Category: Intl Security

New Space Race? Pentagon-NASA Synergy

Obama Moves To Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link, Bloomberg.com)…Demian McLean, Bloomberg News, Jan 2, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.

Afghanistan: Soviet Perspective on Next Steps

Nato Making Same Mistakes As Soviet Army, Says Zamir Kabulov, By Tony Halpin and Jeremy Page, January 3, 2009

The Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, once told his British counterpart that Nato was making all the same mistakes that the Soviet army did in the country in the 1980s.

“The Soviet Union tried to bring socialism to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, you are trying to do the same with democracy,” Mr Kabulov, who served in Kabul in the 1980s, told The Times.

“We have to ask what the Afghans want,” he told The Times. “What have the people of Afghanistan received from the coalition? They lived very poorly before and they still live poorly, but sometimes they also get bombed by mistake.”

… The Taleban is an idea and this idea has support among the local population because many problems were resolved when they ruled. Their methods were awful from a European perspective but they got results.”

“If the US and Britain can win the friendship of the local people, then they won’t help the Taleban. But if you bomb them and treat them badly, they will try to kill you in every way possible. I saw so many horrible things there, the pressure was just terrible.”

“The West should correct its mistakes and forget the idea that they can win the war,” he said. “Instead of bringing in more troops, they should focus on strengthening the Afghan army and police. And if you’re not going to stay here forever, you have to build the economy.”

Israel, Gaza, Seduction of Force

Opinion, Israel, Hamas and the seduction of blind force. By Gershom Gorenberg
December 30, 2008

Before Israel and Hamas chose blunt instruments, each side had better choices.

For angry people, force is seductive. 

Before they chose blunt instruments, each side had better choices. In November, Egypt proposed a compromise to end the Palestinian political split between Hamas and Fatah, Gaza and the West Bank. The deal would have created a coalition government under Palestinian President (and Fatah leader) Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s chosen negotiating partner, for several months before new elections in both parts of Palestinian territory. With Gaza part of Abbas’ fiefdom, Israel politically would have had a harder time maintaining the blockade. But Hamas rejected the deal, apparently because of internal divisions.

Now the diplomatic choices are much more difficult. Captured by fury, afraid most of all of appearing weak and inviting worse aggression, each side is unable to back off. The flood has been released.

Gershom Gorenberg is the author of “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977” (Times Books). He blogs at southjerusalem.com.

Afghanistan: Supply Route

Khyber Action Near End, (Washington Post)…Unattributed, January 2, 2009, Pg. 13  

Pakistan will reopen the main supply route for Western forces in Afghanistan in the next few days after security forces achieved most of their objectives in an offensive, a Pakistani official said Thursday.

Authorities suspended the shipment of supplies through the Khyber Pass to the Afghan border on Tuesday to clear the way for the military to launch an offensive aimed at ending surging attacks on the route.

“We have achieved more than 80 percent of objectives, and from tomorrow the curfew will be relaxed, while the main road will be opened in the next two to three days,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the top government administrator in Khyber, told reporters.

The U.S. military sends 75 percent of supplies for the Afghan war through or over Pakistan, including 40 percent of the fuel for its troops, the Pentagon says.

Insurgents in Khyber have been trying to choke off supplies for months and have destroyed hundreds of trucks and killed several drivers.

Khan said 15 people wanted by the government were captured or had surrendered, while 37 hideouts had been destroyed.

nKorea: Diplomacy and Outcomes

OPINION: Obama Promises Bush III On Iran,  (Wall Street Journal)…John R. Bolton, January 2, 2009, Pg. 15

“You’d have to be an idiot to trust the North Koreans,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said recently … 

… the biggest problem ahead is countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

… The (six party) talks are classic multilateral diplomacy, pursued since 2003 with notable deference to North Korea. There’s been about as much engagement with Pyongyang as consenting adults can lawfully have.

Most recently in Beijing, Pyongyang refused to put in writing what U.S. negotiators say it committed to verbally — namely, verifying its commitment to abandon its nuclear program.

… The charade of verification was only one more ploy to squeeze out U.S. concessions, which Mr. Bush’s negotiators seemed prepared to give.

On Iran, also for over five years, Mr. Bush has endorsed vigorous European diplomacy. The Europeans offered every imaginable carrot to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program in exchange for a different relationship with Europe and America. This produced no change in Iran’s strategic objective of acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons. The only real consequence is that Iran is five years closer to achieving that objective. It now has indigenous mastery over the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

Neither North Korea nor Iran is prepared to voluntarily give up nuclear or ballistic missile programs. 

Iran and North Korea achieved their objectives through diplomacy.  

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

nKorea: New Year Resolutions

A Neutral Note For The New Year, (Los Angeles Times)…Times Wire Reports
North Korea issued a New Year’s message with a promise to strengthen its military, but it broke with tradition by not accusing the U.S. of anything and only briefly mentioning its controversial nuclear program.

Frustrating Editorial, Jan 2, 2009. JoongAng Dailey

The usual tirades and hostile remarks toward Washin, ton were conspicuously absent from yesterday’s editorial, indicating Pyongyang’s expectation that it can build better Washington-Pyongyang ties with the incoming Obama administration.

North Korea’s trade dilemma, Jan 2, 2009. JoongAng Dailey. The North wants to avoid opening up completely while at the same time obtain as much foreign currency as possible.

North slams Lee’s gov’t, goes easy on Washington, Jan 2, 2009. JoongAng Dailey.

The communist nation uses a New Year’s Day joint editorial in the country’s major state-run newspapers to make public its priorities for the year.
The North also reiterated its pledge to bolster military power.

While there was no shortage of direct, harsh and lengthy criticism of the Lee administration, conspicuously absent from Pyongyang’s statement was the usual hostility toward Washington.

The 2008 joint editorial had no mention of the nuclear issue. In 2007, the editorial said the North “had nuclear deterrent power” after conducting the nuclear test in 2006.

Pyongyang even skipped its usual demand that the U.S. forces withdraw from the South.

“Totalitarian and independent survival are our unique methods of revolution,” the editorial said, encouraging its people to work to overcome the immediate food issue.

China: New Report

Inside The Ring, By Bill Gertz, China’s pearls, Washington Times, January 1, 2009 , Pg. B1

 A recently published U.S. military report identifies China as the most significant potential threat for the U.S. military in the future and discloses new details of what it describes as Beijing’s efforts to build political influence and military power along the strategic oil-shipping route from the Middle East to China – a so-called “string of pearls” strategy.

The report, “Joint Operating Environment 2008,” was produced by the Norfolk-based U.S. Joint Forces Command. It lists China as the main emerging nation-state threat that U.S. forces could confront in a future conflict, along with potential threats from Russia, the Middle East and other places in Asia. It was made public Nov. 25.

String of Pearls (Chinese political influence or military presence astride oil routes) — Pakistan: Gwadar Naval Base and surveillance facilities; Sri Lanka: Hamantota container port; Bangladesh: Upgraded port facility; Myanmar: Chittagong port facility, commercial naval base, Surveillance facility, Transportation corridor; Thailand: Kra canal; China: Hainan Island airfield and port; Woody Island airfield; South China Sea oil drilling and survey