreement with Iran, which must be finalized by June 30, signals a shift of U.S. alliances in the region.
The Iran negotiations have focused attention on both sides in the close but often uneasy relationship between the United States and the Arab monarchies of the GCC, whose members include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman in addition to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
There are more than 35,000 U.S. service members stationed in the gulf, with major air and naval bases serving as the headquarters for U.S. military operations throughout the region.
The United States first expressed its willingness to use power to defend strategic partners in the gulf against external threats decades ago. Obama repeated that commitment in a 2013 speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
But there has always been “the question of what’s an ‘external threat,’ ” said Philip Gordon, who until last month served as senior Middle East director at the National Security Council. “Nobody can say exactly what it means. That’s the problem with it.”
Although the GCC and the United States have long cooperated on counterterrorism and other threats in the region, including the current U.S.-led air campaign in Syria against the Islamic State, priorities and goals sometimes differ between them, as well as among the gulf states themselves.
Beyond their concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, Sunni leaders in the gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East see Shiite Iran as a hegemonic power bent on expanding its regional influence with arms, money and in some instances even troops, in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. Iran’s power and activities, they believe, would be enhanced with the rapid influx of cash it would receive once sanctions are lifted as part of a final nuclear deal.
The administration shares that concern but thinks that countering the nuclear threat should be the first priority. If a deal can be finalized, the administration believes, it may become easier to address regional concerns with Iran.
While all share a concern about the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, the gulf countries and others in the Middle East would like the United States to pay more attention to ousting the Iranian-backed Syrian government than to terrorist groups.
For its part, the administration wants the gulf partners to work more closely together to integrate the various components of missile defense systems they have purchased, or plan to purchase, from the United States.
At a White House dinner Wednesday, and all-day talks at Camp David on Thursday, leaders will be discussing “what we can do together,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in a conference call with reporters Monday. “We’ll be discussing U.S. policies and our approaches, but also GCC policies and approaches, and how we can align those policies on areas of mutual interest.”
“We anticipate some form of statement emerging that reflects the common positions of the United States and the GCC on a range of issues,” Rhodes said.
Initial hopes by at least some of the gulf countries for a mutual defense treaty with the United States appear to have faded. Even if the administration backed such a proposal, a treaty would have to be submitted to the Senate, where concerns about Israeli security would make passage all but impossible.
More modest outcomes are likely to include measures to ease arms sales between the United States and the gulf states, as well as additional joint military exercises. The partners also hope to set up working groups to address cybersecurity, terrorist use of social media and other issues.
The buildup to the summit was dominated by an announcement over the weekend that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, whose country is the most powerful in the GCC, would not attend the forum, just days after his government confirmed he would be there.
Both the administration and the Saudis went out of their way Monday to insist that no snub was intended and that the Saudi delegation would be headed by the senior officials most involved in the issues under discussion — the interior minister, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, and the defense minister, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The White House said that Obama also spoke by telephone Monday with Salman, whose presence in Riyadh was said to be required by the situation in Yemen, where the Saudis have scheduled a five-day cease-fire in their air campaign against Iran-backed rebel forces.
The very fact that gulf leaders are “going to have hours to tell the president how big a threat Iran is” could help ease tensions between the two sides, Gordon said.
It is less clear how they can reconcile not only their competing vision of security threats in the region but also how best to tackle the ones about which they agree. Obama has emphasized throughout his second term that America’s partners overseas need to take more responsibility for managing threats in their own regions.
At the same time, however, U.S. officials have been unsettled by some of the ways they have done so, including the Saudi air campaign in Yemen and increased support for rebels in Syria who are allied with militant groups.
“This is a real tension I don’t think we’ve resolved,” said Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “We need to have these gulf states step up to the plate, but we need to do it in a way that we haven’t totally abandoned the reins.”
For their part, the gulf leaders have a “sort of amorphous sense they want to make sure the United States will be with them,” Robert Malley, the current NSC senior Middle East director, said in the Monday conference call.
The leaders have heard “all these stories about the U.S. pivoting and being fatigued” with Middle East wars, Malley said. “They just want to hear that we’re there, that we care.”
Karen DeYoung is associate editor and senior national security correspondent for the Washington Post.
Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's White House bureau chief, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.
Continue reading
Get the Act Four Newsletter
Free twice-weekly updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
From the moment it was announced to the public, the tale of how Osama bin Laden met his death in a Pakistani hill town in May 2011 has been a changeable feast. In the immediate aftermath of the Navy SEAL team’s assault on his Abbottabad compound, American and Pakistani government accounts contradicted themselves and each other. In his speech announcing the operation’s success, President Obama said that “our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”
But others, including top Pakistani generals, insisted that this was not the case. American officials at first said Bin Laden resisted the SEALs; the Pakistanis promptly leaked that he wasn’t armed. Then came differing stories from the SEALs who carried out the raid, followed by a widening stream of new details from government reports — including the 336-page Abbottabad Commission report requested by the Pakistani Parliament — and from books and interviews. All of the accounts were incomplete in some way.
The latest contribution is the journalist Seymour Hersh’s 10,000-word article in The London Review of Books, which attempts to punch yet more holes — very big ones — in both the Obama administration’s narrative and the Pakistani government’s narrative. Among other things, Hersh contends that the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan’s military-intelligence agency, held Bin Laden prisoner in the Abbottabad compound since 2006, and that “the C.I.A. did not learn of Bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the U.S.”
On this count, my own reporting tracks with Hersh’s. Beginning in 2001, I spent nearly 12 years covering Pakistan and Afghanistan for The Times. (In his article, Hersh cites an article I wrote for The Times Magazine last year, an excerpt from a book drawn from this reporting.) The story of the Pakistani informer was circulating in the rumor mill within days of the Abbottabad raid, but at the time, no one could or would corroborate the claim. Such is the difficulty of reporting on covert operations and intelligence matters; there are no official documents to draw on, few officials who will talk and few ways to check the details they give you when they do.
Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence service that the ISI had been hiding Bin Laden and ran a desk specifically to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more: that it was indeed a Pakistani Army brigadier — all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military — who told the C.I.A. where Bin Laden was hiding, and that Bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI.
I trusted my source — I did not speak with him, and his information came to me through a friend, but he was high enough in the intelligence apparatus to know what he was talking about. I was confident the information was true, but I held off publishing it. It was going to be extremely difficult to corroborate in the United States, not least because the informant was presumably in witness protection.
I do not recall ever corresponding with Hersh, but he is following up on a story that many of us assembled parts of. The former C.I.A. officer Larry Johnson aired the theory of the informant — credited to “friends who are still active” — on his blog within days of the raid. And Hersh appears to have succeeded in getting both American and Pakistani sources to corroborate it. His sources remain anonymous, but other outlets such as NBC News have since come forward with similar accounts. Finally, the Pakistani daily newspaper The News reported Tuesday that Pakistani intelligence officials have conceded that it was indeed a walk-in who provided the information on Bin Laden. The newspaper names the officer as Brigadier Usman Khalid; the reporter is sufficiently well connected that he should be taken seriously.
This development is hugely important —it is the strongest indication to date that the Pakistani military knew of Bin Laden’s whereabouts and that it was complicit in hiding a man charged with international terrorism and on the United Nations sanctions list.
I cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims — for example, that two of Pakistan’s top generals, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the former army chief, and Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the director of the ISI, had advance knowledge of the raid. But I would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately. Hersh’s scenario explains one detail that has always nagged me about the night of Bin Laden’s death.
After one of the SEALs’ Black Hawk helicopters crashed in Bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound, neighbors called the police and reported hearing both the crash and the subsequent explosions. The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left.
Hersh’s claim that there was little or no treasure trove of evidence retrieved from Bin Laden’s home rings less true to me. But he has raised the need for more openness from the Obama administration about what was found there.
Read the whole story
· · ·
In jails and prisons throughout the United States, correctional staff have sprayed mentally disabled prisoners with painful chemicals, shocked them with electric stun weapons, and strapped them for days in restraining chairs and beds, according to a report that will be released Tuesday.
In its 127-page investigation of mostly state and local prisons, Human Rights Watch details incidents in which prison workers have used unnecessary and excessive force against prisoners with mental disabilities.
In one case in the report, “Callous and Cruel: Use of Force Against Inmates With Mental Disabilities in U.S. Jails and Prisons,” staff members at a California prison used pepper spray on a prisoner about 40 times and threw four pepper-spray grenades into his cell after the man, who claimed to be “the creator,” resisted being removed.
“Jails and prisons can be dangerous, damaging and even deadly places for men and women with mental-health problems,” said Jamie Fellner, U.S. program senior adviser at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “Force is used against prisoners even when, because of their illness, they cannot understand or comply with staff orders.”
Fellner said that no national data is available on the scale of the problem in the nation’s 5,100 jails, and state and federal prisons, but her group found that prison staffers have broken prisoners’ jaws, noses and ribs and left them with lacerations requiring stitches, second-degree burns, deep bruises and damaged internal organs.
In some cases, she said, the amount of force the staff has used has led to the deaths of mentally ill prisoners, such as 35-year-old Christopher Lopez.
Lopez, suffering from “schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type,” was found lying face down on the floor of his cell at 3:30 a.m. March 17, 2013, by workers in a Colorado prison. He was barely able to move, according to the report.
Instead of calling for medical help or taking him to the prison clinic, officers handcuffed him, fastened the cuffs to a belly chain, shackled Lopez’s ankles and chained him to a “restraint chair.”
When prison staff removed Lopez from the chair a couple of hours later and left him on the floor, still in restraints, his breathing was labored, the report said. In a graphic video, Lopez can be seen having a seizure.
“It was clearly audible and visible from where all the guards were, and no one lifts a finger to help him,” David Lane, the attorney for Lopez’s family, said in the video. He died at about 9 a.m. from hyponatremia, a blood condition that is treatable with prompt medical attention.
