6 New Messages
Digest #4536
Messages
Thu Nov 1, 2012 9:10 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
November 1, 2012
Obama or Romney: US Defense Spending Would Still Eclipse the World
By Suleiman Wali
WASHINGTON: One of the biggest issues in the 2012 US presidential campaign has been defense spending, as incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney battle over how much to spend on the American military. But the sheer amount the US spends on defense is a concept foreign to the rest of the world.
“The United States makes up 43 percent of global military expenditure. No one else comes close,” said Mattea Kramer, senior research analyst at National Priorities Project, an American non-governmental research organization.
“America outspends the next 10 countries combined on defense. No other navy has more than two aircraft carriers. The US has 11,” she added. “Even under Obama’s plan, which calls for the first military cuts in more than a decade, the US will still dominate the world stage on defense for a long time.”
Despite America’s military supremacy for the foreseeable future, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, have denounced each other’s views on defense spending as archaic or a threat to national security.
Their proposed 10-year military budgets have a $2.7 trillion gulf between them. Romney wants $8.4 trillion in defense spending, while Obama is proposing $5.7 trillion.
For next year, the president has called for a 2.5 percent decrease in the Pentagon’s annual base budget, a proposal that has been decried by Republicans who claim it would leave America vulnerable to foreign enemies.
Obama plans on cutting almost 100,000 troops as part of his strategy for a more “agile, flexible” military. His proposal also calls for slowing the purchase of stealth fighters, while funding a giant floating base that would serve specials operations forces and drone units.
“We will continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; counter-terrorism; countering weapons of mass destruction; and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access,” the president said at the unveiling of his new military strategy in January.
Romney, on the other hand, has said that he would invest more in missile defense. But his most specific proposals have been to increase the reach and power of the navy, building 15 ships a year, including three submarines, compared with Obama’s nine or ten.
Kramer said that even with the differences between the two candidates, either amount would mean the US cannot be militarily challenged and that both candidates are out of touch with Americans’ other national priorities.
“Looking at just the next fiscal year, Romney’s plan wants a Pentagon core budget of about $661 billion that wouldn’t even include war costs,” Kramer said. “By contrast, President Obama has requested $525 billion. While it shows overspending on both sides, there’s still a contrast of over 25 percent between the two men. That’s money that can go to other priorities like education and infrastructure.”
A Lenin-Like Defense Strategy?
But proponents of a larger military, like retired US Army General Bob Scales, have said that it’s the best deterrent to emerging threats.
“Lenin once said, ‘Quantity has a quality all by itself.’ And mass is important; numbers count...There’s a safety net that if you go below in terms of total numbers, then our capabilities throughout the world are going to be put at risk,” Scales said in a Fox News interview.
“We have to be very, very careful as we move into the future that when we reduce the defense budget, we don’t break the back of our services and force our young men and women to go to war unprepared.”
That is a sentiment that is echoed by Romney, who has stated on his Web site that he “will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts...with the goal of setting core defense spending...at a floor of 4 percent GDP (Gross Domestic Product).”
In other words, no matter if America is under threat or not, the defense budget would remain unchanged. However, according to one of his defense advisers, that’s a goal that the Republican candidate isn’t even sure he can immediately meet.
“The goal of 4 percent of GDP remains and is unchanged,” Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller, told Bloomberg news. “But that goal is not going to be achieved overnight or perhaps even by the end of the first term.”
New Law Mandates Military Cuts
One key reason may be because of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the federal statute that ended the debt-ceiling crisis and averted US financial default. That measure, which was signed into law by Obama, mandated that $917 billion be cut, or “sequestered,” from federal spending over a 10-year period, including some $487 billion in defense cuts.
The sequestration would begin in January 2013, and would immediately cut $55 billion from Pentagon spending, unless Democrats and Republicans come up with a better plan before the end of 2012. In the last presidential debate, Romney stressed that he’s against sequestration, while the president said “he won’t let it happen.”
So far, Democrats seem willing to go through with the cuts, unless Republicans agree to end their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest citizens.
If the cuts go through, some lawmakers and Pentagon officials have said they could jeopardize military projects.
Still the Biggest Kid on the Block
Even if the $55 billion is sequestered from defense spending, the US would still dwarf the next two military giants, China and Russia.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, America spent $711 billion on defense in 2011. China and Russia, which have both seen major increases in military spending since 2002, were at $143 billion and $71.9 billion, respectively.
Despite any proposed cuts, “the US will remain by far the world’s major military superpower and the only NATO member capable of sustaining large air-sea operations or of projecting substantial ground forces on a global scale for a sustained period,” the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in a March 2012 report.
America’s Jobs-Defense Conundrum
But in America, defense spending isn’t just about military weapons and operations, it’s also about jobs.
Since World War II, the United States has recognized that vast defense spending is one of the largest job-creators that the government can control, according to Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
“Part of the Pentagon’s industrial policy has been this brilliantly executed plan of having activities in every single congressional district in the country,” Pollin said.
“So every single congressional district in the US benefits from the $700 billion military budget. And I would say roughly six million jobs in the economy are tied directly to the Pentagon spending.”
However, Pollin added, while the military budget may be an easy sell to the American public, it is not the kind of spending that provides the greatest return.
