3 New Messages
Digest #4594
Messages
Thu Jan 3, 2013 2:20 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
Xinhua News Agency
January 3, 2012
Obama signs defense authorization act
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Barack Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of the 2013 fiscal year, the White House said on Thursday.
According to the White House, Obama signed the bill while vacationing in Hawaii. In a statement, Obama said while he supports the vast majority of the provisions contained in the act, he does not agree with them all, including Congress' refusal to let the Pentagon retire unneeded ships and aircraft, as well as limits on the military to transfer detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility.
The president also complained that certain provisions in the bill could "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States," and said his administration would interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that "does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy."
The sweeping bill covers the Pentagon's cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel as well as the war efforts in Afghanistan. It consists of 528 billion dollars for the Defense Department's base budget, 17 billion dollars for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department and 88 billion dollars for overseas war costs.
The measure also tightens sanctions on Iran, increases security for U.S. diplomatic missions after the attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and contains language regarding the conflict in Syria, requesting the Pentagon to report to Congress on possible military options.
The budget also has two controversial sections relating to arms sales to Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands, which are China's inherent territories. The two clauses are both written as "sense of Senate, " which means they have no binding power over the president.
The bill passed the Congress amid chaos over the fiscal cliff negotiations late last year, and was delivered to the White House over the weekend. Obama took it with him to Hawaii when he left town after clinching the fiscal cliff deal.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Xinhua News Agency
January 3, 2012
Obama signs defense authorization act
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Barack Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of the 2013 fiscal year, the White House said on Thursday.
According to the White House, Obama signed the bill while vacationing in Hawaii. In a statement, Obama said while he supports the vast majority of the provisions contained in the act, he does not agree with them all, including Congress' refusal to let the Pentagon retire unneeded ships and aircraft, as well as limits on the military to transfer detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility.
The president also complained that certain provisions in the bill could "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States," and said his administration would interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that "does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy."
The sweeping bill covers the Pentagon's cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel as well as the war efforts in Afghanistan. It consists of 528 billion dollars for the Defense Department's base budget, 17 billion dollars for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department and 88 billion dollars for overseas war costs.
The measure also tightens sanctions on Iran, increases security for U.S. diplomatic missions after the attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and contains language regarding the conflict in Syria, requesting the Pentagon to report to Congress on possible military options.
The budget also has two controversial sections relating to arms sales to Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands, which are China's inherent territories. The two clauses are both written as "sense of Senate, " which means they have no binding power over the president.
The bill passed the Congress amid chaos over the fiscal cliff negotiations late last year, and was delivered to the White House over the weekend. Obama took it with him to Hawaii when he left town after clinching the fiscal cliff deal.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Thu Jan 3, 2013 2:20 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.stripes.com/news/ge
Stars and Stripes
January 3, 2013
Gen. Allen offers troop level options for post-2014 Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: The top American commander in Afghanistan has submitted military options to the Pentagon that would keep 6,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops in the country after 2014, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
A senior military official told the Times that Gen. John Allen offered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta three plans with troop levels of 6,000, 10,000 and 20,000. Each included a probable risk factor — the lower the number of troops, the higher the likely risk factor, the Times cited an unnamed official as saying.
...
With 6,000 troops, officials told the Times, the mission would largely be Special Operations commandos hunting down insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan forces. With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training; with 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add some conventional Army forces to patrol in limited areas.
It was unclear whether President Obama had studied the options, the Times reported officials as saying, although they added he was expected to discuss them at the White House next week when Afghan President Hamid Karzai visits.
The NATO combat mission is set to end Dec. 31, 2014, when the Afghan Army and the police are to have full responsibility for their country’s security. But, the Times noted, the Obama administration has been debating the size and mission of a residual American force.
The help is sorely needed. According to a recent assessment that covers April through September 2012, the Pentagon found that just one of the Afghan Army’s 23 brigades could operate without air or other military support from the United States or its NATO partners.
The Times reports that defense officials are saying that Allen’s recommendations did not include options for the pace of withdrawals of the remaining 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, although American officials say he wants to keep a large majority — perhaps as many as 60,000 — through the end of the fighting season next fall...
