5 New Messages
Digest #4474
Messages
Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.strategi
Strategic Culture Foundation
August 27, 2012
US Plan for a Base in Uzbekistan to Materialize?
Aleksandr Shustov
Edited by RR
====
Uzbekistan shares borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and sits fairly close to Iran and China, all of the countries potentially falling within reach of US forces to be dispatched to the new base.
====
Geopolitically, the dust is settling in Central Asia in the wake of the noisy Arab Spring. Part of the outcome is likely to be Uzbekistan's policy swing that would place it solidly in the camp of the US military and its allies as the next leap after the republic put on hold its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In the meantime, Washington is making vigorous efforts to reset to zero Russian influence over Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the two Central Asian republics where Russia currently maintains military bases.
US Undersecretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake toured the region on August 15-17. Initially, his itinerary included stays in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. In Astana [Kazakhstan]
During Blake's visit, the intrigue revolved around a hypothetical US plan, recently cited by the Kazakh Liter newspaper, to plant a military base in Uzbekistan. The point set forth in Liter was that the arrangement would fit neatly with Uzbekistan's foreign policy logic, considering that the republic only briefly flirted with Russia after coming under fiery criticism in the West over the handling of the 2005 Andijan drama.
By signaling a green light to a US military base on its territory, Uzbekistan would earn the status of Washington's key regional partner, with generous economic and military aid, important guarantees, and a fresh sense of confidence vis-a-vis its neighbors with whom Tashkent occasionally gets locked in bitter resources-related disputes. For the US, the benefit of the partnership would be to have a foothold in Uzbekistan with an eye to muscling Russia and China in and beyond Central Asia.
By all means, the article in Liter, an outlet of Kazakhstan's ruling Nur Otan party, saw the light of day for serious reasons. On August 23, Russia's Kommersant business daily quoted sources with connections within the Uzbek foreign ministry as saying that Washington and Tashkent opened talks on the creation of an Operative Reaction Center in Uzbekistan charged with the mission of tight coordination to be launched if trouble starts to spill over after the 2014 US withdrawal from Afghanistan. According to Kommersant, the facility would be the biggest one to be run by the US in Central Asia. That, among other things, explains how and why the US plans to distribute much of the army materiel pulled out of Afghanistan among the Central Asian republics: some would be supplied for free to Uzbekistan on a permanent basis to reinforce the Center and some passed to the republic temporarily.
The US has a record of deploying military infrastructures in Uzbekistan. There used to be one – the Karshi-Khanabad base - in 2001-2005 at the Khanabad military aerodrome sited at a distance of 10 km from Karshi in the Qashqadaryo province. Its status was defined by an accord signed in October, 2001, and the US had to rebuild the facility from scratch to later keep there a fleet comprised of a group of S-130 transports, a dozen Black Hawks, and around 1,500 servicemen.
The Karshi-Khanabad base was used to support US operations in Afghanistan, but the US-Uzbek honeymoon came to an end as, under public pressure, Washington urged a fair probe into the 2005 Andijan unrest. In response, Tashkent stated in July, 2005 that US forces were to leave Karshi-Khanabad within a span of six months, which they did by November of the same year, with the homeless aircraft relocating to Bagram airfield in Afghanistan or the Manas airbase leased to the US by Kyrgyzstan.
The plan for an Operative Reaction Center described by Kommersant implies a US military presence of more impressive proportions, as much of the US power would be shifted to the post-Soviet space. If the US get a go-ahead in Uzbekistan, the new base would be packed with aircraft, armored vehicles, and support infrastructures like arsenals and food depots, while US forces on the premises would far outnumber those that formerly inhabited Karshi-Khanabad. Washington evidently hopes to engage with Uzbekistan as Central Asia's most populous republic and second-biggest economy strategically positioned in the region. Uzbekistan shares borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and sits fairly close to Iran and China, all of the countries potentially falling within reach of US forces to be dispatched to the new base.
Under the circumstances, Moscow simply must take steps to dig into Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. A two-day negotiating marathon between Kyrgyz leader Almazbek Atambayev and Russia's deputy premier Igor Shuvalov took place in Bishkek this month, and at that time a package of three agreements – on military, economic, and energy cooperation – was scheduled to be inked next fall. Chances are that deals on the construction of the Kambarata-1 hydropower plant and the Upper Naryn hydropower cascade – both of key importance to Bishkek – will go through earlier than September 15. Above all, Kyrgyzstan said OK to a Russian military base on its soil (with a lease term of 15 years). Against that background, it does remain unclear whether the US airbase in Manas is there to stay or will be closed in line with Atambayev's campaign pledge.
A question mark also hangs over the role of Tajikistan in the disposition now taking shape. Talks between Moscow and Dushanbe meant to hammer out an agreement on the lease term for Russia's 201th base in the republic are deadlocked, and at the moment unofficial reports indicate that the Tajik administration has offered to renew the existing contract till 2016 instead of having it replaced, and promises greater flexibility later on. The problem, though, is that Tajikistan is to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in 2013-2014, the incumbent Emomali Rahmonov is being challenged by a cohort of rivals, some of them US-backed, and, given the prospects for regime change in Tajikistan, Moscow might raise strong objections to the delay.
No doubt, Moscow would be confronted with a situation calling for a tougher than ever strategy if the Operative Reaction Center - a US military base to stay indefinitely in post-Soviet space regarding which Russia has serious ambitions - pops up in Uzbekistan. Following upon several makeshift bases narrowly geared to supply the Western coalition in Afghanistan, the facility would come as a slap in the face to Moscow, a humiliation comparable to what Washington would have experienced seeing Russia install a military base in Mexico, Nicaragua, or Cuba.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Strategic Culture Foundation
August 27, 2012
US Plan for a Base in Uzbekistan to Materialize?
