U.S. Launches Secret Drone Campaign to Hunt Islamic State Leaders in Syria by Glynn Cosker Thursday September 3rd, 2015 at 11:29 AM
- Get link
- Other Apps
(Washington Post) The CIA and U.S. Special Operations forces have launched a secret campaign to hunt terrorism suspects in Syria as part of a targeted killing program that is run separately from the broader U.S. military offensive against the Islamic State, U.S. officials said.
The post U.S. Launches Secret Drone Campaign to Hunt Islamic State Leaders in Syria appeared first on In Homeland Security.
Analyzing Intelligence by fredslibrary
Title: Analyzing Intelligence
Author: Roger Z. George
George, Roger Z. (2014) and James B. Bruce, eds. Analyzing Intelligence: National Security Practitioners’ Perspectives, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press
LCCN: 2013016839
JK468.I6 .A843 2014
Subjects
- Intelligence service–United States–Methodology.
- Military intelligence–United States.
- National security–United States.
Date Posted: September 2, 2015
Compiled and Reviewed by Hayden B. Peake.[1]
In the first edition of Analyzing Inte!ligence: Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations[2], former senior CIA analysts Roger George and James Bruce presented 19 contributions from experts that reviewed the history of intelligence analysis, discussed its current status as a profession, and assessed promising analytic techniques. The second edition has 20 articles, arranged in six parts. Eight of the articles are new, and those retained have been updated. All reflect progress in training, analytic rigor, and professional certification compelled by developments since the previous edition.
The six parts are entitled: “The Analytic Tradition,” “The Policymaker-Analyst Relationship,” “Diagnosis and Prescription,” “Enduring Challenges,” “Analysis for Twenty-First-Century lssues,” and “Leading Analytic Change.” The specific subjects cover a range of issues: essential knowledge, reliability, dealing with uncertainty, developing relationships among analysts and collectors in different organizations (civilian and military), and new analytic techniques. The occupational hazards inherent in intelligence analysis-methodological, psychological and bureaucratic-are spelled out by CIA analyst emeritus Jack Davis, a protégé of Sherman Kent, in his article, “Why Bad Things Happen To Good Analysts.” In contrast, “Building a Community of Analysts” and “Analytic Outreach” consider the impact of IC-wide changes, their effect on collaboration, and the importance of “getting it right.” (p. 288)
The idea of analysis as a profession is a common theme throughout the book. Just what does it mean to be a professional intelligence analyst? Does the term impart the same cachet and prestige as “lawyer” or “doctor”? Most authors say, “Not yet,” and go on to suggest what needs to be done to achieve that goal. One article, “Is Intelligence Analysis a Discipline?” suggests that achieving a status comparable to “law, medicine and library science” (p. 57) requires that analysis have the specific standards and certifications associated with a professional discipline. It also involves acknowledgement of the ‘(risk mitigation” factor—a recognition that analytic results often put human lives at risk. Requirements for professional standing would include mastery of standardized critical analytical methods, development of analytic tradecraft, interaction with academia, and—unique to intelligence analysis—protection of sources, which is treated in the final chapter.
Analyzing Intelligence is an important, thoroughly documented book that clarifies the vital importance of analysis to the intelligence profession. It should be carefully read by students and practitioners alike.
[1] Hayden Peake, “Intelligence Officer Bookshelf,” The Intelligencer: Journal of U. S. IntelligenceStuidies (21, 2, Spring/Summer 2015, p.118 )Hayden Peake is the Curator of the CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection. He has served in the Directorate of Science and Technology and the Directorate of Operations. Most of his reviews cited have appeared in recent unclassified editions of ClA’s Studies in Intelligence. These and many other reviews and articles may be found online athttp://www.cia.gov
[2] George, Roger Z.(2008) and James B. Bruce, eds. Analyzing Intelligence: Origins, Obstacles, And Innovations. Washington DC: Georgetown University
Read the whole story
· · ·
The United States Central Intelligence Agency is collaborating with the country’s Special Forces in a targeted killing program aimed against senior members of the Islamic State and other militant groups in Syria.
Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, who spent 18 years in prison for revealing the existence of Israel’s nuclear program, has spoken for the first time about his 1986abduction by the Mossad in Rome.
This past July 3, I found myself commuting homeward alongside hundred of protesters, waving volunteer battalion flags as they marched down Kyiv’s central streets. The protesters were on their way to burn a pile of tires. Many wore facemasks and chanted nationalist slogans, and their ferocity stood in jarring contrast to Kyiv’s tranquil cafe culture backdrop. The marchers were members of some of Ukraine’s many somewhat-official volunteer battalions. These groups’ presence and frustration highlights one of the Ukrainian government’s newest challenges.
At the center of the protest was a group called "Right Sector," one of Ukraine’s forty or so volunteer battalion groups that were mostly formed last spring as fighting broke out in the East. (You can check out the Kyiv Post breakdown of the groups here. The battalions were an effective response to the Ukrainian army’s unpreparedness in the face of the well-armed, Russian-backed separatist groups. But unlike some of the other groups, Right Sector’s role actually began months before; many of its fighters had been on the Maidan’s front lines struggling for the ouster of former President Viktor Yanukovych.
Ukraine’s volunteer battalions, including Right Sector, are generally well funded and their training camps have a reputation for being quite rigorous. However, their money sources are, to put it mildly, a bit controversial. Alongside donations from average Ukrainians and the Ukrainian diaspora, large chunks of money also come from the country’s oligarchs. These individuals have interests in many sectors other than the war in the East. And these other interests create conflicts with wide-ranging consequences. Earlier this year, for example, an oligarch who sensed his business interests in a state owned energy company under threat, reacted by sending in the armed men he funded to secure the building’s premises.In response, the government has largely tried to fold these units under official control.
Things became even tenser a few days after the protest. On July 11, a shootout in southwestern Ukraine involving Right Sector members sparked worries that these volunteer battalions would increasingly clash with the government. The firefight, which left
three people dead, took place between roughly twenty Right Sector members, police, and security personnel from a local member of parliament. No one really knows what happened or why—with explanations ranging from Right Sector’s crackdown on illegal cigarette smuggling, to the group’s own involvement in the trade, to a Russian attempt to foster unrest in Ukraine’s western territories. Regardless of the reason, Right Sector’s soldiers were furious, threatening to pull their fighters from the front lines.
Walking to my Committee Building a few days after the shootout, I stumbled upon fifty to sixty Right Sector fighters milling around Ukraine’s Presidential Administration building to commemorate the deaths of their three comrades. In a slightly lackluster memorial, the fighters lodged a bunch of flowers between uprooted bricks, calling for others to fill the space with their own bouquets. I didn’t see anyone else follow their example, though the low-grade protest continued for much of the following week.
Some commentators have warned that Right Sector and other volunteer battalions could be at the heart of a third Maidan (the first being the Orange Revolution and the second was last year’s Revolution of Dignity). And the battalions certainly have large numbers of angry armed men, equipped with combat experience and bankrolled by oligarchs with specific interests, not a combination particularly conducive to social stability.
So far, the group’s support is not overwhelming, but it’s not trivial either. At another Right Sector rally on July 21, an estimated six thousand or so Ukrainians watched speakers decry government behavior. The onlookers spanned all ages, waving flags and yelling “Glory to Ukraine … Glory to the Heroes” every few minutes. I slipped into the audience with a friend, who whispered simultaneous translations of the varied speeches. Yet as the crowd began chanting “Glory to Right Sector" and "Revolyutsiya,” no interpretation was necessary.
The Ukrainian government has a delicate balancing act on its hands going forward. It needs these volunteer battalions. Their strong morale and sense of purpose have created impressive results on the battlefield, and many Ukrainians sympathize with, if they don’t outright support, the groups. But the government also needs to keep the battalions under its control, ensuring that they are integrated under an official system of command and oversight.
