U.S., NATO Should Intervene In Syria (Fwd) [b-antinato] Digest Number 6111

[glry at ngi.it]

------- Segue messaggio inoltrato -------
Data invio:       	2 Mar 2013 21:23:47 -0000
Da:               	b-antinato at yahoogroups.com
Oggetto:          	[b-antinato] Digest Number 6111


There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. U.S.-NATO Missile System: First-Strike Potential Aimed At Russia    
    From: Rick Rozoff

2. Brookings Chief: U.S. Should Intervene In Syria, Congo At Once    
    From: Rick Rozoff

3. NATO States Signal Direct Intervention In Syria: Russian Scholar    
    From: Rick Rozoff


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. U.S.-NATO Missile System: First-Strike Potential Aimed At Russia
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 7:00 pm ((PST))

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/missile-defense-hits-a-brick-
wall/476213.html



Moscow Times
February 28, 2013


Missile Defense Hits a Brick Wall
By Vladimir Kozin*


====

U.S. operational missile defense systems to be deployed in Romania and Poland in 2015 
and 2018, respectively, are not designed to intercept potential ballistic missiles launched by 
Iran...The only purpose of the U.S. missile defense equipment deployed in Europe is to 
destroy Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Russia would also like to know in what maritime areas the U.S. plans to base long-range 
interceptors...Will the U.S. ground-based anti-ballistic missiles, to be deployed at the 
Deveselu base in Romania and near the Polish town of Redzikovo, be replaced with more 
capable ones, thus augmenting their capability to cancel out Russian nuclear deterrence 
forces?

Why has the U.S. Air Force completed building new underground warehouses at 13 air 
bases in six NATO member countries to store precision nuclear air bombs designed to 
destroy hard targets? 

[T]he Americans completely exclude from the negotiations such important non-nuclear 
weapons as anti-missile systems, anti-satellite weapons and high-precision capabilities that 
could perform lightning strikes in any part of the world.

====




Before President Barack Obama's state-of-the-union address on Feb. 13, two reports 
emerged from the U.S. whose content was rather unusual, as are the possible political and 
military consequences.

First, The Associated Press reported that secret studies by the U.S. Department of Defense 
have questioned the capability of the U.S. missile defense system to be deployed in Europe 
to protect the country from Iranian ballistic missiles. Apparently, the report was based on 
data presented recently at a secret briefing of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. ¨

Second, The New York Times, quoting an anonymous source within the Obama 
administration, said Washington would call on Russia to jointly reduce further strategic 
offensive weapons.

The missile defense report is only partially plausible. Indeed, the U.S. government has been 
conducting studies to determine the advisability of deploying a European and global missile 
defense system for quite some time. U.S. operational missile defense systems to be 
deployed in Romania and Poland in 2015 and 2018, respectively, are not designed to 
intercept potential ballistic missiles launched by Iran " the reason that the U.S. gave for 
introducing the missile shield. This is the task of the missile defense systems of the United 
States and its allies deployed in the Gulf region. The only purpose of the U.S. missile 
defense equipment deployed in Europe is to destroy Russian intercontinental ballistic 
missiles.¨

The fact that our country is never mentioned in the missile shield program as a potential 
participant proves that it is aimed at Russia. Russia is missing from both the NATO Missile 
Defense Action Plan and the U.S. and alliance's "rules of engagement" concerning the use 
of anti-ballistic missiles, endorsed shortly after the NATO Chicago summit last year.

As for the Times report on a further reduction of strategic offensive weapons, it was denied 
almost immediately by a White House spokesman, who said he was not expecting any new 
announcements in Obama's speech. Indeed, Obama only said Washington was ready to 
involve Russia in a "nuclear weapons reduction," without giving any quantitative 
parameters. ¨

Obama's address failed to answer a principle question for our country: Will the U.S. reduce 
or build up its missile defense structure in Europe? Russia would also like to know in what 
maritime areas the U.S. plans to base long-range interceptors. Around 30 U.S. ships have 
already been equipped with such equipment, and each ship could carry 30 to 40 missiles. 
Will the U.S. ground-based anti-ballistic missiles, to be deployed at the Deveselu base in 
Romania and near the Polish town of Redzikovo, be replaced with more capable ones, thus 
augmenting their capability to cancel out Russian nuclear deterrence forces?

