Messages In This Digest (20 Messages)

1.: Afghan Capital: Rocket Lands Near German Embassy, NATO Headquarters

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:31 am (PST)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h3cC_1Pns_VHfrB9znLi5RGvrogA

Agence France-Presse
January 15, 2010

Loud explosion in central Kabul: witnesses

KABUL: A loud explosion was heard in central Kabul on Friday evening, witnesses said.

An AFP photographer on the scene said a rocket landed near the German embassy at about 8:05 pm (1535 GMT).

A spokesman at the Kabul criminal police department said that initial information indicated a rocket attack.

An official with NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the incident was being investigated.

"We just had a rocket attack, it went overhead and we're looking into it," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Police rushed to the scene, which is close to ISAF headquarters and the heavily fortified diplomatic district.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: Baltic States: NATO Develops "Contingency Plans" Aimed At Russia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:39 am (PST)

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/24172

Baltic Times
January 15, 2010

NATO to develop formal contigency plan for Baltics
Oskars Magone

LONDON - NATO has agreed to form an official contingency plan for the Baltic States after five years of debate, The Economist reported.

Developing a formal plan of defense for the Baltic States has been a contentious issue as it drew harsh criticism from Russia - an ally of the alliance but a country that the Baltics still see as a major threat.

''This is a big change. Since the three Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, defense planners have tried to sidestep the question of what their membership means in practice," The Economist article says.

If Russia is a friendly NATO partner, not an adversary, then defense plans for the new member states from the ex-communist part of Europe should not be necessary. Indeed, until late 2008 NATO's threat assessment — the basis for its military planning — explicitly discounted any threat from Russia," it said.

The article noted that the main push for developing an explicit defense plan for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania came from Poland - itself a former Soviet state on poor terms with Russia.

"Formal approval is still pending and the countries concerned have been urged to keep it under wraps. But sources close to the talks say the deal is done: the Baltic states will get their plans, probably approved by NATO's military side rather than its political wing," the article says.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: Nato Border Controls

Posted by: "linguisticresearch" LinguisticResearch@gmx.de

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:39 am (PST)

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15268095

Border controls

Jan 14th 2010
From Economist.com

Thanks to Poland, the alliance will defend the Baltics

IN A crunch, would NATO stand by its weakest members—the Baltic states
of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? After five years of dithering , the
answer now seems to be yes, with a decision in principle by the alliance
to develop formal contingency plans to defend them.

The shift comes after hard-fought negotiations, in which, at American
insistence, Germany and other countries dropped their opposition.

This is a big change. Since the three Baltic states joined NATO in 2004,
defence planners have tried to sidestep the question of what their
membership means in practice. If Russia is a friendly NATO partner, not
an adversary, then defence plans for the new member states from the
ex-communist part of Europe should not be necessary. Indeed, until late
2008 NATO's threat assessment—the basis for its military
planning—explicitly discounted any threat from Russia. That seemed to
send a dangerous signal that north-eastern Europe was a security soft
spot, open to mischief-making and meddling from outside.

AP Protected presidents

The main push came from Poland, a big American ally in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It was the first to gain contingency plans—initially only
against a putative (and implausible) attack from Belarus, a country
barely a quarter of its size. When the war in Georgia highlighted NATO's
wobbliness on Russia, Poland accelerated its push for a bilateral
security relationship with America, including the stationing of Patriot
anti-missile rockets on Polish soil in return for hosting a
missile-defence base.

Meanwhile military officials in NATO began low-key but wide-ranging
efforts, called "prudent planning". Under the authority of the American
supreme allied commander in Europe, these did not require the formal
consent of NATO's governing body, the North Atlantic Council, where they
risked being blocked by countries such as Germany.

Speaking in Prague in April 2009, President Barack Obama publicly
demanded that NATO develop plans for all of its members, which put the
Baltic case squarely on the alliance's agenda. But in the months that
followed, inattention and disorganisation in his administration brought
no visible follow-up. Instead, snubs and missteps, particularly on the
missile defence plans, deepened gloom about how seriously America took
the safety concerns of its allies in Europe's ex-communist east. An open
letter by security bigwigs from Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic
states and other countries publicly bemoaned the decline in
transatlantic relations.