“For every dollar that is spent on the military, if that money is instead spent on education and health care, you get 2.5 times more jobs,” he said. “You get about 27 jobs per $1 million of spending on education versus 11 in the military.”
At a time when the United States is suffering from a high unemployment rate, any president, Democrat or Republican, may be unwilling to significantly reduce military spending out of fear that it could cut jobs, including their own.
============
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@
============
Russian Information Agency Novosti
November 1, 2012
Obama or Romney: US Defense Spending Would Still Eclipse the World
By Suleiman Wali
WASHINGTON: One of the biggest issues in the 2012 US presidential campaign has been defense spending, as incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney battle over how much to spend on the American military. But the sheer amount the US spends on defense is a concept foreign to the rest of the world.
“The United States makes up 43 percent of global military expenditure. No one else comes close,” said Mattea Kramer, senior research analyst at National Priorities Project, an American non-governmental research organization.
“America outspends the next 10 countries combined on defense. No other navy has more than two aircraft carriers. The US has 11,” she added. “Even under Obama’s plan, which calls for the first military cuts in more than a decade, the US will still dominate the world stage on defense for a long time.”
Despite America’s military supremacy for the foreseeable future, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, have denounced each other’s views on defense spending as archaic or a threat to national security.
Their proposed 10-year military budgets have a $2.7 trillion gulf between them. Romney wants $8.4 trillion in defense spending, while Obama is proposing $5.7 trillion.
For next year, the president has called for a 2.5 percent decrease in the Pentagon’s annual base budget, a proposal that has been decried by Republicans who claim it would leave America vulnerable to foreign enemies.
Obama plans on cutting almost 100,000 troops as part of his strategy for a more “agile, flexible” military. His proposal also calls for slowing the purchase of stealth fighters, while funding a giant floating base that would serve specials operations forces and drone units.
“We will continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; counter-terrorism; countering weapons of mass destruction; and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access,” the president said at the unveiling of his new military strategy in January.
Romney, on the other hand, has said that he would invest more in missile defense. But his most specific proposals have been to increase the reach and power of the navy, building 15 ships a year, including three submarines, compared with Obama’s nine or ten.
Kramer said that even with the differences between the two candidates, either amount would mean the US cannot be militarily challenged and that both candidates are out of touch with Americans’ other national priorities.
“Looking at just the next fiscal year, Romney’s plan wants a Pentagon core budget of about $661 billion that wouldn’t even include war costs,” Kramer said. “By contrast, President Obama has requested $525 billion. While it shows overspending on both sides, there’s still a contrast of over 25 percent between the two men. That’s money that can go to other priorities like education and infrastructure.”
A Lenin-Like Defense Strategy?
But proponents of a larger military, like retired US Army General Bob Scales, have said that it’s the best deterrent to emerging threats.
“Lenin once said, ‘Quantity has a quality all by itself.’ And mass is important; numbers count...There’s a safety net that if you go below in terms of total numbers, then our capabilities throughout the world are going to be put at risk,” Scales said in a Fox News interview.
“We have to be very, very careful as we move into the future that when we reduce the defense budget, we don’t break the back of our services and force our young men and women to go to war unprepared.”
That is a sentiment that is echoed by Romney, who has stated on his Web site that he “will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts...with the goal of setting core defense spending...at a floor of 4 percent GDP (Gross Domestic Product).”
In other words, no matter if America is under threat or not, the defense budget would remain unchanged. However, according to one of his defense advisers, that’s a goal that the Republican candidate isn’t even sure he can immediately meet.
“The goal of 4 percent of GDP remains and is unchanged,” Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller, told Bloomberg news. “But that goal is not going to be achieved overnight or perhaps even by the end of the first term.”
New Law Mandates Military Cuts
One key reason may be because of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the federal statute that ended the debt-ceiling crisis and averted US financial default. That measure, which was signed into law by Obama, mandated that $917 billion be cut, or “sequestered,” from federal spending over a 10-year period, including some $487 billion in defense cuts.
The sequestration would begin in January 2013, and would immediately cut $55 billion from Pentagon spending, unless Democrats and Republicans come up with a better plan before the end of 2012. In the last presidential debate, Romney stressed that he’s against sequestration, while the president said “he won’t let it happen.”
So far, Democrats seem willing to go through with the cuts, unless Republicans agree to end their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest citizens.
If the cuts go through, some lawmakers and Pentagon officials have said they could jeopardize military projects.
Still the Biggest Kid on the Block
Even if the $55 billion is sequestered from defense spending, the US would still dwarf the next two military giants, China and Russia.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, America spent $711 billion on defense in 2011. China and Russia, which have both seen major increases in military spending since 2002, were at $143 billion and $71.9 billion, respectively.
Despite any proposed cuts, “the US will remain by far the world’s major military superpower and the only NATO member capable of sustaining large air-sea operations or of projecting substantial ground forces on a global scale for a sustained period,” the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in a March 2012 report.
America’s Jobs-Defense Conundrum
But in America, defense spending isn’t just about military weapons and operations, it’s also about jobs.