Other questions arise as well. Why do these "new" ideas on strategic weapons reduction put 
forward by Washington still not mention whether the U.S. will withdraw its tactical nuclear 
weapons from Europe, as Russia did more than 18 years ago? Does Washington plan to 
retain weapons of this type on the continent for several more decades, especially as the 
Pentagon has already announced their future upgrade by 2030? Why has the U.S. Air Force 
completed building new underground warehouses at 13 air bases in six NATO member 
countries to store precision nuclear air bombs designed to destroy hard targets? Why do the 
U.S. and its NATO allies insist on counting the number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons 
and determining their location and state of readiness before the official discussions on them 
begin?

Finally, in light of the two news reports, one could ask: Why were they published, and why 
isn't there any additional information?

Here, it seems, everything is simple. It's obvious that the U.S. intends to go down the road 
of selectively reducing nuclear weapons, focusing only on a further reduction of strategic 
offensive weapons. But at the same time, the Americans completely exclude from the 
negotiations such important non-nuclear weapons as anti-missile systems, anti-satellite 
weapons and high-precision capabilities that could perform lightning strikes in any part of 
the world. On top of this, Obama said in his speech that he was willing to "strengthen the 
missile defense system" during his second term.

This means that the U.S. is floating new arms-control proposals to obscure its far-reaching 
plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons and the missile defense shield, destabilizing the 
global political and military environment and undermining the fragile strategic and military 
balance between Moscow and Washington that took several decades to establish. For 
instance, building up combat and data-collection missile defense equipment while reducing 
strategic offensive weapons could lead to a dangerous situation described by U.S. leaders 
back in the 1960s and '70s as the nuclear missiles and anti-ballistic missiles arms race. 
Such an imbalance could tempt the U.S. to launch a first nuclear strike.

This is why, no matter how White House proposals are presented, Russia's defense 
interests will not be served by a further reduction of its strategic offensive weapons against 
the background of a U.S. buildup of missile defense capabilities around the world. Russia's 
updated foreign policy, issued in mid-February, says our country has consistently supported 
constructive cooperation with the U.S. in the area of arms control, including taking into 
consideration the unbreakable link between strategic offensive and defensive capabilities 
and the urgency of making the nuclear disarmament process multilateral. It also assumes 
that negotiations on a further reduction of offensive nuclear weapons are possible "only 
taking into consideration all the factors affecting global strategic stability, without any 
exceptions."

Moscow and Washington should agree once and for all not to use nuclear weapons first 
against each other and not to deploy their missile defense systems near the borders of the 
other country. Russia has repeatedly declared its willingness to show restraint in the area of 
missile defense. A refusal by both sides to use nuclear weapons in a first strike would make 
the deployment of American missile defense systems at the "forward lines" illogical and set 
an example of real cooperation for other nuclear states.

Obviously, Russia and the U.S. would maintain their right to deploy and upgrade their 
infrastructure for the interception of ballistic missiles on their territories.

But Washington should renounce its plans to implement not only the fourth but all the other 
phases of its current missile defense program. This means calling off the second phase, 
which has already started, and canceling the third as well. If Washington stops 
implementation of the fourth phase only, it will not meet the national security interests of 
Russia. In this case, the U.S. and NATO missile defense system will be deployed anyway.

Quite frankly, instead of thinking how to encircle Russia with nuclear and missile defense 
weapons, the American side should think about how it can work together with us and other 
interested parties to prevent meteorites from raining down on our planet.

*Vladimir Kozin is a member of an interagency working group attached to the Russian 
presidential administration discussing missile defense issues with NATO, and is a leading 
researcher with the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change 
subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
====================================================================
==





Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Brookings Chief: U.S. Should Intervene In Syria, Congo At Once
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 6:26 am ((PST))

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/28-us-syria-congo-ohanlon


Brookings Institution
February 28, 2013


Weighing U.S. Intervention: Syria v. Congo
By Michael E. O'Hanlon


====

[M]ore capable U.S. forces that can help in the task even as other nations generally provide 
many of the peacekeeping troops. These conditions free Obama to make decisions about 
the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Syria, on their respective merits - rather 
than remain paralyzed by broader philosophical conundrums.

[T]here is a case for more assertive U.S. action in both Congo and Syria.

[I]n Syria...the most likely scenario for U.S. troops resembles what the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization did in Bosnia in the 1990s. First, we arm the weaker side. Then we support it 
with air strikes...Using the Bosnia precedent, and allowing for a population four times its 
size, up to 200,000 foreign troops could be needed in a post-war stabilization effort...

[W]e can as part of multilateral coalitions that intervene in both Congo and Syria at once. 
[sic]

Obama has an opportunity here to revalidate the Nobel Committee´s decision to award him 
its peace prize four years ago. It´s also an opportunity to show that the 2011 Libya mission, 
of which the president is justifiably proud, was not a one-off. Now, with his new Cabinet, 
Obama should seriously explore his options in both these tragic wars.

====



President Barack Obama, in a January New Republic interview, was asked bluntly if the 
United States should actively intervene in Syria´s civil war. He thoughtfully explained his 
reservations. Several concerned Syria, but the last one pointed to larger ethical issues. "And 
how do I weigh," Obama asked, "tens of thousands who´ve been killed in Syria versus the 
tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo??

With this comment, Obama cut to the heart of an age-old dilemma about humanitarian 
military intervention - whether it is worth addressing some conflicts when you know that 
others continue to simmer, or boil over, at the same time?

This was the case in the 1970s when wars in the Horn of Africa, Uganda, Cambodia and 
elsewhere killed many hundreds of thousands. It was true in the 1980s when conflict 
intensified in places like Afghanistan, Angola and Central America. And in the 1990s when 
the Balkans and Rwanda and parts of West Africa blew up, while Sudan, Somalia and other 
wars continued.

But for all the terrible headlines today, Obama enjoys advantages that leaders in previous 
eras did not have. There are fewer wars in the world; more international consensus on what 
to do about them, and more capable U.S. forces that can help in the task even as other 
nations generally provide many of the peacekeeping troops. These conditions free Obama 
to make decisions about the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Syria, on their 
respective merits " rather than remain paralyzed by broader philosophical conundrums.

While neither decision should be made lightly, there is a case for more assertive U.S. action 
in both Congo and Syria. These are now probably the world´s two worst wars that 
Washington is doing little to address.

Take Congo. First, it is not the case that the nation´s leaders or its insurgents are ordering 
tens of thousands directly killed on the same time scale as in Syria. What has been 
happening in eastern Congo for two decades is a breakdown of the state, caused by 
sporadic fighting among various domestic and foreign militias.

The killing has indeed been horrible - including some of the worst sexual violence in the 
world, with rape used as a tactical weapon. But most of the deaths have been caused by 
malnutrition and poor healthcare, resulting from the lack of any real state. The war is killing 
huge numbers of people, to be sure, but largely indirectly " by preventing government from 
propely caring for its citizens " something Congo can barely do in peaceful regions.

There is now a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo, roughly 20,000 troops. This is a small 
force for a country the size of the United States east of the Mississippi, even if the force is 
concentrated in the rugged east.

Second, that force is underequipped and largely made up of African and South Asian 
peacekeepers. It does not have nearly the number of helicopters or other capabilities to 
ensure mobility that could compensate for its small size. Even modest additions to this force 
could help a great deal, with little risk of escalation.

The United States has spent a decade handling far more violent insurgencies in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. For this, Washington created formations such as "advise and assist brigades," 
each roughly 1,500 to 2,500 troops. By the end of 2013, most of these and other units are 
due to be back in the United States. We have already cut our overseas troop strength in the 
two wars by almost two-thirds, from its peak five years ago (the peak was some 200,000 
troops including 22 combat brigad teams). We could consider eploying one or two of 
these advise and assist brigades into eastern Congo, as part of the U.N. mission. This could 
make a big difference to the capacity of the foreign force and in the development of the 
Congolese army.

Meanwhile, in Syria, while Obama is right to fear a slippery slope to more demanding 
operations, the most likely scenario for U.S. troops resembles what the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization did in Bosnia in the 1990s. First, we arm the weaker side. Then we support it 
with air strikes. Finally, we help negotiate a peace accord allowing some degree of 
autonomy for the various sectarian groups within a weak federal structure.

This approach might not work. Even if it fails, however, it is unlikely to lead to the kind of 
large-scale invasion that we carried out in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In Syria, such an operation would only make sense if it were a combined Arab League-
NATO mission, in which U.S. forces were just a small fraction. Using the Bosnia precedent, 
and allowing for a population four times its size, up to 200,000 foreign troops could be 
needed in a post-war stabilization effort - if only for a time. But if their focus were on 
policing ceasefire lines, the number might be cut in half, with the U.S. share perhaps 
20,000.

Such scenarios may be unappealing to the president (as they are to me) - especially after 
a decade of war and a half decade of economic crisis. But the alternative of watching the 
slaughter in both countries go unchecked, while hoping that the insurgency somehow wins 
without much support in Syria, is fast becoming no alternative at all.

In fact, given the likely requirements of each mission, we can as part of multilateral 
coalitions that intervene in both Congo and Syria at once. It is probably not Obama´s 
preference for his second term - nor is it what most Americans would want, to be sure. But 
we can make a big difference by addressing the world´s two worst humanitarian crises with 
limited numbers of U.S. forces.

Obama has an opportunity here to revalidate the Nobel Committee´s decision to award him 
its peace prize four years ago. It´s also an opportunity to show that the 2011 Libya mission, 
of which the president is justifiably proud, was not a one-off. Now, with his new Cabinet, 
Obama should seriously explore his options in both these tragic wars.


==============================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change 
subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
===============================================================





Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. NATO States Signal Direct Intervention In Syria: Russian Scholar
    Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff at yahoo.com rwrozoff
    Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 6:57 am ((PST))

http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/665068.html


Itar-Tass
March 2, 2013


Friends of Syria´s decisions herald direct Western intervention - analyst


====

"It has already worked in Libya," he said. "Next, a territory is to be won where an alternative 
body of government would be located. Then a no-fly zone would be declared and troops 
sent in. For instance, commandos from Qatar. Ultimately the capital and the whole country 
can be taken over quite easily."

This sort of scenario was tested in Libya. However, in Syria it has been disrupted again and 
again.

====

 
MOSCOW: The decisions made at the meeting of the Friends of Syria group in Rome may 
be regarded as the West´s declaration of direct intervention in the affairs of that Arab 
republic, the president of the Middle East Institute, Yevgeny Satanovsky, told Itar-Tass on 
Friday.

"From now on, at any mention of arms supplies or of the training of militants the West will 
stop raising eyebrows and playing innocent," Satanovsky said. "The statements that the 
external players have made in the Italian capital can be regarded as an outright declaration 
of intent, because the West has been directly interfering inthe Syrian conflict for quite a 
long time, from the very beginning of the crisis.?

Asked about the point of view to the effect the militants kept mounting terrorist attacks 
against Damascus with the aim to distract attention from Aleppo in order to create a sort of 
a government-in-exile there, Satanovsky said that was "standard practice."

"It has already worked in Libya," he said. "Next, a territory is to be won where an alternative 
body of government would be located. Then a no-fly zone would be declared and troops 
sent in. For instance, commandos from Qatar. Ultimately the capital and the whole country 
can be taken over quite easily."

This sort of scenario was tested in Libya. However, in Syria it has been disrupted again and 
again.

"In terms of combat readiness the Syrian army is far better than the Libyan one was," 
Satanovsky said.

About the latest controversial statements by the head of the National Coalition for 
Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, Ahmed al-Khatib, concerning the possibility of talks 
with the Syrian government Satanovsky said the coalition´s leader was a "casual, temporary 
figure."

"He has surfaced amid the ongoing turmoil. He is here today, but he may be gone 
tomorrow," the analyst said. "Al-Khatib has no major forces behind him. He is a compromise 
figure. Indeed, how can one bring the fore some very savage figures or personalities close 
to Al-Qaeda? The main flows of cash and military assistance to the miltants come from the 
agents of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.?

"Al-Khatib may go on proposing anything he wants and as long as he wants. The money and 
the guns are beyond his control," Satanovsky said. "Who cares about what a puppet in 
puppet theater may propose?"
 
================================================================

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change 
subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

=================================================================





Messages in this topic (1)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b-antinato/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b-antinato/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    b-antinato-normal at yahoogroups.com 
    b-antinato-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    b-antinato-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------- Fine del messaggio inoltrato -------
.  
---  from : jure ellero <glry at ngi.it> 
----------------------------------------------

NOTIZIE SIRIA-LIBIA: 
http://www.sibialiria.org 
 
RESISTENZA PARTIGIANA - un nuovo portale:  
http://www.diecifebbraio.info 
 
Indirizzo Comunisti Uniti Friuli-V.G.: 
<comunistiunitifvg at yahoo.it> 
Sito nazionale Comunisti Uniti: 
http://www.comunistiuniti.it 
----------------------------------------------