Messages In This Digest (21 Messages)

9.: NATO Reiterates Plan To Absorb Georgia From: Rick Rozoff

10.: UK Urges Greater Military Cooperation With France Under NATO, EU From: Rick Rozoff

11.: Pakistani Delegation Invites NATO To Intervene In Kashmir From: Rick Rozoff

12.: Obama Names Bush NATO Ambassador European Arms Treaty Envoy From: Rick Rozoff

13.: Three U.S. Marines Killed In Pakistan From: Rick Rozoff

14.: New Balkan Wars Loom On The Horizon From: Rick Rozoff

15.: U.S. Awakens Chinese Rage Over Taiwan Arms Deal From: Rick Rozoff

16.: Top U.S. Intelligence Official: Balkans, Caucasus "Unstable" From: Rick Rozoff

17.: Provoking China, Russia, Iran: The Pentagon Runs Amok From: Rick Rozoff

18.: U.S. Missile Defense Expands Globally From: Rick Rozoff

19.: U.S. To Deploy 18,000 More Troops To Afghanistan From: Rick Rozoff

20.: U.S.'s Prompt Global Strike Alarms Russia, China From: Rick Rozoff

21.: NATO's Top Military Chief: Article 5 May Be Used For "Cyber Attacks" From: Rick Rozoff

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.: NATO: U.S. Keeps 4 Combat Brigades In Europe, Adds Missiles, Warship

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:23 pm (PST)

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=67742

Stars and Stripes
European edition
February 3, 2010

Four combat brigades to stay in Europe
By Seth Robson and Sandra Jontz

-U.S. units in Europe conduct regular training with European militaries, many of which operate alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The Pentagon is spending more than $100 million to build new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, where more than 2,000 troops, including two squadrons from the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, trained last summer....That presence, the review continues, promotes stability in the Aegean, Balkans, Caucasus and Black Sea regions, and demonstrates the U.S. commitment to NATO allies....The QDR also called for the deployment of a revised U.S. missile defense system in Europe and an enhanced naval presence in the region.

GRAFENWOHR, Germany: The Department of Defense has backed a call by the U.S. Army Europe commander to retain four brigade combat teams in Europe.

The DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review, released Monday, states "the United States will retain four brigade combat teams and an Army Corps headquarters forward-stationed on the continent."

The brigades will remain in Europe pending a DOD review of NATO's Strategic Concept and an accompanying U.S. assessment of its European defense posture network, the QDR states.

NATO spokesman Robert Pszczel said Tuesday that the Strategic Concept –— scheduled to be agreed upon at the NATO Summit in Portugal in November — sets out the security environment and outlines key tasks of the alliance in years ahead.

Two of the four Europe-based brigade combat teams — the 170th Infantry Brigade in Baumholder, Germany, and the 172nd Infantry Brigade from Grafenwohr, Germany — had been slated to return to the U.S. in 2012. But USAREUR commander Gen. Carter Ham last year recommended to the U.S. European Command that those BCTs remain in Germany indefinitely.

"The two primary issues for me are to have sufficient ground forces to enable us to meet not only our current operational requirements, principally to the [U.S. Central Command] region, but also to maintain the ability to stay engaged and exercise with our European allies," Ham said last February.

U.S. units in Europe conduct regular training with European militaries, many of which operate alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The Pentagon is spending more than $100 million to build new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, where more than 2,000 troops, including two squadrons from the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, trained last summer.

In the QDR, the DOD noted that "a robust U.S. military presence in Europe serves to deter the political intimidation of allies and partners."

That presence, the review continues, promotes stability in the Aegean, Balkans, Caucasus and Black Sea regions, and demonstrates the U.S. commitment to NATO allies.

In a statement issued Tuesday, USAREUR spokesman Bruce Anderson said the QDR reaffirms that a strong trans-Atlantic partnership and bilateral relationships with European governments are central to the security of the U.S.

In addition to working with their European neighbors, the Army's Europe-based brigades also have deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years. The Airborne Brigade Combat Team out of Vicenza, Italy, recently deployed to Afghanistan, while the Vilseck, Germany-based 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment is preparing to head there in summer.

The QDR also called for the deployment of a revised U.S. missile defense system in Europe and an enhanced naval presence in the region.

The beefed-up Navy presence in Europe has already started.

In early January, the Navy sent the USS Ramage — a guided-missile destroyer — on a six-month deployment to the Mediterranean Sea, as part of a U.S. military build-up of missile-defense systems in the region. The U.S. positioned eight Patriot missile batteries in the Middle East and Aegis ballistic missile cruisers in the Persian Gulf, Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Central Command leader, told the Institute for the Study of War on Jan. 22.

The key U.S. allies of United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are the four countries receiving the anti-missile defense systems, according to The Washington Post.

But posting a ship in the Mediterranean is "something new for the Navy," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org.

The increased presence of missile-defense ships in Europe, as outlined in the QDR, offers the U.S. military an advantage over land-based systems: the flexibility to position systems where needed in order to meet threats, Pike said. Not to mention the avoidance of a diplomatic wrangling with other nations in order to put Patriot missile batteries on foreign soil, he suggested.

U.S. sea-based ballistic missile defense in Europe offers protection not just to Israel, but to the ally of Egypt as well, Pike 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)

2.: Thailand: Pentagon Kicks Off Massive Asian NATO Drills With 6,000 Tr

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:23 pm (PST)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/ap_cobra_gold_020110/\\\6-nation

The Associated Press
February 1, 2010

Cobra Gold exercise begins

BANGKOK, Thailand: Thailand and the United States have begun their annual Cobra Gold military exercise, with South Korea taking part for the first time.

The U.S. Embassy said Singapore, Japan and Indonesia will also participate in the three-week training exercise, which the U.S. Army describes as the largest of its type in the world. About 11,500 personnel, including 6,000 from the U.S., will take part.

At Monday's opening ceremony in the eastern province of Rayong, U.S. Ambassador Eric G. John described Cobra Gold, now in its 29th year, as "an important symbol of U.S. military commitment to maintaining peace and security in Asia."
....
===========================
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.: Pakistan: U.S. 17-Missile Onslaught Kills At Least 29

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:31 pm (PST)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/02/pakistan.drone.strike/

CNN
February 2, 2010

Sources: Drone strikes kill 29 in PakistanFebruary 2, 2010 3:24 p.m. EST

Islamabad, Pakistan: Several suspected U.S. drone strikes killed at least 29 people in Pakistan on Tuesday, Pakistani intelligence sources said.

One of the strikes targeted Serajuddin Haqqani, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, a group based in Pakistan that targets U.S. forces and their allies in neighboring Afghanistan, said a Pakistan political source who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the news media.