Watching face-masked, battle-hardened men marching down Kyiv’s distinguished streets—even in peaceful protest—brings home just how precarious the entire situation remains. At this point, the volunteer battalions may be providing more value added than harm, but they are also inherently risky.
One well placed match, and a lot more than tires could burn.
Ukraine’s Energy Sector
I have spent the past 11 weeks working as a legislative intern in the Ukrainian Parliament’s Energy Committee. The position was as unexpected as it was fascinating. To be frank, I had no idea going into the job what to expect from it. As I headed to work for the first time, I had not only all of the normal first-day anxieties, but the added fact that I had spent a total of forty-eight hours in the country whose government I was about to work in. And there was the small fact as well that my Ukrainian language prowess consisted only of the words “hello” and “thank you.” I hadn’t yet mastered “goodbye.” (I’ve got it now, thanks.)
Unsurprisingly, not everyone at the Parliament was terribly sure about me. The soldier checking my building pass glared at me; he and his colleagues would soften, albeit slightly, over the coming months. My coworker would eventually handle my permanent pass to get in and out of the building, apologizing for the delay, “They thought you were a foreign agent,” she explained matter of factly.
During my internship, my work centered on researching legislative changes for production sharing agreements (PSAs), contracts between private energy companies and the government, for natural gas exploration and production. This meant talking to a whole host of characters—both Ukrainian and foreign—across private and state owned energy companies, government agencies, law firms, consultants, and civil society. It meant the constant struggle in Ukraine to try to find data or information that almost certainly should be easily accessible—yet often was not.
And it meant some great stories.
There was the Ukrainian consultant who laughed at my questions. “This sector is so corrupt that you will get no where with those nice questions,” he scoffed. “In fact, I wouldn’t even be able to explain to you how corrupt it is.” This was, of course, before he launched into a five-minute housing metaphor to describe the extent of the sector’s corruption. He was right the first time, though; I had no idea what he was talking about.
Then there was the almost cliché villain-esque American energy investor who bluntly explained to my colleague and me that he didn’t care if a few of his Ukrainian workers died in the East if he was making high enough returns. Or the fact that after three months and many interviews, I never could get a concrete, agreed-upon answer as to just the number of joint-agreement contracts in Ukraine (for the record, it seems to be “around fifty”).
It was an exercise in constant bad news with sprinkles of hope and optimism. To say Ukraine has a bad track record with PSAs would be putting it mildly. The country is batting at 0 for 4. The first one fell apart as a consequence of corruption. The second, an at-least-$10 billion dollar deal with Shell fell apart as separatist fighting picked up in the East. The third, an equally large agreement with Chevron, disintegrated over Ukraine’s frustrating bureaucracy and political instability. And the last, with ENI in the Black Sea, was put on hold as Russia seized and then annexed Crimea.
As these mega-deals shattered, conditions in regular natural gas production remained stable, if not great. State owned companies continued to pursue deals with private companies that were opaque at best, mind-bogglingly corrupt at worst. And private sector companies complained furiously about last year’s extremely high tariffs that were supposed to be temporary but weren’t dismantled until late July.
This all matters for energy investors, but it is also massively important for Ukraine's democratic future. The country has long been highly reliant on Russia for natural gas imports, and, along with cutting its own consumption through higher prices and energy efficiency measures, spurring domestic production is another path toward independence. In fact, energy reform is so important for Ukraine’s future that the IMF made its loans contingent upon it.
Reforms are already taking place. Pricing for natural gas is moving toward real market value and the entire natural gas market is being unbundled from the monopolistic stronghold of Naftogaz, Ukraine’s state owned energy company. There are hard-working, brilliant people who strive every day to make the sector more transparent and efficient. By and large, the experts who took the time to speak with me were truly world class, fluent in discussing the intricacies of Ukraine’s energy sector and in making international comparisons.
But despite these best efforts, reformers face significant hurdles ranging from a lack of transparency, a lack of data, and blatant roadblocks from the individuals who benefit from the corrupt deals. As one energy expert summed it up, “There is just too much money here to root out all the corruption. No one wants to let go of their piece of the pie. And the moment they are forced to, someone else will try to grab it.”
Back in the Committee Building, I sat in on and watched one of the Energy Committee's two-hour meetings. (The key word here is watched, as my survival Ukrainian classes had somehow skipped the vocabulary section on tariff pricing.) The members of parliament spread around the table ranged from looking like a government fat cat to looking like a hipster straight out of Brooklyn, and they moved seamlessly from intense arguing, to raucous laughter, to stern silence.
Talking to a friend in the government later, I mentioned that while I was expecting the fat cat lookalikes, the hipsters caught me a bit off-guard. “Don’t be fooled,” he warned, “those hipsters are not necessarily any less corrupt as the old guard.” Plaid shirts and trendy glasses might change the optics, but not necessarily the behavior.
It’s true. In Ukraine’s energy sector old habits and old ways of doing business die hard. But even so, it is clear that things are changing, including well beyond any officials’ fashion sense.
Three Thoughts I’m Left Chewing On
My time in Ukraine has wrapped up. I’m back in New Haven now, feeling like I’ve only begun to scratch the surface of pretty much everything. Here are three issues that I’ll be mulling for a long time to come.
Levels of Corruption
Sitting in the Ukrainian Parliament on the last day of the summer session, I turned to a friend and asked, gesturing to the mingling members of parliament, “How many of these guys do you think are corrupt?” In a look that I’d seen a thousand times by that point—the ‘haven’t you learned anything yet’ look—she pressed me to define what exactly I meant by corrupt. “If you mean corrupt as in taking bags of money, probably not that many,” she guessed, “but if you mean corrupt as in they have conflicts of interest, I don’t know, perhaps everyone?”
I should have known to phrase my question better. In Ukraine I’d already learned that there is corruption and then there is corruption.
Sometimes corruption means that things are done unfairly or at higher than market pricing. For example, if a government needs 200 new lamps, it may look for a contractor to provide the lamps. A corrupt act may mean rigging the tender to award the lamp contract to an official’s friend at a 30 percent higher than normal price. The friend would produce the 200 lamps, pocket the extra money, and in return, the government official could receive a kickback or political loyalty.
But then there is corruption where things are not only done unfairly or at higher prices, but in the end, there is nothing to show for it. For example, in this same lamp contract metaphor, let’s imagine a scenario where there is no tender at all and the contract gets awarded directly to the friend who charges three times the market price. Instead of making the new lamps, the friend buys faulty lamps from abroad at dirt-cheap prices. One year later, the lamps have all burnt out, but a strategic line in the contract (that everyone just happened to overlook) forbids the government from taking legal action.
The key difference is, of course, that at the end of the first example there are lamps, while in the second, in very short order, there are not. When Ukrainian and international policymakers are seeking to distinguish between corruption problems that demand immediate attention and those that should be put aside for later, these types of distinctions become important.
Wherever the line, however, corruption seems to have far more shades than I had considered in the United States, where all of it is labeled as unambiguously bad. And while yes, it is very difficult to argue that any of it is good, it is also fairly unhelpful to apply this kind of black and white approach to Ukraine. In a country where corruption has so completely permeated so many different facets of life, from paying for grades in a university to slipping money to a traffic cop to slimy deals in the energy sector, where you even start addressing the issue may depend on which type of corruption you deem the most damaging.
Ukrainian Officials and Bureaucrats
In basic discussions of international relations, we make distinctions between countries and their governments—for example, referring to China’s government policies instead of China’s actions, to distinguish between the Chinese people and their leaders’ policy decisions.
After working in the Ukrainian Parliament, I want to push this one step further to look at divisions within the government. Any government’s bureaucracy is massive, and decisionmakers are but a small percentage of overall employees. Not only are many workers in purely administrative positions, but even those close to policymakers are often tasked with writing memos or with scheduling, rather than with any real decision making. While we intuitively know this distinction, and recognize it quite clearly within our own government, somehow in casual policy discussions of foreign governments, it becomes easy to lump everyone together.