“Prisoners with mental illness are more likely to have disciplinary problems, to wind up in solitary confinement and to be subjected to use of force by corrections staff,” said Eldon Vail, former Washington state secretary of corrections.
Deborah Golden, director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Project, which represents D.C. inmates in federal prisons, said that the largest number of requests for assistance involve issues revolving around inappropriate mental health care or use of force against mentally ill inmates.
Human Rights Watch recommends that officials reduce the number of inmates with mental disabilities confined to prison by increasing the availability of community health resources and access to programs that divert offenders out of the criminal justice system and into treatment. The group also calls for improved mental health services that address the needs and vulnerabilities of mentally ill prisoners.
“Custody staff are not trained in how to work with prisoners with mental disabilities, how to defuse volatile situations or how to talk prisoners into complying with orders,” Fellner said. “All too often, force is what staff members know and what they use.”
Sari Horwitz covers the Justice Department and criminal justice issues nationwide for The Washington Post, where she has been a reporter for 30 years. Follow her @SariHorwitz.
Continue reading
Get the Act Four Newsletter
Free twice-weekly updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · ·
BAGHDAD — The videos of Islamic State militants destroying ancient artifacts in Iraq's museums and blowing up 3,000-year-old temples are chilling enough, but one of Iraq's top antiquities officials is now saying the destruction is a cover for an even more sinister activity — the systematic looting of Iraq's cultural heritage.
In the videos that appeared in April, militants can be seen taking sledge hammers to the iconic winged bulls of Assyria and sawing apart floral reliefs in the palace of Ashurnasirpal II in Nimrud before the entire site is destroyed with explosives. But according to Qais Hussein Rashid, head of Iraq's State Board for Antiquities and Heritage, that was just the final step in a deeper game.
"According to our sources, the Islamic State started days before destroying this site by digging in this area, mainly the palace," he told The Associated Press from his office next to Iraq's National Museum — itself a target of looting after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein. "We think that they first started digging around these areas to get the artifacts, then they started demolishing them as a cover up."
While there is no firm evidence of the amount of money being made by the Islamic State group from looting antiquities, satellite photos and anecdotal evidence confirm widespread plundering of archaeological sites in areas under Islamic State control.
Nimrud was also the site of one of the greatest discoveries in Iraqi history, stunning golden jewelry from a royal tomb found in 1989, and Rashid is worried that more such tombs lie beneath the site and have been plundered. He estimated the potential income from looting to be in the millions of dollars.
Experts speculate that the large pieces are destroyed with sledgehammers and drills for the benefit of the cameras, while the more portable items like figurines, masks and ancient clay cuneiform tablets are smuggled to dealers in Turkey.
On Wednesday, Egypt, together with the Antiquities Coalition and the Washington-based Middle East Institute will be holding a conference in Cairo titled "Cultural Property Under Threat" to come up with regional solutions to the plundering and sale of antiquities.
This isn't the first time, of course, that Iraq's antiquities have fallen victim to current events. There was the infamous looting of the museum in 2003 and reports of widespread plundering of archaeological sites in the subsequent years, especially in the south. U.S. investigators at the time said al-Qaida was funding its activities with illicit sales of antiquities.
What appears to be different this time is the sheer scale and systematic nature of the looting, especially in the parts of Syria controlled by the Islamic State group. Satellite photos show some sites so riddled with holes they look like a moonscape.
The G-7's Financial Action Task Force said in a February report that the Islamic State group is making money both by selling artifacts directly — as probably would be the case with material taken from the museums — or by taxing criminal gangs that dig at the sites in their territory. After oil sales, extortion and kidnapping, antiquities sales are believed to be one of the group's main sources of funding.
In February, the United Nations passed a resolution recognizing that the Islamic State group was "generating income from the direct or indirect trade," in stolen artifacts, and added a ban on the illicit sale of Syrian antiquities to the already existing one on Iraqi artifacts passed in 2003.
While Iraq contains remains from civilizations dating back more than 5,000 years, the hardest hit artifacts have come from the Assyrian empire, which at its height in 700 B.C. stretched from Iran to the Mediterranean and whose ancient core almost exactly covers the area now controlled by the Islamic State group.
The looted artifacts most likely follow the traditional smuggling routes for all sorts of illicit goods into Turkey, according to Lynda Albertson, head of the Association for Research into Crimes Against Art. From there, the most common route is through Bulgaria and the Balkans into western Europe. Britain and the United States remain the biggest markets for antiquities, though wealthy collectors are emerging in China and the Gulf — especially for Islamic-era artifacts.
International bans make the ultimate sale of illicit antiquities difficult, but not impossible. So far, there have been no reports of major, museum-quality pieces from Islamic State-held territory appearing in auction houses, so the artifacts must be going to either private collectors or they are being hoarded by dealers to be slowly and discretely released onto the market, said Patty Gerstenblith, Director of the Center for Art, Museum and Cultural Heritage Law at DePaul University.
"I do believe that dealers are willing to warehouse items for a long time and that they may be receiving some 'financing' to do this from well-heeled collectors or other dealers operating outside of the Middle East," she said. "It is relatively unlikely that a major piece would be plausibly sold on the open market with a story that it was in a private collection for a long period of time."
Mesopotamian sculptures, jewelry and stelae sold legally have commanded stunning sums, up to $1 million in some cases, but the looters would be selling them to dealers for a fraction of that cost — with the profit margin coming from the sheer number of artifacts being sold.
Iraq has sent lists to the International Council of Museums, the U.N. and Interpol detailing all the artifacts that might have been looted from the museum in Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city overrun by Islamic State last June. Harder to stop, however, is the sale of never-before-seen pieces that have been newly dug up and never registered.
There is new legislation going through the U.S. Congress to tighten controls on illicit trafficking of materials from the Middle East, though Albertson contends that the laws are less important than the manpower devoted to enforcing them.
"A new resolution is just another well-intentioned piece of ineffective paper," she said.
The Iraqi government is now rushing to document the remaining sites in the country, especially in the disputed province of Salahuddin, just south of the Islamic State stronghold in Nineweh province. Nineweh itself is home to 1,700 archaeological sites, all under IS control, said Rashid of the antiquities department.
As a number of experts point out, though, most sites in Iraq have not been completely excavated and there are likely more winged bull statues and stelae waiting to be found under the earthen mounds scattered throughout this country — assuming the Islamic State group and its diggers don't find them first.
Associated Press writer Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report from Baghdad.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
HONG KONG — Almost five years after selling his notorious soldiers-for-hire business, the founder of Blackwater Worldwide is again running operations in some of the world's most hazardous places.
This time, instead of providing machine-gun-wielding contractors, Erik Prince is offering Chinese customers logistical support to get in and out of African danger zones. The ex-Navy SEAL and CIA operative, now chairman of Hong Kong- listed Frontier Services Group, predicts the outlook is bright for his new company.
"We help people get their projects up and running and once they're up, keep them running," Prince, 45, said in an interview in Hong Kong. "We get busy when things are good in Africa and we stay busy when things are sometimes not good."
Although Prince's new company is small relative to the billion-dollar business Blackwater used to be, he's got a big backer in Citic Group, the Chinese government's largest conglomerate. With China's stock of direct investment in Africa reaching $25 billion by the end of 2013, much of it in the form of resources-for-infrastructure deals, Prince is counting on demand for his services to surge.
"They can do logistics under fire where other companies wouldn't want to get involved because of the risks," said Luke Patey, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. "I think the expertise of a former private military contractor is very useful in this regard."
Frontier Services traces its roots to a Chinese digital broadcaster called DVN Holdings, but effectively started anew with Prince's arrival in January 2014. It's now a logistics company offering services ranging from risk assessment to airdrops and medical evacuations in Africa, though no guns for hire.
The company's backers "saw the massive investment coming out of Asia and going into Africa and they thought: How do you make that work better, more effectively?" Prince said. "They wanted to find people who know how to operate and make things happen in difficult places, so I guess they thought of me."
In its first full year of operations as Frontier Services, the company posted a net loss of HK$130.4 million ($16.8 million) on revenue of HK$310.4 million. The stock has risen 32 percent this year, double the gain in the Hang Seng Index.
Prince said he's now in talks to deepen cooperation with Citic, Frontier's largest shareholder, though he declined to elaborate. Calls to Citic Group's public relations department weren't answered.
Tapped for his experience, Prince's white-collar job is a far cry from his past running one of the world's largest private security firms. Despite sounding like a seasoned executive at times — repeatedly noting that "I can't make forward-looking statements" — Prince concedes he's still adjusting to the role.
"I'm new to this public-company thing," he said. "When the winds of life change, you have to tack with them."
Prince's life took a sudden turn in September 2007, when Blackwater guards stopping traffic for a State Department convoy shot and killed 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians during a chaotic scene in Baghdad's Nisour Square.
For some, the incident made Blackwater an emblem of American militarism and imperialism — all in the service of profit. One of the Nisoor Square guards was sentenced last month to life in prison for murder and three others received 30-year jail terms.
Prince left Blackwater in 2009, sold it the following year and says he's cut all ties with the company. Academi, as the private security firm is now called, says it has no more ties with Prince.
Blackwater's demise left Prince bitter with an American government he says he served patriotically — he was a CIA asset and was on al-Qaida's hit list — only to see himself vilified as a soldier of fortune.
"I was definitely hung out to dry," Prince said. "It was driven by politics."
After leaving Blackwater, Prince ventured into private equity by forming Frontier Resources Group, based in Abu Dhabi. He also published a book on Blackwater that may be turned to a movie.