A commander of the group who spoke on the condition of anonymity told CNN that Haqqani "is alive and was not in the area at the time of the attack."

The reported strikes were unusual for the relatively high number of missiles fired - at least 17, intelligence sources said - and for the high death toll.

U.S. drone strikes tend to kill fewer than 10 people, though one last year reportedly killed 60, said Katherine Tiedemann, a policy analyst at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute in Washington.

A death toll of 29 would represent the highest single-day death toll this year from a drone strike or strikes in Pakistan, she said.

The missiles hit targets Tuesday morning in at least four villages in North Waziristan...the Pakistani intelligence sources said.

The strikes happened in the Datta Khel area, which has been the center of much drone activity in the past few months. Sources said drone-fired missiles hit the villages of Daigan, Muhammad Khel, Pai Khel and Toor Narai.

U.S. officials normally do not comment on suspected drone strikes, which have raised tensions between Pakistan and the United States in the past.

The United States is the only country in the region known to have the ability to launch missiles from drones, which are controlled remotely.

A suspected drone strike in mid-January wounded Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, intelligence officials have said. On Sunday, the Pakistani military said it was looking into a report that Mehsud had died from his injuries -- a report that the Taliban denied.

Journalists Amin Khan and Nasir Dawar contributed to this report.
===========================
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)

4.: 21st Century Undersea Supremacy: More U.S. Attack, Missile Submarine

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:38 pm (PST)

http://www.theday.com/article/20100202/NWS09/302029913/1019&town=

The Day
February 2, 2010

Submarines rate high in Obama budget
By Jennifer Grogan

-Virginia-class submarines provide the Navy "with the capabilities to maintain undersea supremacy in the 21st century," the budget stated.
The Navy's budget documents, also released Monday, say that it will continue to buy two attack submarines per year through fiscal 2015.
-The proposed defense budget, $708 billion for fiscal 2011, includes $549 billion to fund basic defense programs, an increase of $18 billion over last year, and $159 billion to support overseas operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq....The administration also issued on Monday its Quadrennial Defense Review report, the latest Pentagon reassessment of the military that shapes policies and programs. It states that there will be between 53 and 55 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines from 2011 to 2015.
-Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he was "proud that Connecticut workers do so much to keep our nation safe."

President Barack Obama released a defense budget Monday that supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine, even while slashing the funding for other weapons programs.

Local submarine supporters have worked for years to increase the submarine production rate from one to two per year.

"This is a budget that a lot of people have been watching closely," U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said Monday. "… Our questions have been answered, and in a positive way."

The Virginia-class submarine program will receive $5.4 billion, if the budget passes, for two submarines in fiscal 2011, for the advanced procurement of submarine components for two submarines in 2012 and in 2013, and for research and development.

Virginia-class submarines provide the Navy "with the capabilities to maintain undersea supremacy in the 21st century," the budget stated.

The Navy's budget documents, also released Monday, say that it will continue to buy two attack submarines per year through fiscal 2015.

About $700 million is included to continue developing a new ballistic-missile submarine to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class, or Trident, submarines. Last year's budget provided $495 million for the program.

Electric Boat is hiring designers and engineers to work on the ballistic-missile submarine design. EB and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia currently build one submarine a year under a teaming agreement.

"In an era when the Department of Defense has to make a lot of tough choices, it's encouraging to see that at the highest levels there is such a strong recognition of the importance of submarines to national security," EB President John P. Casey said in a statement.

The proposed defense budget, $708 billion for fiscal 2011, includes $549 billion to fund basic defense programs, an increase of $18 billion over last year, and $159 billion to support overseas operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.
....
The administration also issued on Monday its Quadrennial Defense Review report, the latest Pentagon reassessment of the military that shapes policies and programs. It states that there will be between 53 and 55 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines from 2011 to 2015.

The Navy has said in the past that it only needed 48 submarines. Currently there are 53 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines.

The Department of Defense has four priority objectives, according to the report - to prevail in today's wars, to prevent and deter conflict, to prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies, and to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force.

The report, along with the budget, should bring "long-term stability for the workforce at Electric Boat," Courtney said. The Navy will need two submarines a year from EB and Newport News "well into the 2020s," he added.
....
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said submarines "play a vital role in our country's national defense and the administration's commitment to the workers of Connecticut is a testament to the confidence we have in their abilities."

"I hope that these investments as well as the continuing development of the first nuclear missile submarine in decades will help avert layoffs of Electric Boat's hard-working men and women in our state," Dodd said in a statement.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he was "proud that Connecticut workers do so much to keep our nation safe."
===========================
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)

5.: Europe, Sea-Based Systems: Pentagon Wants Larger Missile Shield Budg

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:39 pm (PST)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57824

United States Department of Defense
American Forces Press Service
February 2, 2010

Missile Defense Agency Requests Bigger Budget
By John J. Kruzel

-"We believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the United States will stand by our security commitments to them, will help to negate the coercive potential of regional actors attempting to limit U.S. influence and actions in key regions...."

WASHINGTON: The Defense Department agency responsible for U.S. missile defense systems has requested $8.4 billion for fiscal year 2011, an increase of about a half billion dollars.

The request comes after an announcement last September that the United States would move away from a ground-based missile defense system to defend against Iranian and North Korean threats, to a sea-based platform.

"The budget supports continuous emphasis on development, testing, fielding, sustainment," David Altwegg, the executive director of the Missile Defense Agency, told Pentagon reporters yesterday.

"We have shifted our emphasis from the ground-based defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles to the regional threat, short- and medium-range missiles, which comprise about 99 percent of the ballistic missile threat extant," Altwegg said.

When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced plans to move from ground-based components in Poland and the Czech Republic, the rationale he offered was that the new sea-based approach is better suited to intelligence on Iranian threats and would provide protection sooner.

Going a step further, Gates - a former CIA director - said the new arrangement is preferable even if intelligence that Iran is more focused on developing short-range missiles over long-range capabilities prove incorrect.

But Gates emphasized that the United States would continue working with European allies on developing a system to defend against threats to the continent.

"We are starting the four-phased approach to fielding a capability in Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, initially against the short- and medium-range threat that exists," Altwegg said, "and hence our initial emphasis will be on southeastern Europe."

The Missile Defense Agency briefing fell on the same day the department released its first Ballistic Missile Defense Review, slated to take place every four years.

The review released yesterday aligns U.S. missile defense posture with near-term regional missile threats, and sustains the ability to defend the homeland against limited long-range missile attack, said Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters yesterday, Flournoy said the review identified six major priorities that will shape the U.S. missile defense approach: enhancing the country's ability to defend against a ballistic attack, defending against growing threats, execute realistic tests, develop new capabilities, being adaptable to changing threats and leading international missile defense cooperation.