A muted NATO response to extensive Russian military exercises on the
Baltic and Polish borders last autumn sharpened the worries further.
Many feared that NATO's intense focus on Afghanistan was leading it to
neglect its core mission, of territorial defence of its members. That
risked undermining the alliance's credibility.

Now that seems to have changed. Formal approval is still pending and the
countries concerned have been urged to keep it under wraps. But sources
close to the talks say the deal is done: the Baltic states will get
their plans, probably approved by NATO's military side rather than its
political wing. They will be presented as an annex to existing plans
regarding Poland, but with an added regional dimension. That leaves room
for Sweden and Finland (not members of the alliance but increasingly
close to it) to take a role in the planning too. A big bilateral
American exercise already planned for the Baltic this summer is likely
to widen to include other countries.

Assuming the plans prove specific and credible, politicians in the
Baltic states should now have plenty of time to address their countries'
far more pressing economic, political and social problems.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe

Posted by: "linguisticresearch" LinguisticResearch@gmx.de

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:40 am (PST)

[Attachment(s) from linguisticresearch included below]

http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/

U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe

10 January 2010 No Comment

<http://info.publicintelligence.net/USNuclearWeaponsinEurope.pdf>German
Bundestag?

* Hans M. Kristensen, Consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council
* 27 pages
* February 25, 2005

Download <http://info.publicintelligence.net/USNuclearWeaponsinEurope.pdf>

The mission

Three main reason used for retaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe:

* Russia could turn bad and still has a lot of nonstrategic
nuclear weapons
* Symbol of continued U.S. commitment to NATO: provides
trans-Atlantic glue
* Other countries on NATO's southern periphery are developing
weapons of mass destruction

<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes1.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes2.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes3.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes4.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes5.png>
<https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/usnukes6.png>

Attachment(s) from linguisticresearch

1 of 1 File(s)

USNuclearWeaponsinEurope.pdf

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: Analysis: Space Wars Possible In The Near Future

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:46 am (PST)

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100115/157559820.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 15, 2010

Possible space wars in the near future
Ilya Kramnik

Mowcow: The U.S. media suspects China and India of developing anti-satellite weapons. An article to this effect has been published the New Scientist magazine.

Until recently, only the Soviet Union, its legal successor Russia and the United States were capable of developing anti-satellite weapons. U.S. analysts now think that China and India are acquiring similar capabilities. To what extent are such fears justified?

It is hard to overestimate the role played by military satellite systems. Since the 1970s, an increasingly greater number of troop-control, telecommunications, target-acquisition, navigation and other processes depend on spacecraft which are therefore becoming more important.

At this point, it is impossible to imagine the armed forces of most industrial states, including Russia, without combat-ready satellite clusters comprising spacecraft of various types. The space echelon's role is directly proportional to the development level of any given nation and its armed forces.

However, satellite clusters are hardly invulnerable. Ever since the U.S.S.R. and the United States launched their first military satellites, efforts have been made to develop anti-satellite systems. Such efforts were intensified after the creation of initial missile defense systems comprising the highly important space echelon.

Orbital satellite interceptors, surface-to-space and air-to-space missiles were eventually developed.

Research aiming to develop orbital and ground-based anti-satellite laser guns making it possible to either destroy spacecraft or knock out their electronics and optical devices deserves special mention. However, few results have been achieved in this area.

China, which claims the right to be a global power, prioritizes the development of anti-satellite weapons.

A 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test was conducted at 10.26 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on January 11, 2007 or at 6.26 a.m. Beijing time on January 12.

A Chinese weather satellite -- the FY-1C polar orbit satellite of the Fengyun series, flying at an altitude of 865 kilometers (537 mi) -- was destroyed by a kinetic kill vehicle traveling at a speed of 8 km/second in the opposite direction.

Although the exact name of the missile is not known, sources mentioned a KT-1/SC-19 system described as being based on a modified DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile or its commercial derivative, the KT-2, with a kinetic kill vehicle mounted. The 11-meter DF-21 missile weighs 15 metric tons.