His main focus now is the logistics company, whose contracts include a $23.3 million deal with South Sudan's Ministry of Petroleum to carry supplies and maintain its oil fields amid the civil war there. Tens of thousands of people have died in the fighting and more than 2 million others have fled their homes after army commanders rebelled against President Salva Kiir.
Frontier Services is "offering this service to a side in a civil war," Danish researcher Patey said.
Prince says his company is simply "on the side of peace and economic development."
Frontier Services is betting its future on serving Chinese companies, who Prince says are unprepared to help employees overseas who suffer accidents or violence. One of Frontier Services's main roles is doing medical evacuations from Africa to mainland China, said Prince, who declined to identify his Chinese clients.
"You take a guy out of the middle of China who has no foreign travel experience and now you put him into a very remote part of Africa — that is a jump," Prince said. "We'll give advice on how to avoid being kidnapped or injured, local diseases or routes to avoid. The more preparation we can help those guys with to be safe and effective and to better interact with the locals, I think both sides win."
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
As debate and conspiracy theories continue to percolate about the new military exercise Jade Helm 15, Checkpoint has been asked to help explain what the operation is — and is not.
Above, a video providing some context on the mission. As previously covered here, Jad Helm 15 is expected to span a good portion of the summer in a number of southwestern U.S. states, including Texas, California, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. About 1,200 Special Operations are expected to participate as they prepare for potential operations overseas, according to U.S. military officials.
In addition, I appeared this morning on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” to discuss Jade Helm 15 and take calls from viewers. You can watch that here:
Related on Checkpoint:
Why Jade Helm 15 is freaking out the Internet — and why it shouldn’t be
Why Jade Helm 15 is freaking out the Internet — and why it shouldn’t be
Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.
Continue reading
world/national-security
checkpoint
Get the Politics Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· ·
AP
BY: Adam Kredo
A White House official confirmed that the Obama administration’s national security team recently met with a teenager who garnered international headlines after a video of him being beaten by Israeli police during a protest in East Jerusalem emerged on the Internet.
Tariq Khdeir, a fifteen-year-old Tampa resident of Palestinian decent, was hosted at the White House for continuing meetings with the Obama administration, which says that it is continuing to monitor the case.
Khdeir was filmed being beaten and arrested by Israeli police last summer during a riot in a Palestinian neighborhood over the death of Muhammad Abu Khdeir, Tariq’s cousin.
A White House official confirmed late Monday to the Washington Free Beacon that Khdeir and his family were hosted at the White House for meetings. The confirmation came following initial reportsof the April 15 meeting by CNN.
“The U.S. government has remained closely engaged with Tariq and his family since his return from Jerusalem,” a White House official told the Free Beacon. “As part of the follow-up on pending issues related to his case, National Security Council staff met with the Abu Khdeir family recently.”
While Tariq Khdeir was originally accused of participating in the riot—which came amid a series of similar riots in Jerusalem last summer—he was cleared of all charges in January.
Khdeir’s cousin Muhammad was the victim of an apparent revenge killing in the wake of the abduction and slaughter of three Israeli teens by Palestinian terrorists.
Anti-Israel activists touted the video of Khdeir’s beating as proof of widespread Israeli aggression and malfeasance in East Jerusalem. Organizations such as the Council of America-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have featured Khdeir as a speaker at various anti-Israel conferences.
The family is reportedly seeking assurances that Khdeir will not be subjected to retaliation by Israel should he return to Jerusalem.
The Obama administration is reportedly miffed with Israel over the incident and believes the government has not taken such incidents seriously, according to CNN.
“Based on numerous conversations with administration officials on background, there is a widespread belief within the Obama administration that the Israeli government does not take these incidents against American citizens with the seriousness U.S. officials believe they merit,” CNN reported.
“Unless there is video evidence that excessive force was used, as in the case of Tariq Khdeir, Israeli government officials inevitably conclude that the action taken was justified and in keeping with national security needs, officials say,” according to the report.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Nepalese service members load relief supplies into a U.S. Marine Corps UH-1Y Venom from Joint Task Force 505 at Sindhuli, Nepal in this May 11 / Reuters
BY: Reuters
By David Alexander and Phil Stewart
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Marine Corps helicopter was declared missing on Tuesday with six Marines and two Nepalese soldiers aboard as it was ferrying rice and tarps to earthquake victims in rugged terrain in Nepal, near a town hard hit by the latest deadly aftershocks.
Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said reports from the field indicated the helicopter’s crew was overheard talking about fuel problems before U.S. military officials lost contact with the light attack helicopter.
A 90-minute search by three Marine Corps V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft failed to locate the aircraft before nightfall and the air search was suspended. A ground search by Nepalese troops was continuing, Warren said.
“Essentially what we have right now is truly a missing helicopter. We simply don’t know its location,” Warren said, noting that the area is “rugged and mountainous” and any radio transmissions from the helicopter might not be heard due to the mountains.
The helicopter was one of three Marine Corps UH-1Y Hueys participating in earthquake relief operations following last month’s 7.8 magnitude tremor. It has been followed by aftershocks, including a major 7.3 magnitude tremor earlier on Tuesday.
Army Major Dave Eastburn, a spokesman for U.S. Pacific Command, said the helicopter was carrying the U.S. and Nepalese forces when it went missing in the area of Charikot village, which was in the area hardest hit by Tuesday’s aftershock.
Warren said an Indian helicopter working in the quake zone had overheard radio chatter from the U.S. helicopter about “fuel issues” before it went missing. Warren said it was not clear whether the helicopter might have been low on fuel or if there was a problem with its fuel lines.
“The UH-1 had launched to deliver tarps and rice,” Warren said. “Because of the terrain (it) had not been in contact for approximately two hours. No emergency beacon has been detected at this time.”
Warren said Marine Brigadier General Paul Kennedy, deputy commander of the III Marine Expeditionary Force, was directing the rescue effort. U.S. Air Force pararescue forces, who could be air-dropped into the area, had rehearsed and were available if needed, Warren said.
A Nepalese air brigade reported seeing the U.S. helicopter at a location some 40 miles (65 km) east of the capital Kathmandu, but the three aircraft sent to search the area did not spot it during the hunt before dark, Warren said.
(Editing by Will Dunham and Eric Walsh)
Read the whole story
· · ·
BY: David Rutz
President Obama is fond of taking potshots at Fox News for its sin of criticizing his White House. He’s very fond of constructing straw man arguments that cannot withstand the winds of his lofty rhetoric. Tuesday, at a panel about poverty at Georgetown University, he pulled off the rare feat of doing them simultaneously.
“I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction,” he said. “And look, it’s still being propagated. I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu. They will find, like folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them.”
Notice Obama also managed to work in a self-aggrandizing joke about how cool and collected he is all the time. It was a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet of Obama’s most non-charming speech habits.
Watch SuperCuts on Obama complaining about Fox News and blasting apart straw men below.
[H/T Daily Caller]
WASHINGTON — When President Obama began making the case for a deal with Iran that would delay its ability to assemble an atomic weapon, his first argument was that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a “free-for-all” of proliferation in the Arab world. “It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons,” he said in 2012.
Now, as he gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White House on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence: Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.
“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.
“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he said at a recent conference in Seoul, South Korea.
For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Iran deal has presented a new dilemma. If the agreement is sealed successfully next month — still far from guaranteed — Mr. Obama will be able to claim to have bought another decade, maybe longer, before Iran can credibly threaten to have a nuclear weapon.
But by leaving 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program in place — the features of the proposed deal that Israel and the Arab states oppose virulently — Mr. Obama is essentially recognizing Iran’s right to continue enrichment of uranium, one of the two pathways to a nuclear weapon. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states are arguing that if Iran goes down that road, Washington cannot credibly argue they should not follow down the same one, even if their technological abilities are years behind Iran’s.
“With or without a deal, there will be pressure for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser during the first term and now the executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “The question is one of capabilities. How would the Saudis do this without help from the outside?”
In fact, the Arab states may find it is not as easy as it sounds. The members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that make the crucial components for nuclear energy and, by extension, weapons projects, have a long list of components they will not ship to the Middle East. For the Saudis, and other Arab states, that leaves only North Korea and Pakistan, two countries that appear to have mastered nuclear enrichment, as possible sources.
It is doubtful that any of the American allies being hosted by Mr. Obama this week would turn to North Korea, although it supplied Syria with the components of a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.
Pakistan is another story. The Saudis have a natural if unacknowledged claim on the technology: They financed much of the work done by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who ended up peddling his nuclear wares abroad. It is widely presumed that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with the technology, if not a weapon itself.
The Arab leader interviewed on Monday said that countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all to be represented at the Camp David meeting, had discussed a collective program of their own — couched, as Iran’s is, as a peaceful effort to develop nuclear energy. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the United States several years ago to build nuclear power plants, but it is prohibited under that plan from enriching its own uranium.
Over the last decade, the Saudi government has financed nuclear research projects but there is no evidence that it has ever tried to build or buy facilities of the kind Iran has assembled to master the fuel cycle, the independent production of the makings of a weapon.
Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.
Mr. Obama met with Saudi princes in the Oval Office on Wednesday — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who will most likely moderate their criticisms of his administration while talking directly to the president. Mr. Obama is expected to offer them and the other Arab states some security assurances, although not as explicit or legally binding as the kind that protect American treaty allies, from NATO to Japan to South Korea.
But Mr. Obama will have a difficult time overcoming the deep suspicions that the Saudis, and other Arab leaders, harbor about the Iran deal. Several of them have said that the critical problem with the tentative agreements, as described by the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry, is that they assure nothing on a permanent basis.
Prince Turki, while in Seoul, went further. “He did go behind the backs of the traditional allies of the U.S. to strike the deal,” he said of Mr. Obama during a presentation to the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean research organization.