"We believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the United States will stand by our security commitments to them, will help to negate the coercive potential of regional actors attempting to limit U.S. influence and actions in key regions, and help strengthen regional deterrence architectures against states who are acquiring weapons of mass destruction," she 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)

6.: Fw: Peace Protesters Roughed Up, Arrested by Obama's Pentagon

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:40 pm (PST)

From: Global Network <globalnet@mindspring.com>
Subject: Peace Protesters Roughed Up, Arrested by Obama's Pentagon
To: "GN List Serve" <globenet@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 10:31 AM

PEACEFUL PROTESTERS ROUGHED UP, ARRESTED BY OBAMA'S PENTAGON

Is this how Obama thanks those who are taking his call for the abolition of nuclear weapons seriously? He has then roughed up and arrested for standing with signs outside Vandenberg AFB in California while his Pentagon fires "missile defense" tests into the heavens above the Pacific Ocean?

For years people have been protesting outside Vandenberg AFB when the base launches missiles. Now and then the military police would grab one of the organizers and arrest them but often nothing was done at all. But on January 31, just as another $150 million "missile defense" test was launched from the base, the Obama led Pentagon had virtually everyone who was at the protest, legally standing outside the base, arrested. In one case the military police threw Judy Evered onto the ground where two security guards held her with one soldier's knee in her back. Her subsequent booking was interrupted because she had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance for a shoulder injury she sustained after she was already in custody. Evered, a member of WILPF, is in her 80's.

This was a particularly important "missile defense" test because the Pentagon promoted it as a practice to simulate "a nuclear attack by Iran". Of course Iran has no nuclear weapons today nor does it have any launch vehicles capable of reaching the continental U.S. But truth and facts don't matter when you are out to create a new enemy in the minds of the American people. Fiction becomes reality, war is peace. Brainwashing it is called.

In the first test of its kind involving Vandenberg, a U.S. Air Force ICBM launched from the Marshall Islands (the Ronald Reagan Test Range) was aimed at southern California. The Ground-Based Interceptor launched from Vandenberg, about 60 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, lifted off at around 3:45 pm, but did not succeed in shooting down the target missile (supposedly from Iran) which was launched six minutes earlier from the Reagan Test Range.

"They completely dismantled the demonstration," said protest organizer MacGregor Eddy who is a WILPF and Global Network member. She went onto reiterate that the base was told well in advance of the demonstration which was initially scheduled for January 21, as was the interceptor test, both of which were grounded due to large southern California storms at the time.

Since November, the new base commander has decided to require I.D.s from demonstrators. There is no way that a base commander, on his own, is going to start demanding ID's from legal public protesters and make such a decision to completely disrupt and arrest eight out of the eleven people at a peaceful vigil. These orders have come from higher up and in the end the president of the U.S. has to be held responsible for escalating this provocative attack on peaceful protest outside a U.S. military base.

Obama talks big about wanting disarmament but then he qualifies this by saying that it might not happen "in his lifetime." Then he moves, two years in a row, to increase military spending and continues the Bush administration policy of surrounding Russia and China with "missile defense" systems that are actually part of the U.S. first-strike program. The U.S. "missile defense" systems would pick-off any retaliatory missiles fired by Russia or China after the U.S. had launched the initial attack. The U.S. Space Command has actually been computer war-gaming such a first-strike attack on China for the past several years.

In a statement prior to the January 31 missile launch Western States Legal Foundation Director Jacqueline Cabasso said, "Further, U.S. development of missile defenses endangers prospects for deeper U.S. and Russian nuclear arms reductions and threatens to scuttle agreement on a follow-on to the START treaty. To add insult to injury, every U.S. test launch from the Marshall Islands causes tremendous environmental damage to surrounding land and water areas and compounds the historical injustice to the indigenous Marshallese people."

Obama can't have it both ways. He can't go around talking nice about nuclear disarmament and then continue taking active steps to develop and test new generations of advanced war fighting systems and expect that Russia and China will just sit back and watch without reacting. And if Obama was serious about real nuclear disarmament he would not allow his Pentagon operatives to harass, rough up, and arrest activists who are legally opposing wasteful and destabilizing missile tests. You don't treat your political allies in such a manner.

Once again we see the clear evidence that Obama is the quintessential magician – he says one thing but if we closely watch his other hand we see the revelation of his real agenda, which is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush war making program, but this time with a friendly smile and a well-turned phrase.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

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

7.: Ukraine: Yushchenko Creates "Spy" Scandal Ahead Of Run-Off Election

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

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:40 pm (PST)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100202/157755647.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti
February 2, 2010

Russia, Ukraine trade spy allegations

Ukraine's national security service said Tuesday it had uncovered a Russian spy network and detained one of its members, while expelling five others.

The Russian Federal Security Service, the FSB, was quick to respond, saying the incident was provoked by Ukraine's efforts to recruit spies among Russian citizens.

The FSB said the incident was connected to the arrest of Ukrainian national Ruslan Pilipenko, "known to the FSB as an employee of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate."

The security service said Pilipenko was detained at a Russian military facility on October 29, 2009 in Tiraspol, the capital of the Moldovan breakaway republic of Transdnestr, while "performing activities to the detriment of the security interests of the Russian Armed Forces."

He was later released and deported.
===========================
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.: Afghanistan: NATO 2010 Death Toll At 51, 153,000 Troops Soon

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:08 am (PST)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gaitqiQnq_gdLUpqztaM0m3infoQ

Agence France-Presse
February 3, 2010

Bomb kills two US soldiers in Afghanistan: NATO

KABUL: A bomb attack killed two US soldiers in the volatile southern region of Afghanistan, pushing the death toll of foreign troops in the country to over 50 for the year so far, NATO said Wednesday.

In a brief statement, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the two soldiers were killed on Tuesday.

"Two ISAF service members from the United States were killed yesterday in an IED strike in southern Afghanistan," it said, referring to an improvised explosive device.

The icasualties.org website puts the toll for 2010 at 51. An ISAF spokesman confirmed that six foreign soldiers have been killed this month.
....
Around 113,000 international troops in the country will be supplemented by another 40,000 US and NATO forces....

Many of the new troops will be deployed to the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, where the Taliban are concentrated, although their footprint has spread rapidly across the country in recent years.

A major offensive is expected in the Marjah region of Helmand, likely to mirror a similar assault last year in the Garmsir region further north which was seen as a success in flushing out insurgents.
===========================
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.: NATO Reiterates Plan To Absorb Georgia

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:11 am (PST)

http://www.news.az/articles/8243

News.AZ
February 3, 2010

NATO supports Georgia`s integration into the Alliance

NATO Spokesman James Appathurai stated that the NATO supports Georgia`s integration into the alliance.