When I entered Ukraine’s Parliament, I had never clearly thought this through. I knew of the divisions between political parties and even among the old guard parliamentarians versus the fresh new reformers who had been ushered in during the last election. Yet there was also a much wider divide among the employees than I had been expecting.
“When I started [working in the Parliament], I thought I’d be able to do something,” one legislative assistant said over a sushi lunch in our Committee Building, “I was wrong.” Another assistant complained about Ukraine’s government and its general policy of inaction. I couldn’t stop myself from reminding her that, she too, was technically a part of her country’s government.
Clearly, only a few people in a government have enough power to enact large-scale change. Even those individuals who are creating and executing policy, just not at the top of the political pyramid, may not have the ability to do much, since deviating from the official line would be professionally suicidal. They can often feel as helpless as the folks on the street. The implication of this is particularly interesting when applied to the question of political will. With so many calls for the Ukrainian government to show greater political will in its reforms, who are we actually talking about here and how long is the list of officials who could actually act?
Structural Reforms
Sitting in policy talks in the United States, people toss around the words “structural reforms” with a breezy casualness. A search for the phrase on the Brookings Institution's website brings up 1,744 hits, while over at the Council on Foreign Relations’ website it is only slightly more popular—a mere 1,253 hits. After having a front row seat in Ukraine’s reform agenda, I promise that I will never use those words lightly ever again.
Watching policymakers attempt to make wide-ranging structural reforms to Ukraine’s energy sector brings home what an incredibly overwhelming process it all can be. On a sectoral level, it’s quickly apparent that if you make one change, you may have to make another, then yet another in order for any of the changes to achieve their desired effects. For example, in the energy sector, you can adjust legislation on tenders, but then you may need to adjust legislation on transparency, and then how do you deal with those contracts signed before the reform. At each step, lawyers must review the laws, consultants offer advice, and industry experts will argue why it is, or is not, a good idea.
This is, to be sure, the lawmaking process for many countries around the world. Yet it is complicated further when undertaken at a breakneck pace by a government that is far from being the most efficient and where employees are making obscenely low wages (brought down even further by Ukraine’s currency collapse earlier this year). Adding one more request to staffers’ already-filled plates, for no additional pay, is not likely a great tactic for quick results.
By way of support, the international community often offers technical teams or consultants to make strategic recommendations on the reforms. In certain circumstances, these levers can be helpful. But if you don’t have the middle management to carry out reforms, they can fall flat.
And those same technical teams and consultants tend to overlook the lower and middle levels of government that have to actually effectuate policy. Given that reforms are so much work, and especially legal paperwork, perhaps allocating money to hiring young Ukrainian lawyers to plow through the administrative backlogs would be, at times, just as helpful. Not only might it alleviate some of the bottlenecks that come from changes at the top level needing to be processed administratively, but it could also help inject fresh ideas into the bureaucracy.
There is no magic bullet for making reforms any easier. But it seems that our calls for structural reforms will ring hollow if not joined with a sober understanding that making these systemic changes is excruciatingly difficult even under the best of circumstances. This certainly doesn’t mean that countries shouldn’t continue applying pressure on Ukraine’s vested interests, calling out backsliding wherever it occurs, or supporting reformers across the government and civil society. Instead, it should serve as a somber reminder that despite many determined reformers, the road to reforming Ukraine will be a long, complicated, and frustrating process—even if it remains the only path worth taking.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
As part of a security conference organized by Hewlett Packard, the former NSA Director sat down yesterday for a moderated discussion with the journalist and co-founder of the Intercept.
Here's the video:
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 7
More than 2,000 Syrians have drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to reach Europe since 2011, a U.N. panel reported Thursday, saying there's no end in sight to Syria's civil war.
One Marine has been killed and 9 others were hurt when a helicopter made a hard landing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
South Korean prosecutors on Thursday asked for a 15-year prison term for the man they say slashed the U.S. ambassador during a breakfast forum in March.
Recent open source reports and unverified images of Russian equipment in Syria indicate that the Kremlin may slowly be ramping up its presence in the war-torn country in support of the beleaguered regime of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.
The Trump riddle continues to compel: How has he managed to successfully execute such a mass deception?
Restoring the U.S. to its historic role as an Arctic power will require a recognition of the complex and strategic issues at stake.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 8
Angry Senate and House Republicans from Ohio question President Barack Obama’s legal authority to remove President William McKinley’s name from the country’s tallest mountain and restore its original Native American name of Denali.
A Muslim leader in Dearborn Heights, Mich. said he recently met in prison in Iran with Amir Hekmati, the U.S. Marine veteran held captive in Iran for four years, suggesting that he could be released soon.
Sixteen soldiers were conducting a free-fall parachute jump from two Blackhawk helicopters in Montana on Monday when one soldier had an equipment malfunction and was forced to land in a residential area, a Fort Bragg official said. "He went straight down like a dropped pencil," said a witness.
Russia said it will retaliate after the United States widened sanctions by targeting more companies, including subsidiaries of state oil producer Rosneft and entities controlled by an ally of President Vladimir Putin.
Officials say four soldiers were aboard the Black Hawk that went down Wednesday afternoon on U.S. Forest Service land.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 9
Moscow is increasingly emerging as a center of diplomacy on Syria's four-year-old civil war, with the Obama administration sending a key emissary to the Russian capital discuss the conflict on Friday, following recent visits by high-level Saudi, Jordanian and Iranian officials — as well as key members of the Syrian ...
Hacked data stolen during this year's OPM, Anthem and United Airlines breaches are being analyzed by foreign governments gunning to identify American spies and undercover operatives, U.S. officials said.
Two officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Los Angeles Times that intelligence services in China and Russia ...
Law enforcement officials are frustrated by the Obama administration's failure to address the "anti-cop" rhetoric coming from the Black Lives Matter movement, and some fear it's promoting a climate of violence against police officers that may have contributed to Friday's fatal ambush of a Houston sheriff's deputy.
Noting that President ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Ash Carter is using a speech and wide-ranging exchange with troops on social media sites to press his agenda for change in the military. And he's signaling his early support for expanded maternity leave, women serving in combat jobs and greater flexibility pay, promotions and ...
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The parents of a San Francisco woman who was fatally shot by a man in the country illegally said Tuesday that federal and local authorities contributed to the death of their daughter through negligence and bureaucratic bungling.
The family alleges in legal claims that a Bureau ...
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 10
The Russian and Chinese militaries recently completed the largest combined naval exercise ever conducted between the two nations, building on cooperation that has been expanding over the past decade.
Designated Joint Sea II and held in the Sea of Japan and off Vladivostok, the exercise was a continuation of Joint Sea I, an April joint exercise held in the Mediterranean Sea. Some 22 warships, submarines, and other vessels; 20 aircraft; and at least 500 hundred marines took part. The Russian large guided-missile cruiser Varyag led the Russian side.
The two nations have been holding joint naval exercises since 2005. Joint Sea II focused on amphibious assault drills, anti-submarine combat, and air defense tactics.
The Chinese state-controlled media agency Xinhua downplayed any suggestion that the exercise was designed to make a political point, claiming that it “was not targeted to any third party.”
A different interpretation of growing Russian-Chinese military cooperation was provided late last year by Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s defense minister, who said, “We believe the main goal of pooling our efforts is to shape a regional security system.”
That sentiment represents a major shift since the Soviet era, when Russia routinely trained to attack Chinese forces, including with tactical nuclear weapons.
Enhanced military cooperation is also an extension of bilateral cooperation between the two major powers that has reached new levels over the past year. A 30-year, $400 billion energy deal wassigned in 2014 for Russia to provide China oil and gas through a major pipeline to be developed jointly.
In May, Russia and China secured a new cooperative agreement on cyber security issues, which included a pledge that neither side would conduct cyber attacks against the other.
Since its annexation of Crimea in March 2014, Russia has been using military exercises to demonstrate its military prowess and deter a Western military response. In March 2015, as many as 80,000 Russian troops conducted exercises in western Russia.
