8 New Messages
Digest #4598
Messages
Tue Jan 8, 2013 5:48 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dw.
Deutsche Welle
January 8, 2013
Armed Conflict
Germany deploys Patriot missile defense to Turkey
The deployment of Patriot anti-missile systems from Germany to its NATO-partner Turkey has gotten underway. Germany has also sent an additional convoy of soldiers to help set up the defense system.
In the early morning hours on Tuesday, a ship carrying two Patriot anti-missile systems set out from the northeastern German seaport Lübeck-Travemü
Germany, the Netherlands and the US agreed to deploy the defense systems in reponse to a request for NATO assistance..
DW.DE
...
NATO approved the military assistance in early December...
"Turkey is a NATO member, it is obvious that we will stand by our allies," said [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel.
Germany has said it plans to deploy just under 400 troops in the coming weeks.
kms/rg (dpa, AFP, Reuters)
============
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@
============
Deutsche Welle
January 8, 2013
Armed Conflict
Germany deploys Patriot missile defense to Turkey
The deployment of Patriot anti-missile systems from Germany to its NATO-partner Turkey has gotten underway. Germany has also sent an additional convoy of soldiers to help set up the defense system.
In the early morning hours on Tuesday, a ship carrying two Patriot anti-missile systems set out from the northeastern German seaport Lübeck-Travemü
Germany, the Netherlands and the US agreed to deploy the defense systems in reponse to a request for NATO assistance..
DW.DE
...
NATO approved the military assistance in early December...
"Turkey is a NATO member, it is obvious that we will stand by our allies," said [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel.
Germany has said it plans to deploy just under 400 troops in the coming weeks.
kms/rg (dpa, AFP, Reuters)
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 5:48 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://praguemonito
Czech News Agency
January 7, 2013
Czechs to leave for NATO mission on Turkish-Syrian border
Prague: Four Czech military specialists will leave for a NATO mission on the Turkish-Syrian border on Thursday to protect Turkey against the Syrian regime, server Lidovky.cz wrote Monday.
Signallers from north Moravia will ensure connection between the operation command and units.
The Czechs will leave for Turkey with Slovaks and Poles from the 3rd NATO communication battalion.
Soldiers from several NATO countries will take part in the mission. U.S., German and Dutch Patriot missile systems will be deployed to protect the Turkish border land.
Four three-month rotations of specialists are planned for this year. It is expected that NATO will ask the Czech Republic to participate in each of them, the server wrote.
The signallers&#
Government spokesman Michal Schuster said the point is not on the agenda of the government&#
============
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@
============
Czech News Agency
January 7, 2013
Czechs to leave for NATO mission on Turkish-Syrian border
Prague: Four Czech military specialists will leave for a NATO mission on the Turkish-Syrian border on Thursday to protect Turkey against the Syrian regime, server Lidovky.cz wrote Monday.
Signallers from north Moravia will ensure connection between the operation command and units.
The Czechs will leave for Turkey with Slovaks and Poles from the 3rd NATO communication battalion.
Soldiers from several NATO countries will take part in the mission. U.S., German and Dutch Patriot missile systems will be deployed to protect the Turkish border land.
Four three-month rotations of specialists are planned for this year. It is expected that NATO will ask the Czech Republic to participate in each of them, the server wrote.
The signallers&#
Government spokesman Michal Schuster said the point is not on the agenda of the government&#
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 6:12 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
January 8, 2013
Assad's peace plan ignored by big powers
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad delivered a rare TV address in Damascus Sunday, his first since June.
Assad set out a peace plan involving a reconciliation conference and a referendum on a national charter, which shows that the president has a very clear aim for both his country and himself: He will never make any concession to give up power or go into exile. This is exactly in line with his speech one year ago which called for reform under his leadership.
Assad's speech was soon dismissed by opposition leaders, who have repeatedly said they will accept nothing but Assad's departure.
There is currently no united opposition group in Syria, and different groups have different political demands. Within these groups, there are extremist armed forces.
During his speech, Assad insisted that Syria would not negotiate with people with "terrorist&quo
Some say that the main divergence between the Syrian government and opposition is whether Assad should remain in power. Nonetheless, things are not that simple.
The fundamental reason for the Syrian crisis is the fight between different religious sects. Assad belongs to the Alevi sect, a historically persecuted minority sect of Islam. If Assad's regime is overthrown but the political status of the Alevi sect is not resolved, the Syrian crisis will not end.
During his speech, Assad dismissed the Syrian opposition movement as puppets manufactured by the West. The US Department of State said his peace plan was "detached from reality." The reality is that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved without dialogue with the West. Assad will find it impossible to realize his goal if he refuses to communicate with opposition groups backed by the Arab League and the West.
Due to the complexity of opposition groups within Syria, if the crisis is to be resolved militarily, the result will benefit no one. Therefore, all sides should try to find an opportunity for political solutions.
Meanwhile, the parties concerned, including the Arab League, the US and Russia, can help solve the crisis rather than become agents of Syria and turn the crisis into a war among themselves.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Wenwen based on an interview with Yin Gang, a researcher at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
============
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
January 8, 2013
Assad's peace plan ignored by big powers
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad delivered a rare TV address in Damascus Sunday, his first since June.