Although “the small print of the deal is still unknown,” he added, it “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”
Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals. “We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
In the wake of the P5+1-Iran nuclear framework agreement, U.S. officials are taking pains to reassure Middle East governments that worry that Tehran will increase its destabilizing activities as international pressure wanes. President Barack Obama and regional leaders will discuss ways to increase regional security cooperation this week. But absent a larger strategic framework for the Middle East, focusing U.S. policy narrowly on such cooperation could put U.S. interests at risk.
Washington has pursued security cooperation with Middle East countries for six decades, building partner capacity, conducting military exercises, and securing critical base and posture access forU.S. forces. But over the last two years — amid the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the tumultuous aftermath of the Arab uprisings, and a perceived distancing of Washington from the Middle East—regional partners have increasingly taken security matters into their own hands. They have conducted unilateral airstrikes in Libya, struck targets in Syria and Iraq, and led a military intervention in Yemen, showing that they now possess both the military capabilities to address shared threats and the political will to use them. However, this increased assertiveness may come with a price if partners’ actions do not always align with U.S. interests. For example, U.S. officials are watching the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen with concern, worried that high civilian casualties may deepen sectarianism and escalate the conflict there.
To mitigate this misalignment, the United States should lead its allies and regional partners in creating a multilateral, normative framework for the use of force in the Middle East. This should begin with an annual defense ministerial meeting and regular diplomatic and military engagement, events that would allow participants to develop common threat assessments, determine desired outcomes and objectives, identify comparative advantages in military capabilities and build transparency and mutual trust.
Effective cooperation begins with shared threat perceptions. At the political-military level, the United States should use its regular ministerial-level meetings to build a bilateral understanding with regional partners and allies inside and outside the region about common threats and interests. The United States should also sponsor a series of Track 1 or Track 1.5 multilateral scenario-based exercises to help key actors explore threat perceptions and determine how best to communicate about priorities and force employment and deployment.
Over time, such a framework would raise the political costs of unilateral action. Although increasing fragmentation and fragility of states in the region may undermine the effectiveness of this state-based approach, the United States should hold its remaining strategic partners close—and press them toward gradual reform through strong dialogue and by pegging security assistance levels to reform milestones and adherence to human rights principles.
The U.S. should lead its allies and regional partners in creating a multilateral, normative framework for the use of force in the Middle East.
While creating momentum for and through this “top-down” strategic framework initiative, the United States and its allies and partners can work on the “bottom-up” approach of building complementary military capabilities to knit together countries that share common interests. Among the areas that hold the most promise are force posture, information sharing, counter terrorism, strike, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, maritime security, missile defense and cyber security. Meanwhile,U.S. policymakers and Congress will continue to bear in mind the requirement to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its regional neighbors.
The success of the U.S. commitment in the Middle East will depend in no small part on its ability to perform engagement and combined operations with forces already in theater, which means the U.S.will have to work with and rely on its allies and partners. Of particular interest, U.S. planners should factor in growing UK, French, Australian and possibly Japanese capabilities. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its partners should improve their ability to track Iranian behavior and movements and share that information, allowing the international community to hold Tehran accountable for its actions.
The U.S. and its partners should also build interrelated institutions for counterterrorism training, coordination and planning to add to the current efforts at the King Abdullah Special Operations Center in Jordan. They should also develop a joint training program focused on counterterrorism and border security. The U.S. should then accelerate transfers and deliveries of requested weapons and equipment, including precision-guided munitions, to members of the anti-ISIL coalition and encourage joint deployments to improve interoperability.
There are several steps that could help the Gulf Cooperation Council members in particular. To improve ISR, the U.S. could help develop a plan to obtain affordable and interoperable assets, including manned aircraft, unarmed UAVs, modular sensor packages (e.g., radar packages and electro-optical infrared) and data-sharing equipment. The United States and its allies should then coordinate and sell to the GCC as a bloc, which should expedite sales, build interoperability, and encourage cooperation.
The U.S. and its partners should also build interrelated institutions for counterterrorism training, coordination and planning to add to the current efforts at the King Abdullah Special Operations Center in Jordan.
In the maritime domain, if smaller GCC nations are unable to afford modern frigates and destroyers in sufficient quantity to deter illicit activity, an effective alternative might be establishing a multinational force of smaller vessels and maritime patrol aircraft connected by robust information-sharing agreements. The GCC should also establish a counter-mine warfare task force and accelerate training with international partners to better deter Iranian minelaying.
To improve GCC missile defense cooperation, the United States should encourage greater sharing of early warning or tracking data from dedicated air and missile defense radars, as well as human and signals intelligence, evolving over time into a common operating picture with digital networking. As well, the U.S. should build cyber deterrence in the region by encouraging regional partners to procure hardware and technical expertise with a focus on attribution techniques and to conduct exercises to test these new capabilities.
The spread and transnational nature of threats emanating from the Middle East should compel like-minded countries to work together on common security goals. Steps taken now can be woven together to create a more strategic approach over the next several years. Through a phased approach, connecting security cooperation with a normative framework will enable the United States, its allies and partners to secure their interests in a coherent and enduring manner.
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
Army Gen. Mark Milley and Navy Adm. John Richardson were nominated Wednesday to command their respective services, marking a shift at the top at a time of strategic and budgetary turbulence for the military, the Pentagon announced.
If confirmed by the Senate, the leaders will replace Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert.
“Both Ray and Jon have been tremendous leaders for their respective services over these last four years,” said Defense Secretary Ash Carter during a formal announcement at the Pentagon. “Four years that have been critical for our military, and for the country — marked by an ever-changing security environment and persistent budget turbulence, but also by magnificent performance by these two services under their leadership.”
Milley, 57, the head of U.S. Army Forces Command, is a “warrior and statesman,” Carter said.
“He not only has plenty of operational and joint experience — in Afghanistan, in Iraq and on the Joint Staff — but he also has the intellect and vision to lead change throughout the Army,” Carter said.
Milley’s nomination was somewhat of a surprise. Other prominent leaders thought to be in the running included Gen. John Campbell, who commands the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan, and Central Command’s Gen. Lloyd Austin.
In a Twitter post Wednesday, Milley received an endorsement from the current army chief.
“I’ve known General Milley for many years. I am confident that he is the right leader to lead our Army into the future as the 39th chief of staff,” Odierno tweeted.
Meanwhile, Carter described Richardson, 55, as a “bold thinker, a tremendous leader and the go-to officer for many of the Navy’s tough issues in recent years — from preparing for the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine to handling problems of integrity and ethics.”
Richardson, a Naval Academy graduate, has served as the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program since 2012.
The departure of Odierno, who rose to prominence during the Iraq War as a prime architect of 2007’s surge, signals a changing of the guard for the Army. With the upcoming retirement of Gen. Martin Dempsey, who served as Army chief of staff before his appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the service is poised to lose its two most prominent commanders.
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who commands U.S. Army Europe, said both officers have led the Army through difficult times.
“They have been adaptive leaders in this complex world at a time of shrinking resources, finding ways to ensure we can still accomplish the mission,” Hodges said in a statement. “It has been a hallmark of the tenure of both men in their most senior leadership positions that they focused on developing adaptive leaders. I’m proof that the Army is not a zero-defects organization, and the time both invested in developing me personally helped me learn from my mistakes and grow as an officer.”
The looming departure of the Army’s top two officers also could foreshadow more changes in the near future. CENTCOM’s Austin and Africa Command’s Gen. David Rodriguez, best known for their years leading war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, also are closing in on 40 years of service in the Army.
With Milley set to assume leadership of the Army and Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford expected to soon be confirmed as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, there are few other landing spots for two of the Army’s most battle-tested commanders. Austin and Rodriguez could remain in their posts for the foreseeable future, but retirement at some point this year also can’t be ruled out.
Rodriguez, during an interview at his headquarters in Stuttgart last week, declined to speculate about his future, saying he would serve as long as needed.
“I serve at the pleasure of the president,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Navy also is in a period of transition at the top. In addition to Greenert, Pacific Command’s Samuel Locklear is slated to retire soon.
Carter, however, said the Army and Navy are in good hands.
Milley and Richardson are “well-positioned to build on that progress,” Carter said. “And I look forward to working with both of them and other DoD senior leaders as we drive change, build the force of the future and help the president with real solutions for the national security challenges we face,” Carter said.
Read the whole story
· · ·
President Nominates Milley, Richardson to Lead Army, Navy
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, May 13, 2015 – President Barack Obama has nominated Gen. Mark A. Milley as the next Army chief of staff, and Adm. John M. Richardson as the next chief of naval operations, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said here today.
If confirmed by the Senate, Milley would replace Gen. Ray Odierno and Richardson would replace Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert. Milley and Richardson would be members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Army Secretary John M. McHugh, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accompanied Carter at the lectern.
Milley is currently serving as the commander U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Richardson now is the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
Nominees to ‘Build the Force of the Future’
Carter called Milley a warrior and a statesman.
“He not only has plenty of operational and joint experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Joint Staff, he also has the intellect and vision to lead change throughout the Army,” the secretary said. The secretary said Milley was a clear choice for the job.
Richardson is the first officer to be nominated for chief of naval operations from the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. He assumed duties as the program’s director in 2012 and it is usually an eight-year term.
Carter called the admiral a “bold thinker” and tremendous leader. The admiral was “the go-to officer for many of the Navy’s tough issues in recent years,” the secretary said.
Richardson has been instrumental in handling issues such as the replacement of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine and dealing with problems of integrity and ethics.
Carter looks forward to working with both men “as we drive change, build the force of the future and help the president with real solutions for the national security challenges we face.”
Outgoing Chiefs ‘Performed Magnificently’
Carter thanked both Odierno and Greenert for their contributions.
“Both Ray and Jon have been tremendous leaders for their respective services over these last four years -- four years that have been critical for the military and the country,” the secretary said.