NATO this spring also conducted a series of exercises, collectively known as Allied Shield, with the participation of 15,000 troops drawn from 22 nations.
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday moved to reassure Congress that Israel and America’s Gulf State allies would be fully taken care of in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal, which Kerry acknowledged would not stop Iran’s support for terrorism, according to a letter sent by the secretary of state to lawmakers.
Just moments after the White House secured enough votes to override a congressional veto of the Iran deal, a letter from Kerry appeared in the inboxes of congressional offices across Capitol Hill.
Kerry admits that, despite the deal, Iran will continue to back terrorist groups across the globe and promises to boost military support and funding to Israel and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The letter comes in response to concerns among lawmakers, Israel, and other Gulf region allies that the nuclear accord will boost the Islamic Republic’s support for terrorism, while leaving traditional U.S. allies on the defense.
“Important questions have been raised concerning the need to increase security assistance to our allies and partners in the region and to enhance our efforts to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” Kerry writes. “We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.”
The Obama administration, Kerry claims, is under “no illusion that this behavior will change followingimplementation of the JCPOA,” or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
“The president has made clear that he views Israel’s security as sacrosanct, and he has ensured that the United States has backed up this message with concrete actions that have increased US military, intelligence, and security cooperation with Israel to their highest levels ever,” the letter states.
Kerry then goes on to outline the ways in which the Obama administration will enhance security cooperation with Israel and Gulf State allies.
Israel, for instance, will be the first country in the region to get a U.S.-made next-generation F-35 fighter aircraft in 2016.
An additional $3 billion in U.S. aid also will go to secure Israel’s missile defense programs, such as the Iron Dome system. The administration also stands ready “to enhance” funding to next-generation missile defense systems, such as Arrow-3 and David’s Sling.
The administration, Kerry writes, recently “offered Israel a $1.89 billion munitions resupply package that will replenish Israel’s inventories and will ensure its long-term continued access to sophisticated, state of the art precision guided munitions.”
The administration will additionally work to secure a new 10-year “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Jewish state that “would cement for the next decade our unprecedented levels of military assistance,” Kerry writes.
Kerry also proposes to collaborate with Israel on “tunnel detection and mapping technologies to provide Israel new capabilities to detect and destroy [terrorist] tunnels before the could be used to threaten Israeli civilians.”
President Barack Obama has further proposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the two governments “begin the process aimed a further strengthening our efforts to confront conventional and asymmetric threats.”
Gulf States, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also will benefit from increased arms shipments and new security deals, according to Kerry.
The administration is “working to expedite the delivery of capabilities needed to deter and combat regional threats, including terrorism and Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” Kerry writes.
In July, for example, the administration notified Congress of new arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE “that will provide long-term strategic defense capabilities and support for their ongoing operations,” the letter states.
Another goal is to strengthen ballistic missile defense capabilities in the region. This goal, Kerry says, “is a strategic imperative and an essential component to deterring Iranian aggression against any GCC member state.”
One senior Congressional aide who received the letter said that it is a clear attempt by the administration to placate regional fears about the deal.
“Let’s not be fooled about what the letter represents. This desperate move to placate Israel and our Gulf partners is a tacit acknowledgment that Iran will expand its international terror regime thanks to the nuclear agreement,” the source said. “If this is such a good deal, why does the administration feel compelled to immediately offer arms packages as compensation to our regional allies?”
“No amount of conventional weapons can neutralize the threat posed by the mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons,” the source said. “This type of appeasement is a slap in the face to our closets allies and a wink-wink to the dictators in Tehran.”
Read the whole story
· · ·
Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council called Russia a “military adversary” in its defense doctrine released today.
The document defines the “conditions for the liberation” of territories in eastern Ukraine, according to a statement by the council.
The doctrine also declares that Ukraine will retract its non-aligned status in favor of pursuit of NATO membership. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said, “The goal is to ensure full compatibility of the Ukrainian Armed Forces with NATO member states by 2020.”
President Poroshenko added that the document “not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine’s military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions.”
According to RT, the document is a response to the “high probability” of foreign involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The doctrine says that Russian nationals are “involved in financial support of terrorists and other criminal activities, as well as in the violation of the international law, having supported the annexation of the Ukrainian territory by the Russian Federation.”
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that the doctrine is unprecedented in its outright definition of an enemy.
“For the first time in the history of Ukraine’s independence, there is a clearly defined enemy and aggressor in the draft of the doctrine—and it is the Russian Federation,” he said.
The new defense doctrine was approved Wednesday by the National Security and Defense Council and must be signed by President Poroshenko to go into effect.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview Tuesday that his country’s relations with China have reached a historic level as the two nations, often at odds with the United States, increase their military and economic cooperation.
Putin also said that Western sanctions imposed on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, which he called “illegitimate,” have not undermined the deepening ties with China.
The Russian president is visiting China this week to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. The ceremony in Beijing will feature a large military parade where the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could unveil a new missile known as a “carrier-killer,” which some defense experts say could challenge U.S. naval dominance in the Asia-Pacific.
Putin made the comments during interviews with TASS and Xinhua, state news agencies in Russia and China, respectively.
“Russian-Chinese ties have now probably reached a peak in their entire history and continue developing,” he said. “The partnership between Russia and China is based on sincere friendship and sympathy between our peoples, on deep respect and trust, consideration for each other’s key interests and commitment to make our countries flourish.”
He cited the agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria—despite recent reports that the Assad regime has retained deadly nerve agents—and the contested Iran nuclear deal as examples where Russia and China have cooperated to help solve “acute issues” on the international stage.
Putin has noticeably extended a hand toward China in recent months amid the crisis in Ukraine, where Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in March 2014 and has been accused by the West of sending troops, weapons, and money to support the separatists there. The closer cooperation between the two countries comes despite decades of distrust and military tensions during the Soviet era.
Rather than impinging on the Russian partnership with China, Putin said Western financial penalties have encouraged domestic businesses to seek ties with their Chinese counterparts.
“I would not agree that the illegitimate restrictions imposed by certain Western countries against Russia have a negative impact on Russian-Chinese economic cooperation,” he said. “On the contrary, this encourages our domestic business to develop stable business ties with China.”
Russia and China are also forming a “strategic energy alliance” that “will play a significant role in international economic relations,” Putin said.
The Russian gas giant Gazprom inked a $400 billion deal with China in May 2014 to transport gas from Russia’s east to its southern neighbor. Additionally, the Kremlin has touted plans for a Siberian gas pipeline that could access Chinese markets and make Russia less reliant on consumers in Europe. The European Union is expected to extend its sanctions on Russia into March of next year.
However, both gas deals have been slow to advance due to a lack of financing and enthusiasm from Beijing. China is still grappling with the aftershocks of its stock market plunge in recent weeks. Concerns about Beijing’s economy have further depressed global oil prices, Russia’s main export.
As a result, trade between Russia—currently in a recession—and China actually declined by nearly 30 percent in the first half of this year.
Cooperation between the Russian and Chinese militaries has visibly increased in recent months. The two nations just concluded their largest ever joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan near Vladivostok, involving dozens of warships, submarines, aircraft, and at least 500 marines. The countries have also signed a pact on cyber security issues.
The increasing global presence of the Russian and Chinese militaries has raised concerns among U.S. military leaders. Russia has said it will shadow multinational naval exercises involving the United States and Ukraine in the next couple weeks in the Black Sea, which follows dozens of Russian bomber flights in the last year over Europe and near U.S. airspace.
Five Chinese naval ships were observed near the coast of Alaska on Wednesday, the first time the country’s vessels have been spotted in the area. Pentagon officials told the Wall Street Journal that the Chinese naval presence near Alaska was “different.”
“It’s difficult to tell exactly, but it indicates some interest in the Arctic region,” one defense official said.
China has also rankled the Obama administration and U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific with its construction of manmade islands in the South China Sea, some outfitted with military radar and artillery stations.