James Appathurai emphasized that Georgia will by all means become a member of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as soon as it meet the required criteria.

The NATO Spokesman pointed out that the alliance ally states stick to supporting Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty and will never recognize the independence of Georgia's breakaway enclaves – Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
===========================
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.: UK Urges Greater Military Cooperation With France Under NATO, EU

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:16 am (PST)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJJvQRHb-J-AIFIklbTUxIwyhDMg

Agence France-Presse
February 3, 2010

Britain urges military co-operation with France: report

LONDON: Britain is calling for greater military co-operation with France in a bid to map out a more secure future for the country's cash-strapped armed forces, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

A government blueprint on the way ahead for the forces, cited by the Financial Times, puts an unexpectedly heavy emphasis on its need to work with the EU to maintain its role on the world stage.

In particular, the document praises the decision by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to take France fully back into the military alliance NATO and raises the prospect of joint defence work.

"The return of France to NATO's integrated military structures offers an opportunity for even greater co-operation with a key partner across a range of defence activity," says the document, drawn up by defence minister Bob Ainsworth.

The blueprint is designed to set out the terms on which Britain will conduct a major defence review, that will take place after a forthcoming general election expected in May.

Despite stressing that London's most important military alliance remains with Washington, the document goes to great lengths to highlight the importance of joint European security and defence policy.

"The UK will greatly improve its influence if we and our European partners speak and act in concert," it says.

"A robust EU role in crisis management will strengthen NATO. Playing a leading role at the heart of Europe will strengthen our relationship with the US."

The defence review may also look at whether Britain needs to re-examine the weight it attaches to its relationships with NATO and the EU, said the Financial Times.

It is the first assessment for more than a decade and comes against the backdrop of huge pressure on the public finances as the country recovers from its worst recession in decades and an increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan.
===========================
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.: Pakistani Delegation Invites NATO To Intervene In Kashmir

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:19 am (PST)

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95636&Itemid=2

Associated Press of Pakistan
February 3, 2010

NATO asked to play role for resolution of Kashmir dispute

-[I]t was the first Pakistani parliamentarians delegation who visited NATO headquarters.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani parliamentarians have urged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to play its role in resolution of decades longs Kashmir dispute according to the aspiration of Kashmiri people and United Nations resolutions. A delegation of Senators and members of the National Assembly representing the main political parties across the entire political spectrum in Pakistan has recently visited NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The delegation met with NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and discussed Kashmir dispute, Dr. Aafia Saddiqui case and other political issues, Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Interior Talha Mehmood told a press conference here on Wednesday.

According to him it was the first Pakistani parliamentarians delegation who visited NATO headquarters.

He said the delegation emphasized upon the NATO supreme command to play their important role in resolution of Kashmir dispute for durable peace and development in the region.
....
===========================
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.: Obama Names Bush NATO Ambassador European Arms Treaty Envoy

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:20 am (PST)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/Nuland_named_as_special_envoy_.html?showall

Politico
February 2, 2010

Nuland named as special envoy
Laura Rozen

As we reported a couple months back, Victoria Nuland, most notably former deputy national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and the wife of Robert Kagan, is coming on board the Obama administration.

Nuland, a career Foreign Service officer, was announced today as the Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

Nuland and her staff "will work under the daily direction of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher to develop ideas to modernize our current conventional arms control structures in Europe," the State Department said in a statement today. "She also will consult closely with our NATO Allies and our European partners in conventional arms control, including Russia."

But her appointment raised eyebrows among some Democrats. "I know she was a foreign service officer at the time, but she was Cheney's deputy national security adviser," one Democratic foreign policy hand said. 'Kind of a big deal among Democrats."
....
===========================
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)

13.: Three U.S. Marines Killed In Pakistan

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:25 am (PST)

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/04-explosion-lower-dir-qs-01

Dawn News
February 3, 2010

Bomb kills three US marines, TTP claim attack

TIMERGARA: Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan have claimed responsibility for the bomb attack on Wednesday that killed three American soldiers, a spokesman for the network claimed in a telephone call to AFP.

"We claim responsibility for the blast," Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) spokesman Azam Tariq said, calling from an undisclosed location.

A bomb planted outside a girls' school killed three US soldiers in the Lower Dir district.
....
Three children and a Pakistani paramilitary soldier were also killed and 45 people were wounded in the blast near Swat Valley, where the government mounted a crackdown nearly a year ago it said had cleared out al Qaeda-linked Taliban.

Wednesday's blast occurred in Koto village in Lower Dir's Hajiabad area. It was triggered by a remote-controlled device.

The three US soldiers were part of a small unit that trains Pakistani Frontier Corps....

The Taliban spokesman alleged the dead Americans belonged to security company Blackwater Worldwide, which has earned global notoriety over its activities in Iraq.

However the US embassy said three US military personnel who were due to attend the opening of a girls' school were killed and two others wounded.

"The Americans killed were members of the Blackwater group. We know they are responsible for bomb blasts in Peshawar and other Pakistani cities," said the Taliban spokesman.

"We have warned we will take revenge and today we have avenged the deaths of innocent people," Tariq said in reference to an October 28, 2009 attack that killed 125 people in Pakistan's northwestern city of Peshawar.

Blackwater Worldwide changed its name to Xe in February 2009, following what the company said was a switch of business focus.
....
===========================
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)

14.: New Balkan Wars Loom On The Horizon

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:37 am (PST)

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2735

Strategic Culture Foundation
February 3, 2010

New Balkan Wars Loom on the Horizon
Pyotr Iskenderov

-[T]he plan for a final solution for North Kosovo is similar to the one Georgian President M. Saakashvili had in mind launching an attack against South Ossetia in August, 2008. Even the stated objectives – the restoration of the constitutional jurisdiction in Saakashvili's wording – is the same in both cases.

The contours of the Kosovo separatists' plan to suppress the Serbian resistance in the northern part of the province with the help of the US and the EU are becoming increasingly visible.

The statements emanating from Pristina and the intensifying international debates over the Kosovo theme do not only show that the Albanian separatists are preparing an attack against their opponents but also give an idea of its potential scenario, the distribution of roles in it, and the extent to which Hashim Thaci and other former leaders of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army are relying on international support in the process.

The debates at the January 22 open session of the UN Security Council on Kosovo were unprecedentedly heated. It was the first time since the summer of 2007 (when Russia managed to derail the Resolution recognizing Kosovo independence, proposed by the West on the basis of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari's plan) that the parties to the dispute over Kosovo defined their positions with such utmost clarity.