Aleksandr Shustov
Edited by RR
====
Uzbekistan shares borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and sits fairly close to Iran and China, all of the countries potentially falling within reach of US forces to be dispatched to the new base.
====
Geopolitically, the dust is settling in Central Asia in the wake of the noisy Arab Spring. Part of the outcome is likely to be Uzbekistan's policy swing that would place it solidly in the camp of the US military and its allies as the next leap after the republic put on hold its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In the meantime, Washington is making vigorous efforts to reset to zero Russian influence over Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the two Central Asian republics where Russia currently maintains military bases.
US Undersecretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake toured the region on August 15-17. Initially, his itinerary included stays in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. In Astana [Kazakhstan]
During Blake's visit, the intrigue revolved around a hypothetical US plan, recently cited by the Kazakh Liter newspaper, to plant a military base in Uzbekistan. The point set forth in Liter was that the arrangement would fit neatly with Uzbekistan's foreign policy logic, considering that the republic only briefly flirted with Russia after coming under fiery criticism in the West over the handling of the 2005 Andijan drama.
By signaling a green light to a US military base on its territory, Uzbekistan would earn the status of Washington's key regional partner, with generous economic and military aid, important guarantees, and a fresh sense of confidence vis-a-vis its neighbors with whom Tashkent occasionally gets locked in bitter resources-related disputes. For the US, the benefit of the partnership would be to have a foothold in Uzbekistan with an eye to muscling Russia and China in and beyond Central Asia.
By all means, the article in Liter, an outlet of Kazakhstan's ruling Nur Otan party, saw the light of day for serious reasons. On August 23, Russia's Kommersant business daily quoted sources with connections within the Uzbek foreign ministry as saying that Washington and Tashkent opened talks on the creation of an Operative Reaction Center in Uzbekistan charged with the mission of tight coordination to be launched if trouble starts to spill over after the 2014 US withdrawal from Afghanistan. According to Kommersant, the facility would be the biggest one to be run by the US in Central Asia. That, among other things, explains how and why the US plans to distribute much of the army materiel pulled out of Afghanistan among the Central Asian republics: some would be supplied for free to Uzbekistan on a permanent basis to reinforce the Center and some passed to the republic temporarily.
The US has a record of deploying military infrastructures in Uzbekistan. There used to be one – the Karshi-Khanabad base - in 2001-2005 at the Khanabad military aerodrome sited at a distance of 10 km from Karshi in the Qashqadaryo province. Its status was defined by an accord signed in October, 2001, and the US had to rebuild the facility from scratch to later keep there a fleet comprised of a group of S-130 transports, a dozen Black Hawks, and around 1,500 servicemen.
The Karshi-Khanabad base was used to support US operations in Afghanistan, but the US-Uzbek honeymoon came to an end as, under public pressure, Washington urged a fair probe into the 2005 Andijan unrest. In response, Tashkent stated in July, 2005 that US forces were to leave Karshi-Khanabad within a span of six months, which they did by November of the same year, with the homeless aircraft relocating to Bagram airfield in Afghanistan or the Manas airbase leased to the US by Kyrgyzstan.
The plan for an Operative Reaction Center described by Kommersant implies a US military presence of more impressive proportions, as much of the US power would be shifted to the post-Soviet space. If the US get a go-ahead in Uzbekistan, the new base would be packed with aircraft, armored vehicles, and support infrastructures like arsenals and food depots, while US forces on the premises would far outnumber those that formerly inhabited Karshi-Khanabad. Washington evidently hopes to engage with Uzbekistan as Central Asia's most populous republic and second-biggest economy strategically positioned in the region. Uzbekistan shares borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and sits fairly close to Iran and China, all of the countries potentially falling within reach of US forces to be dispatched to the new base.
Under the circumstances, Moscow simply must take steps to dig into Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. A two-day negotiating marathon between Kyrgyz leader Almazbek Atambayev and Russia's deputy premier Igor Shuvalov took place in Bishkek this month, and at that time a package of three agreements – on military, economic, and energy cooperation – was scheduled to be inked next fall. Chances are that deals on the construction of the Kambarata-1 hydropower plant and the Upper Naryn hydropower cascade – both of key importance to Bishkek – will go through earlier than September 15. Above all, Kyrgyzstan said OK to a Russian military base on its soil (with a lease term of 15 years). Against that background, it does remain unclear whether the US airbase in Manas is there to stay or will be closed in line with Atambayev's campaign pledge.
A question mark also hangs over the role of Tajikistan in the disposition now taking shape. Talks between Moscow and Dushanbe meant to hammer out an agreement on the lease term for Russia's 201th base in the republic are deadlocked, and at the moment unofficial reports indicate that the Tajik administration has offered to renew the existing contract till 2016 instead of having it replaced, and promises greater flexibility later on. The problem, though, is that Tajikistan is to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in 2013-2014, the incumbent Emomali Rahmonov is being challenged by a cohort of rivals, some of them US-backed, and, given the prospects for regime change in Tajikistan, Moscow might raise strong objections to the delay.
No doubt, Moscow would be confronted with a situation calling for a tougher than ever strategy if the Operative Reaction Center - a US military base to stay indefinitely in post-Soviet space regarding which Russia has serious ambitions - pops up in Uzbekistan. Following upon several makeshift bases narrowly geared to supply the Western coalition in Afghanistan, the facility would come as a slap in the face to Moscow, a humiliation comparable to what Washington would have experienced seeing Russia install a military base in Mexico, Nicaragua, or Cuba.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 27, 2012
NAM in spotlight as global South reemerges
By Paul Cochrane
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summits have typically been treated as non-newsworthy events by Western media. But this NAM summit, which began Sunday in Tehran, has aroused unusual interest.