Allen’s recommendations come as he and Panetta are soon due to leave their jobs. Allen is to be replaced in February by Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., and Panetta is expected to step down after Obama nominates a successor. Panetta’s successor is less clear; former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s name has been the most prominent, though other Pentagon officials’ names have also circulated.
Allen, who is under investigation for a series of e-mails he exchanged with a socialite in Tampa, Fla., Jill Kelley, is to become the NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, but his nomination is delayed as the investigation continues.
Pentagon officials told the Times on Wednesday that he had long planned to leave Afghanistan in February, and that the inquiry had not accelerated his departure.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Stars and Stripes
January 3, 2013
Gen. Allen offers troop level options for post-2014 Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: The top American commander in Afghanistan has submitted military options to the Pentagon that would keep 6,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops in the country after 2014, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
A senior military official told the Times that Gen. John Allen offered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta three plans with troop levels of 6,000, 10,000 and 20,000. Each included a probable risk factor — the lower the number of troops, the higher the likely risk factor, the Times cited an unnamed official as saying.
...
With 6,000 troops, officials told the Times, the mission would largely be Special Operations commandos hunting down insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan forces. With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training; with 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add some conventional Army forces to patrol in limited areas.
It was unclear whether President Obama had studied the options, the Times reported officials as saying, although they added he was expected to discuss them at the White House next week when Afghan President Hamid Karzai visits.
The NATO combat mission is set to end Dec. 31, 2014, when the Afghan Army and the police are to have full responsibility for their country’s security. But, the Times noted, the Obama administration has been debating the size and mission of a residual American force.
The help is sorely needed. According to a recent assessment that covers April through September 2012, the Pentagon found that just one of the Afghan Army’s 23 brigades could operate without air or other military support from the United States or its NATO partners.
The Times reports that defense officials are saying that Allen’s recommendations did not include options for the pace of withdrawals of the remaining 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, although American officials say he wants to keep a large majority — perhaps as many as 60,000 — through the end of the fighting season next fall...
Allen’s recommendations come as he and Panetta are soon due to leave their jobs. Allen is to be replaced in February by Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., and Panetta is expected to step down after Obama nominates a successor. Panetta’s successor is less clear; former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s name has been the most prominent, though other Pentagon officials’ names have also circulated.
Allen, who is under investigation for a series of e-mails he exchanged with a socialite in Tampa, Fla., Jill Kelley, is to become the NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, but his nomination is delayed as the investigation continues.
Pentagon officials told the Times on Wednesday that he had long planned to leave Afghanistan in February, and that the inquiry had not accelerated his departure.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Thu Jan 3, 2013 7:11 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globaltimes.cn/
Global Times
January 3, 2012
Reality forces Washington to take new military approach in East Asia
By Li Jie
====
[T]he US will focus on using economic blockades in daily practice. But whenever it feels it necessary, the US will send nuclear-powered Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers, F-22 Raptor Fighter, B-2 Stealth Bomber and X-47B air vehicles to the first and second island chains and carry out precise long-range attacks.
The variation and combination of the two theories will generate more complex situations than a single theory does, and will bring an even more negative effect to the Chinese navy.
====
For a long time, the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept has prevailed in the US. It seems that this concept has grown mature enough to be implemented. However, the US's economic condition and military superpower status have declined since 2007.
The ruthless reality is that the US can do nothing without enough money, not to mention employ advanced air, sea and space weapons.
Even the US itself has realized that the concept is already out of date.
Nowadays, due to the growing strength of East Asian countries, US aircraft carriers and operational aircraft dare not patrol at will at the first island chain, specifically the first chain of major archipelagos outside the East Asian continental mainland coast. Their patrol is at most a show.
As senior US officials and experts seek a way out, T. X. Hammes, a retired US Marine Corps colonel, recently published an article, "Offshore Control is the Answer," in Proceedings Magazine under the US Naval Institute.
According to Hammes, "Offshore control would deny China the use of the sea inside the first island chain, at the same time defend those islands, and dominate the air and sea outside that theater."