Since World War II, the United States has recognized that vast defense spending is one of the largest job-creators that the government can control, according to Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
“Part of the Pentagon’s industrial policy has been this brilliantly executed plan of having activities in every single congressional district in the country,” Pollin said.
“So every single congressional district in the US benefits from the $700 billion military budget. And I would say roughly six million jobs in the economy are tied directly to the Pentagon spending.”
However, Pollin added, while the military budget may be an easy sell to the American public, it is not the kind of spending that provides the greatest return.
“For every dollar that is spent on the military, if that money is instead spent on education and health care, you get 2.5 times more jobs,” he said. “You get about 27 jobs per $1 million of spending on education versus 11 in the military.”
At a time when the United States is suffering from a high unemployment rate, any president, Democrat or Republican, may be unwilling to significantly reduce military spending out of fear that it could cut jobs, including their own.
============
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@
============
Thu Nov 1, 2012 9:10 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
November 1, 2012
Who pocketed Gaddafi’s billions?
Andrei Ontikov
====
[T]he sum which Gaddafi and his associates had in bank accounts, and which the West, in fact, has stolen – $ 150bln – might have been enough to reconstruct the Libyan infrastructure after the damage caused by the bombs – if not fully, then, at least, partially. But now, that money has disappeared.
“[I]t would be wrong to say that only the West has stolen the money of the former Libyan regime. It is known that those people who fought against Gaddafi and who are now in power in Libya have conveyed many trucks literally stuffed with money abroad.”
“When the West threw bombs on Libya, Western politicians said that this allegedly was done to help Libyans oust the tyrant and establish democracy in their country. Now, it has turned out that these words were mere demagogy. The real aim of the West was to try to steal Libya’s riches.”
====
NATO’s military campaign in Libya is remarkable, among other things, for the following two reasons.
First – the damage that the air raids by the Western anti-Gaddafi alliance caused to Libya is estimated to be 7 times bigger than the damage which bombing by the Nazis caused in Europe during WWII.
Second – Muammar Gaddafi and his associates had, in total, $150 bln in bank accounts in various parts of the world. After the beginning of the Libyan revolution, the West froze these accounts. Now, this money has disappeared somewhere.
Russian expert in Eastern affairs Anatoly Egorin tries to analyze these two cases in his recently published book, titled “The Ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. A Libyan Diary. 2011-2012.”
Speaking about the damage which Western bombing attacks caused to Libya, one may probably say that every war causes damage. This is true, but the amount of damage can be greater or smaller. It may be doubted that the ousting of Gaddafi, however tyrannical he might have been, was really worth the damage which NATO bombs caused to Libya – to say nothing of the fact that introducing a no-fly zone over a country and then bombing it is, to put it mildly, not very consistent.
However, the sum which Gaddafi and his associates had in bank accounts, and which the West, in fact, has stolen – $ 150bln – might have been enough to reconstruct the Libyan infrastructure after the damage caused by the bombs – if not fully, then, at least, partially. But now, that money has disappeared. Why and where? Here is what Anatoly Egorin says:
“The West most likely decided right after the very start of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion in Libya to do whatever possible to prevent Gaddafi from staying in power. His and his associates’ bank accounts were immediately frozen. Or, it would be probably better to say that it was only officially announced that they were frozen, but in reality they were stolen. Nobody can say for sure precisely who stole this money and where it is now. There is only some vague information that it was allegedly pocketed by the bankers themselves and that these bankers allegedly tried to launder this money in offshore zones. Attempts to find this money are now under way, but I doubt that it will ever be found.”
“However,” Mr. Egorin continues, “it would be wrong to say that only the West has stolen the money of the former Libyan regime. It is known that those people who fought against Gaddafi and who are now in power in Libya have conveyed many trucks literally stuffed with money abroad.”
The Head of the International Association for Democracy in Libya, Fatima abu an-Niran, confirms what Mr. Egorin says:
“The chaotic situation in Libya enabled everyone to steal anything that lay in his or her temptation’s way. The West was quite aware of that, but didn’t try to stop it. I can back my words with facts, and the former head of Libya’s Central Bank can also confirm this.”
“The $150 bln in Gaddafi’s and other former Libyan leaders’ bank accounts is not the only money that was stolen during the period of anarchy in Libya,” Ms. an-Niran continues. “Lots of money was trafficked and is still being trafficked abroad by the Libyan 'revolutionaries' themselves. To a large extent, the situation in Libya still remains chaotic. The new authorities seem to be incapable of controlling the situation in many of the country’s provinces. These provinces are in fact controlled by groups of bandits who do whatever they want with those who try to resist them.”
“When the West threw bombs on Libya, Western politicians said that this allegedly was done to help Libyans oust the tyrant and establish democracy in their country,” Ms. an-Niran says. “Now, it has turned out that these words were mere demagogy. The real aim of the West was to try to steal Libya’s riches.”
True, it looks like now that Gaddafi has been ousted, the West doesn’t care anymore about what is happening in Libya. It also looks like the current Libyan leaders care more about staying in their posts – or occupying higher posts if possible – than about trying to return the $150 bln which mysteriously disappeared back into their country, which now badly needs restoration after the war.
============
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
November 1, 2012
Who pocketed Gaddafi’s billions?