The attention focused on the 16th NAM summit is not due to the movement's founding principles of peaceful coexistence and standing against Western hegemony and neo-colonialism. After all, such aims are not deemed newsworthy, but are instead considered as rather wishy-washy utopian and naive ideals, if not downright knee-jerk anti-Western rhetoric.
The significance of NAM, set up in 1961 in Belgrade to provide a voice for the Third World and create some political talking space in a bipolar world, has admittedly waned in the two decades after the end of the Cold War and US triumphalism in a unipolar world.
While NAM has struggled to find its footing in a new world order, it has shown that the people of the global South still have a voice and that the desire for equal footing in global affairs is still there. Over the past decade the movement has been given a boost by the economic rise of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the political swing against the US and institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in South America, and the gradual shift eastward of economic power since the 2007 financial crisis.
One only has to recall how obsequious former British prime minister Gordon Brown was in 2008 when he went to the Persian Gulf cap in hand to beg for bailouts and financial assistance for the IMF. When the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both NAM members, stumped up cash, Brown was forced to concede that countries that contributed in this way should have a greater say in the overall governance of the IMF.
While nothing has changed in the IMF's governance, Brown's statement is indicative of potential changes in the economic order. Likewise, foreign creditors of US federal debt has ballooned since 2007, going from $2.4 trillion, or 53.5 percent of total debt, to approximately $5 trillion, or 56.9 percent of total debt in 2011. If change is to happen in the relations between the North and the global South, then it may well come through economic leverage rather than political demands.
But while changing capital flows may make some in the West sit up and take more notice of the "darker nations," this NAM summit is getting attention for political reasons. The recently elected president of post-revolutionary Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, snubbed an invitation to visit Washington in favor of a visit to China and then to attend NAM.
While this is diplomatically significant, the main reason for the renewed focus on NAM is that it is being held in a country the West has tried to isolate for three decades, recently slapped on tough economic sanctions, and is threatening conflict over its alleged nuclear weapons program. Unsurprisingly the US and Israel have condemned the summit, with the US State Department stating Iran was not "deserving" of being the host. Both countries have urged UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to not go to Iran.
However, the place for the head of the UN is certainly at a gathering of leaders that represent the majority of the world's population. It would in fact go against the founding principles of what the UN is supposed to be about, uniting nations, for Ban to not be there.
What riles the US and Israel is that the summit may undermine their efforts to isolate Tehran at this time, that there has been overwhelming support among NAM members for Iran to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that NAM supports a nuclear-weapon-
That Iran will try to maximize its position as the host and next leader of NAM to bolster its international standing is a given, but what member states will decide upon is another matter. Indeed, Tehran will try to rally support for its ally Syria at the summit, but this may prove hard to do, with 70 out of the 119 NAM members in favor of a UN General Assembly vote in early August condemning the Syrian government's violence against its people, and only eight voting with Syria, Iran, China and Russia.
What is certain is that under Iran's leadership, NAM is likely to be more vocal on the world stage than it has been for decades, and because of that may very well garner more media coverage outside of the global South.
The author is a freelance journalist based in Beirut, Lebanon.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Global Times
August 27, 2012
NAM in spotlight as global South reemerges
By Paul Cochrane
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summits have typically been treated as non-newsworthy events by Western media. But this NAM summit, which began Sunday in Tehran, has aroused unusual interest.
The attention focused on the 16th NAM summit is not due to the movement's founding principles of peaceful coexistence and standing against Western hegemony and neo-colonialism. After all, such aims are not deemed newsworthy, but are instead considered as rather wishy-washy utopian and naive ideals, if not downright knee-jerk anti-Western rhetoric.
The significance of NAM, set up in 1961 in Belgrade to provide a voice for the Third World and create some political talking space in a bipolar world, has admittedly waned in the two decades after the end of the Cold War and US triumphalism in a unipolar world.
While NAM has struggled to find its footing in a new world order, it has shown that the people of the global South still have a voice and that the desire for equal footing in global affairs is still there. Over the past decade the movement has been given a boost by the economic rise of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the political swing against the US and institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in South America, and the gradual shift eastward of economic power since the 2007 financial crisis.
One only has to recall how obsequious former British prime minister Gordon Brown was in 2008 when he went to the Persian Gulf cap in hand to beg for bailouts and financial assistance for the IMF. When the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both NAM members, stumped up cash, Brown was forced to concede that countries that contributed in this way should have a greater say in the overall governance of the IMF.
While nothing has changed in the IMF's governance, Brown's statement is indicative of potential changes in the economic order. Likewise, foreign creditors of US federal debt has ballooned since 2007, going from $2.4 trillion, or 53.5 percent of total debt, to approximately $5 trillion, or 56.9 percent of total debt in 2011. If change is to happen in the relations between the North and the global South, then it may well come through economic leverage rather than political demands.
But while changing capital flows may make some in the West sit up and take more notice of the "darker nations," this NAM summit is getting attention for political reasons. The recently elected president of post-revolutionary Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, snubbed an invitation to visit Washington in favor of a visit to China and then to attend NAM.
While this is diplomatically significant, the main reason for the renewed focus on NAM is that it is being held in a country the West has tried to isolate for three decades, recently slapped on tough economic sanctions, and is threatening conflict over its alleged nuclear weapons program. Unsurprisingly the US and Israel have condemned the summit, with the US State Department stating Iran was not "deserving" of being the host. Both countries have urged UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to not go to Iran.