The post Putin Touts ‘Peak’ for Russia-China Relations As Two Countries Develop Military, Economic Ties appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The nuclear agreement with Iran will increase the likelihood of military conflict, according to a council of prominent retired military leaders and intelligence officials.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affair’s (JINSA) Iran Strategy Council released a reportWednesday that contends that the United States will be in a “far worse position to prevent a nuclear Iran” after 10 to 15 years of the agreement regarding Tehran’s nuclear capacity, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
“Implementing JCPOA will have significant strategic consequences for our interests and allies in the region,” retired Gen. James Conway and retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, who together chair the council, said in a statement.
According to the report, “the agreement increases both the probability and danger of hostilities with Iran.”
The report also suggests that the deal will allow Iran to grow more militarily capable over the next decade as the United States sees an erosion of its own forces.
“The United States is in a far better position to prevent a nuclear Iran today, even by military means if necessary, than when the JCPOA sunsets,” the authors say. “The strategic environment will grow much more treacherous in the next 15 years. Comparatively, Iran will be economically stronger, regionally more powerful and militarily more capable, while the United States will have a smaller, less capable fighting force, diminished credibility and fewer allies. ”
On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Conway warned that the nuclear deal will “unleash” Iran in ways that we have not yet witnessed. The billions Iran will receive in sanctions relief, he said, would allow the country to bolster its military and conduct “nefarious activity.”
Indeed, the report argues that the deal will provide Iran with “the means to increase support for terrorist and insurgent proxies, aggravate sectarian conflict and trigger both nuclear and conventional proliferation cascades” in the Middle East.
Conway suggested that the finalized deal would do nothing to discourage Iran from funding terrorism or prevent Iranians from dispersing anti-American rhetoric.
“A few days after they sign the deal, they’re still chanting ‘Death to America,’” the retired general said.
Gen. Wald warned against viewing the debate surrounding the nuclear deal as a binary choice between an agreement and war, despite repeated claims by the Obama administration that the deal is an alternative to war with Iran.
Indeed, the day after the announcement of the finalized deal, President Obama told reporters, “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.”
However, the report contends that the success of the JCPOA will “demand increased political and military engagement in the Middle East that carries significantly greater risks and costs relative to current planning assumptions.”
On the day of the report’s release, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.) became the 34th senator to vote in favor of the Iran nuclear deal, indicating that Obama has fielded enough support among Senate Democrats to force through the agreement.
The post Retired Military Leaders: Iran Nuke Deal Makes War More Likely appeared first onWashington Free Beacon.
Read the whole story
· ·
U.S. intelligence ships, aircraft, and satellites are closely watching a Russian military vessel in the Atlantic that has been sailing near a U.S. nuclear missile submarine base and underwater transit routes, according to Pentagon officials.
The Russian research ship Yantar has been tracked from the northern Atlantic near Canada since late August as it makes its way south toward Cuba.
Defense officials familiar with reports on the Russian ship say the Yantar is believed to be gathering intelligence on underwater sensors and other equipment used by U.S. nuclear submarines based at Kings Bay, Georgia. The submarines, their transit lanes, and training areas stretch from the coastal base through the Atlantic to Europe.
Intelligence analysts believe the ship, one of Russia’s newest military research vessels commissioned earlier this year, is part of a larger strategic intelligence-gathering operation against U.S. nuclear missile submarines and other targets.
One official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the information, said the ship is a concern because it is equipped with deep-sea surveillance craft and cable-cutting equipment.
In addition to cutting or tapping into undersea cables, the Yantar’s gear also could be used to rescue submarines if they become entangled in underwater cables.
A second defense official said the Yantar’s mission is not only to prepare to disrupt underwater communications. The ship is also part of a Russian underwater reconnaissance program to identify undersea communications trunk lines and nodes.
A major target of the program is the Department of Defense Information Network, known as DoDIN. Moscow is seeking to map the global information network that is vital for U.S. warfighters and policymakers and is a key target of Russian information warfare efforts.
The network includes dedicated military links as well as leased communications and computer systems.
Another concern related to the sea-based intelligence activities is that Russia has been adopting new warfighting techniques the Pentagon has dubbed hybrid warfare.
Hybrid conflict combines traditional military capabilities with information warfare techniques, such as cyber attacks. The disabling of undersea Internet cables could be a part of future hybrid warfare attacks as nations become increasingly reliant on global information networks, officials said.
Non-government military analysts identified the Yantar off the coast of Nova Scotia around Aug. 24.
More recently, an underwater military blog called “7 Feet Beneath the Keel,” reported the Yantar’s location on Sept. 1 as 90 miles north of the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Atlantic Ocean, some 769 miles from Kings Bay.
A Pentagon spokesman said the military is aware of the ship. “We respect the freedom of all nations to operate military vessels in international waters in accordance with international law,” the spokesman said.
The Yantar—Russian for “amber”—was built in a Baltic Sea shipyard of the same name and launched in last spring, the state-run Sputnik news agency reported on May 23. The ship will be used for deep-sea research and rescue operations.
The ship is part of Russia’s Northern Fleet and is equipped with two deep-sea remotely piloted submersibles.
“The ship carries the latest, most innovative equipment for acoustic, biological, physical, and geophysical surveys,” the report said.
“The Yantar is equipped with a unique on-board scientific research complex which enables it to collect data on the ocean environment, both in motion and on hold. There are no similar complexes anywhere,” said Alexei Burilichev, director of deepwater research at the Russian Defense Ministry, Sputnik reported.
Steffan Watkins, a Canadian-based open-source intelligence analyst who monitors Russian ship movements, said the Russian navy sends such auxiliary vessels to the region once or twice a year to check on existing U.S. underwater sensors or cables that have been detected previously. The ships also search for new equipment on the sea floor that would reveal U.S. operations.
In April 2014, the Pentagon said it was watching two Russian spy ships, the Viktor Leonov and Nikolay Chiker operating in the Atlantic near Kings Bay.
“I don’t think the Yantar is actively pulling up underwater cables,” said Watkins. “It seems more likely they’d use their underwater sensors to map out defenses to prepare for future operations, and to avoid, blind, or destroy the sensors.”
Officials said another factor increasing U.S. concerns about Russian reconnaissance is Moscow’s recent adoption of a new military doctrine that places a greater reliance on strategic nuclear forces.
In addition to research ships, Russia’s military also is building a new class of intelligence-gathering and electronic warfare ships called Yuri Ivanov-class vessels.
Germany’s Bilt newspaper reported last month that the new spy ships are designed to track and follow U.S. warships. The ships will also provide communications and fleet management, conduct electronic warfare capabilities, and gather radio and electronic intelligence. The first ship was launched in July and three others are planned.
The new Ivanov spy ship was launched the same day that President Vladimir Putin unveiled a new Russian maritime doctrine that divided naval operating areas into six regions: Atlantic, Arctic, Antarctic, Caspian, Indian Ocean, and Pacific.
Russia’s priority for shipbuilding under the new doctrine will be ballistic missile submarines and nuclear attack submarines for its Northern and Pacific fleets.
Russia is deploying a new class of nuclear missile submarines called the Borey-class and maintaining existing Delta III and Delta IV missile submarines. Another generation of submarines beyond the Borey-class is also planned for 2030 to 2050.
A Russian embassy spokesman did not respond to an email request for comment.
The post U.S. Shadowing Russian Ship in Atlantic Near Nuclear Submarine Areas appeared first onWashington Free Beacon.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 11
(Reuters) – One U.S. Marine was killed and nine injured when a helicopter made a hard landing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the Associated Press reported on Thursday.
The helicopter landed during a training exercise on Wednesday night, AP said. Those hurt were taken to the hospital, and the landing is being investigated, it reported.
The name of the Marine who was killed will not be released for 24 hours, said AP, which cited a statement from Captain Ryan Elizabeth Alvis.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
In March, four soldiers and seven Marines from a special operations unit from Camp Lejeune were killed when a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter plunged into waters off the Florida Panhandle during a training exercise.