Andrei Ontikov
====
[T]he sum which Gaddafi and his associates had in bank accounts, and which the West, in fact, has stolen – $ 150bln – might have been enough to reconstruct the Libyan infrastructure after the damage caused by the bombs – if not fully, then, at least, partially. But now, that money has disappeared.
“[I]t would be wrong to say that only the West has stolen the money of the former Libyan regime. It is known that those people who fought against Gaddafi and who are now in power in Libya have conveyed many trucks literally stuffed with money abroad.”
“When the West threw bombs on Libya, Western politicians said that this allegedly was done to help Libyans oust the tyrant and establish democracy in their country. Now, it has turned out that these words were mere demagogy. The real aim of the West was to try to steal Libya’s riches.”
====
NATO’s military campaign in Libya is remarkable, among other things, for the following two reasons.
First – the damage that the air raids by the Western anti-Gaddafi alliance caused to Libya is estimated to be 7 times bigger than the damage which bombing by the Nazis caused in Europe during WWII.
Second – Muammar Gaddafi and his associates had, in total, $150 bln in bank accounts in various parts of the world. After the beginning of the Libyan revolution, the West froze these accounts. Now, this money has disappeared somewhere.
Russian expert in Eastern affairs Anatoly Egorin tries to analyze these two cases in his recently published book, titled “The Ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. A Libyan Diary. 2011-2012.”
Speaking about the damage which Western bombing attacks caused to Libya, one may probably say that every war causes damage. This is true, but the amount of damage can be greater or smaller. It may be doubted that the ousting of Gaddafi, however tyrannical he might have been, was really worth the damage which NATO bombs caused to Libya – to say nothing of the fact that introducing a no-fly zone over a country and then bombing it is, to put it mildly, not very consistent.
However, the sum which Gaddafi and his associates had in bank accounts, and which the West, in fact, has stolen – $ 150bln – might have been enough to reconstruct the Libyan infrastructure after the damage caused by the bombs – if not fully, then, at least, partially. But now, that money has disappeared. Why and where? Here is what Anatoly Egorin says:
“The West most likely decided right after the very start of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion in Libya to do whatever possible to prevent Gaddafi from staying in power. His and his associates’ bank accounts were immediately frozen. Or, it would be probably better to say that it was only officially announced that they were frozen, but in reality they were stolen. Nobody can say for sure precisely who stole this money and where it is now. There is only some vague information that it was allegedly pocketed by the bankers themselves and that these bankers allegedly tried to launder this money in offshore zones. Attempts to find this money are now under way, but I doubt that it will ever be found.”
“However,” Mr. Egorin continues, “it would be wrong to say that only the West has stolen the money of the former Libyan regime. It is known that those people who fought against Gaddafi and who are now in power in Libya have conveyed many trucks literally stuffed with money abroad.”
The Head of the International Association for Democracy in Libya, Fatima abu an-Niran, confirms what Mr. Egorin says:
“The chaotic situation in Libya enabled everyone to steal anything that lay in his or her temptation’s way. The West was quite aware of that, but didn’t try to stop it. I can back my words with facts, and the former head of Libya’s Central Bank can also confirm this.”
“The $150 bln in Gaddafi’s and other former Libyan leaders’ bank accounts is not the only money that was stolen during the period of anarchy in Libya,” Ms. an-Niran continues. “Lots of money was trafficked and is still being trafficked abroad by the Libyan 'revolutionaries' themselves. To a large extent, the situation in Libya still remains chaotic. The new authorities seem to be incapable of controlling the situation in many of the country’s provinces. These provinces are in fact controlled by groups of bandits who do whatever they want with those who try to resist them.”
“When the West threw bombs on Libya, Western politicians said that this allegedly was done to help Libyans oust the tyrant and establish democracy in their country,” Ms. an-Niran says. “Now, it has turned out that these words were mere demagogy. The real aim of the West was to try to steal Libya’s riches.”
True, it looks like now that Gaddafi has been ousted, the West doesn’t care anymore about what is happening in Libya. It also looks like the current Libyan leaders care more about staying in their posts – or occupying higher posts if possible – than about trying to return the $150 bln which mysteriously disappeared back into their country, which now badly needs restoration after the war.
============
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@
============
Thu Nov 1, 2012 9:10 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
November 1, 2012
US policy on Syria in tatters
Dmitry Babich
====
[T]he United States government, as well as the governments of France and Great Britain, the three main Western enthusiasts of “regime change” in Syria, simply did not envisage a situation when, several months since the beginning of an all-out armed civil conflict, the Syrian drama would still continue. Instead of a brief melodrama, which Washington expected, Syria is facing a tragedy without an end. Assad retains the loyalty of the army while the jihadist presence among the rebels is becoming more and more visible. Interestingly, this situation was envisioned by Russia and China, those very countries that Mrs. Clinton “cannot wait” to see sidelined in decision-making.
[L]istening to Moscow in any way on Syria would mean a terrible loss of face for Mrs. Clinton, who was very stubborn in her non-acceptance of any of Moscow’s warnings. In spring this year, she even threatened Russia with “consequences” if Moscow does not toe Washington’s line on Syria. And this factor makes the start of peaceful negotiations among the warring parties in Syria unlikely until Mrs. Clinton steps down...So, the slogan “Clinton should go” may be better suited for our times than her old mantra of “Assad should go.”