However, the place for the head of the UN is certainly at a gathering of leaders that represent the majority of the world's population. It would in fact go against the founding principles of what the UN is supposed to be about, uniting nations, for Ban to not be there.
What riles the US and Israel is that the summit may undermine their efforts to isolate Tehran at this time, that there has been overwhelming support among NAM members for Iran to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that NAM supports a nuclear-weapon-
That Iran will try to maximize its position as the host and next leader of NAM to bolster its international standing is a given, but what member states will decide upon is another matter. Indeed, Tehran will try to rally support for its ally Syria at the summit, but this may prove hard to do, with 70 out of the 119 NAM members in favor of a UN General Assembly vote in early August condemning the Syrian government's violence against its people, and only eight voting with Syria, Iran, China and Russia.
What is certain is that under Iran's leadership, NAM is likely to be more vocal on the world stage than it has been for decades, and because of that may very well garner more media coverage outside of the global South.
The author is a freelance journalist based in Beirut, Lebanon.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 27, 2012
Is the US really going to withdraw from Afghanistan?
Boris Volkhonsky
Edited by RR
====
[T]he 400 bases allegedly "closed or handed to Afghan security forces" are small combat outposts and observation positions of minor importance. The big ones, like the Shindand air base in Herat province (in close vicinity to Iran) or the Kandahar and Bagram air bases remain basically untouched. And there is every reason to believe that the highly publicized pullout does not concern these major installations which play a crucial role in the US strategy of establishing its dominance in the "Greater Middle East," enabling the American military to control a vast territory far beyond Afghanistan.
However unpopular the war might be, the role of the global gendarme is much more important than public opinion.
====
On Sunday, as reported by Reuters, a senior US logistics commander in charge of transferring excess non-military equipment to Afghan forces, Brigadier-General Steven Shapiro, rejected accusations from frontline combat troops that the complicated rollback from bases across Afghanistan was disrupting NATO-led operations against insurgents.
He said that around 400 bases had been already successfully closed or handed to Afghan security forces from a high of around 800 last October as part of a withdrawal of foreign troops from combat operations winding up in 2014.
The story goes on to say that the pullout of more than $60 billion worth of war-fighting equipment from Afghanistan is expected to be one of the most complicated logistical exercises in recent history, much more difficult than the pullout from Iraq.
It is calculated that getting ready one armored vehicle to transport takes days or sometimes weeks, and there are more than 60,000 vehicles to shift. Also, by September the US administration is planning to cut the number of US troops by 28,000 servicemen, which is regarded as a major PR action ahead of the November presidential election.
All this hardly makes US servicemen remaining in Afghanistan too happy.
"It's a nightmare. We barely have enough guys to cover our area, let alone get ready to pack up," a US officer in volatile eastern Kunar province recently told Reuters.
Indeed, the whole situation poses too many questions for most of which there are no ready answers.
First, the only visible result of the already started pullout process is the increasing number of defections among Afghan military and security forces, and correspondingly a growing number of insider (so called "green-on-blue"
The diminishing number of Western troops is likely to encourage Afghans trained and equipped by their mentors to turn their arms even more frequently against their former patrons.
Second, all military – combat and non-combat – equipment has been accumulated in Afghanistan for more than ten years. Now the task is to withdraw it in less than two years. The task itself seems unrealistic, especially with the strained relationship between the US and Pakistan – the only country capable of providing the shortest way for the pullout.
Despite the fact that recently Pakistan agreed to reopen the southern supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan, even the present Pakistani leadership is under constant pressure from society and political parties in order to reassess the relationship with the US. And taking into consideration that no later than 2013 the current leadership is more than likely to lose power, the prospects for a much more anti-American force to prevail is more than real. This will definitely pose additional difficulties for the NATO command.
This leaves few options open. One of them is using the northern route via Central Asia and Russia, which is much more expensive and not likely to make most of the transit countries happy. The other implies leaving most of the equipment at the Afghans' disposal. But this variant is fraught with the risks that the equipment and arms will be used by those very forces the US is taking so much pain to fight.
Taking all these factors into consideration, one may easily come to the conclusion that whatever is explicitly said about the US plans concerning Afghanistan hardly reflects the truth.
And the truth is that the 400 bases allegedly "closed or handed to Afghan security forces" are small combat outposts and observation positions of minor importance. The big ones, like the Shindand air base in Herat province (in close vicinity to Iran) or the Kandahar and Bagram air bases remain basically untouched. And there is every reason to believe that the highly publicized pullout does not concern these major installations which play a crucial role in the US strategy of establishing its dominance in the "Greater Middle East," enabling the American military to control a vast territory far beyond Afghanistan.
This also explains why both contenders in the US presidential race keep mum on the issue of Afghanistan. In reality, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is going to fulfill Obama's imprudent promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. However unpopular the war might be, the role of the global gendarme is much more important than public opinion.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 27, 2012
Is the US really going to withdraw from Afghanistan?
Boris Volkhonsky
Edited by RR
====
[T]he 400 bases allegedly "closed or handed to Afghan security forces" are small combat outposts and observation positions of minor importance. The big ones, like the Shindand air base in Herat province (in close vicinity to Iran) or the Kandahar and Bagram air bases remain basically untouched. And there is every reason to believe that the highly publicized pullout does not concern these major installations which play a crucial role in the US strategy of establishing its dominance in the "Greater Middle East," enabling the American military to control a vast territory far beyond Afghanistan.
However unpopular the war might be, the role of the global gendarme is much more important than public opinion.
====
On Sunday, as reported by Reuters, a senior US logistics commander in charge of transferring excess non-military equipment to Afghan forces, Brigadier-General Steven Shapiro, rejected accusations from frontline combat troops that the complicated rollback from bases across Afghanistan was disrupting NATO-led operations against insurgents.