There was an impression that the world's major powers were speaking different languages. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the US, and West European countries "urged flexibility" in admitting Kosovo to regional and international mechanisms and forums, whereas Russia and Serbia regarded the approach as an attempt to dilute the role of the UN in the province and to legitimize its independent status.

The discussions were centered around Pristina's so-called final solution plan for North Kosovo, which Thaci inadvertently unveiled several days prior to the session. He said the plan was being drafted jointly with international representatives and was aimed at strengthening what he called Kosovo sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Thaci said 2010 would be the year of consolidation for Kosovo. The priorities in the framework of the plan include the elimination of Serbian self-government established in Kosovska Mitrovica and nearby Serbian communities based on the May, 2008 elections held in accordance with the laws of Serbia. Another blow will be dealt to Serbian police forces and the custom service, which at the moment are maintaining at least partial control over the traffic across the administrative border between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.

NATO's KFOR deployed in Kosovo will render military assistance to Albanians. There is information that on the whole the corresponding decision was made during Commander of Joint Force Command Naples, Admiral Mark Fitzgerald's January visit to Kosovo, after which he described the Serbian self-government as... a threat to the security of Kosovo. "All violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 pose a threat to security. Since the resolution does not approve of parallel institutions, they are cause for concern", said Fitzgerald.

Pristina's priority is international support for the operation, which the US and the EU are supposed to ensure. The US will be blocking attempts by Russia and China to have a response resolution passed by the UN Security Council. At the same time Brussels will be exerting ever greater pressure on Serbia to make it deny support to the Serbs of Kosovo and seal off the border with the province so as not let Serbian volunteers reach Albania.

Chances are that the operation will be launched already this April after the International Court of Justice issues an indefinite verdict on the Kosovo independence and the establishment of the Mitrovica municipality headed by Albanians and the few Serbs ready to cooperate with them.

Serbia's pro-Western President Boris Tadic spoke with great caution of the anti-Serbian plan harbored by Pristina, NATO, and the EU, essentially saying little more than that the "final solution" promised nothing good to the Kosovo population. Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to UN I. Shcherbak was much more outspoken. He said that from Russia's standpoint it is necessary to stop decisively any attempts to float concepts harmful to Kosovo regardless of their source, as they do not only breach UN Security Council Resolution 1244 but also destabilize the province and provoke tensions.

There is information that the plan was co-authored by EU Special Representative and UN Civil Administration head Peter Feith. The Administration was established in the spring of 2008, shortly after the declaration of Kosovo independence and its recognition by the US and major EU counties.

The Administration that no UN documents regulate comprises representatives of 14 EU and NATO countries and Switzerland, which are implementing the Ahtisaari plan, a EU brainchild the UN Security Council never approved.

It is noteworthy that Kosovo separatist government foreign minister Skender Hyseni who represented Kosovo at the UN Security Council session made no comments concerning the plan for the northern part of Kosovo. Speaking to the media after the session, he claimed without elaborating that the EU mission and the Civic Administration were not promoting any final solution for North Kosovo.

A survey of recent developments leads to the conclusion that the blueprint for suppressing the Serbian resistance in Kosovo is being drafted at a level much higher than that of the province. Given its basic parameters (a snap offensive supported by the NATO and EU pseudo-peacekeepers with international political backing plus the installation of a puppet administration), the plan for a final solution for North Kosovo is similar to the one Georgian President M. Saakashvili had in mind launching an attack against South Ossetia in August, 2008. Even the stated objectives – the restoration of the constitutional jurisdiction in Saakashvili's wording – is the same in both cases.

Even earlier, in August, 1995, a similar scenario was imposed on the Serbs of Krajina when Croatia sent regular army forces to attack them while the US and the EU backed the operation diplomatically. Actually, at that time the diplomatic support played no practical role as neither Yugoslavia nor the Russian leadership demonstrated any will to help Serbian Krajina in its tragedy....

It is hard to predict the outcome of the current developments as the Bosnian front, no less important to Serbs, Russia, and the Orthodoxy, is likely to gain a place on the map of the new Balkan war alongside the Kosovo one. Outgoing Croatian President Stipe Mesic said the Republic's army should launch an offensive against the Bosnian Serb Republic in case it holds a Kosovo-style self-determination referendum.

To be continued
===========================
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. Awakens Chinese Rage Over Taiwan Arms Deal

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:46 am (PST)

http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-02/us-awakens-chinese-dragon.html/print

Russia Today
February 2, 2010

US awakens Chinese dragon over Taiwan arms deal
Robert Bridge

Beijing has announced it may punish US aviation companies involved in the multibillion-dollar arms deal, while Taipei remains defiant in the face of criticism from the mainland.

The arms deal approved by US President Barack Obama last week consists of 60 Black Hawk helicopters, 114 Patriot missiles, and sophisticated communication systems supplied by several US aviation companies, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

The total package is reportedly worth a cool $6.4 billion.

This is not the first time the US has supplied Taiwan, which China claims as its territory, with weapons. The response from Beijing this time around, however, has been nothing short of outrage.

In addition to announcing that it would suspend military and security contacts with Washington, Beijing threatened to impose sanctions on US firms involved in the deal. Boeing, through its McDonnell Douglas subsidiary, which has agreed to sell Harpoon missiles to Taiwan, stands to lose the most.

As the Chinese economy continues to post enviable economic data amidst the worst global economic implosion since the 1930s, it is experiencing a burst of air travel amongst its increasingly affluent citizens.

"The Chinese market has been amazing last year," Randy Tinseth, Boeing Vice President, told reporters on the sidelines of the Singapore Airshow. "As… markets struggled last year, about 220 million people in China traveled domestically – that was up about 21% from the year before."

China is Boeing's biggest international market, representing a full 4% of its profits last year alone.

Another 15 million Chinese passengers traveled on international routes in 2009, Tinseth said, citing data projecting that air travel will grow 13% on the mainland this year.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said Monday showing that Asia had surpassed North America as the world's largest air travel market with 647 million passengers in 2009. This is business that Boeing does not want to see fall through its fingers.

"This a government-to-government issue....These types of sales are between governments and we cannot control them," Tinseth added, as quoted by AFP.

"I believe it's too early to speculate on what the impact might be to the industry and to us."

A superpower to be reckoned with?

China, which has long downplayed its global ambitions, cringes at the very mention of it attaining "superpower" status. This attitude conforms to Chinese thinking, which tends to view events from a cyclical perspective (as opposed to the Western linear). In other words, if things are going great now, pretty soon things will turn for the worse, and vice versa. Therefore, it's better not to trumpet your present successes too loudly.

As analysts continue to post predictions that China will soon surpass the United States as the world's premier economic powerhouse, the two countries have been busy sparring against each other with soft gloves inside a padded cell.