Carter said both officers faced an ever-changing security environment and an uncertain fiscal situation, and the men and women of the Army and Navy performed magnificently.
“President Obama, Chairman Dempsey and I could not have been better served,” the secretary said. “And the same is true of the American soldiers and sailors and their families across the country, and across the world.”
Milley, Richardson Accomplished Leaders
Milley is a 1980 ROTC graduate of Princeton University. Before commanding Forces Command, he commanded the Army’s 3rd Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, and in Afghanistan headed the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command. The general commanded the fabled 10th Mountain Division and he served as the deputy commanding general for the equally fabled 101st Airborne Division. He wears the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Special Forces Tab and Ranger Tab.
Richardson is a 1982 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He holds three master’s degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National War College.
A submariner, Richardson served on USS Parche, USS George C. Marshall and USS Salt Lake City. He commanded USS Honolulu in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. He received the James B. Stockdale Leadership Award.
Richardson also served as commodore of Submarine Development Squadron 12 in Groton, Connecticut and the commander of Submarine Group 8.
(Follow Jim Garamone on Twitter: @garamoneDoDNews)
Read the whole story
· · ·
A Chinese technician lays cables on a nuclear reactor built with the technologies of Hualong-1 reactor at Fangchenggang Nuclear Power Plant / AP
BY: Bill Gertz
China has illegally diverted U.S. civilian nuclear technology to its nuclear submarine program in violation of a 1985 cooperation agreement, according to Senate testimony Tuesday.
Additionally, China appears to be violating an international Nuclear Suppliers Group commitment by exporting additional nuclear reactors, some with U.S. technology, to Pakistan, according to Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Chinese nuclear violations were revealed during a hearing on the 1985 U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement that is set to expire at the end of the year. The Obama administration is seeking a new agreement, known as a 123 agreement, after the section of the Atomic Energy Act regulating nuclear technology sharing.
The 1985 agreement was held up for 13 years over concerns China was proliferating nuclear technology to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. It was finally approved during the administration of President Bill Clinton.
The delay was the result of Congress imposing a certification provision requiring the president to allow nuclear transfers only after he certified China was not engaged in nuclear proliferation activities.
Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) said several members of the committee are concerned about Chinese violations of the current agreement.
“We have a country like China that is not honoring the spirit of the law,” Corker said. “They’re not honoring previous agreements with the nuclear group. We know they’re going to take this information and use it for military purposes. We know that, even though the agreement says they won’t do it.”
Corker questioned two Obama administration officials about whether nuclear cooperation would be suspended if Chinese violations are confirmed.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) revealed that the possible Chinese nuclear diversion involved reactor cooling pumps produced by the Curtiss-Wright Corp., an American company that makes the pumps for U.S. nuclear-powered submarines.
“They also produce a scaled-up version of this pump for the AP1000 reactors Westinghouse is selling to China,” Menendez said. “Could China reverse engineer the pumps that they are receiving from Westinghouse for their own nuclear submarine program? Is Chinese military seeking to divert these civilian nuclear technologies to its naval reactor program? Do you have any information on that?”
Thomas Countryman, assistant secretary of state for international security, who appeared at the hearing, said: “I do, and we discussed it in some detail in last night briefing, sir,” a reference to a classified committee session held Monday.
China is engaged in a major nuclear submarine buildup that includes four new types of nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, according to the Pentagon’s annual report on the People’s Liberation Army. The report, made public this week, said China currently has five nuclear-powered attack submarines and four nuclear missile submarines. Four additional attack submarines are planned and five missile submarines are being built. The first missile submarine patrols are set to begin this year.
Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.) was more specific about the nuclear technology diversion. “Concerns have been raised that China may be diverting U.S. nuclear power technology to its nuclear naval program,” he said. “Would such a transfer violate the peaceful use provisions of the 1985 Nuclear Cooperation Agreement?
Countryman, the State Department official, said the transfer would violate the current agreement and the proposed successor agreement.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) also questioned whether the nuclear cooperation agreement with China should be renewed. “While progress has been made, China’s nonproliferation policies remain problematic,” he said.
“Multiple State Department reports document Chinese companies and individuals who continue to export dual use goods relevant to nuclear and chemical weapons and ballistic missile programs in Iran and North Korea,” Cardin said.
Cardin also said he is concerned by Chinese plans to export nuclear power plants based on technology supplied by the U.S. company Westinghouse.
“Under a deal signed in 2007, Westinghouse agreed to transfer its reactor technology to China,” Cardin said. “This allows Chinese firms to increase their share of the nuclear work with the ultimate goal of exporting reactors themselves.”
Regarding reactor sales to Pakistan, Cardin said China claims the exports do not violate the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines. “However, as China makes plans to export nuclear reactors, reactors based upon U.S. technology, to other countries, one has to wonder about its commitment to nonproliferation standards it has signed up to,” he said.
Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said the Senate testimony made clear that the committee is concerned that China has violated the 1985 agreement.
Sokolski said it appears the panel is preparing to add conditions to any approval of a new agreement designed to prevent further nuclear technology diversions and rein in Chinese nuclear reactor exports.
“The hearing made it very clear to anybody listening that the Chinese have violated their pledge not to divert U.S. power reactor technology to the submarine naval reactor program,” Sokolski said.
He added that the committee appears to be preparing to impose conditions on approval of a successor 123 agreement, such as the certification provision attached to the 1985 accord.
Markey also said that China in the 1990s helped Iran’s nuclear program and that U.S intelligence reports “have expressed continuing concern that Chinese government and private entities have proliferated technologies concerning and related to nuclear weapons to countries of concern.”
One example is the arms proliferator Karl Lee, a Chinese national, who has facilitated illicit nuclear and missile transfers to Iran.
China’s government has done nothing to shut down the Karl Lee arms network, he said.
Markey also said the five PLA officers indicted by the Justice Department last year for hacking U.S. companies were after nuclear data from Westinghouse.
“These thefts occurred in 2010 and 2011 and included information related to the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor,” he said. “During the identical time frame that these thefts were taking place, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized dozens of Chinese nationals to have unescorted access to five U.S. nuclear power plants for two months—unescorted access to five U.S. nuclear power plants.”
The incident of unescorted Chinese nationals at the power plant is being investigated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he said.
Markey also said the Pentagon has reported that Chinese hackers broke into Department of Energy networks.
“I think it’s very important so that we understand especially whether or not they have tried to access nuclear weapons information from the Department of Energy or other sensitive military information, and that would be both Energy and State, but also Defense and other related agencies,” Markey said.
“So, I am not confident that I can support this agreement,” he added. “I think it needs additional strengthening if we are going to be confident that the policy that we have right now doesn’t help China far far more than it’s [their] long-term nuclear and ballistic missile nonproliferation agenda, which we put at the highest pinnacle of American foreign policy.”
Corker also said the agreement may be modified by the Senate. “My sense is that as we move ahead, there may be a series of conditions that the Senate may want to place on this particular agreement,” he said.
A spokesman for Corker, asked about the diversion of nuclear technology, said the senator’s questions were based on unclassified assessments that addressed China’s “intent to divert” civilian technology to the military.
A State Department spokesman did not return an email seeking comment.
A Chinese Embassy spokesman also did not return an email seeking comment.
However, Chinese President Xi Jinping has said in recent speeches that China should use more of its civilian technology to support PLA military modernization programs.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
Airport security at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport / Wikimedia Commons
BY: CJ Ciaramella
Passengers at several of the busiest airports in the United States complained that they felt “shocked,” “violated,” and “humiliated” by pat downs performed by Transportation Security Administration screeners, documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch show.
Judicial Watch obtained 58 pages of passenger complaints from 2013 that reveal numerous allegations of TSA personnel sexually assaulting passengers at Dulles International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Denver International Airport, Miami International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport
In one instance at O’Hare, a passenger said a TSA supervisor laughed at her as she received an aggressive “pat down” that was limited solely to her breasts.
The female TSO then proceeded to roughly feel of [sic] her breast including her nipples. The TSO didn’t go under her arms or along her sides. She indicated that she did not receive a proper pat down. The search was limited to her breast… Two other individuals came over to where the supervisor and gentleman were and they began laughing. The caller indicated that the incident was not the business of the other two officers and not a show for them. The caller indicated that even the Supervisor, along with the others, began to roar with laughter.
In another incident, a daughter called to say her mother, a breast cancer survivor, felt violated by the screening process at O’Hare:
Caller indicates that her mother feels as though she was singled out because she was a breast cancer survivor and the caller feels as though this is extremely discriminatory. Caller indicates that the breast is an extremely intimate place that should not be rubbed in the manner that it was. Caller expressed that her mother feels extremely violated and the caller feels that being violated in this manner is on the same level as rape. Caller has indicated that her mother will never travel again because of the pat down that she received.
Another Chicago O’Hare passenger alleged that a TSA screener “stuck his hands down his pants and grabbed the top of his penis and placed his fingers in his butt crack.”
“The person was sure that he was violated and wanted to talk to a supervisor,” the complaint continues. “He said he is going to file a police report with Chicago Police Department and file a lawsuit against TSA and Officer [redacted] and walked away.”
Another Denver passenger said that “during the pat-down search he was struck very hard in the groin area, which caused him pain to his left testical [sic].”
Judicial Watch had to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get the documents from the TSA. In a press release, Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, said his group’s struggle to get public records “shows the TSA is more interested in a cover-up than in addressing the problem that its employees violate innocent travelers too often, sexually or otherwise.”
A pair of TSA screeners at Denver International was fired earlier this year after a whistleblower revealed that the duo was manipulating the screening system to grope male passengers.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers inspect the wreckage of vehicles at the site of a suicide attack that targeted a NATO convoy in Jalalabad city / Reuters
BY: Reuters
By Adrian Croft
ANTALYA, Turkey (Reuters) – NATO will keep some troops in Afghanistan even after its current training mission ends around the end of next year, the alliance said on Wednesday, in a signal of support for Afghan security forces struggling to repel a Taliban offensive.