He said that around 400 bases had been already successfully closed or handed to Afghan security forces from a high of around 800 last October as part of a withdrawal of foreign troops from combat operations winding up in 2014.
The story goes on to say that the pullout of more than $60 billion worth of war-fighting equipment from Afghanistan is expected to be one of the most complicated logistical exercises in recent history, much more difficult than the pullout from Iraq.
It is calculated that getting ready one armored vehicle to transport takes days or sometimes weeks, and there are more than 60,000 vehicles to shift. Also, by September the US administration is planning to cut the number of US troops by 28,000 servicemen, which is regarded as a major PR action ahead of the November presidential election.
All this hardly makes US servicemen remaining in Afghanistan too happy.
"It's a nightmare. We barely have enough guys to cover our area, let alone get ready to pack up," a US officer in volatile eastern Kunar province recently told Reuters.
Indeed, the whole situation poses too many questions for most of which there are no ready answers.
First, the only visible result of the already started pullout process is the increasing number of defections among Afghan military and security forces, and correspondingly a growing number of insider (so called "green-on-blue"
The diminishing number of Western troops is likely to encourage Afghans trained and equipped by their mentors to turn their arms even more frequently against their former patrons.
Second, all military – combat and non-combat – equipment has been accumulated in Afghanistan for more than ten years. Now the task is to withdraw it in less than two years. The task itself seems unrealistic, especially with the strained relationship between the US and Pakistan – the only country capable of providing the shortest way for the pullout.
Despite the fact that recently Pakistan agreed to reopen the southern supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan, even the present Pakistani leadership is under constant pressure from society and political parties in order to reassess the relationship with the US. And taking into consideration that no later than 2013 the current leadership is more than likely to lose power, the prospects for a much more anti-American force to prevail is more than real. This will definitely pose additional difficulties for the NATO command.
This leaves few options open. One of them is using the northern route via Central Asia and Russia, which is much more expensive and not likely to make most of the transit countries happy. The other implies leaving most of the equipment at the Afghans' disposal. But this variant is fraught with the risks that the equipment and arms will be used by those very forces the US is taking so much pain to fight.
Taking all these factors into consideration, one may easily come to the conclusion that whatever is explicitly said about the US plans concerning Afghanistan hardly reflects the truth.
And the truth is that the 400 bases allegedly "closed or handed to Afghan security forces" are small combat outposts and observation positions of minor importance. The big ones, like the Shindand air base in Herat province (in close vicinity to Iran) or the Kandahar and Bagram air bases remain basically untouched. And there is every reason to believe that the highly publicized pullout does not concern these major installations which play a crucial role in the US strategy of establishing its dominance in the "Greater Middle East," enabling the American military to control a vast territory far beyond Afghanistan.
This also explains why both contenders in the US presidential race keep mum on the issue of Afghanistan. In reality, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is going to fulfill Obama's imprudent promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. However unpopular the war might be, the role of the global gendarme is much more important than public opinion.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
August 28, 2012
Rocket-propelled sales figures: US arms sales abroad triple to record highs
====
All in all, US arms sales amounted to 78 per cent of the global foreign weapons sales.
Thus, 2011 marks the largest figures in arms sales in US history, with Congressional Research Service study pointing out that sales have seen an “extraordinary increase” since 2010, when America sold $21.4 billion worth of weapons to foreign states.
====
American weapons sales abroad tripled in 2011, reaching US$66.3 billion. Persian Gulf Arab countries are listed as the principal purchasers, with the largest customer being its ally Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf state bought weapons worth $33 million, with the goods ranging from F-15 fighter jets to missiles, a new study for Congress reveals.
The United Arab Emirates purchased a cutting-edge Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, the anti-missile system worth $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for almost $1 billion.
Experts say that the skyrocketing US sales may be explained by the purchasing countries’ concerns over growing Iranian influence in the region.
“The Gulf states are buying arms because they are frightened by the Arab Spring and the revolt in Bahrain, and they are part of the US led military buildup against Iran," political analyst Chris Bambery told RT. He added that Saudi Arabia has become America’s key ally in the Arab world after the fall of Mubarak, “and US arms sales reflect that.”
Tensions between Iran and Israel have been flaring recently, with reports that Tel Aviv is viewing a strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities before the US presidential election in November.
Hundreds of prominent Israelis signed a petition opposing the alleged government’s move, which is, however, fully backed by the US, which does not put the military option off the table.
Other important American customers in arms sales, according to the Congressional study, include India ($4 billion) and Taiwan ($2 billion).
America also concluded a $4-billion agreement with the biggest Asian economy, China. The deal finds Washington benefiting from Beijing’s cash flow while still actively working against its military.
According to Bambery, the US is caught over China. While Washington works to counter Beijing's military in the Pacific, it also depends on the country economically – so it finds itself selling some arms to it, but not too much.
All in all, US arms sales amounted to 78 per cent of the global foreign weapons sales.
Thus, 2011 marks the largest figures in arms sales in US history, with Congressional Research Service study pointing out that sales have seen an “extraordinary increase” since 2010, when America sold $21.4 billion worth of weapons to foreign states.
“When we look at all the conflicts in the world, it is the West which provides the bulk of the weaponry. The ‘US Century’ post-1945 has been one of permanent war,” Bambery said.
Russia made it to second place in the study’s ranking, but with only $4.8 billion in arms deals abroad.
‘US military industrial complex looking for new markets’
Retired US lieutenant-colonel Anthony Shaffer, a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, believes the dramatic rise in weapon sales shows that the weapons industry is seeking to offset a loss in profits.