On January 17, 2007, for example, China aroused global attention when it successfully downed an inactive weather satellite with the help of a "kinetic kill vehicle" that was launched into space via a medium range ballistic missile. Prior to the test, only the United States and the Soviet Union had the technological know-how to destroy a satellite in outer space.

The mission triggered condemnation from the United States, which saw the threat that such experiments posed for its constellation of military satellites – its critical "eye in the sky".

"Our space assets are the first asset on the scene," said John Pike, a satellite expert at globalsecurity.org. "They are absolutely central to why we are a superpower – a signature component to America's style of warfare."

In early January, China announced it had successfully tested an anti-missile defense system, which echoes American efforts to build a similar system in Eastern Europe.

Indeed, China seems to be getting real pleasure from breathing down America's back at every turn, replicating technological achievements that were at one time the sole domain of American and Russian scientists. The next Chinese surprise, if pulled off, will trample on America's dearest technological achievement to date: putting a man on the surface of the moon.

"In India and China things are happening quickly," writes Colin Pillinger in the Guardian website. "These countries are not afraid of making mistakes and learning from them. They've both had recent lunar missions; they're now planning to land on the surface with a robot; and after that will come a manned mission. I believe that the next man or woman on the moon will be Chinese."

The United States continues to watch in semi-disbelief as this Asian nation of a billion-plus souls continues to charge ahead, even in times of economic crisis.

"China is not waiting to revamp its economy," President Barack Obama warned in his first State of the Union address. "They are putting more emphasis on math and science. They are rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs."

Meanwhile, Taiwan on Tuesday announced it would continue to request "defensive weapons" from the United States

Speaking at a news conference in Taipei, Taiwan's Defence Ministry spokesman Yu Sy-tue not only defended the sale, but also said "there will be many options for future arms sales."

The package, however, did not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan covets.

The United States is Taiwan's strongest ally and largest arms supplier, and is bound by bilateral agreements to ensure that the island is able to protect itself from any Chinese threats.
===========================
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)

16.: Top U.S. Intelligence Official: Balkans, Caucasus "Unstable"

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:50 am (PST)

http://en.trend.az/news/karabakh/1631755.html

Trend News Agency
February 3, 2010

Caucasuses, Balkans Still Unstable - US Intelligence

A top U.S. intelligence official says America's relations with Russia could suffer as the United States seeks closer ties with Georgia and other former Soviet states, AP reported.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said Tuesday that President Dmitry Medvedev's viewing of Moscow's former Soviet neighbors as a "zone of privileged interests" could undermine relations with Washington. Blair's comments were made in a prepared testimony for lawmakers.

Blair also named unresolved ethnic tensions between Bosnia's Muslims and Serbs as posing "the principal challenges" to European stability in 2010. He said Kosovo also required ongoing attention.

Fighting could also flare between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, he 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)

17.: Provoking China, Russia, Iran: The Pentagon Runs Amok

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 5:58 am (PST)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10034/1032912-374.stm

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
February 3, 2010

The Pentagon runs amok
Obama is letting the generals and contractors roll over him
By Dan Simpson

It is not possible to believe that it is coincidence that just as the Pentagon is being called upon to justify its immunity from the across-the-board budget freeze that President Barack Obama is declaring for the federal government, at least three provocative U.S. arms sales have been announced - to Taiwan, Poland and four Persian Gulf states.

The announcements were clearly scheduled to provoke, respectively, China, Russia and Iran. Each will now bark loudly, and perhaps take retaliatory action. Their responses will, in turn, serve as justification by the Pentagon for the 7.1 percent increase in proposed defense spending, even as painful cuts are being administered in other fields.

The other beneficiaries of this move will be the defense contractors - the happy band of manufacturers and trainers and their lobbyists - into the ranks of which many senior military officers and Pentagon officials retire once their active duty days are done.

The timing is extraordinary, if one had any inclination to consider it to be coincidental. The other "coincidental" development was the failure - again - of the missile-defense system in a $150 million trial that took place Sunday. That system, a dog that has been around for years, cleverly conceived and presented as an umbrella over the United States and some of its allies against Iranian or North Korean missiles, has two basic problems. First, it is expensive. Second, it doesn't work, although those two flaws do not necessarily deter Pentagon planners or defense contractors.

The three newly announced arms sales were surer bets, in the sense that each is sure to alarm or enrage some serious country.

The biggest sale, announced Friday, and the most serious in terms of impact, is a plan to sell $6.4 billion in arms to Taiwan. China considers Taiwan to be part of China. The island will receive from the United States 60 Black Hawk helicopters, 114 missile-defense rockets, 12 anti-ship missiles and two mine-hunting vessels, as well as communications and surveillance equipment.

The timing of the U.S. announcement - unless the furious Chinese reaction is seen as helping the Pentagon's budgetary case with the Congress - would seem to be particularly unpropitious.

The United States is asking China to sign on to sanctions against Iran. It continues to rely on China to keep North Korea in line. Mr. Obama's new initiative to double U.S. exports is dependent on China's adjusting its currency, a step it is reluctant to take in any case. And in general, China's relations with Taiwan have been improving steadily, tending more toward enhanced commercial ties, as opposed to military competition. The new U.S. arms sales would seem to cut counter to this evolution of relations and must have been a difficult decision for the Taipei government to take, one certainly encouraged by U.S. defense equipment exporters.

The Chinese reaction will probably not be pleasant for the United States. It immediately is likely to exclude U.S. companies involved in the sale, such as Boeing, from operating in China. It also will cut for the time being military-to-military contacts with the United States, and perhaps others. The most serious action China can take - one which it was already moving toward - is a reduction in its purchases of U.S. debt. That would have a grave initial and then secondary impact on the U.S. economy.

It would mean, first, that the U.S. government would have to pay higher interest rates to borrow the cash necessary to cover its enormous, growing budget deficits. Second -- and probably most serious - it would mean that the U.S. government would have to compete in U.S. financial markets to a greater degree for the capital needed to restart the engines of American industry.

That is absolutely the last thing that the Obama administration needs at this point. It makes one wonder how much pressure was put on Mr. Obama by defense industry lobbyists to obtain authorization for the arms sales to Taiwan - or worse, whether he understood what he was doing.

The second arms deal was made public when Poland announced that the United States would sell it surface-to-air missiles for deployment 35 miles from the Russian border by April. Russia has consistently opposed such U.S. action, considering it provocative and inconsistent with Mr. Obama's declaration of his intention to reset relations with Russia. Where and how Russia's reaction will come is not yet known, although cooperation on sanctions against Iran and/or the signing of a new arms reduction treaty may now be out the window.

The third major arms deal announced in recent days was that the United States will sell Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and perhaps other Arab Persian Gulf states new anti-missile defense systems, targeted against nearby Iran.