====
Recent statements of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reveal a strange dichotomy in her plans on the Syrian front.
On the one hand, Mrs. Clinton said during her trip to the Balkans that America “could not wait” until Russia and China change their position in the UN’s Security Council, a position blocking outside military intervention in Syria. On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton made public her disillusionment with the Syrian National Council (SNC), saying that SNC should no longer be considered the “visible leader” of the opposition. It should be noted that the US and other “Friends of Syria” (a group of countries allied to the US in their desire to see a removal of the current government of Syria by all means) earlier this year proclaimed the SNC “the only legal representative of the Syrian people.”
All of these moves leave an impression of chaotic improvisation and not of a coherent policy. If the SNC is no longer in the West’s good graces, then who is going to rule Syria if and when Assad indeed “goes,” as the United States stubbornly demands? Besides, the SNC may not want “to go” as Mrs. Clinton suggests: thanks to arms supplies from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, as well as thanks to the so-called “non-lethal” aid from the US and the EU, it grew into a powerful force with jihadist overtones, whose actions are hard to predict. The Washington Post reports that Qatar and Turkey continue to support the SNC, even though the SNC may not even send a representative to the U.S.-sponsored gathering of Syrian opposition groups in Doha.
Obviously, the United States government, as well as the governments of France and Great Britain, the three main Western enthusiasts of “regime change” in Syria, simply did not envisage a situation when, several months since the beginning of an all-out armed civil conflict, the Syrian drama would still continue. Instead of a brief melodrama, which Washington expected, Syria is facing a tragedy without an end. Assad retains the loyalty of the army while the jihadist presence among the rebels is becoming more and more visible. Interestingly, this situation was envisioned by Russia and China, those very countries that Mrs. Clinton “cannot wait” to see sidelined in decision-making. Moscow and Beijing had been talking about the extremist elements inside the rebellion since the start of the so-called “peaceful demonstrations” in Syria last year. But Washington, Paris, London and other Western capitals attributed the warnings of Russia and China to
their being “undemocratic” or simply trying to shield their allies in the Middle East. But if Moscow and Beijing proved to be right on their warnings before, why not listen to them for once?
Here is what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to say: “It is like daydreaming to speculate on the subject, to the effect that if the [Syrian] government is overthrown everything will fall into place. If this is a priority for somebody, bloodshed will continue, and for quite a while, too.”
That does not mean that Russia is idealizing Assad, whom Mr. Lavrov criticized on several occasions for postponing the democratization of Syria. But, obviously, some of the current jihadist enemies of Mr. Assad are much worse – for Syria and for the whole world – than the acting Syrian president. And they shouldn’t be allowed to decide the fate of Syria and its president, such is the position of Moscow. “Assad’s fate should be decided by the Syrian people,” RIA-Novosti news agency quoted Lavrov as saying.
Unfortunately, listening to Moscow in any way on Syria would mean a terrible loss of face for Mrs. Clinton, who was very stubborn in her non-acceptance of any of Moscow’s warnings. In spring this year, she even threatened Russia with “consequences” if Moscow does not toe Washington’s line on Syria. And this factor makes the start of peaceful negotiations among the warring parties in Syria unlikely until Mrs. Clinton steps down. She promised to do it soon after the November 6 presidential election in the United States – whatever the latter’s results. So, the slogan “Clinton should go” may be better suited for our times than her old mantra of “Assad should go.”
Syrian opposition outraged with Clinton’s remarks
The Syrian National Council is outraged over the recent remarks by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said that “the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition, and they can be part of a larger opposition, but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.”
A source in the opposition claims the new US-backed opposition council which is to be announced in Doha next week is an attempt to undermine trust in the SNC.
Clinton also expressed her concern over rising extremism in Syria but the SNC leader Abdel-Basset Sieda blames the global community for this saying that it hasn’t provided enough support to the people of Syria.
British Middle East representative Jon Wilks shared Hillary Clinton’s concerns and wrote on Twitter that “some SNC figures saying SNC restructuring next week in Doha will be enough to rescue the opposition's credibility. Not in Syria it won't”.
============
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
November 1, 2012
US policy on Syria in tatters
Dmitry Babich
====
[T]he United States government, as well as the governments of France and Great Britain, the three main Western enthusiasts of “regime change” in Syria, simply did not envisage a situation when, several months since the beginning of an all-out armed civil conflict, the Syrian drama would still continue. Instead of a brief melodrama, which Washington expected, Syria is facing a tragedy without an end. Assad retains the loyalty of the army while the jihadist presence among the rebels is becoming more and more visible. Interestingly, this situation was envisioned by Russia and China, those very countries that Mrs. Clinton “cannot wait” to see sidelined in decision-making.
[L]istening to Moscow in any way on Syria would mean a terrible loss of face for Mrs. Clinton, who was very stubborn in her non-acceptance of any of Moscow’s warnings. In spring this year, she even threatened Russia with “consequences” if Moscow does not toe Washington’s line on Syria. And this factor makes the start of peaceful negotiations among the warring parties in Syria unlikely until Mrs. Clinton steps down...So, the slogan “Clinton should go” may be better suited for our times than her old mantra of “Assad should go.”