“I hate to say that we have a huge military industrial complex which requires all sorts of care and feeding, but that’s part of the deal,” he told RT. “Frankly, as we start looking at diminished military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the brutal truth is this: we have an industry that is looking for new markets.”
Shaffer also noted that one of the reasons Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations are leading the list of weapons purchasers is that the US wants to make sure it receives a steady supply of oil.
“The theory has been is that if we maintain good relations with all these countries, especially Saudi Arabia, as we saw during the Gulf War of 1991, the idea is that they will maintain stability of their own oil fields and oil exports,” he said.
Another important reason for arming these countries could be that the US is already preparing to go to war with Iran, which Shaffer believes is “inevitable”.
"I think that right now, unless something dramatic happens, we may see war within the next 18 months, if not sooner,” he stated. “The theory is that by arming and helping arm our allies, these allies would essentially be able to do a form of proxy war.”
At the same time, the United States does not have a long-term strategy for the volatile area to which it is supplying arms in such large amounts, Shaffer noted.
“Right now there is no global strategy for the United States,” he remarked.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in Syria. So without a clear and cohesive strategy, other than trying to isolate the Iranians at this point, and supporting the Israelis, there’s no clear path forward.”
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
RT
August 28, 2012
Rocket-propelled sales figures: US arms sales abroad triple to record highs
====
All in all, US arms sales amounted to 78 per cent of the global foreign weapons sales.
Thus, 2011 marks the largest figures in arms sales in US history, with Congressional Research Service study pointing out that sales have seen an “extraordinary increase” since 2010, when America sold $21.4 billion worth of weapons to foreign states.
====
American weapons sales abroad tripled in 2011, reaching US$66.3 billion. Persian Gulf Arab countries are listed as the principal purchasers, with the largest customer being its ally Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf state bought weapons worth $33 million, with the goods ranging from F-15 fighter jets to missiles, a new study for Congress reveals.
The United Arab Emirates purchased a cutting-edge Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, the anti-missile system worth $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for almost $1 billion.
Experts say that the skyrocketing US sales may be explained by the purchasing countries’ concerns over growing Iranian influence in the region.
“The Gulf states are buying arms because they are frightened by the Arab Spring and the revolt in Bahrain, and they are part of the US led military buildup against Iran," political analyst Chris Bambery told RT. He added that Saudi Arabia has become America’s key ally in the Arab world after the fall of Mubarak, “and US arms sales reflect that.”
Tensions between Iran and Israel have been flaring recently, with reports that Tel Aviv is viewing a strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities before the US presidential election in November.
Hundreds of prominent Israelis signed a petition opposing the alleged government’s move, which is, however, fully backed by the US, which does not put the military option off the table.
Other important American customers in arms sales, according to the Congressional study, include India ($4 billion) and Taiwan ($2 billion).
America also concluded a $4-billion agreement with the biggest Asian economy, China. The deal finds Washington benefiting from Beijing’s cash flow while still actively working against its military.
According to Bambery, the US is caught over China. While Washington works to counter Beijing's military in the Pacific, it also depends on the country economically – so it finds itself selling some arms to it, but not too much.
All in all, US arms sales amounted to 78 per cent of the global foreign weapons sales.
Thus, 2011 marks the largest figures in arms sales in US history, with Congressional Research Service study pointing out that sales have seen an “extraordinary increase” since 2010, when America sold $21.4 billion worth of weapons to foreign states.
“When we look at all the conflicts in the world, it is the West which provides the bulk of the weaponry. The ‘US Century’ post-1945 has been one of permanent war,” Bambery said.
Russia made it to second place in the study’s ranking, but with only $4.8 billion in arms deals abroad.
‘US military industrial complex looking for new markets’
Retired US lieutenant-colonel Anthony Shaffer, a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, believes the dramatic rise in weapon sales shows that the weapons industry is seeking to offset a loss in profits.
“I hate to say that we have a huge military industrial complex which requires all sorts of care and feeding, but that’s part of the deal,” he told RT. “Frankly, as we start looking at diminished military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the brutal truth is this: we have an industry that is looking for new markets.”
Shaffer also noted that one of the reasons Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations are leading the list of weapons purchasers is that the US wants to make sure it receives a steady supply of oil.
“The theory has been is that if we maintain good relations with all these countries, especially Saudi Arabia, as we saw during the Gulf War of 1991, the idea is that they will maintain stability of their own oil fields and oil exports,” he said.
Another important reason for arming these countries could be that the US is already preparing to go to war with Iran, which Shaffer believes is “inevitable”.
"I think that right now, unless something dramatic happens, we may see war within the next 18 months, if not sooner,” he stated. “The theory is that by arming and helping arm our allies, these allies would essentially be able to do a form of proxy war.”
At the same time, the United States does not have a long-term strategy for the volatile area to which it is supplying arms in such large amounts, Shaffer noted.
“Right now there is no global strategy for the United States,” he remarked.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in Syria. So without a clear and cohesive strategy, other than trying to isolate the Iranians at this point, and supporting the Israelis, there’s no clear path forward.”
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:54 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
August 27, 2012
With ‘Friends’ like these: Contact group industry in overthrowing govts
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
====
Somalia’s status as a divided, lawless, and unstable state has been the model for the now divided and lawless Libya and what the US sees in the cards for a Syria plagued with civil war — 1975-1990 Lebanon-style. Somalia-ization is at play here.
The US and NATO also have a role to play in the emergence of the pirates phenomenon that has turned the Gulf of Aden into “pirate alley.”
The destruction of the Libyan economy has also created an unemployed armed class, which is now being exported for America’s McJihad in Syria — and then possibly Algeria, Lebanon, Iranian Baluchistan, China’s Xinjiang, or Russia’s North Caucasian Federal District?