Assad set out a peace plan involving a reconciliation conference and a referendum on a national charter, which shows that the president has a very clear aim for both his country and himself: He will never make any concession to give up power or go into exile. This is exactly in line with his speech one year ago which called for reform under his leadership.
Assad's speech was soon dismissed by opposition leaders, who have repeatedly said they will accept nothing but Assad's departure.
There is currently no united opposition group in Syria, and different groups have different political demands. Within these groups, there are extremist armed forces.
During his speech, Assad insisted that Syria would not negotiate with people with "terrorist&quo
Some say that the main divergence between the Syrian government and opposition is whether Assad should remain in power. Nonetheless, things are not that simple.
The fundamental reason for the Syrian crisis is the fight between different religious sects. Assad belongs to the Alevi sect, a historically persecuted minority sect of Islam. If Assad's regime is overthrown but the political status of the Alevi sect is not resolved, the Syrian crisis will not end.
During his speech, Assad dismissed the Syrian opposition movement as puppets manufactured by the West. The US Department of State said his peace plan was "detached from reality." The reality is that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved without dialogue with the West. Assad will find it impossible to realize his goal if he refuses to communicate with opposition groups backed by the Arab League and the West.
Due to the complexity of opposition groups within Syria, if the crisis is to be resolved militarily, the result will benefit no one. Therefore, all sides should try to find an opportunity for political solutions.
Meanwhile, the parties concerned, including the Arab League, the US and Russia, can help solve the crisis rather than become agents of Syria and turn the crisis into a war among themselves.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Wenwen based on an interview with Yin Gang, a researcher at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 6:12 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.stripes.
Stars and Stripes
January 6, 2012
Decades of German pacifism yield to bigger military role
====
BERLIN: When Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted a recent reception for military families, she greeted parents, wives and children whose loved ones were spending their holidays in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo and off the Horn of Africa. German deployments overseas, Ms. Merkel said, “will soon encompass the entire globe.â€
New York Times
January 5, 2013
http://www.nytimes.
====
BERLIN: Germany'
Already, German troops are deployed to countries including Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo and off the Horn of Africa.
Germany is sending weapons not only to NATO members and allies like Israel, the Times reported, but increasingly to the Middle East and other parts of the globe.
Recently, members of Parliament debated whether to add to the nearly 6,000 war across the border in Syria [other troops in Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere?], the Times reported, by sending up to 400 soldiers to Turkey, where NATO forces would operate two Patriot missile batteries to help protect from a potential escalation of the civil war in Syria.
“For decades, we Germans have benefited from the fact that our partners gave us the feeling of reliable security,†the Times quoted Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s defense minister, as saying during a parliamentary debate last month. “Now we are in a position and have the duty, even, to make our impact felt.â€
============
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@
============
Stars and Stripes
January 6, 2012
Decades of German pacifism yield to bigger military role
====
BERLIN: When Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted a recent reception for military families, she greeted parents, wives and children whose loved ones were spending their holidays in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo and off the Horn of Africa. German deployments overseas, Ms. Merkel said, “will soon encompass the entire globe.â€
New York Times
January 5, 2013
http://www.nytimes.
====
BERLIN: Germany'
Already, German troops are deployed to countries including Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo and off the Horn of Africa.
Germany is sending weapons not only to NATO members and allies like Israel, the Times reported, but increasingly to the Middle East and other parts of the globe.
Recently, members of Parliament debated whether to add to the nearly 6,000 war across the border in Syria [other troops in Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere?], the Times reported, by sending up to 400 soldiers to Turkey, where NATO forces would operate two Patriot missile batteries to help protect from a potential escalation of the civil war in Syria.
“For decades, we Germans have benefited from the fact that our partners gave us the feeling of reliable security,†the Times quoted Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s defense minister, as saying during a parliamentary debate last month. “Now we are in a position and have the duty, even, to make our impact felt.â€
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 3:57 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://presstv.
Press TV
January 8, 2013
US-led NATO seeks an excuse to wage war on Syria: James Jatras
Interview with James Jatras, ex-Senate foreign policy analyst
Video at URL above
====
Let us be clear. They know exactly the kind of forces that they are supporting. The United States has a long history of supporting radical Sunni forces ever since the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Libya.
====
A prominent analyst tells Press TV that the US-led NATO forces and their regional puppets are seeking an excuse to wage a war on the Syrian nation.
The Netherlands is shipping two Patriot missile batteries to Turkey, following a similar move by the United States and Germany. The shipment is part of a NATO contingent of Patriot missile batteries to be stationed on Turkey’s border with Syria. Ankara claims the Patriots are needed to protect Turkey against the spillover of the conflict in Syria. The Dutch military will also deploy 360 soldiers to operate the batteries. The arrival of the troops will begin on Tuesday. The United States and Germany have sent two such batteries and 400 troops each to the southern Turkish border region.