Apart from the financial aspects of the deal for companies like Raytheon, the theory is that the new weapons will make the Gulf states more comfortable hosting the U.S. military installations already on their territory.

The theory also is that Israel will be more comfortable with U.S. missile-defense systems in the Gulf to protect it from Iranian retaliation if Israel were to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. This theory is severely flawed in that Israel could equally well conclude that it now can attack Iran with less risk of Iranian retaliation against America's allies in the Gulf. The easy way to prevent Israel from starting a major Middle East war by attacking Iran is simply to tell it that the United States will not come to its rescue if it does so and then finds that it can't handle the Iranian counterattack.

The budget line for defense stands at $708 billion, 53 percent of discretionary spending, eight times more than the next largest item, health and human services. Does that reflect America's priorities? Is that who we are?
===========================
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)

18.: U.S. Missile Defense Expands Globally

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:02 am (PST)

http://www.afcea.org/signal/signalscape/index.php/2010/02/missile-defense-goes-global

Signal Magazine
February 2, 2010

Missile Defense Goes Global
Posted by Robert K. Ackerman

Developments in missile defense have led to a capability that is international in nature and agnostic in application.

That was the assessment of Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Speaking at West 2010, Gen. Cartwright allowed that missile defense is much more capable than it was 10 years ago.

He cited its multilayered international capability that provides greater defense around the world. "We have moved to a distributed global capability that is agnostic to where it is set up and delivered," he said, adding that this system shares awareness with people who are not necessarily allies.

Not only is the United States able to bring in indigenous systems from other nations, far fewer of the systems' sensors in the network belong to the United States. "We are finding allies in places we never had thought we would find allies," Gen. Cartwright stated, adding "We are starting to build a deterrent construct that will be better than mutual assured destruction."
===========================
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)

19.: U.S. To Deploy 18,000 More Troops To Afghanistan

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:06 am (PST)

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-deploy-18000-troops-afghanistan

Radio Netherlands
February 2, 2010

US to deploy 18,000 troops to Afghanistan

The United States is sending 18,000 more troops to Afghanistan by late spring, as part of a 30,000-strong force already promised by President Barack Obama.

The troops are being deployed later than expected. The remaining 12,000 will be sent to Afghanistan in the summer, with most in place by August.

At present there are 70,000 US troops in Afghanistan. The extra troops have been sent to take part in a large offensive against Taliban fighters.

The highest US officer Admiral Mike Mullen says the Taliban have reinforced their positions in most Afghan provinces.

The US Congress has set aside an extra 130 billion dollars for the mission. President Obama has requested another 33 billion dollars.

The training of Afghan troops to defend their own country is a major priority, but commanders on the ground complain that there is a shortage of trainers, in particular from their European allies. US troops are due to withdraw in July 2011.
===========================
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)

20.: U.S.'s Prompt Global Strike Alarms Russia, China

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:16 am (PST)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LB04Ad01.html

Asia Times
February 3, 2010

US's strike threat catches China off guard
By Peter J Brown

-"[T]he more interesting question - 'Could conventional forces hold at risk China's nuclear forces?' - is something that seems to be just settling in."
-US submarines carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, bombers carrying the same type of cruise missiles, along with UAVs such as Reapers and soon perhaps stealthy US aircraft carrier-based UAVs, might be tapped to conduct C-PGS strikes....
-The Russians comprehend the inherent ambiguity in the US initiative, and they quickly became the most vocal and adamant opponents of C-PGS in general.

The United States plans to unveil later this decade a new conventional Prompt Global Strike (C-PGS) system. It will enable the US to instantly carry out a massive conventional attack anywhere in the world in an hour or less.

Research and development work by the US Department of Defense (DoD) on C-PGS began almost two decades ago, and this shifted into high gear in 2003. Instead of delivering a nuclear warhead, a new US-based missile and/or some other unmanned delivery vehicle may carry a conventional warhead that is able to destroy a distant target in less than an hour.

The DoD issued the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) on February 1 - which is mandated by the US Congress. It specifically mentions C-PGS prototypes as well as other "long-range strike" capabilities.

"The US cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence," wrote US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a commentary accompanying the 2010 QDR entitled, "A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon For a New Age".

"In the case of China, Beijing's investments in cyberwarfare, anti-satellite warfare, anti-aircraft and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten the United States' primary means to project its power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. This will put a premium on the United States' ability to strike from over the horizon and employ missile defenses and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range systems, such as the next-generation bomber."

Gates struck a balance, however, later in his commentary.

"We should be modest about what military force can accomplish and what technology can accomplish. The advances in precision, sensor, information, and satellite technologies have led to extraordinary gains in what the US military can do," Gates wrote. "The Taliban were dispatched within three months; Saddam [Hussein]'s regime was toppled in three weeks. A button can be pushed in Nevada, and seconds later a pickup truck will explode in Mosul. A bomb dropped from the sky can destroy a targeted house while leaving the one next to it intact."

How best to address the C-PGS program is proving to be a tricky subject for China because there is considerable uncertainty surrounding it.

"It's an emerging realization. I don't think the Chinese have fully come to grips with it," said Dr Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the Washington DC-based New America Foundation. "At some level, the Chinese see the US as investing in precision conventional munitions and have made their own parallel investments. But the more interesting question - 'Could conventional forces hold at risk China's nuclear forces?' - is something that seems to be just settling in."

One senior US policy analyst wonders whether this has China both confused and concerned about the program.

"Confused because I don't think anyone could explain to them what [C-PGS] entailed and perhaps still cannot with any fidelity, and concerned because it is seen as another aspect of American hegemony and space domination plans, and because it potentially changes US nuclear strategy in unanticipated and perhaps undesirable ways," said this analyst.

Lewis points to a recent meeting, a so-called US-China Track II exchange, involving many US and Chinese participants, which demonstrated how the Chinese may have been caught off guard by the way in which C-PGS has suddenly appeared on their radar screen.
....
"It seems likely that Chinese defense planners will coalesce around the idea that the US is undertaking an open-ended strategic modernization which focuses largely on missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities, and that China needs to continue to improve the survivability of nuclear forces, largely through mobility, and continue to investigate ways to disrupt US command, control and intelligence capabilities," said Lewis.

It is best not to rule anything out when addressing the topic of C-PGS because there are so many variables involved, and so many possible outcomes as well. A report by the Washington, DC-based Center for Defense Information in 2008 - "An Examination of the Pentagon's Prompt Global Strike Program: Rationale, Implementation, and Risks" - concluded, among other things, that:

"[W]eapon systems developed in pursuit of a PGS capability could raise the probability of an inadvertent nuclear exchange and complicate future arms control negotiations. Accordingly, the ramifications of a PGS capability must be considered within the context of US arms control, nonproliferation and nuclear safety objectives. Only then will policy-makers and Congress be able make informed assessments of the potential advantages, risks and tradeoffs of PGS...."