Afghan government forces, now largely without foreign military support, have suffered heavy casualties this year battling the Taliban who have expanded their attacks to the north from their traditional southern and eastern strongholds.
“Today we agreed that we will maintain a presence in Afghanistan even after the end of our current mission,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Turkey.
Concern over the Afghan forces’ strength was renewed by their battle to oust hundreds of militants — helped by foreigners — from the outskirts of the northern provincial capital of Kunduz for the past two weeks.
The new NATO mission, expected to be smaller than the current 12,000-strong training operation, will be civilian-led and include both soldiers and civilians, Stoltenberg said.
It will “advise and instruct” Afghan security bodies, he said.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has suggested that the United States, which provides most of the foreign troops still in Afghanistan, might want to “re-examine” its deadline to withdraw by the end of 2016.
At the 2011 peak, there were around 130,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. NATO pulled out most of its combat troops from Afghanistan last year, leaving around 12,000 foreign troops to train local soldiers and police.
The training mission is expected to end at the end of 2016 and, although NATO has said it would retain a partnership with Afghanistan after that, it has so far given few details of what would come next.
No decisions had been taken yet on the number of people that would remain in Afghanistan but Stoltenberg said it was expected to be smaller than the current operation and would have a “light footprint”.
NATO’s civilian and military authorities had been asked to develop a plan for a continued NATO presence by the autumn, he said.
(Reporting by Adrian Croft; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)
Read the whole story
· · ·
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks at a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington / Reuters
BY: Reuters
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and the nation’s spy chief this week urged a key Senate committee to amend federal law to allow a joint venture of the two largest U.S. arms makers to use more Russian RD-180 rocket engines.
Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper urged Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, in a letter dated May 11, to change the law so the Pentagon can retain “assured access to space”. This is a legal requirement that mandates availability of two satellite launch vehicles so the U.S. military can always get satellites into space, even if one of the rockets is grounded due to a catastrophic failure.
The letter, obtained by Reuters, is the latest twist a drama surrounding United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> and Boeing Co <BA.N>, and its sole potential competitor Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX. The latter is nearing certification by the Air Force to compete for some military and spy satellite launches.
The current dispute centers on a clause in the 2015 defense authorization law banning use of Russian engines that were not paid for before Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year.
The Air Force – and now Pentagon leaders – have asked Congress to change the law to include engines that ULA ordered, but had not paid for, at that time for use in its Atlas 5 launch vehicle.
ULA is seeking the relief because it is discontinuing use of most of its U.S.-powered Delta 4 rockets because they are too costly, and its new Vulcan rocket won’t be ready until 2022 or 2023.
The House Armed Services Committee has already proposed a similar change.
Air Force Secretary Deborah James last month said changing the law would allow ULA to compete for 18 of 34 competitive launches between 2015 and 2022 against SpaceX, versus just five launches.
No immediate reaction was available from McCain, but he has been critical of continued use of the Russian rocket engines, citing concerns about the cost and reports Russia is inflating its prices.
Carter and Clapper did not address that issue. They said even if the Air Force certifies SpaceX, losing access to the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets could leave the Air Force with “a multi-year gap where we have neither assured access to space nor an environment where price-based competition is possible.”
ULA says the proposed change would preserve meaningful competition and avert a potential gap in capability.
SpaceX executives argue ULA should have focused long ago on lowering the cost of its Delta 4 rockets.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
Read the whole story
· · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
AP
BY: Reuters
By Denis Dyomkin
SOCHI, Russia (Reuters) – Russian land forces will join troops from China, India, Mongolia and Belarus in a series of joint military training exercises during the second half of this year, President Vladimir Putin’s office said on Wednesday.
The announcement, issued as Putin met top Russian military brass in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, will stir unease in Western capitals, whose relations with Moscow have deteriorated sharply during the year-long Ukraine crisis.
Moscow has become especially keen to build closer economic and other ties with the Asian giants China and India since the United States and European Union imposed sanctions on Russia last year over its annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean region.
The joint military training exercises will have a focus on peace-keeping and anti-terrorist activities, the statement said.
Training exercises are also planned with troops from member countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (ODKB), which includes Russia and several former Soviet republics such as Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.
Russia also plans a number of other training exercises for its armed forces this year, Wednesday’s statement said, part of efforts to counter what Moscow portrays as an aggressive, anti-Russian stance by NATO.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and India’s President Pranab Mukherjee joined Putin in Moscow last Saturday for a military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two in Europe.
Western leaders skipped the event in protest over Russian policy in Ukraine.
Last week, Xi and Putin signed a $25 billion deal to boost Chinese lending to Russian firms and a host of other economic accords. China has also invited Russian troops to march in a parade in Beijing in September.
At Wednesday’s meeting with military chiefs, Putin called for the swift completion of trials of new technology intended for Russia’s land forces to allow for its deployment.
Putin also said work was continuing on planned rocket systems “with heightened capabilities” that would be able to circumvent anti-missile systems.
Putin held talks in Sochi on Tuesday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on his first trip to Russia since the start of the Ukraine crisis. But they made no concrete progress on ending it.
Russia denies Western and Ukrainian accusations that it is arming pro-Russian separatists battling the Kiev government’s forces in eastern Ukraine, in a conflict that has killed more than 6,100 people.
(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin in Sochi,; Writing by Gareth Jones in Moscow; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
Read the whole story
· · ·
A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa / Reuters
BY: Reuters
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq’s Defense Ministry said on Wednesday the second most senior member of Islamic State had been killed in a coalition air strike in the north of the country.
“Based on accurate intelligence, an air strike by the coalition forces targeted the second in command of IS, Abu Alaa al-Afari,” the ministry said in a statement on its website.
(Reporting by Isabel Coles; Editing by Alison Williams)
Baroque fountain square at the old city of Baku, Azerbaijan, Central Asia, Asia / AP
BY: Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover 10 U.S. lawmakers’ travel expenses as well as scarves, rugs and other gifts by sending funds through nonprofit corporations, the Washington Post reported, citing a confidential report.
The findings by the U.S. House of Representatives’ independent Office of Congressional Ethics said the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) funded the all-expenses-paid trip to a 2013 convention for the lawmakers and 32 House staff members, according to the newspaper.
The May 2013 “U.S.-Azerbaijan Convention” came one year after Azerbaijan’s oil company and several others asked Congress to exempt a $28 billion natural gas pipeline project from U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, according to the newspaper.
The company “allegedly funneled $750,000 through nonprofit corporations based in the United States to conceal the source of the funding for the conference in the former Soviet nation,” the Post said.
Additionally, three former aides to U.S. President Barack Obama appeared at the conference as speakers, according to the Post.
Reuters has not confirmed the Post’s story.
Lawmakers and their staff members received hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of travel expenses and gifts, including Azerbaijani rugs valued at $2,500 to $10,000, according to the ethics report. Travel receipts showed airfare costs totaling $112,899, the Post reported.
“Congressional investigators could not determine whether lawmakers used their official positions to benefit SOCAR or the pipeline project,” the Post wrote of the probe, which it said represented the ethics panel’s most extensive investigation since it was created in 2008.
“They also found no evidence that the lawmakers or their staffers knew that the conference was being funded by a foreign government,” it said, added that lawmakers said the ethics committee had approved the trip.
The House lawmakers affected, according to the Post, were Oklahoma Republican Jim Bridenstine, New York Democrats Yvette Clarke and Gregory Meeks, Illinois Democrat Danny Davis, Texas Democrats Rubén Hinojosa and Sheila Jackson Lee, New Jersey Republican Leonard Lance, New Mexico Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham, Texas Republican Ted Poe. Former Representative Steve Stockman, also a Texas Republican, was also part of the delegation at the time.
(Reporting by Washington Newsroom; editing by Andrew Hay)
Read the whole story
· · ·
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced Wednesday that President Obama has selected a career infantry officer with extensive experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and a naval officer who has commanded a variety of surface ships and submarines to lead the Army and Navy in coming years.
Gen. Mark A. Milley, 57, and Adm. John M. Richardson, 55, will serve as the chief of staff of the Army and the chief of naval operations, respectively, Carter said. Their selection requires confirmation by the Senate. They will replace Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, whose traditional four-year stints leading their services expire later this year.
Carter called Milley a “warrior and a statesmen” and Richardson a “go-to officer” for many challenges the Navy has faced in recent years. He appeared alongside them at the Pentagon.
Richardson, a 33-year veteran, has served as the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program since late 2012. A Naval Academy graduate, he has impressed his senior officers and peers for years with innovative thinking and leadership in tough times, said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who has known him for about 20 years.
“He has the ability to disagree without being disagreeable,” said Stavridis, now the dean of theFletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He can tell you the tough thing, but do it in the way to make you understand the background.”
Odierno said in a statement that Obama has chosen a “phenomenal leader” in Milley, a Princeton graduate.
“General Milley is an experienced, combat-tested and caring leader,” Odierno said. “I have known General Milley for many years, have served with him in Iraq and watched him in Afghanistan. I am confident that he is the right leader to lead our Army into the future.”
Adm. John Richardson, left, and Gen. Mark A. Milley stand as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announces them Wednesday as President Obama’s choices to lead the Navy and Army in coming years. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Army Secretary John McHugh said in a statement that he has watched the general lead soldiers with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thanked Obama for nominating him.
“Should the Senate confirm him, I am confident that Gen.Milley will be an exceptional chief of staff and member of the Joint Chiefs,” McHugh’s statement said. “I also want to thank Gen. Odierno for his many years of service, particularly his support and partnership as the [chief of staff of the Army] over the last four years.”