(Reporting by Suzannah Gonzales; Editing by Susan Heavey)
The post One Marine Killed, 9 Hurt in Helicopter Landing in North Carolina appeared first onWashington Free Beacon.
The part played by Wikileaks in the Edward Snowden saga is an important one. The pivotal role of Julian Assange and other leading members of Wikileaks in getting Snowden from Hawaii to Moscow, from NSA employment to FSB protection, in the late spring of 2013 is a matter of record.
For years there have been questions about just what Wikileaks actually is. I know because I’ve been among those asking. Over two years ago, little more than two weeks after Snowden landed in Moscow, I explained my concerns about Wikileaks based on my background in counterintelligence. Specifically, the role of the Russian anti-Semite weirdo Israel Shamir, a close friend of Assange, in the Wikileaks circle merited attention, and to anyone trained in the right clues, the Assange group gave the impression of having a relationship with Russian intelligence. As I summed up my position in July 2013, based on what we knew so far:
It’s especially important given the fact that Wikileaks is playing a leading role in the Snowden case, to the dismay of some of Ed’s admirers and even members of his family. Not to mention that Snowden, as of this writing, is still in Moscow. One need not be a counterintelligence guru to have serious questions about Shamir and Wikileaks here. It may be a much bigger part of the story than it appears to the naked eye.
Evidence that Wikileaks is not what it seems to be has mounted over the years. Assange’s RT showdidn’t help matters, neither did the fact that, despite having claimed to possess secret Russian intelligence files, Wikileaks has never exposed anything sensitive, as they have done with the purloined files of many other countries. To say nothing of Assange & Co. taking unmistakably pro-Russian positions on a host of controversial issues. Questions logically followed.
Now answers are appearing. It’s long been known that Wikileaks, by their own admission, counseled Ed Snowden in June 2013 to leave Hong Kong and head to Moscow. Contrary to the countless lies propagated by Snowden Operation activists, Snowden’s arrival in Russia was his choice; it had nothing to do with canceled passports in Washington, DC.
An important gap has been filled this week by Julian Assange, who admitted that Snowden going to Moscow was his idea. Ed wanted to head to Latin America, Julian asserted, especially Ecuador, whose London embassy Assange has been hiding out in for years on the lam from rape changes in Sweden. As Assange explained, “He preferred Latin America, but my advice was that he should take asylum in Russia despite the negative PR consequences, because my assessment is that he had a significant risk he could be kidnapped from Latin America on CIA orders. Kidnapped or possibly killed.”
Only in Russia would Ed be safe, Julian counseled, because there he would be protected by Vladimir Putin and his secret services, notably the FSB. One might think that seeking the shelter of the FSB — one of the world’s nastiest secret police forces that spies on millions without warrant and murders opponents freely — might be an odd choice for a “privacy organization.” But Wikileaks is no ordinary NGO.
Why Assange knew Russia would take in Snowden — it could be a big political hassle for Moscow — is a key question that any counterintelligence officer would want answered. Was Julian speaking on behalf of the FSB or did he just “know” Ed could obtain the sanctuary plus protection he sought?
Just as telling is the recent report on Assange’s activities in Ecuador’s London embassy, where it turns out Ecuadorian intelligence has been keeping tabs on him. Which is no surprise given the PR mess Assange has created for Ecuador with his on-going antics.
Especially interesting is the revelation that, while holed up in London, Assange “requested that he be able to chose his own Security Service inside the embassy, suggesting the use of Russian operatives.” It is, to say the least, surpassingly strange that a Western “privacy advocate” wants Russian secret police protection while hiding out in a Western country. The original Spanish is clear: Assange “habría sido la elección de su propio Servicio de Seguridad en el interior de la embajada, llegando a proponer la participación de operadores de nacionalidad rusa.”
Why Assange wants FSB bodyguards is a question every journalist who encounters Julian henceforth should ask. Until he explains that, Wikileaks should be treated as the front and cut-out for Russian intelligence that it has become, while those who get in bed with Wikileaks — many Western “privacy advocates” are in that group — should be asked their feelings about their own at least indirect ties with Putin’s spy services.
P.S. For those familiar with espionage history, there is a clear precedent for such an arrangement. In 1978 the magazine Covert Action Information Bulletin appeared to expose the secrets of US and Western intelligence. Its editor was Phil Agee, a former CIA officer who had gotten into bed with Cuban and Soviet intelligence; think of Agee as the Snowden of the pre-Internet era. CAIB was in fact founded on the direction of the KGB and for years served as a conduit for Kremlin lies and disinformation that seriously harmed Western intelligence. While CAIB presented itself as a radical truth-telling group, in actuality it was a KGB front, though few CAIB staffers beyond Agee knew who was really calling the shots. One suspects much the same is happening with Wikileaks.
Filed under: Counterintelligence, Espionage, USG
Read the whole story
· · ·
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
IRAN
President Obama has secured the support of 34 senators, ensuring that he can sustain a veto on any congressional resolution against the Iran nuclear accord, guaranteeing its passage through Congress. [Wall Street Journal’s Kristina Peterson and Carol E. Lee; Reuters’ Patricia Zengerle]
Sen Barbara Mikulski announced her support for the nuclear accord in a statement yesterday; the Maryland Democrat’s vote provides President Obama with a significant foreign policy victory, reports Jordain Carney. [The Hill]
The Obama administration’s victory was the “result of an aggressive, cooperative strategy between the White House and congressional Democrats,” write Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn. [New York Times]
President Obama will keep pushing for further votes, aiming now for 41 in the Senate to avoid the need for him to invoke his veto. [Politico’s Nahal Toosi]
Secretary of State John Kerry sent letters to lawmakers yesterday, reassuring them of his support for Israel, and describing the administration’s support for that country as “rock solid.” [The Hill’s Jordain Carney]
The House of Representatives will vote on the Iran deal next week; House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced yesterday that the House will consider the accord as soon as it returns from the August recess. [The Hill’s Cristina Marcos]
Republican lawmakers are considering legislative options to counter the deal as Obama looks set to succeed in Congress, including the possibility of re-imposing the sanctions lifted by the deal. [New York Times’ Jennifer Steinhauer]
Presidential candidate Marco Rubio said that the Iran deal is not binding on the next administration and committed to revoking the deal and reimposing sanctions if he gets into office. [The Hill’s Bradford Richardson]
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will make comments on the Iran deal in an effort to reassure her supporters, reports Laura Meckler. [Wall Street Journal]
Saudi King Salman’s visit to the White House on Friday is of great importance, with his stance on the Iran deal playing a critical role in the progression of the accord, reports Philip Gordon. [Politico Magazine]
While Iran’s nuclear aspirations pose a real threat, we should not “buy into the nonsense that it’s the only source of instability” in the region, suggests Thomas L. Friedman, pointing to Saudi Arabia’s history as the greatest “purveyors of radical Islam,” at the New York Times.
IRAQ and SYRIA
Australia’s federal government will decide on whether to join the US-led air campaign against ISIS in Syria next week, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said. [The Guardian’s Michael Safi]
Questions remain concerning how the Islamic State obtained chemical weapons following a series of recent attacks; Nancy A. Youssef explores the potential sources, including the country’s embattled president’s stockpile. [The Daily Beast] And Martin Chulov reports on first-hand accounts of a recent mustard gas attack. [The Guardian]
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he was “right about Iraq,” in an appearance yesterday on Fox News’s “The Five.” [The Hill’s Jesse Byrnes]
Baghdad suffered the highest numbers of civilian casualties of the Iraq conflict in August, with 318 of the total 585 civilians killed, according to the UN mission there.
US-led airstrikes continue. The US and partner nations conducted five airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on September 1. Separately, military forces carried out a further eight strikes on targets in Iraq. [Central Command]
Four Turkish police officers were killed by a PKK roadside bomb in the southeast of the country today, officials said. [Reuters]
HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL CONTROVERSY
A further 57 email threads on Hillary Clinton’s private server have been found to contain foreign governments’ information, reports Jonathan Allen. [Reuters]
Requests were made for handheld devices capable of handling classified material by Clinton aides shortly after she was sworn into office; the request was discussed in an email exchange by several top-level security officials, the new batch of emails suggests, reports Josh Gerstein. [Politico]
A former Clinton aide is expected to invoke his Fifth Amendment right in response to congressional questions about the former secretary of state’s email practices and his role in setting it up, according to two people familiar with the matter. [New York Times’ Michael S. Schmidt]
Hillary Clinton’s email “scandal” has the “potential to spread to the White House,” as counterintelligence specialists suspect that others in the Obama administration engaged in the practice of “emailing secrets around,” reports John R. Schindler. [The Daily Beast]
Unofficial Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal appears to have fed her “a steady diet of political advice, foreign-intelligence information, capital gossip and electoral insight in quick email blasts,” writes Byron Tau. [Wall Street Journal]
UKRAINE and RUSSIA
Ukraine’s government is weighing autonomy for areas in the east of the country already in Russia’s “thrall,” reports Andrew R. Kramer. [New York Times]
The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that Russia is the “winner” of the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, suggesting that the reason is because Kiev is under pressure to abide by the Minsk accord despite Moscow’s repeated violations.
USS Seawolf has just completed a “daring mission,” spending several weeks below the Arctic cap during a six-month deployment; the mission was designed to send a signal to Moscow about the US military’s capacities, reports David Axe. [The Daily Beast]
“Russian provocations and territorial claims in the Arctic … threaten US national security interests,”opines Sen John McCain, commenting that as President Obama visits Alaska to draw attention to climate change, the real threat is the “menace” posed by Moscow in the region, in an op-ed at theWall Street Journal.
CHINA
China’s President Xi Jinping announced a cut to troop numbers of 300,000, using a parade marking 70 years since the end of World War II to present the Chinese military as a force for peaceful development. [Reuters’ Ben Blanchard; New York Times’ Edward Wong et al]
Chinese citizens’ pride in their country is “not derived from contrived militaristic jingoism,” writes Brendon Hong, describing yesterday’s parade as “excessive and belligerent.” [The Daily Beast]
China is building two aircraft carriers, according to a new Taiwanese Defense Ministry report on the military capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army. [Reuters’ J.R. Wu]
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The ACLU urged a panel of the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an injunction to halt the bulk collection of phone records immediately until a new law comes into force prohibiting the controversial program; the Justice Department argued that it needed time for an “orderly transition.” [Wall Street Journal’s Nicole Hong and Damian Paletta]
A double suicide bomb attack at a mosque in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a killed at least 22 people yesterday, officials said. [Wall Street Journal’s Mohammed Al-Kibsi and Rory Jones] And the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Yemen condemned the shooting of two Red Cross staff members in a statement. [UN News Centre]
Israel’s government is considering giving security forces greater power to open fire with live ammunition on Palestinian stone throwers, with a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office ordering a re-examination of the rules governing the protocol. [The Guardian’s Peter Beaumont]
The threat posed to Egypt by “fragmented” jihadist groups across the country is increasing; Erin Cunningham discusses the mounting competition between that country’s Islamist insurgency, at theWashington Post.
Pakistani military strikes in the restive northwest of the country killed at least 31 suspected militants, officials said yesterday. [Reuters]
More than 13 million children are being denied education due to conflicts in the Middle East, according to a new report from UNICEF. [New York Times’ Rick Gladstone]
The Army’s elite Ranger School will be open to all soldiers irrespective of gender, after two women last month made history by becoming the first to complete the leadership course. [Al Jazeera America]
Read on Just Security »
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
KYIV, UKRAINE—
Ukraine's national security council on Wednesday approved a new military doctrine that declares Russia to be a military opponent and calls for the country to pursue NATO membership.
There was no immediate official reaction from Russia, which hotly denies claims that it has sent troops and equipment to separatist rebels in Ukraine's east and which opposes Ukraine's entry into NATO.
The move came amid strong political tensions over President Petro Poroshenko's efforts to get approval of a constitutional change that would devolve some powers to the regions, including the eastern regions held by the rebels. Opponents say the change would effectively be capitulation to Russia.
It was unclear whether the military doctrine's stance against Russia could dilute opposition to the decentralization.
The doctrine now goes to Poroshenko for his signature.
At the security council meeting, Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions.''
On Monday, as the Ukrainian parliament gave initial approval to the decentralization measure, a violent protest broke out outside the building. Three national guardsmen were killed when a grenade was thrown into the crowd.
Two parties in the governing coalition said Wednesday that they wouldn't abandon the grouping amid the intense dispute over the proposal. But those parties' opposition to the measure appeared firm, and Poroshenko faced a steep battle to push it through.
The initial approval given Monday was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution.
Oleg Berezyuk, head of the Samopomich faction, said Wednesday that it would "remain in the coalition in the role of opposition within the parliamentary majority.'' A member of Poroshenko's faction, Igor Kononeko, said the faction of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko would also remain in the coalition, the Interfax news agency reported.
Read the whole story
· ·
The American Coast Guard fleet is antiquated, and has only two fully functional icebreakers, while Russia is said to have 40 of the vessels, with another 11 planned or under construction. China is also a player in the area with one icebreaker and plans to build more.
Russia has been rapidly expanding its influence in the Arctic, earmarking £2.8 billion for Arctic development over the next five years in an ambitious military and industrial development that is being personally overseen by Vladimir Putin, the country’s president.
Last March Mr Putin ordered a full combat military exercise in the area, involving 40,000 Russian troops and dozens of warships and submarines.
The development highlights the stark challenges of reconciling climate policies with immediate economic necessity.
Mr Obama’s visit to Alaska is also part of what he hopes will be a legacy-defining mission to cut American greenhouse emissions by almost a third.
Images of melting permafrost and rising sea levels that are now forcing thousands of people to abandon their coastal homes are intended to drive home the urgency of Mr Obama’s ambitious policies to tackle global warming.
During the three-day trip the president has used a mix of traditional politicking and celebrity television to get his message across. On Tuesday, the president spent the day with Bear Grylls, filming an episode of the British survival expert's programme “Running Wild” in which the pair hiked the melting Exit Glacier.
The president also used the trip to make a huge symbolic gesture to Native American communities and Alaskans, renaming Mount McKinley, the highest mountain in North America as Denali, its traditional name.
Mr Obama was due to fly to Kotzebue yesterday, the main Arctic town in an area that is battling coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels. Residents in as many as a dozen of the surrounding villages have now voted to relocate their homes inland to more stable terrain, a move that may end their traditional way of life, but which many say is now inevitable.
“In Arctic Alaska, villages are being damaged by powerful storm surges, which, once held at bay by sea ice, are battering the barrier islands where those villages sit,” the White House said, as it announced a set of local programmes designed to alleviate the pressure on the communities there.
Mr Obama has been accused of hypocrisy by green campaigners for using Alaska to elevate his climate agenda, while only last month giving the final permission for Shell to begin exploratory drilling for oil off the state’s coast - a move with a potentially damaging impact on the environment.
“The risks are incredible. Shell is being allowed to drill for oil in one of the most remote and dangerous places in the world, with none of the equipment ever having been tested,” said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, an environmental group.
Mr LeVine said an enhanced fleet of icebreakers was a necessary part of creating an infrastructure to manage the environmental fallout of “inevitable” industrialisation of this once pristine area, but said that the current unregulated race for resources in the Arctic was a “recipe for disaster”.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The nuclear accord with Iran will stand.
On the heels of yesterday's endorsements of the JCPOA with Iran by Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Chris Coons (D-DE), Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has announced her intention to also support the Iran nuclear deal reached by the P5+1 in July. In a statement, Mikulski said that she had concluded that this deal “is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb.”