Another viewpoint in the article, which is also favored by senior US officials, is to create "a stand-off military campaign focusing on a war of economic strangulation rather than on penetrating Chinese airspace to physically destroy its infrastructure."
This, according to Hammes, would force China to fight in ways where the US has the greatest military strength while China has the least.
This actually goes beyond the ASB concept, stresses the geopolitical advantages of the US, and seeks to "maximize the effectiveness" of the block and control ability of the US air, sea and land forces, aiming to contain a rising China and using the least cost to bring the most impact.
Maybe the "offshore control" theory is not as terrifying as imagined. But what's worrying is the US may combine the "offshore control" theory with the ASB concept.
The US may also improve one theory and make the other a supplement, which means it may develop offshore theory at the first island chain, and utilize the updated ASB concept outside this area.
In other words, the US will focus on using economic blockades in daily practice. But whenever it feels it necessary, the US will send nuclear-powered Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers, F-22 Raptor Fighter, B-2 Stealth Bomber and X-47B air vehicles to the first and second island chains and carry out precise long-range attacks.
It is not difficult to see that in the next 10 years, as the US's tide of war recedes, its national defense budget will be cut by as much as $489 billion.
The US, with its declining national strength, can only bow to reality. The variation and combination of the two theories will generate more complex situations than a single theory does, and will bring an even more negative effect to the Chinese navy.
The author is a researcher with China Navy Research Institute.
Global Times
January 3, 2012
Reality forces Washington to take new military approach in East Asia
By Li Jie
====
[T]he US will focus on using economic blockades in daily practice. But whenever it feels it necessary, the US will send nuclear-powered Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers, F-22 Raptor Fighter, B-2 Stealth Bomber and X-47B air vehicles to the first and second island chains and carry out precise long-range attacks.
The variation and combination of the two theories will generate more complex situations than a single theory does, and will bring an even more negative effect to the Chinese navy.
====
For a long time, the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept has prevailed in the US. It seems that this concept has grown mature enough to be implemented. However, the US's economic condition and military superpower status have declined since 2007.
The ruthless reality is that the US can do nothing without enough money, not to mention employ advanced air, sea and space weapons.
Even the US itself has realized that the concept is already out of date.
Nowadays, due to the growing strength of East Asian countries, US aircraft carriers and operational aircraft dare not patrol at will at the first island chain, specifically the first chain of major archipelagos outside the East Asian continental mainland coast. Their patrol is at most a show.
As senior US officials and experts seek a way out, T. X. Hammes, a retired US Marine Corps colonel, recently published an article, "Offshore Control is the Answer," in Proceedings Magazine under the US Naval Institute.
According to Hammes, "Offshore control would deny China the use of the sea inside the first island chain, at the same time defend those islands, and dominate the air and sea outside that theater."
Another viewpoint in the article, which is also favored by senior US officials, is to create "a stand-off military campaign focusing on a war of economic strangulation rather than on penetrating Chinese airspace to physically destroy its infrastructure."
This, according to Hammes, would force China to fight in ways where the US has the greatest military strength while China has the least.
This actually goes beyond the ASB concept, stresses the geopolitical advantages of the US, and seeks to "maximize the effectiveness" of the block and control ability of the US air, sea and land forces, aiming to contain a rising China and using the least cost to bring the most impact.
Maybe the "offshore control" theory is not as terrifying as imagined. But what's worrying is the US may combine the "offshore control" theory with the ASB concept.
The US may also improve one theory and make the other a supplement, which means it may develop offshore theory at the first island chain, and utilize the updated ASB concept outside this area.
In other words, the US will focus on using economic blockades in daily practice. But whenever it feels it necessary, the US will send nuclear-powered Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers, F-22 Raptor Fighter, B-2 Stealth Bomber and X-47B air vehicles to the first and second island chains and carry out precise long-range attacks.
It is not difficult to see that in the next 10 years, as the US's tide of war recedes, its national defense budget will be cut by as much as $489 billion.
The US, with its declining national strength, can only bow to reality. The variation and combination of the two theories will generate more complex situations than a single theory does, and will bring an even more negative effect to the Chinese navy.
The author is a researcher with China Navy Research Institute.