Since August, Milley has been the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., which provides soldiers to be deployed to combatant commanders across the world. He took on a number of high-profile assignments prior to that, including leading tens of thousands of soldiers with III Corps at Fort Hood, Tex., commanding combat troops in Afghanistan in 2013 and 2014, and overseeing the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y.
Milley and Richardson share a recent history of managing some of their service’s most sensitive issues.
Milley was the top officer at Fort Hood, Tex., in April 2014 when a soldier opened fire on colleagues, killing three and wounding at least 12 others before turning the gun on himself. More recently, he has overseen the criminal investigation of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered last year after five years in captivity. Bergdahl was charged in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
Richardson was tapped to investigate the Sept. 16, 2013, mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard by a defense contractor who killed 12 people and injured at least three others before police killed him in a shootout. The admiral found that if erratic behavior the shooter, Aaron Alexis, displayed earlier had been reported, the violence could have been prevented. More recently, Richardson led a probe of Navy personnel accused of cheating on nuclear proficiency exams, prompting at least 34 people to be tossed from the service.
Carter said Wednesday that Milley impressed him while he was the commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Afghanistan. Carter, then the deputy defense secretary, traveled with Milley to the U.S. consulate in the western province of Herat after it was attacked by insurgents on Sept. 13, 2013.
“Mark and I flew to Herat the day after an attack on the U.S. consulate there, and I saw Mark take command of the scene and stand with our people there,” Carter said. “I was impressed by his candor and good judgment, and I knew right away that the had even more to offer to the United States Army.”
Carter added that Richardson was a clear choice for the Navy, citing his recent work.
“He’s a bold thinker, a tremendous leader, and the go-to officer for many of the Navy’s tough issues in recent years, from preparing for the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine to handling problems of integrity and ethics,” the secretary said.
If confirmed, Milley and Richardson will join a rapidly changing brain trust at the Pentagon. In October, the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to get a new chairman (Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford has been nominated for the job), vice chairman (Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva is expected to take the position) and commandant of the Marine Corps (replacing Dunford, who is moving up). Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has served as the chief of staff of the Air Force for nearly three years.
Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.
Continue reading
world/national-security
checkpoint
Get the Going Out Guide Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
U.S. President Barack Obama will nominate Adm. John Richardson, the head of the military’s nuclear-powered ship programs, to lead the Navy at a time when the sea service is struggling to find money to buy new submarines.
If confirmed, Richardson would become the first head of the nuclear Navy to rise to his service’s top uniformed post. He has spent most of his career around submarines and is only two and a half years into his eight-year term as head of Naval Nuclear Propulsion. One of the most powerful jobs in the military, the nuclear chief reports to the Energy and Navy secretaries.
Richardson, a Naval Academy graduate who holds three masters degrees, including one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, would replace fellow submariner Adm. Jon Greenert.
Leadership Briefing: Join Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on May 20 for a breakfast conversation with Defense One’s Executive Editor Kevin Baron. Register now.
As head of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, Richardson has cleaned up a cheating scandal within the ranks of the service’s nuclear-trained sailors and driven down cost estimates for the expensive Ohio-Class submarine replacement. He has also held prestigious high-level Navy positions in Europe.
“He’s a bold thinker, a tremendous leader, and the go-to officer for many of the Navy’s tough issues in recent years, from preparing for the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine to handling problems of integrity and ethics,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said at the Pentagon Wednesday.
Read the whole story
· ·
AP
BY: Reuters
By Krista Hughes and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. senators reached a deal on Wednesday to move forward this week with legislation key to the proposed 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, a day after a Democratic rebellion dealt a blow to the White House’s trade agenda.
A compromise between Republicans and Democrats would set up a vote on “fast-track” trade authority with a worker assistance provision, while two other trade bills, a customs bill including rules against currency manipulation and one extending African trade benefits, would be considered separately.
A procedural vote was set for Thursday on the fast-track authority, enabling a full debate next week on the legislation, which would be twinned with the worker assistance program.
“The plan … will provide our Democratic colleagues with a way forward without killing the bill,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, following 24 hours of furious negotiations over how to break the impasse.
On Tuesday, all but one of the Senate’s Democrats teamed up to block debate on the legislation, amid concerns about the impact of the TPP on U.S. workers.
Democrats – backed by some Republicans but opposed by the White House – also wanted provisions to punish countries that artificially reduce the value of their currencies to boost competitiveness.
Senate Finance Committee ranking Democrat Ron Wyden said the deal meant customs would be the first bill to be debated.
“It drives home yesterday’s message of 13 pro-trade Democrats who together said robust enforcement of our trade law is a prerequisite to modern trade policy,” he said.
Under fast-track, Congress can approve or reject, but not amend, trade deals negotiated by the administration, including the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama, who sees the pact as part of his diplomatic pivot to Asia.
The battle over the Trade Promotion Authority has exposed rifts between Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, a prominent leader of the party’s left wing.
Negotiations on the TPP are nearly complete, but trading partners have said they want to see fast-track legislation enacted before finalizing the pact, which would stretch from Japan to Chile.
That would create the biggest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement liberalized business between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Susan Cornwell and Krista Hughes; Editing by Will Dunham, Alan Crosby and Steve Orlofsky)
Read the whole story
· · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
There’s a new Yoda at the Pentagon.
Jim Baker, a retired Air Force colonel, has been tapped to run the Pentagon’s legendary Office of Net Assessment, taking over from Andrew W. Marshall, who recently retired after four decades running the Pentagon’s internal think tank.
Marshall was 93 years old when he stepped down late last year as the Pentagon’s top strategic guru. His reverential nickname, “Yoda,” reflected his wizened appearance, fanatical following in defense circles and enigmatic nature, all of which were said to evoke the Jedi master of “Star Wars” fame.
Baker, who currently serves as a top adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was chosen by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who passed over several of Marshall’s acolytes who were in the running for the position, according to officials familiar with the decision. His selection reflects Carter’s desire to shift the focus of the office, which has concentrated on long-term threats to the United States that were often overlooked by a Pentagon consumed by more immediate concerns.
James H. Baker, a retired Air Force colonel, has been selected to lead the Office of Net Assessment. (Photo by Joint Chiefs of Staff photographer)
Under Baker’s leadership the office will focus more on near-term threats, while still thinking about the future.
Marshall, whose national security career began in 1949, was credited with anticipating the fall of the Soviet Union. During his tenure at the small Pentagon think-tank, which reports directly to the defense secretary, Marshall groomed and mentored some of the country’s most prominent, influential defense thinkers and national security strategists.
“This choice would seem to be a sign of divergence from the Office of Net Assessment of the past,” said retired Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, who worked for Marshall and is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Many in the Pentagon assumed that one of Marshall’s followers, trained in his distinctive style of analysis, would take over the office.
Hendrix, however, said there were similarities between Marshall and his successor. “Baker’s reputation is as a discrete adviser,” Hendrix said. “He’s willing to be the guy behind the guy behind the guy. That’s a continuation of Marshall’s method of operating.”
Baker has served as a top, behind-the-scenes adviser to both retired Adm. Michael Mullen and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Although not well know outside of the Pentagon, he’s considered a respected and influential voice inside of the Defense Department.
Marshall’s effectiveness and access to the top levels of the Pentagon tended to depend on the defense secretary. Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned in late 2006, was the last Pentagon boss to rely heavily on Marshall’s office.
In recent years Marshall was criticized for treating a future conflict with China as inevitable. His office’s $10 million annual budget has also come under scrutiny as the Pentagon faced budget cuts. Some close to Marshall worried that his successor wouldn’t have the same freedom.
“Andy Marshall’s successor should be a lot like him — someone who will focus on long-term scenarios and will raise inconvenient truths,” said Michael Pillsbury, a former official in Net Assessment official.
Greg Jaffe covers the White House for The Washington Post, where he has been since March 2009.
Continue reading
world/national-security
checkpoint
Get the Going Out Guide Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
President Barack Obama will nominate Gen. Mark Milley, a soldier with a background steeped in Special Forces and infantry command, to lead the Army. If confirmed as the Army’s chief of staff, Milley would take over amid steep cuts to the size and budget of the Army.
“He not only has plenty of operational and joint experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and on the Joint Staff, but he also has the intellect and vision to lead change throughout the Army,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at the Pentagon Wednesday.
Milley’s rise to top Army officer came quickly. He is commander of U.S. Forces Command, a post he’s held only since last August. Previously, for a little more than one year he was the deputy commander of the Afghanistan war and ran the international coalition’s day-to-day operations. Prior, Milley has extensive command experience of units like the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and was deputy commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division when deployed to Afghanistan. He has seen combat in Panama and Iraq, as well.
As a colonel, Milley was a military assistant to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Even though he was only in the position for a few months, Milley made an impression on Gates, according to a formerOSD staffer. Gates even flew from Washington to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for Milley’s promotion to one-star general as deputy commander of operations for the 101st Airborne Division Air Assault.
If confirmed, Milley, a Princeton graduate with a masters degree from Columbia, would replace Gen. Raymond Odierno, who is retiring.
“General Milley is an experienced, combat-tested, and caring leader,” Odierno said in a statement. “I have known General Milley for many years, have served with him in Iraq and watched him in Afghanistan. I am confident that he is the right leader to lead our Army into the future.”
His experience gives “him firsthand knowledge of what the Army can do and of the impact of resource constraints on its capabilities,” said Gordon Sullivan, a retired Army general who served as Army chief of staff and now heads the Association of the U.S. Army.