====
Recent statements of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reveal a strange dichotomy in her plans on the Syrian front.
On the one hand, Mrs. Clinton said during her trip to the Balkans that America “could not wait” until Russia and China change their position in the UN’s Security Council, a position blocking outside military intervention in Syria. On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton made public her disillusionment with the Syrian National Council (SNC), saying that SNC should no longer be considered the “visible leader” of the opposition. It should be noted that the US and other “Friends of Syria” (a group of countries allied to the US in their desire to see a removal of the current government of Syria by all means) earlier this year proclaimed the SNC “the only legal representative of the Syrian people.”
All of these moves leave an impression of chaotic improvisation and not of a coherent policy. If the SNC is no longer in the West’s good graces, then who is going to rule Syria if and when Assad indeed “goes,” as the United States stubbornly demands? Besides, the SNC may not want “to go” as Mrs. Clinton suggests: thanks to arms supplies from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, as well as thanks to the so-called “non-lethal” aid from the US and the EU, it grew into a powerful force with jihadist overtones, whose actions are hard to predict. The Washington Post reports that Qatar and Turkey continue to support the SNC, even though the SNC may not even send a representative to the U.S.-sponsored gathering of Syrian opposition groups in Doha.
Obviously, the United States government, as well as the governments of France and Great Britain, the three main Western enthusiasts of “regime change” in Syria, simply did not envisage a situation when, several months since the beginning of an all-out armed civil conflict, the Syrian drama would still continue. Instead of a brief melodrama, which Washington expected, Syria is facing a tragedy without an end. Assad retains the loyalty of the army while the jihadist presence among the rebels is becoming more and more visible. Interestingly, this situation was envisioned by Russia and China, those very countries that Mrs. Clinton “cannot wait” to see sidelined in decision-making. Moscow and Beijing had been talking about the extremist elements inside the rebellion since the start of the so-called “peaceful demonstrations” in Syria last year. But Washington, Paris, London and other Western capitals attributed the warnings of Russia and China to
their being “undemocratic” or simply trying to shield their allies in the Middle East. But if Moscow and Beijing proved to be right on their warnings before, why not listen to them for once?
Here is what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to say: “It is like daydreaming to speculate on the subject, to the effect that if the [Syrian] government is overthrown everything will fall into place. If this is a priority for somebody, bloodshed will continue, and for quite a while, too.”
That does not mean that Russia is idealizing Assad, whom Mr. Lavrov criticized on several occasions for postponing the democratization of Syria. But, obviously, some of the current jihadist enemies of Mr. Assad are much worse – for Syria and for the whole world – than the acting Syrian president. And they shouldn’t be allowed to decide the fate of Syria and its president, such is the position of Moscow. “Assad’s fate should be decided by the Syrian people,” RIA-Novosti news agency quoted Lavrov as saying.
Unfortunately, listening to Moscow in any way on Syria would mean a terrible loss of face for Mrs. Clinton, who was very stubborn in her non-acceptance of any of Moscow’s warnings. In spring this year, she even threatened Russia with “consequences” if Moscow does not toe Washington’s line on Syria. And this factor makes the start of peaceful negotiations among the warring parties in Syria unlikely until Mrs. Clinton steps down. She promised to do it soon after the November 6 presidential election in the United States – whatever the latter’s results. So, the slogan “Clinton should go” may be better suited for our times than her old mantra of “Assad should go.”
Syrian opposition outraged with Clinton’s remarks
The Syrian National Council is outraged over the recent remarks by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said that “the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition, and they can be part of a larger opposition, but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.”
A source in the opposition claims the new US-backed opposition council which is to be announced in Doha next week is an attempt to undermine trust in the SNC.
Clinton also expressed her concern over rising extremism in Syria but the SNC leader Abdel-Basset Sieda blames the global community for this saying that it hasn’t provided enough support to the people of Syria.
British Middle East representative Jon Wilks shared Hillary Clinton’s concerns and wrote on Twitter that “some SNC figures saying SNC restructuring next week in Doha will be enough to rescue the opposition's credibility. Not in Syria it won't”.
============
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@
============
Thu Nov 1, 2012 2:10 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.nato.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
October 31, 2012
NATO conducts annual crisis management exercise (CMX) and cyber coalition exercise
NATO will conduct its annual Crisis Management Exercise CMX between 12 and 16 November 2012. The exercise is designed to practice Alliance crisis management procedures at the strategic political level and will involve civilian and military staffs in Allied capitals, at NATO Headquarters, and in both Strategic Commands. CMX 12 will be an internal command post exercise and no forces will be deployed for the purpose of this exercise.
The Crisis Management Exercise will this year run concurrently with the NATO cyber defence exercise Cyber Coalition 12. The purpose of Cyber Coalition 12 will be to test Alliance technical and operational cyber defence capabilities.
The two exercises CMX 12 and Cyber Coalition 12 will be conducted based on one single fictitious scenario portraying an escalating threat from chemical, biological and radiological attacks, including large scale cyber attacks affecting NATO and national critical infrastructure. This exercise scenario will require Allied political direction taking into account the advice of NATO military authorities and technical cyber defence bodies on possible measures to handle asymmetric threats.
The CMX 12 will be jointly run by the NATO International Staff, the International Military Staff and the two NATO Strategic Commands, Allied Command Operations and Allied Command Transformation. This is NATO’s 18th CMX since 1992. Finland and Sweden will participate as Partners alongside Allies in the exercise, as some elements of the scenario play out in their geographical proximity. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will observe the relevant aspects of the exercise and, representatives of the EU European External Action Service (EEAS) will actively contribute to the exercise.
The annual exercise Cyber Coalition (CC) will test the effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative cyber defence procedures and capabilities.
Together with Allies, 3 partner nations (Austria, Finland and Sweden) will participate this year as players, and 3 other partner nations (Australia, Ireland and Switzerland) will participate as observers. In addition, EU cyber defence staffs will observe the exercise.
============
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@
============
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
October 31, 2012
NATO conducts annual crisis management exercise (CMX) and cyber coalition exercise
NATO will conduct its annual Crisis Management Exercise CMX between 12 and 16 November 2012. The exercise is designed to practice Alliance crisis management procedures at the strategic political level and will involve civilian and military staffs in Allied capitals, at NATO Headquarters, and in both Strategic Commands. CMX 12 will be an internal command post exercise and no forces will be deployed for the purpose of this exercise.
The Crisis Management Exercise will this year run concurrently with the NATO cyber defence exercise Cyber Coalition 12. The purpose of Cyber Coalition 12 will be to test Alliance technical and operational cyber defence capabilities.
The two exercises CMX 12 and Cyber Coalition 12 will be conducted based on one single fictitious scenario portraying an escalating threat from chemical, biological and radiological attacks, including large scale cyber attacks affecting NATO and national critical infrastructure. This exercise scenario will require Allied political direction taking into account the advice of NATO military authorities and technical cyber defence bodies on possible measures to handle asymmetric threats.
The CMX 12 will be jointly run by the NATO International Staff, the International Military Staff and the two NATO Strategic Commands, Allied Command Operations and Allied Command Transformation. This is NATO’s 18th CMX since 1992. Finland and Sweden will participate as Partners alongside Allies in the exercise, as some elements of the scenario play out in their geographical proximity. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will observe the relevant aspects of the exercise and, representatives of the EU European External Action Service (EEAS) will actively contribute to the exercise.
The annual exercise Cyber Coalition (CC) will test the effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative cyber defence procedures and capabilities.
Together with Allies, 3 partner nations (Austria, Finland and Sweden) will participate this year as players, and 3 other partner nations (Australia, Ireland and Switzerland) will participate as observers. In addition, EU cyber defence staffs will observe the exercise.
============
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@
============
Thu Nov 1, 2012 2:10 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
November 1, 2012
Commentary: Clinton's call reveals failings of West's tactics on Syria
====
Past experience shows foreign intervention and the blunt call for Assad's ouster hasn't reined in the raging violence, but has precipitated the country into deeper chaos.
Washington apparently still hasn't abandoned its old interventionist mindset, which will once again lead to a dead end.
The West shouldn't support one side to wipe out the other side, because it will beget severe consequences.
====
BEIJING: "We've made it clear that the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit to Croatia on Wednesday, demanding a reshuffle of Syria's opposition leadership.
The proposed major shakeup, sidelining the Istanbul-based opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) that the U.S. has previously fully supported, shows the West's tactics on Syria are in disarray and it is now scrambling to find other proxies.
The U.S., which didn't bother to seek truth on the ground and hastily bolstered the SNC, has just found the proxy disappointing and withdrawn its support. It's like slapping its own face.
The U.S. currently is shifting its favor to other opposition forces. But the fresh attempt is likely to fail once again, as it hasn't addressed the root cause of the chronic crisis and suggested a political solution to the impasse.
Since the conflict broke out 20 months ago, the West has doggedly demanded the departure of President Bashar al-Assad, ignoring the varying strength of Syria's different factions.
Forces loyal to Assad have fought head-to-head with rebels and a peace process is nowhere in sight. It is estimated that more than 32,000 lives have been lost in the unrest.
With the turmoil continuing, the four-day truce for Eid al-Adha initiated by Arab-U.N. peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, which was supposed to be a starting point for restoring peace, has also disappointingly unraveled.
Past experience shows foreign intervention and the blunt call for Assad's ouster hasn't reined in the raging violence, but has precipitated the country into deeper chaos.
Washington apparently still hasn't abandoned its old interventionist mindset, which will once again lead to a dead end.
The West shouldn't support one side to wipe out the other side, because it will beget severe consequences.
Even Clinton isn't sure about Syria's future, supposing the rebels can defeat the Assad camp.
She said Wednesday it was no secret that many in Syria, especially minority groups, are fearful about the prospects of Assad's government being replaced by the Sunni-led opposition.
"They have no love lost for the Assad regime but they worry, rightly so, about the future," she said.
For the West, the only right approach is to genuinely support a political and diplomatic solution to the crisis.
China, together with Russia and some other countries, has been unswervingly supportive of the political efforts by the international envoy Brahimi and has been urging other parties to also play a constructive role.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday elaborated on China's four-point proposal on the conflict, urging all parties in Syria to cease fire and violence and begin a political transition at an early date.
The West needs to understand a political solution deserves patience and time.
============
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@
============
Xinhua News Agency
November 1, 2012
Commentary: Clinton's call reveals failings of West's tactics on Syria
====
Past experience shows foreign intervention and the blunt call for Assad's ouster hasn't reined in the raging violence, but has precipitated the country into deeper chaos.
Washington apparently still hasn't abandoned its old interventionist mindset, which will once again lead to a dead end.
The West shouldn't support one side to wipe out the other side, because it will beget severe consequences.
====
BEIJING: "We've made it clear that the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit to Croatia on Wednesday, demanding a reshuffle of Syria's opposition leadership.
The proposed major shakeup, sidelining the Istanbul-based opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) that the U.S. has previously fully supported, shows the West's tactics on Syria are in disarray and it is now scrambling to find other proxies.
The U.S., which didn't bother to seek truth on the ground and hastily bolstered the SNC, has just found the proxy disappointing and withdrawn its support. It's like slapping its own face.
The U.S. currently is shifting its favor to other opposition forces. But the fresh attempt is likely to fail once again, as it hasn't addressed the root cause of the chronic crisis and suggested a political solution to the impasse.
Since the conflict broke out 20 months ago, the West has doggedly demanded the departure of President Bashar al-Assad, ignoring the varying strength of Syria's different factions.
Forces loyal to Assad have fought head-to-head with rebels and a peace process is nowhere in sight. It is estimated that more than 32,000 lives have been lost in the unrest.
With the turmoil continuing, the four-day truce for Eid al-Adha initiated by Arab-U.N. peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, which was supposed to be a starting point for restoring peace, has also disappointingly unraveled.
Past experience shows foreign intervention and the blunt call for Assad's ouster hasn't reined in the raging violence, but has precipitated the country into deeper chaos.
Washington apparently still hasn't abandoned its old interventionist mindset, which will once again lead to a dead end.
The West shouldn't support one side to wipe out the other side, because it will beget severe consequences.
Even Clinton isn't sure about Syria's future, supposing the rebels can defeat the Assad camp.
She said Wednesday it was no secret that many in Syria, especially minority groups, are fearful about the prospects of Assad's government being replaced by the Sunni-led opposition.
"They have no love lost for the Assad regime but they worry, rightly so, about the future," she said.
For the West, the only right approach is to genuinely support a political and diplomatic solution to the crisis.
China, together with Russia and some other countries, has been unswervingly supportive of the political efforts by the international envoy Brahimi and has been urging other parties to also play a constructive role.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday elaborated on China's four-point proposal on the conflict, urging all parties in Syria to cease fire and violence and begin a political transition at an early date.
The West needs to understand a political solution deserves patience and time.
============
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@
============
Thu Nov 1, 2012 6:53 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.hurriyet
Hürriyet Daily News
November 2, 2012
Turkey to request Patriot deployment from NATO
ANKARA: Ankara plans to request NATO deploy a Patriot missile defense system in its territories.
Turkey plans to officially request NATO deploy a Patriot missile defense system in its territories.
“We have been closely working with NATO on contingency plans regarding the developments in Syria and these plans also include the deployment of missile defense systems in Turkey,” a senior Turkish diplomatic source said Oct. 30...
Turkey has invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty twice, which provides for consultations, after the downing of its jet and the killing of five Turkish citizens in a Syrian shelling, but took no action in pursuing Article 5, which considers an attack against one member an attack against all. “We have received sufficient support from NATO so far. The last statement NATO issued after the Akçakale incident was very powerful. We continue to be in close dialogue with the alliance,” the source said.
Turkey has requested the deployment of Patriot missile defense systems twice in the past, both in the context of the Iraqi war in the early 1990s and 2000s. In both cases they were deployed by the Netherlands, as only a few countries have such missile systems. “I would not be surprised if Turkey would soon make such a request,” a diplomat from a NATO country said. “The situation is getting worse in Syria, and it’s the right of Turkey to take necessary security measures.”
Hürriyet Daily News
November 2, 2012
Turkey to request Patriot deployment from NATO
ANKARA: Ankara plans to request NATO deploy a Patriot missile defense system in its territories.
Turkey plans to officially request NATO deploy a Patriot missile defense system in its territories.
“We have been closely working with NATO on contingency plans regarding the developments in Syria and these plans also include the deployment of missile defense systems in Turkey,” a senior Turkish diplomatic source said Oct. 30...
Turkey has invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty twice, which provides for consultations, after the downing of its jet and the killing of five Turkish citizens in a Syrian shelling, but took no action in pursuing Article 5, which considers an attack against one member an attack against all. “We have received sufficient support from NATO so far. The last statement NATO issued after the Akçakale incident was very powerful. We continue to be in close dialogue with the alliance,” the source said.
Turkey has requested the deployment of Patriot missile defense systems twice in the past, both in the context of the Iraqi war in the early 1990s and 2000s. In both cases they were deployed by the Netherlands, as only a few countries have such missile systems. “I would not be surprised if Turkey would soon make such a request,” a diplomat from a NATO country said. “The situation is getting worse in Syria, and it’s the right of Turkey to take necessary security measures.”