Mikulski, as the 34th Senate vote in support of the deal, assures that President Barack Obama will have the necessary support to sustain his veto of a future resolution of disapproval, should one be passed by Congress when it takes the deal up for debate later this month. The Wall Street Journalprovides an updated whip count, displaying where each member of the House and Senate stand on the agreement. President Obama will now likely attempt to get enough Democratic support to filibuster a resolution of disapproval.
Yet just in case there was any confusion, Thomas Erdbrink of the New York Times shares that the United States remains the “Great Satan” in Iran, at least to hardliners anyway. Although “Death to America” graffitti has been removed from the walls of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran, hardliners like Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, still have criticized Iranians advocating for greater ties with the West. In a speech before the Assembly of Experts, Jafari said Iran should not be “cheated by the new slogans” of America. The remarks came as police officers inside Iran’s capital caught distributors selling clothing featuring American flags and British Union Jacks.
The CIA and U.S. special forces have launched a new secret campaign to hunt Islamic State leaders in Syria as part of a targeted killing program distinct from the broader U.S. military campaign against ISIS, reports the Washington Post. The campaign is responsible for several recent strikes, including the killing of high-profile British militant Junaid Hussain. Officials indicated that while the move may complicate Obama’s plan to shift to drone program to the Department of Defense, the new approach allows the CIA to remain involved in “finding and fixing” terrorist targets while leaving it up to JSOC to “finish” the target. The Post has more, including that the model is increasingly seen as one that could be deployed in future conflicts.
If reports from the Daily Beast are accurate, the United States may not be the only foreign actor boosting its activities in Syria. Michael Weiss indicates that a “flurry of reports” have shown that Russia is expanding its role in the conflict, providing more weapons to Syrian forces, and perhaps even preparing to fly missions alongside the Syrian air force. More on that, including curious silence at the Pentagon, here.
Turkish warplanes pounded PKK positions in Turkey today, with state media claiming that 20 militants had been killed. Reuters has the story. According to the BBC, 18 Turkish construction workers were kidnapped by unknown militants in Baghdad.
Al Jazeera shares more information on the arrests of three Vice News journalists. Apparently, they were charged because one of the men was using an encryption service often used by ISIS militants, at least that’s the story from a senior Turkish press official. The three men have been charged with “engaging in terrorist activity.” But foreign journalists are not the only victims of the Turkish government’s latest crackdown: the Guardian reports that the Ankara-based offices of a media group critical of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been raided and six people arrested for “providing financial support to and disseminating propaganda for a terrorist organization.” The State Department called on Turkey to “uphold universal democratic values” including “freedom of the press, due process and access to media information.”
In Yemen, two Red Cross employees were killed by an unknown attacker today, according to the international aid group. The motive for the attack remains unclear.
Elsewhere, the BBC asks if the war in Yemen has simply handed over the port city of Aden to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State. According to the British news agency, with no effective policing or government control, “the once tranquil port of Aden is being steadily infiltrated by jihadists.” In one recent report, ISIS supporters dressed a number of Houthi prisoners in orange jumpsuits, put them in a boat, and then blew the boat up, killing everyone onboard.
Yesterday, a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan killed at least five suspected militants and wounded four more, according to RFE/RL. The drone strike was the 10th reported in Pakistan this year. The Long War Journal apprises us that three Uzbeks were among the five dead, signalling that they may have been associated with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a group that recently swore allegiance to the Islamic State. Of course, the Uzbeks could have also been members of the Islamic Jihadi Union, which remains loyal to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Oh, the splintering jihadist groups of Pakistan…
The Taliban made news yesterday, releasing a 5000-word biography of its new leader in five separate languages. The document waxes poetic, describing Mullah Mansur as a “good listener” and a“neat dresser” who is “naturally bequeathed with unique leading and guiding capabilities.” The biography neglects to address recent charges by Afghan Vice President Rashid Dostum that Mansur used to serve as a spy for the government.
Remember that probe, which the U.S. military plans to reopen, into the deaths of at least 18 Afghan civilians allegedly killed by U.S. special forces? The Washington Post reports that the villagers of Nerkh district are a bit skeptical, with many wondering how justice can be served after so long. One villager said the delayed review is "like throwing dust into the eyes of the people.”
More information out of Somalia today, where the New York Times confirms that the al Qaeda-affiliate al Shabaab did indeed overrun an African Union military base in the country yesterday. For its part, the African Union released a statement asserting they had regained control of the base after initiating a “tactical withdrawal.” Shabaab militants claimed to have killed 50 Ugandan peacekeepers.
Boko Haram militants killed at least 24 people in Nigeria earlier today, in the latest indication that the security situation in that country is still unravelling. According to military sources, the gunmen rode on horseback into two separate villages, opening fire and throwing explosives into crowds. Reutersnotes that more than 700 people have been killed in militant attacks since President Muhammadu Buhari took office at the end of May.
In today’s preview of the future of violence: With the use of drones on the rise throughout Latin America, authorities around the region are rushing to pass new regulations in order to prevent criminal activity. The CEO of one Mexican drone manufacturer posed a terrifying question to McClatchy: “What would happen if you put C4 plastic explosives and loaded it with pellets?” McClatchy reports that there may already be signs of illicit drone use, with criminals attempt to smuggle heroin into the United States from Mexico using unmanned aerial vehicles.
Back in the United States, the National Journal reports that absent federal drone rules, state governments have taken to crafting their own legislation on unmanned aerial vehicles, setting up a potential clash with federal regulations in the long run. The potential for conflict is only likely to grow the longer that the federal government stalls.
A FOIA request by Jason Leopold of Vice News has yielded emails that seem to show the FBI and JSOC discussing an American blogger, Samir Khan, who was later killed in a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. The emails discuss a “joint operation” but redactions make it impossible to determine the mission that the FBI wanted to “push forward.” Khan was one of the founding editors of the now infamous Inspire magazine, an online propaganda rag published by AQAP that encourages lone wolf terrorism.
According to the AFP, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter complicated efforts to close Guantanamo yesterday, telling U.S. troops during a televised interview that “some of the people who are at Guantanamo Bay have to be detained indefinitely, they’ve just got to be locked up.” Carter noted that about half of the detainees have been cleared for transfer, but said that “half of them are not safe to release, period.”
Even so, Defense officials are on the prowl for a new location in which to house the forever detainees. Defense One tells us that today and tomorrow, a group of roughly 10 Pentagon officials are set to survey the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina in order to determine whether it is a suitable alternative to GTMO. The Pentagon told reporters that it has a “broad list” of potential maximum security facilities it is considering. Defense One also carries a map of the U.S. facilities currently under consideration for Guantanamo detainees.
Good news, dear federal employees! The Office of Personnel Management has finally awarded a $133 million contract to Identity Theft Guard Solutions, a service that will provide identity and credit theft protection for up to three years to all 21.5 million federal employees affected by the recent hack---just in case the PLA decides it wants that new Honda Accord.
Parting Shot: Sorry, we’re not sorry: North Korea tells South Korea that it isn’t actually sorry for planting the landmine that killed South Korean soldiers a few weeks ago, they just regret that the South was so upset.
ICYMI: Yesterday, on Lawfare
Yesterday was Lawfare’s 5th birthday, and in traditional fashion, we celebrated with a cake for the handmaidens of power. In all seriousness, thanks to all those who have helped Lawfare develop and grow over the last half decade!
Aaron Zelin brought us the latest Jihadology Podcast on Turkish jihadism at home and in Syria, featuring the folks from North Caucasus Caucus.
In the latest Kyiv Dispatch, Stephanie Leutert described the rising challenges presented by Ukraine’s “volunteer battalions,” many of whom are ferociously nationalistic.
Carrie Cordero shared her story of standing atop the World Trade Center fourteen years ago and how the experience in the days following 9/11 shaped her desire to “ensure that the nation addresses security threats directly, proactively, and thoughtfully.”
Daniel Reisner provided Part III in his series reflecting on the UN Commission of Inquiry Gaza Report, this time on “the clash between human rights and law of war specialists.”
Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us onTwitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 12
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment