Messages In This Digest (17 Messages)

11.: Exit Polls: Ukraine's "Orange" Era Over From: Rick Rozoff

12.: NATO Chief: Insure Security From Outside Bloc's Borders From: Rick Rozoff

13.: U.S. Military Bases In Colombia Aimed Against South American Unity From: Rick Rozoff

14.: Yemen And The Militarization of Strategic Waterways From: Rick Rozoff

15.: Afghanistan: NATO Death Toll For 2010 At 61 From: Rick Rozoff

16.: Warplanes, Warships, Missiles: Lockheed Eyes $20 Billion Deal With I From: Rick Rozoff

17.: Pentagon Pushes Turkey For Missile Shield Radar, Aids Anti-Kurd Camp From: Rick Rozoff

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.: Front Line, Bottom Line: NATO Adds More Money For War, Missile Shiel

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:58 am (PST)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4487222&c=AME&s=TOP

Agence France-Presse
February 5, 2010

NATO Agrees Steps To Fill Yawning Budget Gap

ISTANBUL: NATO defense ministers have agreed a package of measures to fill a gaping budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of euros, alliance Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Feb. 5.

"Ministers have agreed a package of measures to ensure that our soldiers get the support they need in the field, and that we can make the other strategic investments we still need," he said at talks in Istanbul, Turkey.

"Solidarity in NATO means on the front line, but it also includes on the bottom line," he told the ministers.

A NATO official said the budget hole would amount to around 640 million euros ($878 million) this year in the alliance's investment budget. A separate budget funding military operations is unlikely to be greatly effected.

To address the problem, the ministers agreed to inject fresh money into the investment budget this year, to reform the budgetary system and to "make savings", she said, without providing details.

They also agreed to invest in operations and future strategic priorities.

Prior to the talks, a senior U.S. official urged the 28 NATO allies to invest more in missile defense and common projects, like heavy lift helicopters, medial facilities and technology to counter improvised bombs.
....
"If you have a choice between not doing something, because you can't afford it, or paying a little and doing it collectively, it makes more sense, particularly in a time of dwindling resources," he told reporters.

A NATO official said U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the ministers here that "NATO is still using Cold War-era structures, the military structure is too heavy and has to be streamlined."
===========================
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.: Russia Condemns U.S. Move To Place Missiles In Romania

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:04 am (PST)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7182258/Russia-condemns-US-move-to-put-missiles-in-Romania.html

Sunday Telegraph
February 7, 2010

Russia condemns US move to put missiles in Romania

Russia has attacked a US decision to site interceptor missiles in Romania, saying the move imperils Barack Obama's much-vaunted "reset" of relations between the two countries and the final stages of nuclear arms reduction talks

By Andrew Osborn, Moscow Correspondent

The Kremlin said it was taken aback by news that Romania's top military body had agreed to host US SM-3 interceptor missiles and other military infrastructure in response to an alleged missile threat from Iran. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said he had demanded an "exhaustive explanation" from Washington, citing a treaty that would prevent US ships delivering the necessary equipment via the Black Sea.

"How can we stay calm when alien military infrastructure, US military infrastructure, has come to the Black Sea area?" Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato, told Russian state TV separately.

Obama last year dropped a Bush-era plan to install a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Russia at the time hailed that decision as "brave", viewing it as a diplomatic victory. But a few months later, Kremlin officials say they are deeply disappointed that Washington did not consult Moscow about the Romanian missiles. They were similarly nonplussed last month when the US confirmed it was planning to place Patriot missiles in Poland close to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

The disagreement comes as Russian and US negotiators finalise a pact that will make deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals.

Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, warned the Romanian move would complicate those talks. "It is impossible to talk seriously about a reduction of nuclear capabilities when a nuclear power is working to deploy defensive systems against nuclear warheads possessed by other countries," he said.

Military experts warned the interceptor missiles could be upgraded to pose a threat to the Kremlin's intercontinental nuclear missiles. Colonel Igor Korotchenko, editor of Russia's National Defence magazine, urged the Kremlin to retaliate. "Russia should warn Romania that if elements of a US missile shield are sited in the country they will be viewed as legitimate targets for Russian missile attack."

On Sunday the head of Nato said the alliance should develop closer ties with China, India, Pakistan and Russia and become the forum for consultation on global security.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general, said: "What would be the harm if countries such as China, India, Pakistan and others were to develop closer ties with Nato? I think, in fact, there would only be a benefit, in terms of trust, confidence and co-operation ... Nato can be the place where views, concerns and best practices on security are shared by Nato's global partners."

But Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma's International Affairs Committee, reacted with scepticism, saying Nato first had to think globally, and complained that Russia had not been involved in the process.
===========================
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.: Istanbul: Protests Against NATO Defense Chiefs Meeting

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:48 pm (PST)

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2010/02/07/nb-03

Southeast European Times
February 7, 2010

Hundreds protest NATO meeting in Istanbul

ANKARA, Turkey: About 100 people protested in Istanbul on Friday (February 5th) against an informal meeting of NATO defence ministers taking place in the city. The demonstrators, organised by...leftist organisations, tried to reach the congress centre where the discussions were being held but were stopped by several hundred police officers.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who attended the meeting that ended on Saturday, said on Friday that Turkey is not turning its back on the West and that it has made impressive progress in its relations with Islamic countries lately. Turkey can and should play an "institutional role" between Central Asia and the Middle East on one hand, and Europe and North America on the other, Rasmussen said in an interview with Zaman. His talks with President Abdullah Gul focused on Afghanistan.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates also attended the meeting and said Washington is ready to boost military aid to Ankara in its fight against Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq. Gates met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the situation in the region and relations between their countries.

The US official promised to intensify the exchange of intelligence information between his country and Turkey in the fight against terrorism. Erdogan said Turkey is ready to help in the training of Afghani soldiers, and promised to send more troops to Kabul.
===========================
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.: Romania Joining U.S. Missile System Tests U.S.-Russia Ties

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:49 pm (PST)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-02/08/c_13167305.htm

Xinhua News Agency
February 8, 2010

Romania's joining missile defense system tests U.S.-Russia ties

BEIJING: Romania's recent decision to allow U.S. missile interceptors on its territory was welcomed by Washington, but understandably raised suspicion in Moscow.

Russia was concerned about the U.S. missle shield plan and asked for an explanation from the U.S. side, said the Russian Foreign Ministry in a statement issued Friday.

Analysts say the Romanian decision came at a crucial moment when Washington and Moscow are about to sign a successor document to the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1). Therefore, the move may upset the thawing Russia-U.S. relations and put their bilateral ties to test.

ROMANIA: FOR ITS OWN SECURITY

Analysts say Romania joined the U.S. missle defense system out of national security concerns and a desire to gain an important position in the U.S.-led global security system.

Since the drastic political shakeup in 1989, Romania has made seeking Western military protection a high priority for its foreign policy. It has tried by all means to form closer ties with the United States and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2004.

Last Thursday, upon getting a request from visiting U.S. Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher for Romania to join the missle defense system, Basescu called a meeting of the country's top defense body and decided to give Washington a positive response.

As Romanian ruling parties and the opposition share similar views on national security policy and favored a closer stategic partnership with the United States, it is widely believed that the government's decision will be approved by the parliament.

President Basescu stressed that "Romania will not host a system directed against Russia, but against other threats." But analysts believe such a move would only make the already strained relations between Romania and Russia even worse.

RUSSIA: CONCERNED BUT WITH RESTAINT

Russia responded strongly to Romania's decision, and expressed grave concerns over the move.

Russian Representative at NATO Dmitry Rogozin said Friday that the United States had pushed its missile defense system closer to Russian borders, and it could direct the system at any country including Russia's nuclear capability.

As the United States and Romania only cut a deal in principle without starting negotiations on details, Moscow has so far showed restraint, wishing to solve the issue through dialogues.
....
Analysts say if Russia considers the U.S. missile defense system a serious threat to its national security, there is the possibility for it to deploy short or medium range missiles in its neighboring regions.

....
Analysts noted that the Obama administration abandoned his predessor George W. Bush's version of the missile defense plan, but that does not mean Obama had also given up the plan's goals of guarding against Iran and containing Russia.
....
===========================
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.: New Russian Doctrine Sees NATO, U.S. As Main Threat

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:49 pm (PST)

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article102537.ece

The Hindu
February 7, 2010

New Russian doctrine sees NATO, U.S. as main threat
Vladimir Radyuhin

President Dmitry Medvedev has approved Russia´s new military doctrine that identifies NATO and the U.S. as the main sources of security threats to Russia.

The doctrine details 11 external military threats to Russia, seven of which are traced to the West. NATO´s eastward expansion and its push for a global role are identified as the number one threat to Russia.

The U.S. is the source of other top threats listed in the doctrine even though the country is never mentioned in the document. These include attempts to destabilise countries and regions and undermine strategic stability; military build-ups in neighbouring states and seas; the creation and deployment of strategic missile defences, as well as the militarisation of outer space and deployment of high-precision non-nuclear strategic systems.

The document says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression with conventional weapons if it "endangers the very existence of the state."

The new defence doctrine was signed into law and published a day after Romania announced plans to deploy U.S. interceptor missiles as part of a global missile shield fiercely opposed by Russia. Earlier reports said the Kremlin had been holding back the doctrine, prepared last year, because it did not want to jeopardise talks with the U.S. on a new nuclear arms pact that are still going on.

NATO chief Anders Rasmussen said the new Russian doctrine "does not reflect realities" and ran counter to the alliance´s "endeavours to improve relations" with Russia.
===========================
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.: German Foreign Minister Calls For Lisbon Treaty European Army

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:52 pm (PST)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0208/1224263954855.html

Irish Times
February 8. 2010

German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army
DEREK SCALLY

Berlin: German Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed "the beginning and not the end" of a common security and defence policy.

His remarks at the annual Munich Security Conference followed a call by Berlin´s defence minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg to end what he called Nato´s "absurd" practice of unanimous decision-making.

"The (Lisbon) treaty lays out a common security and defence policy. The federal government wants to make progress on this front," said Mr Westerwelle. "The long-term goal is to build up a European army under parliamentary control. The EU has to live up to political expectations of its role as a global player."

The foreign minister sketched out a role for such an army as crisis management in a time of resource scarcity, to be developed by willing member states over time as a "motor for closer co-operation" in the EU. In a nod to Nato, Mr Westerwelle said such EU structures would not replace other military structures.

Germany´s top diplomat received backing for his plan from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who called for a "single European military-political space" in which no one country´s security was sacrificed for another.

"We want to overcome the bloc-thinking of the Cold War in Europe and create a new kind of mutual trust," said Mr Lavrov.

The weekend meeting in Munich, a think-in for defence players, was dominated by the ongoing standoff with Iran over nuclear uranium enrichment which Tehran says is energy and not military-related, as western countries fear.
....
Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki made a surprise appearance in Munich, raising hopes of an important announcement, only to dash them again with a general statement about "conducive ground . . . to agreement in the near future".

Mr zu Guttenberg dismissed Mr Mottaki´s Munich trip as a "farce".

Turning his attention to Nato, he called on an end to the "cultivated absurdity" of the alliance´s principle of unanimity in decision making. "We talk too much and act too little," 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)

7a.: ARMENIA, NATO DEVELOPING COOPERATION

Posted by: "Nazar" muratoglunazar@yahoo.com muratoglunazar

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:53 pm (PST)

ARMENIA, NATO DEVELOPING COOPERATION

Armenia-NATO cooperation is successfully developing. New events in the framework of the Individual Partnership Action Plan, said Robert Simmons, NATO special representative for Caucasus and Central Asia. "We are continuing cooperation with the Armenian Defense Ministry. NATO assists implementation of reforms and development of strategically important documents," he told a news conference in Yerevan. Mr. Simmons said the Alliance is thankful to Armenia for participation in peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. He also informed that NATO is negotiating establishment of anti-crisis reaction center with the RA Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

8.: Russia, NATO Wrangle Over Military Doctrine

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 7:56 pm (PST)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5223326,00.html

Deutsche Welle
February 7, 2010

Russia, NATO wrangle over military doctrine

Russia used the stage at the Munich Security Conference to lash out at NATO's eastward expansion, but the Western alliance was quick to dismiss Moscow's position as not being sufficiently anchored in the real world.

Europe and the United States should end their "bloc approach" to security based on NATO and instead sign up to Russian proposals for a new security system, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told delegates at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, January 6.

According to the Russian foreign minister, the end of the Cold War gave the opportunity to make the 56-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which includes both Russia and the US, the main security organization in Europe.

"Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed, since the choice was made in favor of NATO's expansion policy, dividing Europe into zones but moving these lines deliberately to the East," Lavrov said.

His criticism came a day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved a new Russian military doctrine that singles out NATO expansion, describing it as a military threat that undermines efforts to improve ties between the Western military alliance and Moscow.
....
NATO's Rasmussen has dismissed the Russian military doctrine
NATO's leadership was quick to reject the new Russian military doctrine and insist that the two sides share common interests.

"I have to say that this new doctrine does not reflect the real world," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of the conference. "NATO is not an enemy of Russia,"

The Western alliance froze ties with Moscow in 2008 over Russia's intervention in Georgia. But since then, NATO has gradually resumed formal contacts.
....
Visiting Moscow in December, Rasmussen had rebuffed the Kremlin's call for new defense arrangements in Europe, saying he saw no need for a new security treaty as proposed by Russia.

Medvedev had published a draft post-Cold War security pact on November 29, saying this could replace NATO and other institutions and restrict the ability of any country to use force unilaterally. It is a reiteration of Russian calls made since 2008 to outlaw "one state enhancing its security at another's expense."

NATO countries reacted skeptically, seeing the Russian plan as an attempt to divide the alliance and saying that the existing Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was the right place to discuss security issues.
===========================
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.: Liberals Get A War President Of Their Very Own

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:09 pm (PST)

http://www.hnn.us/articles/122635.html

History News Network
February 8, 2010

Liberals Get a War President of Their Very Own
By Murray Polner
Murray Polner is the author of No Victory Parades: The Return of the Vietnam Veteran and is co-editor, with Thomas E. Woods Jr., of We Who Dared Say No to War

-After West Point and Oslo, neocons saw Obama as a more coherent Bush, an electrifying orator who had dazzled antiwar Democrats and independents and then promptly dumped them. When the New York Times printed a photo of the men and women who helped Obama reach his decision to escalate, not one dove was present....[P]rotests notwithstanding, we remain - and will throughout Obama´s presidency - an empire of military colonization, the goal for decades of neoconservatives and assorted liberal hawks.
- Despite presidents who come and go, permanent war is a hallowed American institution....The 21st likewise dawns red. It never changes. Doves protest, hawks rule, ordinary people pay the penalty. All wars are "just."

Suddenly and surprisingly, we have a Bush-like Obama Doctrine. To the applause of liberal hawks and formerly critical neocons, the president declared in his Nobel Peace Prize speech that the U.S. will continue to wage war-though naturally, only "just" war - anywhere and against anyone it chooses in a never-ending struggle against the forces of evil.

His antiwar supporters can take seats on the sidelines. It´s all reminiscent of John F. Kennedy and the prescient George Ball, and afterward Ball and Lyndon Johnson. In the early ´60s, JFK - reluctantly, we are told by his admirers -decided to send 16,000 "trainers" to Vietnam to teach the South Vietnamese how to play soldier and to stop the Communists from sweeping over Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of money and assorted advisers were shipped without accountability to the corrupt gang of thugs running and ruining that country.

Ball, the one dissenter in Kennedy´s entourage, pleaded with JFK to recall France´s devastating defeat in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu and throughout Indochina. "Within five years we´ll have 300,000 men in the paddies and jungles and never find them again," he warned the liberal icon in the White House.

But JFK thought he knew better, caustically answering, "George, you´re crazier than hell. That just isn´t going to happen."

Ball would also press Lyndon Johnson to stand down in Vietnam before he destroyed his presidency, domestic agenda, and more importantly the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers and their families, not to mention a few million Southeast Asians.

But LBJ wasn´t going to be the first president to lose a war and be blasted by pugnacious home-front warriors. Failing to stop the North Vietnamese would sooner or later have us fighting them on Waikiki Beach, or so the Cold War line went.

Ever since then, we have continued to hear about regional menaces that supposedly, if left unchecked, will threaten vital U.S. interests or even Americans at home. Ronald Reagan employed that rationale in defending the proxy war in Central America waged by U.S.-backed Contras. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton extended the tradition of intervention, sending troops to theaters of combat as far-flung as Panama, Kuwait, and the Balkans, while the second Bush launched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all been war presidents.

But Barack Obama was going to be different, or so my fellow antiwar liberals - and a few antiwar conservatives - hoped. He was to herald the end of that uncompromising and unilateral era of preventive war. The hundreds of thousands who joyously greeted the president-elect in Grant Park or the 1.5 million at his inauguration were ecstatic with anticipation. Left-wing pundits wrote excitedly about FDR´s One Hundred Days and projected great plans onto the new Man From Illinois. In countless articles, Republicans were declared brain dead, and the Bush- Cheney policies that got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and the torture business were buried.

One year after those celebrations, it´s the neocons cheering, seeing in Obama´s policies a vindication of the late administration. Who would have dreamed that following Obama´s West Point speech announcing 30,000 more troops destined for Afghanistan, William Kristol would laud Obama in the pages of the Washington Post, writing, "the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush´s," and praise the Democratic president for having "embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power"?

War makes strange bedfellows. Michele Flournoy, Obama´s under secretary of defense for policy, has been invited to speak about the president´s hopes for a new Afghanistan on a panel led by Frederick W. Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, the heart of neoconservatism.

Why did Obama buy what the hawks sold him? What if he had leveled with the nation and acknowledged that, however obnoxious and cruel the Taliban may be, they pose no danger to the United States? What if he had vowed that we would not dispatch tens of thousands of additional troops to a civil war in an agrarian, impoverished, largely illiterate country divided by tribal loyalties?

It was not to be. Instead, as New York Times columnist David Brooks stated approvingly, "With his two surges, Obama will more than double the number of American troops in Afghanistan." Charles Krauthammer was direct and sharp: "most supporters of the Afghanistan war were satisfied. They got the policy; the liberals got the speech" - and no say in the construction of that policy.

After West Point and Oslo, neocons saw Obama as a more coherent Bush, an electrifying orator who had dazzled antiwar Democrats and independents and then promptly dumped them. When the New York Times printed a photo of the men and women who helped Obama reach his decision to escalate, not one dove was present.

Were there no alternatives? In this huge country, could he not find a handful of realists, whether Left or Right, to supply some workable ideas for eliminating third and fourth tours for our overextended troops and the resulting suicides, amputations, epidemics of post-traumatic stress disorder, and legions of weeping relatives at gravesides?

Hold on, Obama´s loyal liberal defenders counter, shuddering at the memory of Bush. Why blame him for the miserable decisions he has to make based on impossible situations he did not create? They would prefer not to explain why they and their allies in the think tanks and Congress have so little influence.

Granted, some of Obama´s base reacted negatively. In December, MoveOn.org sent its millions of members a scorching email denouncing Obama´s troop escalation for "deepen[ing] our involvement in a quagmire."

Anti-Vietnam War rebel Tom Hayden removed the Obama sticker from his car. United for Peace and Justice, the main organizer of mass peace rallies around the country, announced, "It´s Obama´s War, and We Will Stop it."

The widely read liberal TomDispatch.com dubbed its former champion the "Commanded-in-Chief" for giving way to the hardball pressures exerted by the generals. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive, founded by the fabled anti-militarist Robert M. LaFollette Sr. in 1909, compared Bush and Obama´s rhetoric and wrote an article called "Obama Steals Bush´s Speechwriters."

But these protests notwithstanding, we remain - and will throughout Obama´s presidency - an empire of military colonization, the goal for decades of neoconservatives and assorted liberal hawks. In anthropologist Hugh Gusterson´s wonderfully evocative words, "The U.S. is to military bases as Heinz is to ketchup."

American forces are stationed at approximately 1,000 military bases in 120 countries at a cost topping $100 billion annually. Diego Garcia, a remote island in the Indian Ocean midway between Africa and Indonesia, is apparently so essential a base that 5,000 locals were thrown out of their homes so the U.S. could have yet another top-secret facility from which to conduct its perpetual wars.

Far from being a consensus-seeking peacenik, Obama would not even sign the Landmine Ban Treaty, which Bush also refused to endorse, thus leaving the U.S. the only NATO nation unwilling to participate.

Said Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch´s Arms Division, "they have simply decided to allow the Pentagon to dictate terms." A shocked Bill Moyers pointed out that 5,000 people died from mine explosions in 2008, noting the disconnect between Obama´s refusal to enlist the support of the government he leads and the Oslo speech in which he maintained, "I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don´t."

In another instance of history repeating, the first Obama defense budget has been virtually the same as Bush´s military appropriations. Obama has reduced spending on Cold War weapons such as the F-22 fighter, but he reportedly plans to ask Congress for an extra $33 billion for the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

To his credit, the president is trying to negotiate a new nuclear-arms reduction pact with Russia and close a few of the CIA´s clandestine prisons. But in many other vital areas of defense and national security, like warrantless wiretaps and renewal of much of the Patriot Act, he persists in activities that violate fundamental freedoms. He has also refused to hold anyone from the Bush-Cheney era accountable.

There´s more: his administration has just signed an accord with Colombia granting the U.S. a ten-year right to use seven of its bases, including the centerpiece of the agreement, Palanquero AFB. Take heed, any leftist South American government that dares defy Uncle Sam. At the same time, Obama blinked at the coup d´état in Honduras. "They really thought he was different," said Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, referring to Latin America´s opinion of Obama. "But those hopes were dashed over the course of the summer."

So what happened?

Barack Obama happened. More eloquence than substance happened. More time-honored political caution than audacity or hope. Liberal and conservative Cold Warriors as key advisers. A reluctance to cross wartime profiteers. A recognition by his poll-counters that, with future elections in mind, it was best to govern from some ill-defined center, acting tough abroad to keep the neocons off his back while throwing an occasional bone to his left.

That strategy may buy him a second term as fruitless as his first - or it could render him indistinguishable from his deservedly maligned predecessor and cost him re-election in 2012. The Left howls now, but from the very start, Obama signaled his lack of interest in McGovernite ideas of change in foreign policy. There was a time when he talked about pressing Israel to dismantle its settlements. But thus far he has been cowed by Netanyahu and his American backers, betraying any hope for a genuinely independent Palestinian state. There was that stirring speech in Cairo and then silence. There was talk about closing Guantanamo but no mention of the much larger Bagram prison in Afghanistan.

The sad truth is everything we are seeing we have already seen. Despite presidents who come and go, permanent war is a hallowed American institution. Start if you will with the War of 1812, the invasion of Mexico, and the carnage of a Civil War. Move to the mass murder of Native Americans and theft of their property, the killing, torture, and prison camps in the Philippines, then the blood-drenched 20th century. The 21st likewise dawns red. It never changes. Doves protest, hawks rule, ordinary people pay the penalty. All wars are "just."

As surely as the bloodletting persists, so does the opposition. The old chestnut that liberals have always stood for peace and conservatives for war is historically false.

In fact, our past is rich with anti-militarist heroes of surprisingly varied political colors. Daniel Webster opposed the War Hawks and the draft they proposed in 1812.

Abolitionist Theodore Parker denounced the Mexican War and called on his fellow Bostonians in 1847 "to protest against this most infamous war."

Henry Van Dyke, a Presbyterian minister and ardent foe of the annexation of the Philippines, told his congregation in 1898, "If we enter the course of foreign conquest, the day is not far distant when we must spend in annual preparation for wars more than the $180,000,000 that we now spend every year in the education of our children for peace."

Socialist and labor leader Eugene Debs received a ten-year prison sentence for daring to tell potential draftees in 1918 that it was "the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses."

Against U.S. entry into World War I, Republican Sen. George Norris of Nebraska asked, "To whom does this war bring prosperity? Not to the soldier...not to the brokenhearted widow...not to the mother who weeps at the death of her baby boy....War brings no prosperity to the great mass of common and patriotic citizens....War brings prosperity to the stock gambler on Wall Street." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only member of Congress in 2001 who voted against George W. Bush´s decision to invade Afghanistan, warned her colleagues to be "careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target."

Conservative Russell Kirk laid out a post-World War II program for conservatives by reminding them, "A handful of individuals, some of them quite unused to moral responsibilities on such a scale, made it their business to extirpate the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; we must make it our business to curtail the possibility of such snap decisions."

Anti-militarism is very much an American tradition, but it has never been a majority position. Who now reads Finley Peter Dunne, the Chicago newspaperman who invented the brogish bartender Mr. Dooley speaking to his customer, Mr. Hennessey, while deriding American excesses and the national passion for imperial expansion? He wondered why many leaders and everyday Americans passively embraced, without much knowledge, our devotion to world hegemony-specifically in his time, the decision to invade and occupy the Philippines. "´Tis not more than two months," he told his pro-annexation readers, "ye larned whether they were islands or canned goods."

Yet just as certain as opposition to foreign adventuring arises, again it goes unheeded. As we begin President Obama´s second year in office, of this we can be certain: in global affairs, but for a few crumbs here and there, antiwar views will rarely be welcomed by this White House.

And when these marginalized voters complain, all the president´s men will remind them that they were told Afghanistan was a "necessary war" and "national security" is everything. I can imagine Obama´s advisers confidently telling him that however many troops he ships to these and future wars, however much money he spends on military hardware, his anguished allies have no place else to go. Plus ça change.
===========================
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.: Two Swedish Officers Killed In NATO's Afghan War

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:15 pm (PST)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1531602.php/Two-Swedish-officers-local-interpreter-killed-in-Afghanistan

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
February 7, 2010

Two Swedish officers, local interpreter killed in Afghanistan

Stockholm: Two Swedish army officers and a local interpreter were killed Sunday in a firefight in northern Afghanistan, Sweden's military command said in Stockholm.

The command said a further Swedish soldier was wounded when the patrol was attacked by small-arms fire in Mazar-e-Shariff. He was taken to a field hospital run by German military forces.

Previously, the international security forces ISAF in Kabul had reported the deaths of two ISAF soldiers in a small-arms fire attack, but in keeping with its policy had not divulged the nationality of the victims.

Sweden has kept some 500 soldiers in Afghanistan since 2004. Prior to Sunday, the country had lost two soldiers in the Afghan conflict.
===========================
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.: Exit Polls: Ukraine's "Orange" Era Over

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:20 pm (PST)

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14797037&PageNum=0

Itar-Tass
February 7, 2010

Yanukovich to be Ukraine´s next president - exit polls

KIEV: Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovich will be the fourth president of Ukraine, judging by exit polls.

Yanukovich gained from 48.7% to 50.26% of votes in the February 7 round, while Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko gained from 44.2% to 45.6%.

The Central Elections Commission will announce preliminary results on Monday morning, while the official results will be posted within ten days.
===========================
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.: NATO Chief: Insure Security From Outside Bloc's Borders

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:25 pm (PST)

http://rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=35559&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=

Rustavi2
February 7, 2010

Rasmussen talks on security of NATO at Munich conference

NATO should start taking care of its security from outside its borders, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Munich Security Conference ahead of discussions of a new NATO Strategic Concept, conflict and other security issues, the alliance`s head said on Sunday.

NATO should develop closer ties with China, India, Pakistan and Russia and consult with them on the Afghan [war].
....
`We need the European Union to support civilian projects. We need the IMF and the World Bank to fund civilian reconstruction from streets to schools and we need Pakistan and all the other neighbours of Afghanistan to be engaged in a constructive way. But this can`t all happen in parallel, it has to happen together in a coordinated and mutually supporting way, this is a key lesson we are learning in Afghanistan today. What could be the harm if countries such as China, India, Pakistan and others were to develop closer ties with NATO? I think in fact there would only be a benefit in terms of trust, confidence and co-operation.` Rasmussen 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)

13.: U.S. Military Bases In Colombia Aimed Against South American Unity

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:32 pm (PST)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-02/08/c_13167799.htm

Xinhua News Agency
February 8, 2010

Chavez: U.S. military bases in Colombia stab to S. America

CARACAS: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that the U.S. bases in Colombia "are a stab against the unity of South America."

Chavez made this simile during his television and radio program "Hello President" broadcast live from the Bolivar Square in Caracas.

The president also said that the right-wing in Latin America was being organized to attack the Bolivian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA) and the Union of South American Nations (Unasur).

Chavez said that the U.S. government would not be able to stop the development of the ALBA in Central America despite the coup in Honduras.

Chavez added that the coup against Honduran ousted president Manuel Zelaya was supported by the United States.

"The U.S. Empire" and the right-wing try to make the next government of Brazil to be subordinated to the imperialist mandate "which also will be terrible for the unity of South America," Chavez said.

In October 2009, the United States and Colombia signed a military cooperation agreement, which allows the presence of American troops in military bases already existing in Colombia.

The agreement has been criticized by member countries of the Union of South American Nations, mainly by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Chavez, on several occasions, has said that the U.S.-Colombia military agreement is targeting Venezuela by the United States.
===========================
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.: Yemen And The Militarization of Strategic Waterways

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

Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:45 pm (PST)

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways
Securing US Control of Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 7, 2010

The Yemeni archipelago of Socotra in the Indian Ocean is located some 80 kilometres off the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometres South of the Yemeni coastline. The islands of Socotra are a wildlife reserve recognized by (UNESCO), as a World Natural Heritage Site.
Socotra is at the crossroads of the strategic naval waterways of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (See map below). It is of crucial importance to the US military.

MAP 1

Among Washington's strategic objectives is the militarization of major sea ways. This strategic waterway links the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It is a major transit route for oil tankers. A large share of China's industrial exports to Western Europe transits through this strategic waterway. Maritime trade from East and Southern Africa to Western Europe also transits within proximity of Socotra (Suqutra), through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. (see map below). A military base in Socotra could be used to oversee the movement of vessels including war ships in an out of the Gulf of Aden.

MAP 2

Sea Power
From a military standpoint, the Socotra archipelago is at a strategic maritime crossroads. Morever, the archipelago extends over a relatively large maritime area at the Eastern exit of the Gulf of Aden, from the island of Abd al Kuri, to the main island of Socotra. (See map 1 above) This maritime area of international transit lies in Yemeni territorial waters. (See map 1).

Socotra is some 3000 km from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, which is among America's largest overseas military facilities.
The Socotra Military Base

On January 2nd, 2010, President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command met for high level discussions behind closed doors.

The Saleh-Petraeus meeting was casually presented by the media as a timely response to the foiled Detroit Christmas bomb attack on Northwest flight 253. It had apparently been scheduled on an ad hoc basis as a means to coordinating counter-terrorism initiatives directed against "Al Qaeda in Yemen", including "the use [of] American drones and missiles on Yemen lands."
Several reports, however, confirmed that the Saleh-Petraeus meetings were intent upon redefining US military involvement in Yemen including the establishment of a full-fledged military base on the island of Socotra. Yemen's president Ali Abdullah Saleh was reported to have "surrendered Socotra for Americans who would set up a military base, pointing out that U.S. officials and the Yemeni government agreed to set up a military base in Socotra to counter pirates and al-Qaeda." (Fars News. January 19, 2010)

On January 1st, one day before the Saleh-Petraeus meetings in Sanaa, General Petraeus confirmed in a Baghdad press conference that "security assistance" to Yemen would more than double from 70 million to more than 150 million dollars, which represents a 14 fold increase since 2006. (Scramble for the Island of Bliss: Socotra!, War in Iraq, January 12, 2010. See also CNN January 9, 2010, The Guardian, December 28, 2009).

This doubling of military aid to Yemen was presented to World public opinion as a response to the Detroit bomb incident, which allegedly had been ordered by Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.
The establishment of an air force base on the island of Socotra was described by the US media as part of the "Global war on Terrorism":

"Among the new programs, Saleh and Petraeus agreed to allow the use of American aircraft, perhaps drones, as well as "seaborne missiles"--as long as the operations have prior approval from the Yemenis, according to a senior Yemeni official who requested anonymity when speaking about sensitive subjects. U.S. officials say the island of Socotra, 200 miles off the Yemeni coast, will be beefed up from a small airstrip [under the jurisdiction of the Yemeni military] to a full base in order to support the larger aid program as well as battle Somali pirates. Petraeus is also trying to provide the Yemeni forces with basic equipment such as up-armored Humvees and possibly more helicopters." (Newsweek, Newsweek, January 18, 2010, emphasis added)

Existing runway and airport

US Naval Facility?

The proposed US Socotra military facility, however, is not limited to an air force base. A US naval base has also been contemplated.

The development of Socotra's naval infrastructure was already in the pipeline. Barely a few days prior (December 29, 2009) to the Petraeus-Saleh discussions (January 2, 2010), the Yemeni cabinet approved a US$14 million loan by Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) in support of the development of Socotra's seaport project.

MAP 3

The Great Game
The Socotra archipelago is part of the Great Game opposing Russia and America.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a military presence in Socotra, which at the time was part of South Yemen.
Barely a year ago, the Russians entered into renewed discussions with the Yemeni government regarding the establishment of a Naval base on Socotra island. A year later, in January 2010, in the week following the Petraeus-Saleh meeting, a Russian Navy communiqué "confirmed that Russia did not give up its plans to have bases for its ships... on Socotra island." (DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), January 25, 2010)
The Petraeus-Saleh January 2, 2010 discussions were crucial in weakening Russian diplomatic overtures to the Yemeni government.
The US military has had its eye on the island of Socotra since the end of the Cold War.
In 1999, Socotra was chosen "as a site upon which the United States planned to build a signal intelligence system...." Yemeni opposition news media reported that "Yemen's administration had agreed to allow the U.S. military access to both a port and an airport on Socotra." According to the pposition daily Al-Haq, "a new civilian airport built on Socotra to promote tourism had conveniently been constructed in accordance with U.S. military specifications." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), October 18, 2000)
The Militarization of the Indian Ocean
The establishment of a US military base in Socotra is part of the broader process of militarization of the Indian Ocean. The latter consists in integrating and linking Socotra into an existing structure as well as reinforcing the key role played by the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos archipelago.
The US Navy's geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan had intimated, prior to World War, that "whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene." (Indian Ocean and our Security).
What was at stake in Mahon's writings was the strategic control by the US of major Ocean sea ways.

MAP 4

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, which hosts the award winning website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty and The New World Order". He is contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Related Global Research Article: See Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean, Global Research, 8 January 2010.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=17460

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways
Securing US Control of Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 7, 2010

The Yemeni archipelago of Socotra in the Indian Ocean is located some 80 kilometres off the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometres South of the Yemeni coastline. The islands of Socotra are a wildlife reserve recognized by (UNESCO), as a World Natural Heritage Site.
Socotra is at the crossroads of the strategic naval waterways of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (See map below). It is of crucial importance to the US military.

MAP 1

Among Washington's strategic objectives is the militarization of major sea ways. This strategic waterway links the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It is a major transit route for oil tankers. A large share of China's industrial exports to Western Europe transits through this strategic waterway. Maritime trade from East and Southern Africa to Western Europe also transits within proximity of Socotra (Suqutra), through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. (see map below). A military base in Socotra could be used to oversee the movement of vessels including war ships in an out of the Gulf of Aden.

MAP 2

Sea Power
From a military standpoint, the Socotra archipelago is at a strategic maritime crossroads. Morever, the archipelago extends over a relatively large maritime area at the Eastern exit of the Gulf of Aden, from the island of Abd al Kuri, to the main island of Socotra. (See map 1 above) This maritime area of international transit lies in Yemeni territorial waters. (See map 1).

Socotra is some 3000 km from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, which is among America's largest overseas military facilities.
The Socotra Military Base

On January 2nd, 2010, President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command met for high level discussions behind closed doors.

The Saleh-Petraeus meeting was casually presented by the media as a timely response to the foiled Detroit Christmas bomb attack on Northwest flight 253. It had apparently been scheduled on an ad hoc basis as a means to coordinating counter-terrorism initiatives directed against "Al Qaeda in Yemen", including "the use [of] American drones and missiles on Yemen lands."
Several reports, however, confirmed that the Saleh-Petraeus meetings were intent upon redefining US military involvement in Yemen including the establishment of a full-fledged military base on the island of Socotra. Yemen's president Ali Abdullah Saleh was reported to have "surrendered Socotra for Americans who would set up a military base, pointing out that U.S. officials and the Yemeni government agreed to set up a military base in Socotra to counter pirates and al-Qaeda." (Fars News. January 19, 2010)

On January 1st, one day before the Saleh-Petraeus meetings in Sanaa, General Petraeus confirmed in a Baghdad press conference that "security assistance" to Yemen would more than double from 70 million to more than 150 million dollars, which represents a 14 fold increase since 2006. (Scramble for the Island of Bliss: Socotra!, War in Iraq, January 12, 2010. See also CNN January 9, 2010, The Guardian, December 28, 2009).

This doubling of military aid to Yemen was presented to World public opinion as a response to the Detroit bomb incident, which allegedly had been ordered by Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.
The establishment of an air force base on the island of Socotra was described by the US media as part of the "Global war on Terrorism":

"Among the new programs, Saleh and Petraeus agreed to allow the use of American aircraft, perhaps drones, as well as "seaborne missiles"--as long as the operations have prior approval from the Yemenis, according to a senior Yemeni official who requested anonymity when speaking about sensitive subjects. U.S. officials say the island of Socotra, 200 miles off the Yemeni coast, will be beefed up from a small airstrip [under the jurisdiction of the Yemeni military] to a full base in order to support the larger aid program as well as battle Somali pirates. Petraeus is also trying to provide the Yemeni forces with basic equipment such as up-armored Humvees and possibly more helicopters." (Newsweek, Newsweek, January 18, 2010, emphasis added)

Existing runway and airport

US Naval Facility?

The proposed US Socotra military facility, however, is not limited to an air force base. A US naval base has also been contemplated.

The development of Socotra's naval infrastructure was already in the pipeline. Barely a few days prior (December 29, 2009) to the Petraeus-Saleh discussions (January 2, 2010), the Yemeni cabinet approved a US$14 million loan by Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) in support of the development of Socotra's seaport project.

MAP 3

The Great Game
The Socotra archipelago is part of the Great Game opposing Russia and America.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a military presence in Socotra, which at the time was part of South Yemen.
Barely a year ago, the Russians entered into renewed discussions with the Yemeni government regarding the establishment of a Naval base on Socotra island. A year later, in January 2010, in the week following the Petraeus-Saleh meeting, a Russian Navy communiqué "confirmed that Russia did not give up its plans to have bases for its ships... on Socotra island." (DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), January 25, 2010)
The Petraeus-Saleh January 2, 2010 discussions were crucial in weakening Russian diplomatic overtures to the Yemeni government.
The US military has had its eye on the island of Socotra since the end of the Cold War.
In 1999, Socotra was chosen "as a site upon which the United States planned to build a signal intelligence system...." Yemeni opposition news media reported that "Yemen's administration had agreed to allow the U.S. military access to both a port and an airport on Socotra." According to the pposition daily Al-Haq, "a new civilian airport built on Socotra to promote tourism had conveniently been constructed in accordance with U.S. military specifications." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), October 18, 2000)
The Militarization of the Indian Ocean
The establishment of a US military base in Socotra is part of the broader process of militarization of the Indian Ocean. The latter consists in integrating and linking Socotra into an existing structure as well as reinforcing the key role played by the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos archipelago.
The US Navy's geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan had intimated, prior to World War, that "whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene." (Indian Ocean and our Security).
What was at stake in Mahon's writings was the strategic control by the US of major Ocean sea ways.

MAP 4

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, which hosts the award winning website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty and The New World Order". He is contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Related Global Research Article: See Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean, Global Research, 8 January 2010.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17460

Global Research
February 7, 2010

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways
Securing US Control of Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 7, 2010

The Yemeni archipelago of Socotra in the Indian Ocean is located some 80 kilometres off the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometres South of the Yemeni coastline. The islands of Socotra are a wildlife reserve recognized by (UNESCO), as a World Natural Heritage Site.
Socotra is at the crossroads of the strategic naval waterways of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (See map below). It is of crucial importance to the US military.

MAP 1

Among Washington's strategic objectives is the militarization of major sea ways. This strategic waterway links the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It is a major transit route for oil tankers. A large share of China's industrial exports to Western Europe transits through this strategic waterway. Maritime trade from East and Southern Africa to Western Europe also transits within proximity of Socotra (Suqutra), through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. (see map below). A military base in Socotra could be used to oversee the movement of vessels including war ships in an out of the Gulf of Aden.

MAP 2

Sea Power
From a military standpoint, the Socotra archipelago is at a strategic maritime crossroads. Morever, the archipelago extends over a relatively large maritime area at the Eastern exit of the Gulf of Aden, from the island of Abd al Kuri, to the main island of Socotra. (See map 1 above) This maritime area of international transit lies in Yemeni territorial waters. (See map 1).

Socotra is some 3000 km from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, which is among America's largest overseas military facilities.
The Socotra Military Base

On January 2nd, 2010, President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command met for high level discussions behind closed doors.

The Saleh-Petraeus meeting was casually presented by the media as a timely response to the foiled Detroit Christmas bomb attack on Northwest flight 253. It had apparently been scheduled on an ad hoc basis as a means to coordinating counter-terrorism initiatives directed against "Al Qaeda in Yemen", including "the use [of] American drones and missiles on Yemen lands."
Several reports, however, confirmed that the Saleh-Petraeus meetings were intent upon redefining US military involvement in Yemen including the establishment of a full-fledged military base on the island of Socotra. Yemen's president Ali Abdullah Saleh was reported to have "surrendered Socotra for Americans who would set up a military base, pointing out that U.S. officials and the Yemeni government agreed to set up a military base in Socotra to counter pirates and al-Qaeda." (Fars News. January 19, 2010)

On January 1st, one day before the Saleh-Petraeus meetings in Sanaa, General Petraeus confirmed in a Baghdad press conference that "security assistance" to Yemen would more than double from 70 million to more than 150 million dollars, which represents a 14 fold increase since 2006. (Scramble for the Island of Bliss: Socotra!, War in Iraq, January 12, 2010. See also CNN January 9, 2010, The Guardian, December 28, 2009).

This doubling of military aid to Yemen was presented to World public opinion as a response to the Detroit bomb incident, which allegedly had been ordered by Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.
The establishment of an air force base on the island of Socotra was described by the US media as part of the "Global war on Terrorism":

"Among the new programs, Saleh and Petraeus agreed to allow the use of American aircraft, perhaps drones, as well as "seaborne missiles"--as long as the operations have prior approval from the Yemenis, according to a senior Yemeni official who requested anonymity when speaking about sensitive subjects. U.S. officials say the island of Socotra, 200 miles off the Yemeni coast, will be beefed up from a small airstrip [under the jurisdiction of the Yemeni military] to a full base in order to support the larger aid program as well as battle Somali pirates. Petraeus is also trying to provide the Yemeni forces with basic equipment such as up-armored Humvees and possibly more helicopters." (Newsweek, Newsweek, January 18, 2010, emphasis added)

Existing runway and airport

US Naval Facility?

The proposed US Socotra military facility, however, is not limited to an air force base. A US naval base has also been contemplated.

The development of Socotra's naval infrastructure was already in the pipeline. Barely a few days prior (December 29, 2009) to the Petraeus-Saleh discussions (January 2, 2010), the Yemeni cabinet approved a US$14 million loan by Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) in support of the development of Socotra's seaport project.

MAP 3

The Great Game
The Socotra archipelago is part of the Great Game opposing Russia and America.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a military presence in Socotra, which at the time was part of South Yemen.
Barely a year ago, the Russians entered into renewed discussions with the Yemeni government regarding the establishment of a Naval base on Socotra island. A year later, in January 2010, in the week following the Petraeus-Saleh meeting, a Russian Navy communiqué "confirmed that Russia did not give up its plans to have bases for its ships... on Socotra island." (DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), January 25, 2010)
The Petraeus-Saleh January 2, 2010 discussions were crucial in weakening Russian diplomatic overtures to the Yemeni government.
The US military has had its eye on the island of Socotra since the end of the Cold War.
In 1999, Socotra was chosen "as a site upon which the United States planned to build a signal intelligence system...." Yemeni opposition news media reported that "Yemen's administration had agreed to allow the U.S. military access to both a port and an airport on Socotra." According to the pposition daily Al-Haq, "a new civilian airport built on Socotra to promote tourism had conveniently been constructed in accordance with U.S. military specifications." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), October 18, 2000)
The Militarization of the Indian Ocean
The establishment of a US military base in Socotra is part of the broader process of militarization of the Indian Ocean. The latter consists in integrating and linking Socotra into an existing structure as well as reinforcing the key role played by the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos archipelago.
The US Navy's geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan had intimated, prior to World War, that "whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene." (Indian Ocean and our Security).
What was at stake in Mahon's writings was the strategic control by the US of major Ocean sea ways.

MAP 4

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, which hosts the award winning website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty and The New World Order". He is contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
Related Global Research Article: See Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean, Global Research, 8 January 2010.

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways
Securing US Control of Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden
by Michel Chossudovsky

The Yemeni archipelago of Socotra in the Indian Ocean is located some 80 kilometres off the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometres South of the Yemeni coastline. The islands of Socotra are a wildlife reserve recognized by (UNESCO), as a World Natural Heritage Site.

Socotra is at the crossroads of the strategic naval waterways of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (See map below). It is of crucial importance to the US military.

MAP 1

Among Washington's strategic objectives is the militarization of major sea ways. This strategic waterway links the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It is a major transit route for oil tankers. A large share of China's industrial exports to Western Europe transits through this strategic waterway. Maritime trade from East and Southern Africa to Western Europe also transits within proximity of Socotra (Suqutra), through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. (see map below). A military base in Socotra could be used to oversee the movement of vessels including war ships in an out of the Gulf of Aden.

MAP 2

Sea Power

From a military standpoint, the Socotra archipelago is at a strategic maritime crossroads. Morever, the archipelago extends over a relatively large maritime area at the Eastern exit of the Gulf of Aden, from the island of Abd al Kuri, to the main island of Socotra. (See map 1 above) This maritime area of international transit lies in Yemeni territorial waters. (See map 1).

Socotra is some 3000 km from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, which is among America's largest overseas military facilities.

The Socotra Military Base

On January 2nd, 2010, President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command met for high level discussions behind closed doors.

The Saleh-Petraeus meeting was casually presented by the media as a timely response to the foiled Detroit Christmas bomb attack on Northwest flight 253. It had apparently been scheduled on an ad hoc basis as a means to coordinating counter-terrorism initiatives directed against "Al Qaeda in Yemen", including "the use [of] American drones and missiles on Yemen lands."

Several reports, however, confirmed that the Saleh-Petraeus meetings were intent upon redefining US military involvement in Yemen including the establishment of a full-fledged military base on the island of Socotra. Yemen's president Ali Abdullah Saleh was reported to have "surrendered Socotra for Americans who would set up a military base, pointing out that U.S. officials and the Yemeni government agreed to set up a military base in Socotra to counter pirates and al-Qaeda." (Fars News. January 19, 2010)

On January 1st, one day before the Saleh-Petraeus meetings in Sanaa, General Petraeus confirmed in a Baghdad press conference that "security assistance" to Yemen would more than double from 70 million to more than 150 million dollars, which represents a 14 fold increase since 2006. (Scramble for the Island of Bliss: Socotra!, War in Iraq, January 12, 2010. See also CNN January 9, 2010, The Guardian, December 28, 2009).

This doubling of military aid to Yemen was presented to World public opinion as a response to the Detroit bomb incident, which allegedly had been ordered by Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

The establishment of an air force base on the island of Socotra was described by the US media as part of the "Global war on Terrorism":

"Among the new programs, Saleh and Petraeus agreed to allow the use of American aircraft, perhaps drones, as well as "seaborne missiles"--as long as the operations have prior approval from the Yemenis, according to a senior Yemeni official who requested anonymity when speaking about sensitive subjects. U.S. officials say the island of Socotra, 200 miles off the Yemeni coast, will be beefed up from a small airstrip [under the jurisdiction of the Yemeni military] to a full base in order to support the larger aid program as well as battle Somali pirates. Petraeus is also trying to provide the Yemeni forces with basic equipment such as up-armored Humvees and possibly more helicopters." (Newsweek, Newsweek, January 18, 2010, emphasis added)

Existing runway and airport

US Naval Facility?

The proposed US Socotra military facility, however, is not limited to an air force base. A US naval base has also been contemplated.

The development of Socotra's naval infrastructure was already in the pipeline. Barely a few days prior (December 29, 2009) to the Petraeus-Saleh discussions (January 2, 2010), the Yemeni cabinet approved a US$14 million loan by Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) in support of the development of Socotra's seaport project.

MAP 3

The Great Game

The Socotra archipelago is part of the Great Game opposing Russia and America.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a military presence in Socotra, which at the time was part of South Yemen.

Barely a year ago, the Russians entered into renewed discussions with the Yemeni government regarding the establishment of a Naval base on Socotra island. A year later, in January 2010, in the week following the Petraeus-Saleh meeting, a Russian Navy communiqué "confirmed that Russia did not give up its plans to have bases for its ships... on Socotra island." (DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), January 25, 2010)

The Petraeus-Saleh January 2, 2010 discussions were crucial in weakening Russian diplomatic overtures to the Yemeni government.

The US military has had its eye on the island of Socotra since the end of the Cold War.
In 1999, Socotra was chosen "as a site upon which the United States planned to build a signal intelligence system...." Yemeni opposition news media reported that "Yemen's administration had agreed to allow the U.S. military access to both a port and an airport on Socotra." According to the pposition daily Al-Haq, "a new civilian airport built on Socotra to promote tourism had conveniently been constructed in accordance with U.S. military specifications." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), October 18, 2000)

The Militarization of the Indian Ocean

The establishment of a US military base in Socotra is part of the broader process of militarization of the Indian Ocean. The latter consists in integrating and linking Socotra into an existing structure as well as reinforcing the key role played by the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos archipelago.

The US Navy's geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan had intimated, prior to World War, that "whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene." (Indian Ocean and our Security).

What was at stake in Mahon's writings was the strategic control by the US of major Ocean sea ways.

MAP 4

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, which hosts the award winning website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty and The New World Order". He is contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Related Global Research Article: See Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean, Global Research, 8 January 2010.

===========================
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.: Afghanistan: NATO Death Toll For 2010 At 61

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

Mon Feb 8, 2010 5:30 am (PST)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jMMtsT6FkSc9Zb2nBvQeBmAU40EQ

Agence France-Presse
February 8, 2010

Two NATO soldiers killed in Afghanistan bombing

KABUL: Two soldiers with NATO-led forces fighting Taliban-led insurgents were killed in a bomb explosion in southern Afghanistan, NATO said Monday.

"Two ISAF service members died following an IED (improvised explosive device) strike in southern Afghanistan yesterday (Sunday)," NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.

The latest deaths took to 61 the number of the foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the start of the year, according to an AFP count based on a tally kept by independent icasualties.org website.

Two Swedish army officers and an Afghan interpreter were also killed on Sunday when a patrol came under attack in near the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, Sweden's armed forces announced.

In 2009, the deadliest since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban regime after a US-led invasion, 520 foreign soldiers lost their lives, compared to 295 the year before.

More than 110,000 international troops are in Afghanistan...with another 40,000 arriving as part of a counter-insurgency strategy....

Thousands of NATO and Afghan troops are preparing to launch a massive operation against the Taliban in their biggest stronghold in the southern province of Helmand.
....
===========================
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.: Warplanes, Warships, Missiles: Lockheed Eyes $20 Billion Deal With I

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

Mon Feb 8, 2010 5:45 am (PST)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Lockheed-keen-to-supply-ships-weapons-to-India/articleshow/5548556.cms

Information Society Technologies/Reuters
February 8, 2010

Lockheed keen to supply ships, weapons to India

NEW DELHI: Lockheed Martin Corp, the world's biggest aerospace company, is keen to supply India with fighters, ships, helicopters and missile system
and Indian defence sources said a potential deal could be worth nearly $20 billion over five years.

"We are looking to supply frigates, air defence systems, helicopters. There is a huge horizon to expand," Roger Rose, chief executive of Lockheed's Indian operations, said on Monday.

The US company will also buy equipment worth $300 million from Indian firms for six military planes it is manufacturing for India, 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.: Pentagon Pushes Turkey For Missile Shield Radar, Aids Anti-Kurd Camp

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

Mon Feb 8, 2010 5:51 am (PST)

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=53747

World Bulletin
Agencies
February 6, 2010

US insistent on missile system in Turkey, not more Afghan troops

United States (U.S.) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Saturday his meeting with the Chief of Turkish General Staff, General Ilker Basbug, was almost completely devoted to the issues of Afghanistan and PKK.

Speaking to a group of Turkish and U.S. journalists in Ankara, Secretary Gates said that they had "not requested any new troops from Turkey."

We are pleased with the partnership between Turkey and the U.S. in Afghanistan, Gates said.

We "discussed, with General Basbug, Turkey's role in the missile defense system and relations between our armies", Gates noted.

"PKK issue"

We carry a will to further develop cooperation with Turkey against the terrorist organization PKK as was set forth by former U.S. President George W. Bush back in 2007, Gates stressed.

We are searching for new opportunities that Turkey could utilize against the threat emanating from terrorist organization PKK, Gates said.

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, had arrived in Ankara to hold talks on this (PKK) issue, Gates emphasized.

Cooperation between Turkey and the U.S., against PKK, is getting more intense, Gates said.

In regard to his talks at the Turkish General Staff, Secretary Gates said that "as the General noted, the final solution does not involve killing all".

While speaking with the leader of the regional administration in north of Iraq, Massoud Barzani, I have stressed the importance of placing pressure on PKK to end violence, Gates said.

"Missile defense system"

The dialogue on what Turkey could do within NATO to counter the proliferation of ballistic missiles via a missile defense system continues. We have discussed the possibility of erecting two radars in Turkey, Gates said.

Reminded by a journalist about comments made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that there were actually countries in the region that possessed nuclear weapons, aside from Iran, like Israel, Secretary Gates argued, that Iran was "a country that openly announced a will to destroy another country" and violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

We are "not against" Iran's peaceful nuclear works. However, Iran continues efforts for uranium enrichment, Gates noted.
....
"We are extremely pleased with Turkey's contributions in Afghanistan. We have received a promise from "allies and partners" for the deployment of 10,000 additional personnel. We pay high importance to personnel that can train individuals (Afghans) in the areas of military and security, Gates said. "

Iran says it enriches uranium for civilian applications and that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has a right to the technology already in the hands of many others.

Israel, most experts estimate that it has at least between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, often threatens Iran with an attack.
===========================
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)