Press TV has conducted an interview with James Jatras, ex-Senate foreign policy analyst from Washington D.C., to shed more light on the issue at hand. Jatras is joined by two additional guests on Press TV’s News Analysis program: Bruce Gagnon, political commentator from Maine, and Huseyin Bagci, professor of the Middle East University from Ankara. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Mr. Jatras, what is going to be the use of these Patriot missiles and how real is the threat of a serious spillover [of the Syrian armed crisis to neighboring countries]?
The Dutch defense chief says it is very real!
Jatras: I think it is very real. One of the real dangers here has always been the fact that because Turkey borders Syria; unlike, for example, the situation in Libya, which did not border a NATO country; there is always the danger that those forces in Washington, in the Obama administration and in the other NATO capitals that want to intervene militarily in Syria can manufacture some sort of an incident which will then be packaged as a Syrian attack on Turkey, invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty [NATO] and then justifying a military response.
There was some danger of this if you recall some months ago when there was an incident regarding Turkish [fighter] aircraft off the coast of Syria; so I think that that danger exists.
I think it is something ironic that these missile batteries are being deployed in Turkey to “defend†Turkey from Syria as if Turkey were the target of Syrian aggression rather than the other way around; that Syria, an internationally recognized state and government, is the target of radical, terrorist Sunni jihadists supported by the Obama administration, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Press TV: Iran and Syria and Russia, they have described this move as provocative. The Syrian president has said that Turkey is trying to provoke the situation.
First of all, would you describe it as such at a time when Turkey is saying that its borders have become unsafe, that it is seeing shells land inside Turkey and there is also of course the allegations that Syria is using Scud missiles and even allegations that it could use chemical weapons?
Jatras: Of course it is a provocation. Again there is a certain absurd irony here, that Turkey says the step is necessary because its border has become unstable.
Why has its border become unstable? Because the Erdogan government is supporting military aggression against its neighbor, Syria, that it is allowing these armed radical groups, supported and armed and funded by the NATO countries, by Saudi Arabia and by Turkey to operate from its territory against its neighbor.
I think that there is a very real threat that the purpose of having these batteries there is precisely to provoke a response, which could be done from the Turkish side of the border, that will then cause a response from the Syrian side and then they can say: Ah! See there! Now Syria has committed aggression against Turkey, NATO must respond.
I think that this is a very real danger and I think that it is also a danger within the Obama administration, with some voices who want to intervene in Syria and some that do not.
Press TV: James Jatras, President Assad was saying that we have to understand that the fight or the conflict is not between the government and the opposition, so to speak; it is basically between the Syrian people, he said, and its enemies.
But let our viewers see your description, right now, of the conflict. Who is on each of the sides? And why cannot there be a negotiated solution?
Jatras: I think that there can be a negotiated solution but there needs to be a change in the position of the Western powers.
Look! I think it is overstated for President Assad to say it is between Syria and whoever he wants to call the opposition and say that it is not a civil war.
Of course it is a civil war and in fact looked at the other way round, the Western powers want to say the “rebels†are the Syrian people fighting an oppressive government.
Well, there are people who support that government; it is a civil war. I think it [there] must be a Syrian solution but the first thing is that the Western powers have got to take off the table the non-negotiable demand that Bashar al-Assad must leave office; because he is not going to do that. There should be a negotiation with the support of outside powers for an open-ended negotiation with all sides to figure out Syria’s future.
But this is a badly divided country, [one cannot] just divide and say this side is the people and these sides are the enemy. It does not work that way in a country like Syria.
I think Assad would back off of that if the Western powers would back off of their demand that he must leave office.
Press TV: Mr. Jatras a lot of people are saying that when we look at it from the outside, it looks like the West and these regional countries are asking President Assad to leave, but what are they leaving the Syrian nation with?
With militants that include al-Qaeda, that do not even follow the same policy? So what is the prospect?
Jatras: Let us be clear. They know exactly the kind of forces that they are supporting. The United States has a long history of supporting radical Sunni forces ever since the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Libya.
We think if we sponsor these forces we can moderate them and help them become less radical. It is the most absurd and foolish and dangerous policy imaginable.
============
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@
============
Press TV
January 8, 2013
US-led NATO seeks an excuse to wage war on Syria: James Jatras
Interview with James Jatras, ex-Senate foreign policy analyst
Video at URL above
====
Let us be clear. They know exactly the kind of forces that they are supporting. The United States has a long history of supporting radical Sunni forces ever since the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Libya.
====
A prominent analyst tells Press TV that the US-led NATO forces and their regional puppets are seeking an excuse to wage a war on the Syrian nation.
The Netherlands is shipping two Patriot missile batteries to Turkey, following a similar move by the United States and Germany. The shipment is part of a NATO contingent of Patriot missile batteries to be stationed on Turkey’s border with Syria. Ankara claims the Patriots are needed to protect Turkey against the spillover of the conflict in Syria. The Dutch military will also deploy 360 soldiers to operate the batteries. The arrival of the troops will begin on Tuesday. The United States and Germany have sent two such batteries and 400 troops each to the southern Turkish border region.