The above referenced kinetic kill vehicle destroyed the satellite with a direct hit.

China thus became the second nation in history to conduct practical anti-satellite system tests.

On September 13, 1985, the United States destroyed U.S. satellite P78-1 using an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite missile launched from an F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter. A malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite USA-193 was destroyed by a RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 on February 21, 2008.

The Chinese anti-satellite weapons test highlighted Beijing's ability to fight a space war if necessary, and caused a nervous response primarily on the part of Japan and the United States.

It is common knowledge that China continues to develop anti-satellite weapons and to create new versions of missile interceptors.

Although there is hardly any convincing evidence regarding possible Indian efforts to develop similar weapons, the country's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has voiced its intention to create a satellite interceptor.

If this statement is true, New Delhi plans to copy the Soviet example. As is known, Moscow had developed various types of orbital anti-satellite weapons, including the 80-ton Skif-DM battle station that was to have been launched by the super-heavy Energia space rocket.

It is unclear how fast India will be able to develop an anti-satellite weapon and to orbit it. This project will probably take many years to implement. At the same time, India could develop a missile interceptor based on medium-range ballistic missiles to knock down satellites the way China did.

More countries will acquire anti-satellite capabilities in the future. Technically speaking, all countries wielding their own ballistic missiles, including Iran and North Korea, have the potential. It is still hard to predict the influence of such programs on the subsequent development of military space systems.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: Albright's "Experts" Plan Expansion Of Global NATO Partnerships

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:23 pm (PST)

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_60693.htm?

NATO
January 14, 2010

NATO partnerships discussed at Strategic Concept Seminar in Norway

The third key seminar on NATO's new Strategic Concept concluded in Oslo on 14 January. The event, entitled "NATO's Partnerships and Beyond", brought together members of the Group of Experts, government and military officials, representatives of international organisations and NGOs, independent experts and journalists.

Most significantly, apart from 28 NATO Allies, there was a high level of participation from NATO partner and contact countries – members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperative Initiative, NATO-Russia Council and other cooperation fora.

"NATO's partnerships are now more important than ever to the Alliance," said Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, in his opening remarks. "NATO's cooperation with partners has been a success and has increased tremendously in depth and scope. But this success also defines our current challenges. We need your inputs on how to reenergise our partnerships."

Dr Madeleine Albright Chairs the Group of Experts on NATO's new Strategic Concept. Partnerships, she said at the opening session, "is central to any realistic vision of NATO's future. The passing years have created the need for a NATO of greater flexibility and reach, and we have learned that partnerships can act as force and efficiency multiplier."

In concluding the seminar, Norwegian Defence Minister Grete Faremo said: "It is my hope that the new Strategic Concept can help to renew and adapt NATO's partnership structures by engaging allies and partners alike in a constructive discussion on how to further develop our cooperation."
....
The Oslo seminar was hosted by Norway and co-organised by Germany, Romania and Spain. Leading think tanks from those four countries played a vital role in ensuring...discussion during the three debating sessions.

The next and final key seminar will take place in Washington D.C. at the end of February.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: NATO Consolidates International Rapid Deployment Forces

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:29 pm (PST)

http://www.act.nato.int/news.asp?storyid=469

NATO
Allied Command Transformation
January 14, 2010

ACT establishes Deployable Forces Integrated Project Team
By U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carla Burdt

-NRF [NATO Response Force] is a highly ready and technologically advanced force made up of land, air, maritime and special forces that the Alliance can deploy quickly wherever needed as decided by the North Atlantic Council (NAC).
The mission of the NRF is to provide a rapid demonstration of force and the early establishment of NATO military presence in support of an Article 5 or Crisis Response Operation.

Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (HQ SACT) has recently undergone a reorganisation to better address issues related to deployable forces.

The Expeditionary Operations Integrated Capability Team was disbanded and the NATO Response Force (NRF) Integrated Project Team has been combined with the Allied Command Transformation Deployable Joint Staff Element (DJSE) Implementation Group. The new Deployable Forces Integrated Project Team, under the leadership of Norwegian Army Brigadier General Roy Hunstok, will now serve as a single focal point within HQ SACT for all deployable forces issues.