For years, several DoD-funded C-PGS projects have proceeded, including the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle (HTV), the Blackswift hypersonic aircraft, the X-51 scramjet-powered vehicle, and the Conventional Strike Missile, or CSM, which is a modified Minuteman III ballistic missile, to name a few. The US Air Force (USAF) Research Laboratory, the USAF Space and Missile Center, and the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency oversee this activity.

CSM is the definite frontrunner as the C-PGS development effort unfolds. US defense giant Lockheed Martin, which plays a central role in the satellite-based US Global Positioning System (GPS) that supports global positioning, navigation, and timing, is also a lead contractor for C-PGS.

In late December, the DoD announced that Lockheed Martin was awarded just over US$16 million "for all design elements through the preliminary design review. Lockheed Martin shall design, fabricate, integrate and test payload delivery vehicle for flight demonstration for the [C-PGS] capability."
....
It is quite likely that CSM will be based at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and fall directly under the command of the US Strategic Command rather than the new USAF Global Strike Command.

USAF General Kevin Chilton, head of the US Strategic Command, recently said that a C-PGS deployment by 2016 is a "reasonable objective" and yet "he wanted to see a first [CSM] missile on alert, with two spares, before the end of 2012" [1]
....
US submarines carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, bombers carrying the same type of cruise missiles, along with UAVs such as Reapers and soon perhaps stealthy US aircraft carrier-based UAVs, might be tapped to conduct C-PGS strikes....

C-PGS fits quite neatly into President Barack Obama's "Global Zero" plan to create a nuclear-free world. Still, the 2010 QDR will only prompt opponents of C-PGS to speak out more loudly.

Consider what Alexei Arbatov, a scholar in residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center, stated at a recent conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

"There are very few countries in the world that are afraid of American nuclear weapons. But there are many countries that are afraid of American conventional weapons. In particular, nuclear weapons states like China and Russia are primarily concerned about growing American conventional, precision-guided, long-range capability, [or C-PGS] systems." [2]

The Russians comprehend the inherent ambiguity in the US initiative, and they quickly became the most vocal and adamant opponents of C-PGS in general. It was the strong message from Russia that helped to cancel out the Trident in terms of any C-PGS role after the Russians argued successfully that it would be virtually impossible for them to discern quickly whether a long-range missile fired from a US submarine was carrying a nuclear or a conventional warhead.

Russia may brand CSM as an unwelcome spin off of Trident in this regard.

Now that China has terminated all military-to-military exchanges as a result of the US decision to proceed with arms sales to Taiwan, many important issues including C-PGS will probably not be addressed at all in the coming months....China in past discussions with the US on nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament has often alluded to the need for the US to be more mindful of the overall superiority of its conventional firepower.

Whether or not China and the US are talking, Japan is proceeding with the launch of its Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS). The emergence of the QZSS satellite constellation coupled with the recent approval by the Diet (parliament) of Japan's New Basic Law for Space Utilization - which opens the door for Japan's military space programs - are two important and related developments which China is watching closely.

QZSS works closely in tandem with the US GPS System, for example. It is designed to vastly improve the overall accuracy and availability of satellite-based positioning, navigation and timing information in Japan and East Asia as well as, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia and Australia.

Both QZSS and the Basic Law involve their own inherent element of ambiguity. While both impact commercial activities in Japan, both could influence the shape and scope of future joint US-Japanese military programs as well the US C-PGS program.

Plans call for the four QZSS monitoring stations in Japan - these are in Hokkaido, Koganei, Ogasawara and Okinawa - to be joined by five other QZSS monitoring stations in India, Hawaii, Guam, Thailand and Australia. QZSS signals are easily accessed over the entire Korean peninsula as well and do not require ground stations there.

While Japan prefers to promote the vast array of commercial and civilian applications of QZSS technology, the military applications cannot be overlooked. QZSS is tied directly to the US GPS satellites, and China is certainly aware of this link. Could QZSS pose a threat to China? This seems entirely feasible.
....
China remains confused and concerned in the process, and perhaps believes that the US C-PGS program may already exist under another name. The lack of clarity that surrounds this program may make it quite difficult for Beijing and Moscow to figure out exactly what the US is up to here....

Notes:

1.) US Military Eyes Fielding 'Prompt Global Strike' Weapon by 2015, July 1, 2009, globalsecuritywire.org. 2.) Russian Experts Question Role of Conventional 'Prompt Global Strike' Weapons, April 7, 2009, nti.org.

===========================
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)

21.: NATO's Top Military Chief: Article 5 May Be Used For "Cyber Attacks"

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

Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:27 am (PST)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4483043&c=EUR&s=TOP

Defense News
February 2, 2010

NATO Chief: Nations Must Unite On Cyber Warfare
By ANTONIE BOESSENKOOL

SAN DIEGO: Given attacks on computer networks in Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania in the past several years, the definition of protections for NATO members should be expanded, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe said Feb. 2.

The likelihood that the next conflict will start with a cyber attack rather than a physical attack highlights the importance of changing the treaty's definitions, Adm. James Stavridis said at the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association conference.

Article 5 of the NATO alliance says that an attack on any member will be considered an attack on all NATO members. But the definition of what constitutes an attack doesn't include cyber warfare, which didn't exist when the alliance was formed. NATO nations will have to work together to deflect and combat cyber attacks, and those relationships will be complex and difficult, he said.

"Every nation has its own law enforcement, its own approach to privacy, its own system and mores, its own networks, its own technologies," said Stavridis, also head of U.S. European Command. "I am working very hard to encourage the alliance, in my role as Supreme Allied Commander … to grapple with these hard issues in cyber.

"In NATO … we need to talk about what defines an attack. In a country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all NATO members, what defines an attack? I believe it is more likely that an attack will come not off a bomb rack on an aircraft, but as electrons moving down a fiber optic cable. So this is a very real and germane part of this challenge that we face in the cyber war."

NATO has taken the first step toward making cyber warfare combat an international effort by standing up the Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence in 2008 in Estonia, but facing cyber threats will require cooperation among U.S. government agencies, and between governments and industry as well, Stavridis said.

As for where industry can play a role, he said DoD is interested in technologies in telemedicine, facial recognition systems and terrain mapping, as examples.

"Many of you are already engaged on the industry side of this," Stavridis told the audience of defense industry representatives and military members. "You need to help us find the technologies that will permit us to dial in so that we can do the open, strategic connecting we need to do and still protect our 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)