In Somalia, African Union forces were deployed under NATO supervision with the primary mission of protecting the STFG, just as NATO has stood on guard as subordinate foreign-controlled institutions have been erected in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Libya.
====
Anybody who has studied how the US and NATO worked to topple the Jamahiriya in Libya knows that the US has tried to replicate the same regime-change mechanism in Syria.
The formation of multilateral contact groups supporting proxy oppositions has been a key to this process. What most people do not know is that the Americans’ contact group industry started in Somalia.
2006 was a critical year for Somalia, because by its end it appeared the war-torn African country was going to be stable once more after decades of civil war. Somalia’s autonomous northern regions, Puntland and Somaliland, had been run relatively peacefully. The south, however, had seen continuous fighting since 1991. The Islamic Court Union (ICU) defeated most the warlords and united most the south under its rule, managing to bring law and order. Peace talks were also in the works to unite Somalia. There was high anticipation that a period of relative peace in 2007 was about to begin.
Then the US and its regional ally Ethiopia launched major hostilities on December 20, 2006. General John Abizaid, the commander of CENTCOM who was directing the wars in Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, had visited Ethiopia about three weeks earlier to hold low-profile meetings with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on December 4. The two had planned what would become the US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. US warplanes, ships, intelligence, and special force units all took part in the war while the Ethiopians sent the bulk of the ground force to fight the ICU.
To justify the invasion the US invoked the Global War on Terror and portrayed the ICU as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda.
The ICU would fall into disarray and a power vacuum would emerge as a result of the US-Ethiopian invasion. The Somali Transitional Federal Government (STFG), a rival US-supported foreign group that declared itself Somalia’s legitimate government, would be imported to take the ICU’s place. Sounds familiar? It should. This is essentially what would happen — only on a larger scale and with an armed opposition — to Libya four years later when NATO would usher in the National Transitional Council (NTC). This is also what the US, NATO, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms want to do in Syria with the Syrian National Council (SNC).
Somalia’s status as a divided, lawless, and unstable state has been the model for the now divided and lawless Libya and what the US sees in the cards for a Syria plagued with civil war — 1975-1990 Lebanon-style. Somalia-ization is at play here.
The US and NATO also have a role to play in the emergence of the pirates phenomenon that has turned the Gulf of Aden into “pirate alley.” They have watched as foreign vessels looted Somalia’s fisheries and as foreign corporations dumped deadly toxins off Somalia’s shores that transformed desperate local fisherman into armed pirates. The destruction of the Libyan economy has also created an unemployed armed class, which is now being exported for America’s McJihad in Syria — and then possibly Algeria, Lebanon, Iranian Baluchistan, China’s Xinjiang, or Russia’s North Caucasian Federal District?
In Somalia, several African countries planned on sending a US-backed multinational contingent, but were foiled in June 2006 when the ICU took full control of Mogadishu. It was at this point that the US and its allies formed their regime-change “template” with the Somalia Contact Group.
Through the Somalia Contact Group an appearance of international legitimacy was given to the ICU government’s STFG rivals and to foreign intervention. Sound more and more familiar? This “contact group” would become the basis for the NATO-dominated Libya Contact Group (Friends of Libya) created in 2011, which imposed the NTC through “missile diplomacy” in Tripoli, and later the Syria Contact Group (Friends of the Syrian People) created in 2012 to impose the SNC on Damascus.
America’s contact group industry has undemocratically imposed foreign-based collaborationist clients on to states where the Atlanticist cabal from NATOistan has a strategic or economic interest of expanding their influence. The usual suspects have all been involved.
Aside from the US, the Somalia Contact Group’s members included the UK, EU, Italy, Norway, and Sweden. NATO would join in June 2009, to secure its military role in Somalia and the waters off the Horn of Africa. All these players would have recurring star roles in Libya. Now they are trying to recreate the same scenario in Syria against the backdrop of a foreign-armed and supervised insurgency that has been deliberately targeting civilians to pave the way for interventionism.
In Somalia, African Union forces were deployed under NATO supervision with the primary mission of protecting the STFG, just as NATO has stood on guard as subordinate foreign-controlled institutions have been erected in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Libya.
The agenda of the STFG was set by the US to “reconstruct Somalia’s institutions and economy” with the help of so-called “foreign experts.” The program is the same for the Muslim Brotherhood-
In Somalia and Libya what has replaced the ICU and Jamahiriya is a never-ending state of “transition” and enclaves of guarded bureaucrats tied to Washington, Brussels, the IMF, and World Bank, who are detached from the violent reality in their countries.
Outside of these bureaucratic offices, the rule of law has crumpled and the streets are run by militias and thugs. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) took over in Libya and Al-Shaabab ran wild in Somalia, both with the help of foreign fighters. This is the future that is in store for the Syrian Arab Republic if Hillary “Bomb ’em” Clinton and Obama are successful in installing the SNC.
We can see a sneak peak from the destroyed streets of Aleppo to the scarred landscape of the Damascene countryside, the persecution of Syrian minorities, desecration of churches, murder of Syrian civil servants, extrajudicial executions of government supporters, exodus of Syrian professionals, abduction and murder of journalists, terrorist bombings of civilian centers, killing of doctors, and kidnapping of foreign nationals that has taken place under the Syrian Free Army.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a sociologist and research associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montréal and author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press).
RT
August 27, 2012
With ‘Friends’ like these: Contact group industry in overthrowing govts
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
====
Somalia’s status as a divided, lawless, and unstable state has been the model for the now divided and lawless Libya and what the US sees in the cards for a Syria plagued with civil war — 1975-1990 Lebanon-style. Somalia-ization is at play here.
The US and NATO also have a role to play in the emergence of the pirates phenomenon that has turned the Gulf of Aden into “pirate alley.”
The destruction of the Libyan economy has also created an unemployed armed class, which is now being exported for America’s McJihad in Syria — and then possibly Algeria, Lebanon, Iranian Baluchistan, China’s Xinjiang, or Russia’s North Caucasian Federal District?
In Somalia, African Union forces were deployed under NATO supervision with the primary mission of protecting the STFG, just as NATO has stood on guard as subordinate foreign-controlled institutions have been erected in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Libya.
====
Anybody who has studied how the US and NATO worked to topple the Jamahiriya in Libya knows that the US has tried to replicate the same regime-change mechanism in Syria.
The formation of multilateral contact groups supporting proxy oppositions has been a key to this process. What most people do not know is that the Americans’ contact group industry started in Somalia.
2006 was a critical year for Somalia, because by its end it appeared the war-torn African country was going to be stable once more after decades of civil war. Somalia’s autonomous northern regions, Puntland and Somaliland, had been run relatively peacefully. The south, however, had seen continuous fighting since 1991. The Islamic Court Union (ICU) defeated most the warlords and united most the south under its rule, managing to bring law and order. Peace talks were also in the works to unite Somalia. There was high anticipation that a period of relative peace in 2007 was about to begin.
Then the US and its regional ally Ethiopia launched major hostilities on December 20, 2006. General John Abizaid, the commander of CENTCOM who was directing the wars in Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, had visited Ethiopia about three weeks earlier to hold low-profile meetings with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on December 4. The two had planned what would become the US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. US warplanes, ships, intelligence, and special force units all took part in the war while the Ethiopians sent the bulk of the ground force to fight the ICU.
To justify the invasion the US invoked the Global War on Terror and portrayed the ICU as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda.
The ICU would fall into disarray and a power vacuum would emerge as a result of the US-Ethiopian invasion. The Somali Transitional Federal Government (STFG), a rival US-supported foreign group that declared itself Somalia’s legitimate government, would be imported to take the ICU’s place. Sounds familiar? It should. This is essentially what would happen — only on a larger scale and with an armed opposition — to Libya four years later when NATO would usher in the National Transitional Council (NTC). This is also what the US, NATO, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms want to do in Syria with the Syrian National Council (SNC).
Somalia’s status as a divided, lawless, and unstable state has been the model for the now divided and lawless Libya and what the US sees in the cards for a Syria plagued with civil war — 1975-1990 Lebanon-style. Somalia-ization is at play here.
The US and NATO also have a role to play in the emergence of the pirates phenomenon that has turned the Gulf of Aden into “pirate alley.” They have watched as foreign vessels looted Somalia’s fisheries and as foreign corporations dumped deadly toxins off Somalia’s shores that transformed desperate local fisherman into armed pirates. The destruction of the Libyan economy has also created an unemployed armed class, which is now being exported for America’s McJihad in Syria — and then possibly Algeria, Lebanon, Iranian Baluchistan, China’s Xinjiang, or Russia’s North Caucasian Federal District?
In Somalia, several African countries planned on sending a US-backed multinational contingent, but were foiled in June 2006 when the ICU took full control of Mogadishu. It was at this point that the US and its allies formed their regime-change “template” with the Somalia Contact Group.
Through the Somalia Contact Group an appearance of international legitimacy was given to the ICU government’s STFG rivals and to foreign intervention. Sound more and more familiar? This “contact group” would become the basis for the NATO-dominated Libya Contact Group (Friends of Libya) created in 2011, which imposed the NTC through “missile diplomacy” in Tripoli, and later the Syria Contact Group (Friends of the Syrian People) created in 2012 to impose the SNC on Damascus.
America’s contact group industry has undemocratically imposed foreign-based collaborationist clients on to states where the Atlanticist cabal from NATOistan has a strategic or economic interest of expanding their influence. The usual suspects have all been involved.
Aside from the US, the Somalia Contact Group’s members included the UK, EU, Italy, Norway, and Sweden. NATO would join in June 2009, to secure its military role in Somalia and the waters off the Horn of Africa. All these players would have recurring star roles in Libya. Now they are trying to recreate the same scenario in Syria against the backdrop of a foreign-armed and supervised insurgency that has been deliberately targeting civilians to pave the way for interventionism.
In Somalia, African Union forces were deployed under NATO supervision with the primary mission of protecting the STFG, just as NATO has stood on guard as subordinate foreign-controlled institutions have been erected in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Libya.
The agenda of the STFG was set by the US to “reconstruct Somalia’s institutions and economy” with the help of so-called “foreign experts.” The program is the same for the Muslim Brotherhood-
In Somalia and Libya what has replaced the ICU and Jamahiriya is a never-ending state of “transition” and enclaves of guarded bureaucrats tied to Washington, Brussels, the IMF, and World Bank, who are detached from the violent reality in their countries.
Outside of these bureaucratic offices, the rule of law has crumpled and the streets are run by militias and thugs. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) took over in Libya and Al-Shaabab ran wild in Somalia, both with the help of foreign fighters. This is the future that is in store for the Syrian Arab Republic if Hillary “Bomb ’em” Clinton and Obama are successful in installing the SNC.
We can see a sneak peak from the destroyed streets of Aleppo to the scarred landscape of the Damascene countryside, the persecution of Syrian minorities, desecration of churches, murder of Syrian civil servants, extrajudicial executions of government supporters, exodus of Syrian professionals, abduction and murder of journalists, terrorist bombings of civilian centers, killing of doctors, and kidnapping of foreign nationals that has taken place under the Syrian Free Army.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a sociologist and research associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montréal and author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press).