Hunstok and his team will initiate and lead the further development of NATO's deployable forces structures and procedures, and provide guidance in the improvement of Deployable Joint Staff Element (DJSE) and NATO Response Force (NRF) capabilities.

"The Deployable Forces Integrated Project Team focuses on developing NATO's deployable forces - specifically the NRF and the command and control relationships within the deployable forces structure," said Hunstok.

The IPT is currently involved in developing a policy on how NATO forces should operate in the future.

Additionally, the Deployable Forces IPT will interface closely with all ACT functional domains, as well as outside agencies to research, evaluate and validate deployable force requirements for the short-term (within five years) and longer (more than five years).

"Our role in that will be to provide ACT inputs to concept development," he said. "The IPT will also assist in deployable forces capability development efforts by coordinating and supporting all deployable force related actions coming out of Nations, Allied Command Operations (ACO), the Joint Force Commands and other relevant parts of the NATO Command Structure (NCS) and NATO Force Structure (NFS).

NRF is a highly ready and technologically advanced force made up of land, air, maritime and special forces that the Alliance can deploy quickly wherever needed as decided by the North Atlantic Council (NAC).

The mission of the NRF is to provide a rapid demonstration of force and the early establishment of NATO military presence in support of an Article 5 or Crisis Response Operation.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: Post-WW II Threshold: Germany To Increase Afghan War Troop Strength

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:38 pm (PST)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2010/01/16/2003463579

Reuters
January 15, 2010

Germany to boost troop numbers in Afghanistan

BERLIN: German Chancellor Angela Merkel will brave a public backlash in coming weeks and commit more troops to Afghanistan to placate her NATO allies, a step that looks likely to raise Germany's contingent by nearly a quarter.

US President Barack Obama and NATO have urged Germany to bolster its military presence just as it and other Western allies seek to craft an exit strategy from a country that has become an increasing headache for Merkel at home.

Sending more soldiers to Afghanistan would fly in the face of public opinion and expose the chancellor to increasing opposition on an issue that polls suggest have already dented government support and undermined her authority.

"Merkel has hummed and hawed on this debate from day one," said Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. "But the government is going to have to send more combat troops, it will just be as few as they can."

Merkel is expected to give a government declaration on Jan. 27 to outline Germany's strategy for Afghanistan ahead of an international conference on the mission in London a day later.

Germany has a mandate for 4,500 troops in Afghanistan, the third biggest NATO contingent, though they are based in the north of the country, away from the areas of heaviest fighting.

At the conference, Berlin aimed to outline its plans for improving Afghan governance and security, said Henning Otte, a defense expert in Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats.

NATO first needed to establish clear goals and how they would be met before Germany could consider raising the threshold for its troop strength in Afghanistan, Otte said.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: Serbia: Monument To Those Killed By NATO Air Strikes

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:43 pm (PST)

http://english.blic.rs/Society/5852/Monument-to-people-killed-in-NATO-air-strikes

Blic Online
January 15, 2010

Monument to people killed in NATO air strikes

The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy shall organize on January 18 a public debate on building a central monument dedicated to people killed in the NATO air strikes in 1999.

In the ministry's announcement it is said that citizens, experts, representatives of institutions, state services, associations of the families of the killed, army and civilian invalids of war, participants in armed conflicts and others are invited to take part in the debate.

The debate shall be held on Monday at noon in the premises of the Cultural-educational community of Serbia. The telephones for contact are 011/334-55-11 and 011/334-56-16. The contact can be made via I-mail as well: dejan.borci@minrzs.gov.rs .
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: Pentagon Expands U.S. Army Africa, Adds Generals

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:56 pm (PST)

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=67246

Stars and Stripes
January 15, 2010

U.S. Army Africa adds two general officers
By Kent Harris

VICENZA, Italy: As a sign of its ongoing transformation, U.S. Army Africa has added two more general officers to its ranks.

Brig. Gen. David Elmo and Brig. Gen. Isaac Osborne will be introduced to the community in a ceremony next week. Both will serve as deputies to Maj. Gen. William Garrett — whose position as commander has been the only general-officer slot assigned to Caserma Ederle.
....
As a part of U.S. Army Europe, the Southern European Task Force sometimes took on the role of a division-size headquarters and was assigned additional personnel. It received two additional general officers during its stint as the headquarters element for U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2005-2006, for instance. Additional personnel from other services were also attached during its stint leading operations off the coast of Liberia in 2003.

Now that the organization has transformed into an Army Service Component Command for U.S. Africa Command, the Army is supplying additional personnel — mostly civilians — to help take on various missions, according De Oliveira.

Much of the personnel arriving in Vicenza over the next several years will be civilians assigned to administrative and support duties, De Oliveira said. About 100 active-duty personnel should arrive in the same time frame, bringing the number of personnel assigned to the organization to about 700....

Some soldiers and civilians based in Vicenza do travel to African countries to take on missions, such as training African militaries, participating in joint exercises or building relationships with their African counterparts. But many stay in Vicenza and plan such missions or coordinate them for troops based in the States who are assigned to carry them out.

De Oliveira said that at least 70 percent of soldiers serving various roles in Africa on any given day are members of the U.S. Army Reserve or National Guard.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.: NATO Chief Drumming Up More Troops For Afghan War

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:04 pm (PST)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/16/content_12818424.htm

Xinhua News Agency
January 15, 2010

NATO chief urges more support for Afghanistan

BRUSSELS: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Friday urged all troop contributing nations in Afghanistan to provide more support at the upcoming international conference on Afghanistan in London.
....
He said he asked all members of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to look at what more can be done and what other resources might be provided, including troops, trainers, money or civilian experts.

The conference will take place in London on Jan. 28, foreign ministers from ISAF partners, Afghanistan's immediate neighbors and key regional players and representatives from NATO, the United Nations, the EU and other international organizations are expected to attend....

On Dec. 1, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his new strategy in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 more soldiers. Its allies followed suit and pledged about 6,800 more troops for Afghanistan. However, some countries, including France and Germany, are hesitate about sending more troops and said they would make their plans after the London conference.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12.: 60,000 Troops In South: NATO's Afghan Force To Be Run By U.S.

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:07 pm (PST)

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=67265

Stars and Stripes
January 16, 2010

NATO's Afghan force to be run by U.S.

U.S. forces are set to take over command of NATO operations in southern Afghanistan by the autumn, The Times of London has reported.

In a story Thursday, the newspaper reported that the current command structure, which rotates annually among Britain, the Netherlands and Canada, with a permanent U.S. deputy commander, will be replaced by two division-sized commands of about 30,000 troops each in the southeast and southwest.

The current system reflects the three main troop contributors when NATO forces moved into southern Afghanistan — taking over from a small U.S.-led force there — in 2006. But the size of the British, Dutch and Canadian forces already have been dwarfed by the arrival of 21,000 U.S. troops last year — with 18,000 to 20,000 more American troops expected to be deployed to the region this year.

The new structure also would reflect other realities. The Netherlands, which has 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, is scheduled to begin pulling out of Uruzgan province in August and leave completely by the end of the year. Canada, which has 2,830 soldiers in the country, plans to end its combat mission in Kandahar province starting in July 2011, with all forces out by the end of next year. However, senior officials from both countries have suggested publicly that their troops might continue to serve in the 42-nation NATO-led coalition in another role.

The Times reported that British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, who took command of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan last November, will remain in his post until the fall, when the new command structure is in place.

British defense officials are debating whether to push for a rotating command in what is to become Regional Command Southwest, according to the report. The new command will include Helmand province, where more than 9,000 British troops are serving alongside more than 10,000 U.S. Marines, the report said. By the time the new command becomes operational, those numbers will grow to 10,000 and 20,000, respectively.

The British Ministry of Defence had no comment, the Times wrote. The newspaper reported that Carter issued a statement saying that he expected 20,000 more troops to be deployed to southern Afghanistan, but that no decisions had been made on how the commands would be organized.

Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no decisions had been made by NATO on the command relationships in the southern part of the country.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

13a.: Three NATO Soldiers Killed In Southern Afghanistan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:01 am (PST)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1525923.php/Three-NATO-soldiers-killed-in-southern-Afghanistan-2nd-Roundup

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Janaury 16, 2010

Three NATO soldiers killed in southern Afghanistan (2nd Roundup)

London/Kabul: Britain's Ministry of Defence on Saturday announced the deaths of two of its soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, where one more foreign soldier and 11 Taliban were also killed in separate incidents.

The British soldiers, serving in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), died in the blast near Sangin in Helmand Province on Friday.
....
A further NATO soldier was killed in similar attack in the same region on Saturday, the NATO command in Kabul said in a statement. The statement did not disclose the third soldier's nationality. Most of the troops stationed in the southern provinces are from Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States.
....
In 2009, the deadliest year for international forces since 2001, 520 NATO troops were killed. A total of 249 British soldiers have been killed while fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)

14.: Lockheed, Raytheon Gain From New European Missile Shield Plan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:06 am (PST)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-14/lockheed-raytheon-gain-in-gates-s-europe-missile-defense-plan.html

Bloomberg News
January 14, 2010

Lockheed, Raytheon Gain in Gates's Europe Missile-Defense Plan

-"It means taking missile defense and sort of distributing it, starting off on Aegis ships," then "putting systems ashore and lashing all that together," Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander said in an interview.

Orders of Lockheed Martin Corp. interceptor missiles would quadruple and those of Raytheon Co. missiles would triple in the Pentagon's revised five-year spending plan for a missile defense for Europe.

The increased spending reflects President Barack Obama's decision in September to scrap plans to base a system in Poland and the Czech Republic that would defend Europe against long- range missiles from Iran.

The new plan uses existing missile systems based on land and at sea....

The proposed spending is included in a directive signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Dec. 23 and widely distributed within the Defense Department. It spells out major adjustments to the fiscal 2011-2015 budget plan to be released Feb. 1.

"These increases seem to support a greater emphasis on deploying current and near-term U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities as quickly as possible," said Steven Hildreth, a missile defense analyst for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

Staged Deployment

Deployment of the revised missile defense would extend through 2020. The first step is to put existing sea-based weapons systems on Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers.

Subsequently, a mobile radar system would be deployed in a European nation near Iran. More advanced, mobile systems would be put in place later elsewhere in Europe. Their centerpiece would be Bethesda, Maryland-based-Lockheed's Terminal High Altitude Defense interceptor missiles and improved Standard Missile-3 IB missiles made by Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon.

"It means taking missile defense and sort of distributing it, starting off on Aegis ships," then "putting systems ashore and lashing all that together," Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander said in an interview.

"We are not at a stage yet where we would be talking to a nation about putting a radar in. That's in the future," he said. "As a first step we are looking at where our Aegis ships may be distributed to create the initial shield."

Lockheed spokeswoman Cheryl Amerine declined to comment on the budget proposal. Raytheon spokesman John Patterson did not reply to an e-mailed request for comment.
....
--Editors: Bill Schmick, Mark Schoifet
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.: U.S. Sea/Land-Based Interceptor Missile Program Advances

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:09 am (PST)

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/01/15/Raytheon-SM-6-program-advances/UPI-58851263588000/

United Press International
January 15, 2010

Raytheon SM-6 program advances

WHITE SANDS, N.M. - U.S. company Raytheon has achieved a milestone for its next-generation Standard Missile system that advances the program for future at-sea testing.

Raytheon recently conducted a fourth guided test vehicle launch with its Standard Missile-6, a new missile technology based on its Standard Missile airframe and propulsion elements.

The successful completion of the GTV marks a milestone for the company and advances the program for future at-sea testing that company officials say is expected to take place in 2010. The SM-6 integrates the company's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile signal processing and guidance control capabilities and combines it with its Standard Missile airframe technologies for a next-generation missile.

"All GTV engineering test objectives were met, demonstrating the SM-6's capabilities in this critical engagement," Frank Wyatt, Raytheon Naval Weapon Systems vice president, said in a statement.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)