Press TV has conducted an interview with James Jatras, ex-Senate foreign policy analyst from Washington D.C., to shed more light on the issue at hand. Jatras is joined by two additional guests on Press TV’s News Analysis program: Bruce Gagnon, political commentator from Maine, and Huseyin Bagci, professor of the Middle East University from Ankara. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Mr. Jatras, what is going to be the use of these Patriot missiles and how real is the threat of a serious spillover [of the Syrian armed crisis to neighboring countries]?
The Dutch defense chief says it is very real!
Jatras: I think it is very real. One of the real dangers here has always been the fact that because Turkey borders Syria; unlike, for example, the situation in Libya, which did not border a NATO country; there is always the danger that those forces in Washington, in the Obama administration and in the other NATO capitals that want to intervene militarily in Syria can manufacture some sort of an incident which will then be packaged as a Syrian attack on Turkey, invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty [NATO] and then justifying a military response.
There was some danger of this if you recall some months ago when there was an incident regarding Turkish [fighter] aircraft off the coast of Syria; so I think that that danger exists.
I think it is something ironic that these missile batteries are being deployed in Turkey to “defend†Turkey from Syria as if Turkey were the target of Syrian aggression rather than the other way around; that Syria, an internationally recognized state and government, is the target of radical, terrorist Sunni jihadists supported by the Obama administration, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Press TV: Iran and Syria and Russia, they have described this move as provocative. The Syrian president has said that Turkey is trying to provoke the situation.
First of all, would you describe it as such at a time when Turkey is saying that its borders have become unsafe, that it is seeing shells land inside Turkey and there is also of course the allegations that Syria is using Scud missiles and even allegations that it could use chemical weapons?
Jatras: Of course it is a provocation. Again there is a certain absurd irony here, that Turkey says the step is necessary because its border has become unstable.
Why has its border become unstable? Because the Erdogan government is supporting military aggression against its neighbor, Syria, that it is allowing these armed radical groups, supported and armed and funded by the NATO countries, by Saudi Arabia and by Turkey to operate from its territory against its neighbor.
I think that there is a very real threat that the purpose of having these batteries there is precisely to provoke a response, which could be done from the Turkish side of the border, that will then cause a response from the Syrian side and then they can say: Ah! See there! Now Syria has committed aggression against Turkey, NATO must respond.
I think that this is a very real danger and I think that it is also a danger within the Obama administration, with some voices who want to intervene in Syria and some that do not.
Press TV: James Jatras, President Assad was saying that we have to understand that the fight or the conflict is not between the government and the opposition, so to speak; it is basically between the Syrian people, he said, and its enemies.
But let our viewers see your description, right now, of the conflict. Who is on each of the sides? And why cannot there be a negotiated solution?
Jatras: I think that there can be a negotiated solution but there needs to be a change in the position of the Western powers.
Look! I think it is overstated for President Assad to say it is between Syria and whoever he wants to call the opposition and say that it is not a civil war.
Of course it is a civil war and in fact looked at the other way round, the Western powers want to say the “rebels†are the Syrian people fighting an oppressive government.
Well, there are people who support that government; it is a civil war. I think it [there] must be a Syrian solution but the first thing is that the Western powers have got to take off the table the non-negotiable demand that Bashar al-Assad must leave office; because he is not going to do that. There should be a negotiation with the support of outside powers for an open-ended negotiation with all sides to figure out Syria’s future.
But this is a badly divided country, [one cannot] just divide and say this side is the people and these sides are the enemy. It does not work that way in a country like Syria.
I think Assad would back off of that if the Western powers would back off of their demand that he must leave office.
Press TV: Mr. Jatras a lot of people are saying that when we look at it from the outside, it looks like the West and these regional countries are asking President Assad to leave, but what are they leaving the Syrian nation with?
With militants that include al-Qaeda, that do not even follow the same policy? So what is the prospect?
Jatras: Let us be clear. They know exactly the kind of forces that they are supporting. The United States has a long history of supporting radical Sunni forces ever since the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Libya.
We think if we sponsor these forces we can moderate them and help them become less radical. It is the most absurd and foolish and dangerous policy imaginable.
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 3:57 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.stripes.
Stars and Stripes
January 8, 2013
US could defend Turkey from Syrian strikes by Saturday
By Matt Millham
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany: Most of the U.S. contingent deploying to...Turkey.
Meanwhile, aircraft problems have kept a Germany-based command-and-
The bulk of the U.S. force is coming from the Army’s 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery, which began streaming into Turkey late Friday night, “and it’s been a pretty constant flow since then,†Air Force 1st Lt. David Liapis, a spokesman for the Air Force’s 39th Air Base Wing at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, said Tuesday. “I would say the bulk of the personnel and equipment are already here.â€
An advance team of soldiers from U.S. Army Europe arrived at Incirlik Thursday to begin scouting around the Turkish city of Gaziantep, where the batteries will set up...Gaziantep is less than 80 miles from the embattled city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city.
Germany and the Netherlands are each sending two Patriot batteries as well and will deploy to other parts of the Turkish-Syrian border. Their systems shipped out early Tuesday from the Dutch port city of Eindhoven and are expected in Turkey by Jan. 21, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense announced Tuesday in a statement.
“The German contingent includes more than 400 soldiers and consists basically of two Patriot fire units of the Air Force,†the German statement said. “A fire unit comprises up to eight launchers with eight missiles in the initial loading, a fire control station and a multi-function radar.â€
...In all, NATO allies are sending six batteries and about 1,200 troops for the mission, dubbed Active Fence.
Despite two days of delays for the 10th AAMDC team, Johnson said the American Patriot batteries could be operational by Saturday. “However, that is subject to further review by NATO,†he said. “We will be able to assume that mission if we need to based on NATO’s guidance.â€
The entire NATO system isn’t expected to be fully operational until early February, Johnson said.
============
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@
============
Stars and Stripes
January 8, 2013
US could defend Turkey from Syrian strikes by Saturday
By Matt Millham
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany: Most of the U.S. contingent deploying to...Turkey.
Meanwhile, aircraft problems have kept a Germany-based command-and-
The bulk of the U.S. force is coming from the Army’s 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery, which began streaming into Turkey late Friday night, “and it’s been a pretty constant flow since then,†Air Force 1st Lt. David Liapis, a spokesman for the Air Force’s 39th Air Base Wing at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, said Tuesday. “I would say the bulk of the personnel and equipment are already here.â€
An advance team of soldiers from U.S. Army Europe arrived at Incirlik Thursday to begin scouting around the Turkish city of Gaziantep, where the batteries will set up...Gaziantep is less than 80 miles from the embattled city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city.
Germany and the Netherlands are each sending two Patriot batteries as well and will deploy to other parts of the Turkish-Syrian border. Their systems shipped out early Tuesday from the Dutch port city of Eindhoven and are expected in Turkey by Jan. 21, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense announced Tuesday in a statement.
“The German contingent includes more than 400 soldiers and consists basically of two Patriot fire units of the Air Force,†the German statement said. “A fire unit comprises up to eight launchers with eight missiles in the initial loading, a fire control station and a multi-function radar.â€
...In all, NATO allies are sending six batteries and about 1,200 troops for the mission, dubbed Active Fence.
Despite two days of delays for the 10th AAMDC team, Johnson said the American Patriot batteries could be operational by Saturday. “However, that is subject to further review by NATO,†he said. “We will be able to assume that mission if we need to based on NATO’s guidance.â€
The entire NATO system isn’t expected to be fully operational until early February, Johnson said.
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 5:47 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.progress
The Progressive
January 8, 2013
Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel
Allen Ruff
Following weeks of trial-balloon conjecture, President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel, the former Senator from Nebraska and oft-described “moderate Republican,†to succeed Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense.
Conservative critics had raised objections as soon as Hagel’s name surfaced as a probable nominee in mid-November. The usual pack of neocon watchdogs charged him with being inadequately hawkish on Iran and out of lockstep on Israel.
Towing its increasingly neocon editorial line, the Washington Post on November 18th editorialized that Hagel was “not the right choice for defense secretary.†Citing the ex-Senator-cum-
Detractors dredged up a back-when Senate vote against Iran sanctions as rightwing media hacks echo chambered alleged “anti-Semitism†based upon the Senator’s years ago use of the phrase “Jewish lobbyâ€. He certainly rankled some Israel right-or-wrong types in 2006 when he said, “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.â€
Liberal backers, in response, immediately sprung to the Nebraskan’s defense. The Atlantic’s James Fallows described him as a “wise bipartisan pick†with Vietnam combat-vet cred and a “cautious realist-centrist record†while filleting the “bogus case against Chuck Hagel.â€
Hagel in August 2005 had won favor among centrist types when he became the first Republican Senator to publicly criticize the Iraq war and to call for US withdrawal. Criticizing then-President Bush, the GOP, and the Patriot Act's erosion of civil liberties that December, Hagel stated that, "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president,"
He later went on, in 2007, to criticize plans for the Iraq war “surge.†Such rank-breaking statements, while endearing him to disquieted anti-war moderates, have never been forgotten by the Right.
The problem today is that neither Hagel’s detractors nor his supporters have really fully laid out who he is or why progressives should firmly oppose his appointment as the Pentagon’s top gun. Certainly, those to the left should not fall into the trap of cheering on Obama’s latest War Department pick, solely because the Right stands opposed.
Currently a member of the board of directors of Chevron, Hagel led the charge in 1997 to block ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement that would have committed the US and other industrial nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Hagel-Byrd Resolution, co-authored by the coal-friendly Democrat, West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, argued that the Kyoto failed to include developing countries and posed barriers to US economic expansion.
On his way through the revolving door to higher fame and fortune, Hagel announced in September 2007 that he would not seek a third term in the Senate. While his current mainstream biographies note that he happens to teach at Georgetown, they somehow consistently miss mentioning that he might have to give up his current position on Chevron’s board.
He probably will have to rotate out of his seat as co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the appointed body of “distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors… independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-day management or operational responsibilities. with full access to the complete range of intelligence-
Hagel also currently sits on the board of directors of the American Security Project, a Washington-based imperial think tank committed to “understanding and articulating American beliefs and values related to U.S. foreign policy,†and forging a domestic “bipartisan consensus†on “a new national security strategy that will restore America’s leadership…†Founded in 2007, with Hagel and Hillary Clinton’s State Department heir apparent, John Kerry, as founding members, the American Security Project is heavily involved in “energy security policy research,†and “the national security need for biofuels†(i.e., the “greening†of the Pentagon) as well as “cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.â€
If he receives Senate confirmation, Hagel’s current position as Chair of the non-governmental but immensely influential Atlantic Council will most likely be placed on hold, at least until he returns to “private life.â€
Seldom discussed, the Washington-based council was founded 50 years ago as an elite foreign policy NGO committed to forwarding US “national interest†and continued Cold War supremacy within the “Atlantic community†and beyond. According to foreign policy critic Rick Rozoff, it was established in 1961 by former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO. Under US leadership, Atlantic Councils were set up in affiliated member states for the same purpose.
A recent list of Council associates reads like a “who’s who†of the Washington foreign policy establishment. Henry Kissinger’s disciple, the former National Security adviser Brent Scowcroft has played a significant role in shaping the contemporary organization. Obama’s first National Security Advisor James L. Jones and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the first pick to succeed Panetta at the Pentagon, formerly worked for the AC.
Hagel’s predecessor as Council Chair, Jones had been a Marine Corps four-star general, top commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006. He also served as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy for Middle East security and in that position openly discussed deploying NATO troops to the West Bank, a recommendation echoed by his Atlantic Council colleague, Scowcroft.
Scowcroft, a retired Air Force general and National Security Advisor under Presidents Ford and George H. W. Bush, is now the chairman of the Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board. Co-chaired by Hagel, the Council’s Strategic Advisors Group is a standing body of roughly 40 senior experts on NATO and transatlantic security issues. Founded in 2007 by then Council Chairman Jones, Scowcroft, and others, the Strategic Advisors Group describes itself as the “pre-eminent institution for strategic thinking and analysis on Euro-Atlantic security†through its “thought leadership†on issues such as Afghanistan/
With Chuck Hagel at the helm, the Council’s attentions have increasingly turned toward Central and South Asia. As part of that pivot, especially toward oil and uranium rich and strategically located Kazakhstan, the Council undertook a project in 2010 entitled “Eurasia as Part of Transatlantic Security.†Also headed by Hagel, that effort has sought to “shape the transatlantic debate on security in Eurasia…â€
The council’s Eurasia Task Force has been funded by a grant from the Kazakhstan government, currently ruled by the authoritarian “president for life,†Nursultan Nazarbayev. Additional support has come though the Council’s Strategic Advisory Group as well as from EADS-North America, the US subsidiary of one of Europe’s largest military aircraft manufacturers currently providing weaponry to repressive regimes across Central Asia.
While still in elected office and well before he joined the board of directors at Chevron (today a major investor in Kazakhstan’s Caspian Sea oil fields) or became Chair of the Atlantic Council, Hagel had been the only US Senator to visit all five Central Asian republics. His dovetailing interests and ties to the region have continued since.
In May, 2010 Michele Kinman, the deputy director of Crude Accountability, an environmental citizen action group concerned with Caspian Sea regional issues, addressed Hagel at Chevron’s annual Board of Directors’ meeting.
Kinman pointed out how Chevron was intensely involved in hydrocarbon projects in Kazakhstan fraught with violations of environmental law, a lack of transparency and, ultimately, scandal.
She pointed out how Chevron was then poised to sign a major agreement with the authoritarian government of Turkmenistan to develop the country’s largely untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Noting Hagel’s clear interest in, and ties to, Caspian oil and gas development, she also pointed to his stated record in support of transparency and anti-corruption. She called upon him to be put his weight behind a call for Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most repressive countries, to “dramatically and measurably improve its human rights and accountability record before Chevron invests in its hydrocarbon sector.â€
Kinman went on to argue that “if Chevron engages with a repressive regime such as Turkmenistan to secure hydrocarbons without first insisting on significant, demonstrable improvements in human rights, transparency and rule of law, it will strengthen anti-democratic tendencies and stifle the development of an already severely compromised civil society, as it has in Burma, Nigeria, Columbia and in numerous other countries around the world.â€
Addressing the now-would-be Secretary of Defense, she went on: “Senator Hagel, as a new board member, you have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to raise the bar for corporate responsibility in the Caspian to a level that is in accordance with the Chevron Way, for starters, but more importantly, in accordance with international law and practice.â€
“Senator Hagel,†she asked, “Are you prepared to insist that your company take a principled stance in favor of human rights in Turkmenistan today?â€
Hagel did not respond to Kinman. Instead, Chevron CEO John Watson encouraged Crude Accountability to write the Senator at a later time.
Perhaps during his confirmation hearings, some current Senator will elicit some answers to similar questions regarding Hagel’s concerns for “energy security†and a his apparent willingness to overlook the nature of repressive regimes in exchange for such. That prospect is unlikely.
============
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@
============
The Progressive
January 8, 2013
Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel
Allen Ruff
Following weeks of trial-balloon conjecture, President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel, the former Senator from Nebraska and oft-described “moderate Republican,†to succeed Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense.
Conservative critics had raised objections as soon as Hagel’s name surfaced as a probable nominee in mid-November. The usual pack of neocon watchdogs charged him with being inadequately hawkish on Iran and out of lockstep on Israel.
Towing its increasingly neocon editorial line, the Washington Post on November 18th editorialized that Hagel was “not the right choice for defense secretary.†Citing the ex-Senator-cum-
Detractors dredged up a back-when Senate vote against Iran sanctions as rightwing media hacks echo chambered alleged “anti-Semitism†based upon the Senator’s years ago use of the phrase “Jewish lobbyâ€. He certainly rankled some Israel right-or-wrong types in 2006 when he said, “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.â€
Liberal backers, in response, immediately sprung to the Nebraskan’s defense. The Atlantic’s James Fallows described him as a “wise bipartisan pick†with Vietnam combat-vet cred and a “cautious realist-centrist record†while filleting the “bogus case against Chuck Hagel.â€
Hagel in August 2005 had won favor among centrist types when he became the first Republican Senator to publicly criticize the Iraq war and to call for US withdrawal. Criticizing then-President Bush, the GOP, and the Patriot Act's erosion of civil liberties that December, Hagel stated that, "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president,"
He later went on, in 2007, to criticize plans for the Iraq war “surge.†Such rank-breaking statements, while endearing him to disquieted anti-war moderates, have never been forgotten by the Right.
The problem today is that neither Hagel’s detractors nor his supporters have really fully laid out who he is or why progressives should firmly oppose his appointment as the Pentagon’s top gun. Certainly, those to the left should not fall into the trap of cheering on Obama’s latest War Department pick, solely because the Right stands opposed.
Currently a member of the board of directors of Chevron, Hagel led the charge in 1997 to block ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement that would have committed the US and other industrial nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Hagel-Byrd Resolution, co-authored by the coal-friendly Democrat, West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, argued that the Kyoto failed to include developing countries and posed barriers to US economic expansion.
On his way through the revolving door to higher fame and fortune, Hagel announced in September 2007 that he would not seek a third term in the Senate. While his current mainstream biographies note that he happens to teach at Georgetown, they somehow consistently miss mentioning that he might have to give up his current position on Chevron’s board.
He probably will have to rotate out of his seat as co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the appointed body of “distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors… independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-day management or operational responsibilities. with full access to the complete range of intelligence-
Hagel also currently sits on the board of directors of the American Security Project, a Washington-based imperial think tank committed to “understanding and articulating American beliefs and values related to U.S. foreign policy,†and forging a domestic “bipartisan consensus†on “a new national security strategy that will restore America’s leadership…†Founded in 2007, with Hagel and Hillary Clinton’s State Department heir apparent, John Kerry, as founding members, the American Security Project is heavily involved in “energy security policy research,†and “the national security need for biofuels†(i.e., the “greening†of the Pentagon) as well as “cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.â€
If he receives Senate confirmation, Hagel’s current position as Chair of the non-governmental but immensely influential Atlantic Council will most likely be placed on hold, at least until he returns to “private life.â€
Seldom discussed, the Washington-based council was founded 50 years ago as an elite foreign policy NGO committed to forwarding US “national interest†and continued Cold War supremacy within the “Atlantic community†and beyond. According to foreign policy critic Rick Rozoff, it was established in 1961 by former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO. Under US leadership, Atlantic Councils were set up in affiliated member states for the same purpose.
A recent list of Council associates reads like a “who’s who†of the Washington foreign policy establishment. Henry Kissinger’s disciple, the former National Security adviser Brent Scowcroft has played a significant role in shaping the contemporary organization. Obama’s first National Security Advisor James L. Jones and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the first pick to succeed Panetta at the Pentagon, formerly worked for the AC.
Hagel’s predecessor as Council Chair, Jones had been a Marine Corps four-star general, top commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006. He also served as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy for Middle East security and in that position openly discussed deploying NATO troops to the West Bank, a recommendation echoed by his Atlantic Council colleague, Scowcroft.
Scowcroft, a retired Air Force general and National Security Advisor under Presidents Ford and George H. W. Bush, is now the chairman of the Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board. Co-chaired by Hagel, the Council’s Strategic Advisors Group is a standing body of roughly 40 senior experts on NATO and transatlantic security issues. Founded in 2007 by then Council Chairman Jones, Scowcroft, and others, the Strategic Advisors Group describes itself as the “pre-eminent institution for strategic thinking and analysis on Euro-Atlantic security†through its “thought leadership†on issues such as Afghanistan/
With Chuck Hagel at the helm, the Council’s attentions have increasingly turned toward Central and South Asia. As part of that pivot, especially toward oil and uranium rich and strategically located Kazakhstan, the Council undertook a project in 2010 entitled “Eurasia as Part of Transatlantic Security.†Also headed by Hagel, that effort has sought to “shape the transatlantic debate on security in Eurasia…â€
The council’s Eurasia Task Force has been funded by a grant from the Kazakhstan government, currently ruled by the authoritarian “president for life,†Nursultan Nazarbayev. Additional support has come though the Council’s Strategic Advisory Group as well as from EADS-North America, the US subsidiary of one of Europe’s largest military aircraft manufacturers currently providing weaponry to repressive regimes across Central Asia.
While still in elected office and well before he joined the board of directors at Chevron (today a major investor in Kazakhstan’s Caspian Sea oil fields) or became Chair of the Atlantic Council, Hagel had been the only US Senator to visit all five Central Asian republics. His dovetailing interests and ties to the region have continued since.
In May, 2010 Michele Kinman, the deputy director of Crude Accountability, an environmental citizen action group concerned with Caspian Sea regional issues, addressed Hagel at Chevron’s annual Board of Directors’ meeting.
Kinman pointed out how Chevron was intensely involved in hydrocarbon projects in Kazakhstan fraught with violations of environmental law, a lack of transparency and, ultimately, scandal.
She pointed out how Chevron was then poised to sign a major agreement with the authoritarian government of Turkmenistan to develop the country’s largely untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Noting Hagel’s clear interest in, and ties to, Caspian oil and gas development, she also pointed to his stated record in support of transparency and anti-corruption. She called upon him to be put his weight behind a call for Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most repressive countries, to “dramatically and measurably improve its human rights and accountability record before Chevron invests in its hydrocarbon sector.â€
Kinman went on to argue that “if Chevron engages with a repressive regime such as Turkmenistan to secure hydrocarbons without first insisting on significant, demonstrable improvements in human rights, transparency and rule of law, it will strengthen anti-democratic tendencies and stifle the development of an already severely compromised civil society, as it has in Burma, Nigeria, Columbia and in numerous other countries around the world.â€
Addressing the now-would-be Secretary of Defense, she went on: “Senator Hagel, as a new board member, you have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to raise the bar for corporate responsibility in the Caspian to a level that is in accordance with the Chevron Way, for starters, but more importantly, in accordance with international law and practice.â€
“Senator Hagel,†she asked, “Are you prepared to insist that your company take a principled stance in favor of human rights in Turkmenistan today?â€
Hagel did not respond to Kinman. Instead, Chevron CEO John Watson encouraged Crude Accountability to write the Senator at a later time.
Perhaps during his confirmation hearings, some current Senator will elicit some answers to similar questions regarding Hagel’s concerns for “energy security†and a his apparent willingness to overlook the nature of repressive regimes in exchange for such. That prospect is unlikely.
============
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@
============
Tue Jan 8, 2013 6:19 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.acus.
Atlantic Council
January 8, 2013
Chairman of African Union calls on NATO to join Mali force
Jorge Benitez
====
Africa: U.S. And NATO Build Neo-Colonial Proxy Forces
http://rickrozoff.
Libya: New AFRICOM And NATO Beachhead In Africa
http://rickrozoff.
Mali: U.S. Africa Command’s New War?
http://rickrozoff.
Africa: Battleground For NATO’s 21st Century Strategic Concept
http://rickrozoff.
Africa: Global NATO Seeks To Recruit 50 New Military Partners
http://rickrozoff.
Ivory Coast: Testing Ground For U.S.-Backed African Standby Force
http://rickrozoff.
NATO: AFRICOM’s Partner In Military Penetration Of Africa
http://rickrozoff.
====
From AFP: African Union chair Thomas Boni Yayi on Tuesday called for Nato troops to join African Union forces in a mission to stabilise Mali following a coup last year.
"Nato should play a part [in Mali], and the African force would lead the way as was done by Nato in Afghanistan,
Harper said only that Ottawa would continue to provide humanitarian aid and work diplomatically with its Nato allies and "friends in Africa" to try to stabilise Mali...
...West African nations have put together a force of some 3,300 troops ready to go to Mali to help rebuild the country'
Atlantic Council
January 8, 2013
Chairman of African Union calls on NATO to join Mali force
Jorge Benitez
====
Africa: U.S. And NATO Build Neo-Colonial Proxy Forces
http://rickrozoff.
Libya: New AFRICOM And NATO Beachhead In Africa
http://rickrozoff.
Mali: U.S. Africa Command’s New War?
http://rickrozoff.
Africa: Battleground For NATO’s 21st Century Strategic Concept
http://rickrozoff.
Africa: Global NATO Seeks To Recruit 50 New Military Partners
http://rickrozoff.
Ivory Coast: Testing Ground For U.S.-Backed African Standby Force
http://rickrozoff.
NATO: AFRICOM’s Partner In Military Penetration Of Africa
http://rickrozoff.
====
From AFP: African Union chair Thomas Boni Yayi on Tuesday called for Nato troops to join African Union forces in a mission to stabilise Mali following a coup last year.
"Nato should play a part [in Mali], and the African force would lead the way as was done by Nato in Afghanistan,
Harper said only that Ottawa would continue to provide humanitarian aid and work diplomatically with its Nato allies and "friends in Africa" to try to stabilise Mali...
...West African nations have put together a force of some 3,300 troops ready to go to Mali to help rebuild the country'