Milley’s selection notably leaves Gen. Lloyd Austin in command of U.S. Central Command, overseeing the fight against the Islamic State and terrorism across the Middle East. Austin, who succeeded Odierno as the final Iraq War commander, is largely regarded by his senior colleagues as a respected operational commander, but is also known to reporters and colleagues a man who prefers to avoid the public spotlight and media scrutiny Milley will immediately face as the newest presumed member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Read the whole story
· ·
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, right, announced the nominations on Wednesday of Army General Mark Milley, center, to be the next Army chief of staff, and Admiral John Richardson, left, to be the chief of naval operations. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced Wednesday that President Obama has selected a career infantry officer with extensive experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and a naval officer who has commanded a variety of surface ships and submarines to lead the Army and Navy in coming years.
Gen. Mark A. Milley, 57, and Adm. John M. Richardson, 55, have been selected to serve as the chief of staff of the Army and the chief of naval operations, respectively, Carter said. Their selection requires confirmation by the Senate. They will replace Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, whose traditional four-year stints leading their services expire this year.
In a statement at the Pentagon, Carter called Milley a “warrior and a statesmen” and Richardson a “go-to officer” for many challenges the Navy has faced in recent years.
Richardson, a 33-year veteran, has served as the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program since late 2012.
“He has the ability to disagree without being disagreeable,” said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who has known him for about 20 years and serves as dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He can tell you the tough thing, but do it in the way to make you understand the background.”
Odierno said in a statement that Obama has chosen a “phenomenal leader” in Milley, a Princeton graduate and the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.
“General Milley is an experienced, combat-tested and caring leader,” Odierno said. “I have known General Milley for many years, have served with him in Iraq and watched him in Afghanistan. I am confident that he is the right leader to lead our Army into the future.”
If confirmed, Milley and Richardson will join a rapidly changing brain trust at the Pentagon. Carter assumed his office only three months ago. Obama, meanwhile, has said he intends to nominate Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford as his new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva as the new vice chair.
Milley and Richardson share a recent history of managing some of their service’s most sensitive issues.
Milley was the top officer at Fort Hood, Tex., in April 2014 when a soldier opened fire on colleagues, killing three and wounding at least 12 others before turning the gun on himself. More recently, he has overseen the criminal investigation of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered last year after five years in captivity. Bergdahl was charged in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
Richardson was tapped to investigate the Sept. 16, 2013, mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard by a defense contractor who killed 12 people and injured at least three others before police killed him in a shootout. The admiral found that if erratic behavior displayed earlier by the shooter, Aaron Alexis, had been reported, the violence could have been prevented.
More recently, Richardson led a probe of Navy personnel accused of cheating on nuclear proficiency exams, prompting at least 34 people to be tossed from the service.
Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.
Continue reading
Get the Act Four Newsletter
Free twice-weekly updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · · ·
The Justice Department on Wednesday appointed a top FBI official and former U.S. attorney to be the new head of the embattled Drug Enforcement Administration.
Chuck Rosenberg, chief of staff to the FBI director, will become acting administrator of the DEA, replacing Michele Leonhart, who retired in April after being harshly criticized during a Capitol Hill hearing. The hearing focused in part on allegations that her agents in Colombia had sex parties with prostitutes hired by local drug cartels overseas.
The allegations of the sex parties, revealed in a report by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, led to a department review of the security clearances of the agents involved and amemo from then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that warned all employees that soliciting prostitutes is a violation of department policy, even when employees are off duty.
The DEA is tasked with enforcing the nation’s laws and regulations for controlled substances, and its agents investigate criminals and drug gangs here and abroad.
Rosenberg has worked closely for the past year and a half with FBI Director James B. Comey and other senior FBI officials on counterterrorism, cyber, intelligence and criminal investigative issues as well as management issues.
“Chuck Rosenberg is one of the finest people and public servants I have ever known,” Comey said in a statement. “His judgment, intelligence, humility and passion for the mission will be sorely missed at FBI.”
Rosenberg is a veteran of the Justice Department. He was hired by the department out of the University of Virginia law school and served in numerous positions, including as chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, counselor to the attorney general, a trial attorney for the tax division and a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. He served as U.S. attorney of the Southern District of Texas from 2005 to 2006 and as U.S. attorney in Virginia from 2006 to 2008.
“Throughout his distinguished career in law enforcement and public service, Chuck has earned the trust and the praise of his colleagues at every level,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “He has proven himself as an exceptional leader, a skilled problem solver and a consummate public servant of unshakeable integrity.”
Rosenberg will be taking over an agency that has not only been the subject of criticism on Capitol Hill but also at times out of step with the rest of the administration.
In her public remarks, Leonhart was seen as reluctant to embrace the Obama administration’s views on the enforcement of marijuana laws and on federal sentencing policies.
Sari Horwitz covers the Justice Department and criminal justice issues nationwide for The Washington Post, where she has been a reporter for 30 years. Follow her @SariHorwitz.
Continue reading
Get the Politics Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
Our Online Games
Play right from this page
Read the whole story
· · ·
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government said Wednesday that the second-in-command of the Islamic State had been killed in an airstrike carried out by the American-led coalition in northern Iraq, a claim American officials said they could not confirm.
Iraq’s Ministry of Defense said that the militant leader, known as Abu Alaa al-Afari, was killed in a strike near the northern city Tal Afar. The United States Central Command acknowledged that airstrikes were conducted against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, near Tal Afar on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it could not verify the government’s claim.
In a statement on its website, the Defense Ministry said that, “based on accurate intelligence,” a coalition airstrike had targeted Mr. Afari and several other leaders who had gathered in a mosque. Iraqi state television broadcast an aerial video of a building being blown up that it said showed the strike that had killed Mr. Afari.
But it was unclear from the video whether the building was a mosque, and a spokesman for Central Command, Maj. Curtis J. Kellogg, denied that the airstrikes had been conducted against any mosque.
In Washington, a senior Defense Department official said that no coalition airstrikes were specifically targeting Mr. Afari. “We were not targeting ISIS’ No. 2 guy,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified targeting information. “If we got lucky, then I guess we’ll see.”
The death of Mr. Afari would represent a serious blow to the leadership of the Islamic State. But Iraqi officials have frequently made claims about the deaths of terrorist leaders that later turned out to be untrue.
A previous leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor to the Islamic State, was claimed to have been killed several times, and his supposed death became a running joke in the Iraqi media. The death of another well-known Islamic State militant, an Iraqi named Shaker Waheeb, has on several occasions been reported by Iraqi officials, and each time he has emerged alive.
Mr. Afari, who also goes by several other assumed names, was recently added to a United States government list offering rewards for information leading to the death or capture of Islamic State leaders. The list, which identified Mr. Afari as Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli and said he had been a top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, offered a $7 million bounty for Mr. Afari.
Mr. Afari is said to be the deputy to the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who himself has been the subject of rumors that he was wounded in an airstrike in March. On Wednesday, Gen. Tahseen Ibrahim, the spokesman for Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, said that the best intelligence he had seen suggested that Mr. Baghdadi had, indeed, been wounded, but was still in charge of the organization.
Read the whole story
· ·
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter on Wednesday recommended Gen. Mark Milley, the head of Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., to be the next Army chief of staff, and Adm. John Richardson, head of the Navy’s nuclear program, to be the next chief of naval operations, a senior administration official said.
Admiral Richardson, who would replace Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, would be the first nuclear commander to lead the Navy and serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Milley is best known for making the decision to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion for walking off his post in Afghanistan in 2009. Sergeant Bergdahl was captured and held by the Taliban for five years and was released last year in exchange for five Taliban prisoners held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
In March, General Milley decided to charge Sergeant Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. General Milley would replace Gen. Ray Odierno as Army chief of staff.
Both men must be confirmed by the Senate. The leadership changes are part of a cascade that began last week when President Obama nominated Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the Marine commandant, as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to succeed Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who is retiring, and Gen. Paul J. Selva of the Air Force to be the next vice chairman. Replacements for both those senior officers must now be found.
Admiral Richardson drew public scrutiny last year when sailors at a nuclear power training site were accused of cheating on their qualification exams. Admiral Richardson ordered an investigation, and three dozen sailors were kicked out of the program as a result.
A Boston Red Sox fan, General Milley carries himself with the kind of earthy manner that would make him an easy fit at Fenway Park. He does not shy away from the occasional ribald story, though he does sometimes pepper conversations with talk of little engines that could and red cabooses and other well-worn references to inspirational stories.
At the same time, he is direct in an archetypically military way. It is an approach that played well in Afghanistan, where he was the No. 2 American general. He was popular among the troops he commanded and got on well with Afghan military officers and civilian officials, even when he pushed back against some of their wilder claims about the war.
His political skills were on display during a day trip in the summer of 2013 to northern Afghanistan, where he listened patiently as a senior Afghan security official blamed Pakistanis and other foreigners for all the violence in the country.
General Milley responded politely but firmly, saying that while foreign insurgents were exacerbating the situation, the Taliban was an Afghan movement, and that it was ultimately up to Afghans to work out their differences if they wanted peace in their country.
It was a message that Afghans had long ago tired of hearing from the Americans — former President Hamid Karzai, for one, found it infuriating — but General Milley managed to deliver it without offending his host.
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 7
NATO on Wednesday expressed alarm over a "wide-ranging" military build-up by Russia in Crimea, as well as talk that Moscow could even install nuclear weapons on the annexed Black Sea peninsula.
Business Insider |
Everything China's doing isn't working
Business Insider A bunch of data about the state of China's economy came out on Tuesday night, and all together it told us one thing — everything the government's been doing to save its economy from going deeper into a slowdown isn't working. Since November, China has ... and more » |
Business Insider |
This Pentagon map shows what's really driving China's military and diplomatic ...
Business Insider Continued economic growth is imperative for China's leaders. The Communist Party's legitimacy, and the social and political stability resulting from it, is largely dependent on rising prosperity.China's oppressive political system is generally ... and more » |
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment