pmaidhof

PaCom chief confident U.S. can deter N. Korea By Audrey McAvoy - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Apr 13, 2007 9:45:54 EDT SEOUL, South Korea — The new top commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific expressed confidence Friday in the military’s ability to respond to any aggression by North Korea though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left him with fewer troops on the ground. Adm. Timothy Keating is visiting South Korea for the first time since he assumed control of the U.S. Pacific Command last month. He was expected to discuss the U.S.-South Korea alliance with Korean leaders and have U.S. commanders brief him on the North Korean threat and the status of U.S. forces on the peninsula. On his way to Seoul, Keating said in an interview that the U.S. has fewer soldiers and Marines at its disposal to deter any invasion of South Korea by the North. But the admiral said the U.S. has more air and naval resources on hand that it would not hesitate to use if necessary. “The fact that there is a surge in the Middle East causes us to perhaps make accommodations in response plans that we would employ,” Keating said while flying to South Korea from Japan, where he also stopped during a weeklong Asia-Pacific tour. “I’m supremely confident in the U.S. military’s ability to respond to any aggression by North Korea.” The admiral added that the U.S. military constantly monitored troop readiness and that President Bush’s decision to send more forces to the Middle East wasn’t making commanders watch readiness any more or less than usual. Bush announced in December he would increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000. Last month, he approved a plan to send another 4,000. Thousands more forces are also being sent to Afghanistan to boost U.S. and NATO efforts there. The U.S. has about 28,000 troops, including 19,000 soldiers, in South Korea. The South Korean army has some 690,000 troops — including about 560,000 soldiers — ready to fight if the North invades. North Korea’s military comprises over 1.2 million troops, including some 1 million ground forces. Analysts say it is hampered by old equipment but still has 13,000 artillery tubes, including hundreds capable of showering Seoul with chemical weapons. U.S. light infantry troops around the Pacific, such as Marines on Okinawa in southern Japan and soldiers based in Hawaii, are expected to provide backup if fighting erupts. Many of those troops, however, are already deployed or gearing up to return to Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, some 7,000 soldiers with the 25th Infantry Division based at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii are currently in Iraq. On Wednesday, they received word their yearlong deployment would be extended 90 days. The division has another roughly 4,000 soldiers in the 2nd Brigade currently in Hawaii. But that unit is the midst of training to become a Stryker Brigade and isn’t expected to be certified for deployment until late this year. Col. Franklin Childress, a spokesman for U.S. Forces Korea, said U.S. air and naval power was so overwhelming that North Korea would not even consider attacking. He said the U.S. has also repeatedly shown in exercises that it could rapidly fly reinforcements to the Korean Peninsula on commercial airliners and military jets. If war broke out, Childress added, U.S. force structure would change, enabling the U.S. to move more troops to the area. Ralph Cossa, president of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies, said air and naval power could compensate well in providing a deterrent amid a lack of U.S. ground troops. But he said sailors and airmen could only do so much if the North decided to launch a sudden attack. “If deterrence fails and you have to do something, that’s when it becomes a problem,” Cossa said. Thomas Donnelley, a resident fellow in defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., said military coalitions required at least a minimum contribution on all fronts from all partners. “Maintaining a posture where the U.S. would exclusively provide air power or naval support while the Koreans would do all the dirty work is a danger,” Donnelley said. This could create fissures in the U.S.-South Korean alliance, particularly if any conflict festered over time, he said. Find article here.

Set up the belligerants tonight. Iranian airbases, aircraft squadrons, air defense brigades, naval vessels (including fast attack craft and "speedboats capable of attacking tankers with rockets, and sowing "limited" mines), and Silkworm missile batteries. Iraq, two air bases and a handful of squadrons. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman - airbases and squadrons - only Saudis seem to have really good aircraft. US: CV-63, CVN-68, SSN, BB, outside of the gulf, on the strategic map, also 2x B-52 squadrons, P-3, F-15, the US Supply Head, CH-47, and 5th Marine Amphibious Brigade on Diego Garcia. Various USN surface combatants and tactical aircraft within the gulf. Iraqi and Iranian players earn 10 points for each tanker that completes a round trip into the gulf, to a oil facility, spending a full turn there loading, and back out) without suffering any hits. 1 hit = 5 points. There are a few lesser scoring opportunities. First turns over the weekend. Good gaming.

India Test Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile India Test Fires New Nuclear-Capable Missile Agni III, State Government Official Says By MUNEEZA NAQVI The Associated Press NEW DELHI - India test fired a new missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads across much of Asia and the Middle East, a state government official said Thursday. An earlier test firing of the Agni III missile had failed when it plunged into the Bay of Bengal short of its target in July last year. There was no immediate comment whether the current test was successful. The missile was launched from Wheeler Island off the eastern state of Orissa, the state government official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. India's current crop of missiles has been largely intended to confront neighboring archrival Pakistan. The Agni III, in contrast, is India's longest-range missile, designed to reach 1,900 miles putting China's major cities well into range, as well as targets deep in the Middle East. It also is said to be capable of carrying up to a 300-kiloton nuclear warhead. India's missile program, together with its nuclear program and drive for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, is part of its ongoing efforts to establish itself as a world power. India's homegrown missile arsenal already includes the short-range Prithvi ballistic missile, the medium-range Akash, the anti-tank Nag and the supersonic Brahmos missile, developed jointly with Russia. Find article here.

1st Osprey squadron to deploy By Trista Talton - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Apr 12, 2007 11:13:40 EDT JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — Commandant Gen. James Conway is expected to announce Friday the first deployment of an MV-22 Osprey squadron, according to a Pentagon release. Until then, officials are remaining mum on where Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, based at Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., will deploy. The squadron is expected to deploy late summer or early fall this year. In early March, the squadron wrapped up several weeks of integration training with Camp Lejeune-based Marines. Part of the training was to get the Osprey more exposure to ground troops as the program attempts to overcome its troubled past. VMM-263 was the first of the Corps’ now three operational Osprey squadrons. The other squadrons include VMM-162 and VMM-266, which stood up late last month. The Osprey is phasing out the Corps’ aged fleet of CH-46 Sea Knights. The West Coast transition will likely begin around late 2009, early 2010, followed by overseas squadrons. There are three remaining Sea Knight squadrons on the East Coast, six on the West Coast and two on Okinawa, Japan. The Corps’ growing Osprey fleet includes 43 war birds at New River and four test tilt-rotors at Patuxent River, Md., said James Darcy, Osprey program spokesman at Pax River. The Corps is set to receive another 13 Ospreys this year. Two Ospreys crashed in 2000, killing a total of 23 Marines. Find article here.

Tony, I agree that the first 18-24 months could be an outstanding opportunity for special forces operations in/around/across the border. After that time, concern will continue building over possession of the nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Also, how would India react to either growing uncertainty or extremism with their historical arch-enemy?

Navy plans large-scale exercise off Guam Valiant Shield will involve 3 carriers, 22,000 troops By Audrey McAvoy - The Associated Press Posted : Tuesday Apr 10, 2007 9:54:39 EDT PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii — The Navy will send three aircraft carriers to waters off Guam for large-scale exercises late this summer, the outgoing U.S. Pacific Fleet commander said. The Valiant Shield war games will resemble exercises held near the U.S. territory last June. Those brought together some 28 ships, 280 airplanes and 22,000 troops. Adm. Gary Roughead, announcing the exercises Monday, said the Navy learned a great deal from last year's large-scale exercises and wanted to hold similar drills again to improve on some of the tactics used. “It was very important, I think, to take that information and, while everything was still fresh, to say let's go ahead and do things again,'' Roughead said. The war games will only involve U.S. troops but will include forces from different services. The Marine Corps and Air Force participated in last year's drills. Last year's exercises — the first Valiant Shield — were the largest the U.S. has had in the Pacific since the Vietnam War. The war games underscore the Navy boosted presence in the Pacific. The Navy is moving forward with plans to base a majority of its nuclear-powered attack submarines in the ocean by 2010. It also intends to have six of its 11 aircraft carriers in the Pacific. Just last month, the Navy announced plans to base the Carl Vinson in San Diego after it undergoes maintenance in Virginia. The Vinson's move to California would bring to six the number of Pacific-based carriers. The Navy already has two carriers in San Diego, two in Washington state, and one based in Yokosuka, Japan. Roughead, who is due to leave Hawaii next month to become the U.S. Fleet Forces commander in Norfolk, Va., included last year's Valiant Shield exercises among the highlights of his accomplishments at the Pacific Fleet. He also cited the fleet's use of its ballistic missile tracking systems to track North Korea's launch of missiles last July and humanitarian work with the hospital ship Mercy as accomplishments. But Roughead said the sailors deserved the praise. “It really had been great being out here and being able to watch the men and women of our Navy go do so many things and to do it really well,'' Roughead said. “The credit goes to the sailors who are out there making it happen.'' At Fleet Forces Command, Roughead will be responsible for planning how the Navy trains and equips its sailors in upcoming years. He will also direct Navy ships in the Atlantic, reporting to the U.S. Northern Command. President Bush has nominated the current vice chief of naval operations, Navy Adm. Robert F. Willard, to succeed Roughead. Find article here.

Report: Sailors killed while tethered to sub Rough seas also threatened to sink ship By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Apr 10, 2007 10:56:16 EDT Two sailors from the attack submarine Minneapolis-St. Paul were killed Dec. 29 off Plymouth, England, after being washed overboard in rough seas that soon threatened to sink the ship, according an investigative report released Monday under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Navy Times. Senior Chief Electronics Technician (SS) Thomas K. Higgins, 45, chief of the boat, died in the accident, along with Sonar Technician 2nd Class (SS) Michael J. Holtz. A third sailor, Sonar Technician 1st Class (SS) James Sowa, was washed overboard with Higgins and Holtz but survived. Assigned to a small boat handling team, the three were trying to transfer a British harbor pilot off the submarine near a breakwater on the way out of port. At the time of the accident, the team was on the deck and the pilot was in the hatch of the Forward Escape Trunk. Although bad weather approached — in fact prompting their departure from England — it was deemed manageable at the time, according to the JAG Manual Investigation report. But while the three sailors stood exposed on deck, a strong wave hit the sub hard enough to slam the outer trunk hatch down on the pilot, causing him to bite through his upper lip. The pilot reopened the hatch but the sub captain, Cmdr. Edwin Ruff, ordered Higgins, Holtz and Sowa below decks. Before they could get through the hatch, a second wave hit, knocking the three sailors into the sea. The pilot got safely inside the submarine. The three sailors remained outside. They were rocked by heavy swells and struggled to get back aboard, but remained tethered to the submarine by lanyards fastened to a safety rail, according to the report. A shipmate went up to the deck but was also washed overboard before he could clip his lanyard to the rail. A nearby escort boat picked him up. The sailors were being tossed back and forth across the deck. Sowa survived when a wave washed him onto the deck allowing him to pull himself toward the open hatch. A swimmer tender, Storekeeper Seaman Garrett Degler, grabbed him, cut him free and hoisted him inside, according to the report. Another sailor went out after Higgins and Holtz but he too was washed overboard. He tried to swim back to the ship but was quickly rescued by an escort boat. With Higgins and Holtz still tethered to the submarine, water from 10 to 15 foot waves was pouring into the submarine, leaving “several inches of standing water” in the mess deck and filling bilges. It took a crew member several tries to shut the hatch, which had been fouled by the Jacob’s ladder. The submarine was maneuvered in heavy seas to keep it clear of the nearby breakwater and provide a lee for the trapped sailors. Higgins and Holtz were eventually recovered by the escorts. They were later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital. It is unclear from the report whether Higgins and Holtz had knives that would have allowed them to cut their lanyards and get clear of the submarine for quick rescue. Overall, fault is assigned in the report to leadership for not correctly analyzing available information or anticipating sea conditions in their location. The harbor master, a British civilian with 15 years’ experience guiding ships and submarines in and out of Plymouth, is faulted for giving the crew “poor advice” and not sharing information about “potentially dangerous sea states past the breakwater.” A lack of crew training in risk management and man-overboard procedures is also cited. After the accident the submarine had to continue on a 14-hour transit to its dive point further out to sea. It could not return to port because of changing tide conditions. Ruff, skipper of the submarine at the time of accident, was relieved of command Jan. 19 by then-commander of the submarine force, Vice Adm. Charles Munns. Munns relieved Ruff three days after the skipper had been given a punitive letter of reprimand but allowed to stay with the ship. The executive officer received a punitive letter of reprimand at a non-judicial proceeding in January. He left the submarine based on a previously scheduled change of station. Charges against two junior officers and a chief petty officer were dismissed. The entire submarine force went on a weeklong safety stand-down to evaluate risk mitigation on Jan. 11, following the Minneapolis-St. Paul accident and the Jan. 8 collision between the attack submarine Newport News and a Japanese oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. Minneapolis-St. Paul returned to Norfolk, Va., on April 3, following a six-month deployment. Find article here

New York Times April 10, 2007 Pg. B8 Intrepid To Be Dry-Docked For Repairs To Hull By Patrick McGeehan The aircraft carrier Intrepid, the floating military museum, is scheduled to move again early today, but this short voyage should be much smoother than the ship’s difficult departure from Manhattan last year. The Intrepid, which has been tied up at a cruise-ship mooring in Bayonne, N.J., since December, is bound for a two-month stay in an adjacent dry dock. This will be the first time the 41,000-ton ship has been out of water in 30 years, according to Bill White, president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. A team of tugboats will push the Intrepid to the mouth of the dry dock, a concrete bathtub that is 52 feet deep and about 1,100 feet long, one end of which is removable. After the ship floats in, the removable section will be put back in place and pumps will drain the water. Once the water is gone and the ship is standing on blocks of concrete and wood, a crew will patch and paint the Intrepid’s 64-year-old steel hull, Mr. White said. They will also remove the ship’s four giant propellers, which got stuck in the Hudson River mud during the first attempt to move the Intrepid in November, he said. “We’re going to give it an extreme makeover, of sorts, cleaning it, repairing it and fixing it up,” Mr. White said. The $4.8 million project will not be the last stop on the Intrepid’s leave from its longtime home at Pier 86 on the West Side of Manhattan. From Bayonne, the ship is scheduled to be towed to Staten Island, where its interior spaces will be renovated and new exhibits will be installed while museum officials await the construction of a replacement for Pier 86.

Washington Times April 10, 2007 Pg. 9 Kurdish Tensions Move Iraq Meeting Global conference set for Egypt By Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times Tensions between Iraq and Turkey have risen sharply in recent days, contributing to a decision to convene an international conference on Iraq in Egypt rather than in Istanbul, diplomats said yesterday. The spat began over the weekend when Massoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, infuriated Ankara with threats to promote disturbances in Kurdish cities in Turkey. "Turkey is not allowed to interfere in the Kirkuk issue, and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakir's affairs and other cities in Turkey," Mr. Barzani saidtold the Al Arabiya television station. Turkey is nervous about a referendum in December that will decide whether oil-rich, multiethnic Kirkuk should be appended to the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Diyarbakir is the largest city in southeastern Turkey, where the population is predominantly Kurdish. "There are 30 million Kurds in Turkey, and we don't interfere there. If [the Turks] interfere in Kirkuk over just thousands of Turkmen, then we will take action for the 30 million Kurds in Turkey," Mr. Barzani said. "I hope we don't reach this point; but if the Turks insist on intervening in the Kirkuk matter, I am ready to take responsibility for our response." Turkish Foreign Minister Adbullah Gul called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to complain, U.S. and Turkish officials said, and Ankara handed a diplomatic protest note to the Iraqi government in Baghdad. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told reporters in Ankara that Mr. Barzani had "exceeded the limits" and "will be crushed by his own words." "Northern Iraq is making a very serious mistake with these steps," Mr. Erdogan said. Turkey does not hide the fact that it closely monitors developments in northern Iraq. Ankara fears that an independent Kurdistan could encourage separatism in southeast Turkey. The government also says Kurdish rebels use the region to plot attacks in Turkey. "Northern Iraq is the source of the ethnic-based terror we suffer in Turkey," Turkish government spokesman Cemil Cicek said at a press conference in Ankara. Ankara blames the outlawed Kurdish Workers' Party, known as the PKK, for more than 30,000 deaths since the group began an armed campaign in 1984 for an ethnic homeland that would include southeastern Turkey. Security officials said a Turkish soldier and three PKK guerrillas were killed yesterday in that part of the country. Ten more soldiers and seven rebels were killed over the weekend in operations against the PKK, the officials said. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said Mr. Barzani's comments were "really unhelpful." "They certainly do not further the goal of greater Turkish-Iraqi cooperation on issues of common concern, including fighting the PKK," he said. The strained relations between the two countries prompted Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to reject Turkey's offer to host a high-level meeting of foreign ministers from Iraq's neighbors and world powers. This article is based in part on wire service reports.

Chicago Tribune April 9, 2007 Musharraf Opposition Galvanizes As protests grow and support weakens for Pakistan's president, the U.S. faces possible loss of crucial ally By Kim Barker and Bay Fang, Tribune correspondents ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- For 27 years, Anwar Khan Afridi served in the Pakistani army. But the retired colonel now plans to mail his eight medals back to the government. He also wants to return his army pension of two plots of land and $313 a month. "I will no longer write anything using the name 'colonel,'" said Afridi, 58, holding his military decorations as he joined 4,000 other protesters outside Pakistan's Supreme Court last week. "I will return these medals." The target of Afridi's angry gesture is his own commander in chief, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a crucial if troublesome U.S. ally in the war on terror who is facing the most serious challenge to his eight-year rule. Since seizing power in 1999, Musharraf has survived two assassination attempts by Islamic extremists, increasing criticism of his cozy relationship with the United States and many calls by opponents to step down or give up his role as army chief. But Musharraf now risks losing support even within the military after suspending the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry -- a move many saw as an attempt to clear away a potential obstacle to his maintaining power. As the protests have spread and grown larger, the crisis has raised concerns in Washington and the European Union about what happens next in the nuclear-armed, strategically placed country. Some worry that Musharraf, in an attempt to quell the protests, could make concessions to hard-line Islamic political parties in the country's tribal areas that could benefit Al Qaeda or Taliban militants. Others worry about the country's stability if Musharraf is pushed out, especially given Pakistan's volatile relationship with neighbors Afghanistan and India, the latter also a nuclear power. Many in the West fear that an Islamic extremist or other isolationist, anti-Western leader could take over if Musharraf loses his post. While most Pakistanis vote for secular parties, any new president might not be as willing to manage Musharraf's balancing act -- promising to cooperate in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban while risking the wrath of the Islamists that Pakistan and Musharraf tacitly supported before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Key Bush administration ally Whether Musharraf rides out the political storm is a matter of great concern to the Bush administration. U.S. support for the president has led to deep public suspicions of U.S. motives toward Pakistan -- and if Musharraf leaves, the U.S. may have nowhere to turn. "It is really astonishing how much the administration has put all its eggs in the Musharraf basket and has no preparation in place whatsoever to figure out how to deal with a post-Musharraf Pakistan," said Christine Fair, a political scientist at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Sean McCormack, the U.S. State Department spokesman, said the U.S. is watching the protests closely but that the dispute is "a matter that the Pakistanis need to resolve within the confines of their laws and constitution." The Pakistani army inevitably will play an important role in whatever happens. Traditionally, the army is the source of most power in Pakistan; no ruler can last without its support. If the crisis worsens, some Pakistanis say, Musharraf's fellow army commanders could ask him to step down. "There is only one question in the country: Will the army remain loyal to him?" said Akram Zaki, a senior vice president for the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q party. "If the army remains loyal, then he cannot be overthrown. If the army does not remain loyal, then he cannot hold on to power." Analysts say Musharraf still has the support of the generals but that an escalation of the crisis might lead them to quietly ask him to resign to maintain the military's legitimacy. That has happened before in Pakistan's short history. Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar at the Middle East Institute who worked as an intelligence analyst on Pakistan and Afghanistan, said of the president's support among the generals: "At the moment, Musharraf still brings home the bacon -- that being the U.S. and all of its military hardware. But if they think at any point that Musharraf is a liability, they will choose to look after their own corporate interests." If Musharraf is asked to leave, he likely would be succeeded by another moderate general, who probably would want to continue cooperation with the United States, analysts say. What the Pakistani military fears most is alienating the U.S. and pushing it toward a stronger strategic alliance with rival India. Although it is regarded as unlikely that an Islamist government would step in after Musharraf, even the military could feel the need to make more concessions to Islamic extremist parties. And even if he succeeds in riding out the storm, Musharraf may have to make concessions to those parties, which have been influential in rousing support for the protests. "He has to make some compromises. He can't be the goalkeeper who's fielding balls from all sides, with no one on his team," said Husain Haqqani, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who advised three former Pakistani prime ministers. Musharraf's government defends the decision to oust chief justice Chaudhry last month over allegations of nepotism and abuse of his office. Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani blamed Islamic extremists and opposition political parties for taking advantage of the case to launch protests. "Everything is in line with the constitution, but in our country, the opposition is always ready to exploit any situation, especially the extremist parties," Durrani said. Musharraf still enjoys support from key sectors. "All businessmen would like Musharraf to stay on," said one engineer, who did not want his name used because he feared any Musharraf successor might retaliate. "I'm not getting married to the guy, but all businessmen want stability in government and growth, and this government has given us that." Among Pakistanis fed up with their government, Chaudhry's removal was the tipping point. In their view, the judge was a defender of human rights and was removed simply because he was a potential threat to Musharraf. In February, Chaudhry risked the regime's ire by ruling that the government should investigate the fate of hundreds of alleged Islamic militants who were detained or are missing. Critics tie move to re-election Critics believe that Musharraf wanted to intimidate the judiciary and pave the way for a smooth re-election. He is expected to ask parliament to vote him in again before new parliamentary elections scheduled for the end of this year. He also is expected to keep rejecting calls for him to give up his army post. Both moves would be unconstitutional, critics say, and opponents probably would challenge either move in the Supreme Court, which Chaudhry headed until last month. Part of the opposition to Musharraf has to do with his relationship with the U.S. "People are angry because they have the impression that Musharraf compromised part of Pakistan's sovereignty in the war on terror," said Syed Hasnat, a visiting scholar with the Middle East Institute who headed the political science department at the University of the Punjab. "They don't like coordinating with the Bush administration." Some Pakistanis believe that Washington cares only about the military and not the Pakistani people. Of the $10 billion in aid that the U.S. government has given to Pakistan in the last five years, $8 billion has gone to the military, analysts said. Recent criticism of Musharraf by U.S. officials over his handling of militants on the Afghan border may have bolstered support for Musharraf. "The more the U.S. is seen to be coming down on Musharraf and the army, the more the military has the incentive to coalesce around him," Fair said. The unrest culminated in the largest protest yet last Tuesday during a court hearing into the government's abuse-of-power allegations against Chaudhry. Many newspapers and television stations also have begun criticizing Musharraf and, indirectly, the military -- previously untouchable targets. The Tuesday protest was largely peaceful, unlike a demonstration March 16 when police fought demonstrators and broke into a television station broadcasting footage of the violence. Smaller protests Tuesday in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta also were peaceful. The demonstration in Islamabad was more like 18 political rallies, with competing banners and marchers and flags and an occasional collision between groups. Islamists marched next to secular politicians, a few of whom had received death threats for allegedly taking un-Islamic stands in the past. A group of Pakistani-American doctors even flew into the country and met with Chaudhry for an hour last Monday. "This movement will get larger and larger," said Mohammad Toor, a cardiologist from Joliet, Ill. "I don't think Musharraf can clamp down again." Kim Barker reported from Islamabad and Bay Fang from Washington.

Los Angeles Times - April 10, 2007 China Missile Test Seen As A Threat To Taiwan Exercise showed ability to blind U.S. satellites that would help defend the island, study says. By Associated Press WASHINGTON — China's anti-satellite test in January increased the country's military threat to Taiwan by demonstrating a limited ability to blind the U.S. satellites that would be deployed in defense of the island, according to a report by an independent private research group to be released today. "The test is a vivid example of how China's emerging military capabilities will complicate the strategic environment confronting U.S. forces for decades to come," says the study sponsored by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. The report is titled "U.S.-China Relations: an Affirmative Agenda, a Responsible Course." In the January test, China used a missile to destroy one of its weather satellites in low polar orbit, the first time Beijing had successfully tested an anti-satellite system. Three months after the exercise, the report says, the government's motives are unclear. China waited almost two weeks before publicly acknowledging the test. "China opposes the weaponization of space and any arms race," a government spokesman said, adding that Beijing would not participate in a space arms race. "The test is not targeted at any country and will not threaten any country." Although China can damage Taiwan with missiles, the study says, "it can only take and hold Taiwan if it can win and sustain control of the space, air and waters around Taiwan — a difficult task without U.S. intervention, and nearly impossible should the United States intervene in a China-Taiwan war." Co-chairs for the report were Carla Hills, a former U.S. trade representative, and Dennis Blair, former president and chief executive of the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded research center. The study says China is also developing strategies to protect its growing global interests that pose challenges for the U.S. "China does not need to surpass the United States, or even catch up with the United States, in order to complicate U.S. defense planning or influence U.S. decision-making in the event of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait or elsewhere," the study says. China considers Taiwan a rogue province. The report adds that there is no evidence that China will become a military peer of the United States within the next two decades.

Wow, come home today to find even more scenario's posted. Brad must have really been holding out on us.

Lest we forget...

I have begun setting up the Tanker War - variant 1, from the 2nd Edition booklet. I have the entirety of the three main maps, the Iraq extention from 3rd Edition, and the strategic map on my table down in the cellar - all under plexi-glass - it's beautiful, you must see it. I have only gegun setting up the forces, and will probably start a new thread for an incremental AAR.

Nice find Brad, should come in useful at some point. Thanks

"I just wanted to see if anyone would comment." Do I get a cookie? "Remember, loose lips sink ships !" Or a bullet?

Wall Street Journal April 9, 2007 Pg. 4 A Thaw For China And Japan? As Economies Become Intertwined, Nations Soften Stances By Sebastian Moffett and Jason Leow The complex and rocky relations between China and Japan these past few years have been neatly summed up in both countries by four Chinese characters: "politics -- cold; economy -- hot." Bilateral trade has doubled over the past four years, and exports of machinery and chemicals to China helped drag Japan's economy out of a slump. But there was little love lost between the governments and people. Japan's last prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, insisted on visiting Yasukuni, a shrine to Japan's war dead. The shrine honors mainly conscripted soldiers but also some convicted war criminals responsible for mass killings of Chinese during World War II. In response, Chinese students staged anti-Japanese demonstrations in 2005, and Beijing's leaders refused to meet Mr. Koizumi. This week should provide evidence of a thaw. China's Premier Wen Jiabao visits Tokyo from April 11-13, making him the first Chinese premier in seven years to visit Japan. He is scheduled to address the Japanese parliament, something no Chinese leader has done for more than 20 years. His trip follows a visit to Beijing in September by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, two weeks after he took office. The visits indicate that the two Asian giants agree that their squabbles over the past shouldn't hamper their thriving business relationship. That shift is important for the world economy because the two countries are such important parts of it. China's low-cost manufactured goods have become essential for the functioning of most industrialized nations. Japan, the world's second-largest economy after the U.S., has huge potential as a source of consumer demand as it grows steadily again following a decade of downturn. Each country benefits from trade and investment with the other. Without such a rapprochement, there are various reasons for discord between Japan and China, even though there are no signs of looming military conflict between the two. National pride, bolstered by an ever-expanding economy, is growing in China -- and sometimes erupts into nationalism. The Japanese are becoming more fearful of China: A government survey showed that just 34% of Japanese had friendly feelings toward China last year, down from 79% in 1980. "China could control Japan politically. ... Japan could become just one part of China," Shoichi Nakagawa, chairman of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Policy Research Council, said last year. "They have nuclear weapons. Japan has no nuclear weapons. China has two million soldiers." The growing array of armed forces in the region means any clash would be potentially disastrous. China's military budget rose nearly 18% to $45 billion this year -- though U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the country's real defense spending is three times higher than the official figure. Japan is focusing its defense capabilities more on East Asia -- in particular, China -- rather than on Russia as in the past, and it is also deepening its military alliance with the U.S. Possible disputes between the two nations include a quarrel over the sovereignty of parts of the East China Sea that are potentially rich in natural gas. Japan, like the U.S., opposes the use of force to reunite Taiwan -- which China regards as a renegade province -- with mainland China. And Tokyo has restricted trade with North Korea, a traditional ally of Beijing's. "It is natural that problems are bound to arise between neighbors," says Hiroshi Suzuki, a spokesman for Mr. Abe. "We want to resolve difficult issues through negotiation, in a peaceful manner." Mr. Abe has made better relations with China a key theme of his leadership. Visiting Beijing in October, he told Chinese leaders that he wouldn't say whether or not he has visited the Yasukuni shrine and implied that he would make no future public visits. He and Mr. Wen promised to "build a strategic relationship of mutual interest." The Chinese government is trying to generate better public feelings toward Japan. China Central Television, the state broadcaster, used to regularly show dramas set during World War II and featuring Japanese atrocities. But since Mr. Abe's visit, CCTV has been broadcasting more Japan-friendly content, such as a drama about a Chinese who spread Buddhism in Japan during the Tang dynasty. This, says Zhou Xingbao, a Japan scholar at the government-run China Institute of International Studies, "shows Japan and China has had thousands of years of friendship." The leaders' aim this week is to reduce tensions further and to see if their governments can cooperate usefully. Japan uses energy more than eight times as efficiently as China, as measured in the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar's worth of output. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is sponsoring a seminar in Tokyo at the same time as Mr. Wen's visit, aimed at introducing Chinese companies to energy-saving techniques used by Japanese manufacturers. Better relations might also spur further business links. While their economic ties are increasingly intertwined, analysts say they would be stronger if the governments got along better. Japan's top trading partner is China, and China's third-largest trading partner is Japan, after the European Union, which is the largest, and the U.S. But China's trade with Japan has been growing more slowly than that with other countries. In 2006, Japan's foreign direct investment to China dropped 30% to $4.6 billion, something analysts in China attributed mostly to political tensions. "China would rather have good relationships with its neighbors so that nothing affects economic growth," says Ma Junwei, a Japan scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. --Kersten Zhang in Beijing contributed to this article.

OK, I know what a staff puke is, having been one myself from time to time over the years. What does the other groups connotate?

With the release, or re-relese, of so many sceanrio recently, could we be inching ever closer to a HCE release date? Thanks for the effort Brad. Hoping,

U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq Story Highlights• State Department considers Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a terrorist group • Group's camp in Iraq protected by coalition forces • Mujahedeen-e-Khalq provides valuable intelligence on Iran • Iraqi government demands group leave Iraqi soil From Michael Ware CNN BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, gets protection from the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country. The U.S. considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran. The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades. Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran. (Full story) The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf. "The trips for procurement of logistical needs also take place under the control and protection of the MPs," said Mojgan Parsaii, vice president of MEK and leader of Camp Ashraf. That's because, according to U.S. documents, coalition forces regard MEK as protected people under the Geneva Conventions. "The coalition remains deeply committed to the security and rights of the protected people of Ashraf," U.S. Maj. Gen. John D. Gardner wrote in March 2006. The group also enjoys the protection of the International Committee of the Red Cross. "The ICRC has made clear that the residents of Camp Ashraf must not be deported, expelled or repatriated," according to an ICRC letter. Despite repeated requests, neither Iran's ambassador in Baghdad nor the U.S. military would comment on MEK, also known as Mojahedin Khalq Organization, or MKO. The State Department said Friday the Geneva Conventions protections apply only to MEK residents of Camp Ashraf, and the organization as a whole and its members elsewhere are subject to prosecution for terrorist or criminal acts. "We still regard them as a terrorist organization," former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Green Berets arrived at Camp Ashraf to find gardens and monuments, along with more than 2,000 well-maintained tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, anti-aircraft guns and vehicles. All 3,800 camp residents were questioned by Americans. No arrests were made, and the camp quickly surrendered under a cease-fire agreement -- an agreement that also guaranteed its safety. "Everyone's entry to the camp and his departure are controlled by the U.S. military police force," Parsaii said. The MEK denies it is a terrorist group. Both Iran and the Iraqi government, however, accuse the group of ongoing terrorist attacks, and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government wants it out. "We gave this organization a six-month deadline to leave Iraq, and we informed the Red Cross," said Shirwan al-Wa'eli, Iraq's national security minister. "And presumably, our friends the Americans will respect our decision and they will not stay on Iraqi land." For now, however, the United States continues to protect MEK. "There are counter-pressures, too," Khalilzad said. "There are people who say, 'No, they should be allowed to stay here.' And as you know, around the world there are people with different views toward them." find article here. my my humble opinion: given the source, I take this article with a grain of salt. However, the west cannot have it both ways. A sticky situation either way.

Cleric takes bold moves in Pakistan Events follow criticism against president for increasing ‘Talibanization’ MSNBC News Services Updated: 3:05 p.m. ET April 6, 2007 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - In a bold challenge to the government, a firebrand cleric said Friday he had formed an Islamic court to enforce a Taliban-style vice campaign in the Pakistani capital, threatening suicide attacks if authorities try to stop him. Thousands of followers of Maulana Abdul Aziz underlined their defiance by chanting “Our way is jihad!” and setting fire to hundreds of mainly Western DVDs and video cassettes outside Islamabad’s Red Mosque. Friday’s events deepen a dilemma for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf: endure growing criticism for creeping “Talibanization” in Pakistan despite his alliance with the U.S., or force a potentially bloody showdown with fanatics who have grown under his rule. Students from a seminary adjoining the mosque launched a morality crackdown earlier this month by threatening shopkeepers selling films and music. They even kidnapped an alleged brothel owner and held her for two days until she made a public confession. Aziz addressed about 3,000 people at the mosque for a conference on Sharia and jihad — Islamic law and holy war. Listeners filled the courtyard and packed the roof of the red-walled building just a few hundred yards from the city’s government district. Dozens of students armed with wooden poles and with checkered scarves tied around their faces patrolled outside the perimeter wall. In his sermon, Aziz announced that he had established a Sharia court of 10 clerics to dispense Islamic justice. He said the clerics would issue decrees, but gave no other details about the court’s supposed jurisdiction. He said it would begin in one month if the government didn’t move against “centers of vulgarity” in the city — and warned authorities against trying to stop his activities. ‘This is destroying our society’ Aziz appealed for volunteers to defend the mosque, which has links to outlawed Sunni extremist groups. Mosque officials deny allegations that weapons are stored inside. “If the government says it will launch an operation against us as a last resort, our last resort will be suicide bombings,” Aziz said. Bearded young men in the crowd punched the air in response. Aziz then asked the gathering, “What is our way?” and students bellowed back: “Jihad! Jihad!” Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, denounced Aziz’s threat, and urged him not to force the government to take stern action. So far, police have done little. “They have misjudged the government’s resolve. We want to avoid the use of force against them. We want to resolve all issues through peaceful means,” Azim told The Associated Press. He accused the cleric of using female seminarians as a human shield. After prayers, students at the mosque set fire to a pile of hundreds of DVDs, video cassettes and some broken video players on a nearby road — stock from an Islamabad shop whose owner had agreed to close his business, said Aziz’s brother, Abdul Rashid Ghazi. “This is porno material and blue films. This is destroying our society,” Ghazi said. Crowds shouted, “God is great!” when the pile, doused in gasoline, caught fire with a whoosh. The DVDs included films from neighboring India and some Western titles, including a romantic comedy called “Dirty, Filthy Love,” but also children’s movies such as “Home Alone 4” and “Free Willy.” ‘Un-Islamic’ behavior Scores of female students in black burqas listened to the sermon and watched the video bonfire from the roof of their neighboring seminary, where Ghazi is vice principal. Muslim hard-liners, who have gained influence by tapping popular opposition to Pakistan’s support for Washington’s war on terrorism — have pressed steadily for curbs on “un-Islamic” behavior such as distributing Western movies. Most of the agitation for Taliban-style social controls has been in the conservative northwest, along the Afghan border, where sympathies run high for the fundamentalist Taliban militia that ruled Afghanistan before a U.S.-led invasion in 2001. The Taliban banned TV and largely confined women to their homes. The move to impose a similar style of restrictions in Islamabad has alarmed many in the relatively liberal city and drawn criticism from moderate clerics. It has added to the impression that the mosque and its thousands of followers are above the law. Female student followers of Aziz and his brother are already defying authorities by occupying Islamabad’s only library for children. The women have also threatened suicide attacks to oppose plans to demolish the mosque for encroaching on government land. © 2007 MSNBC Interactive URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11909490/ article here.

Washington Post April 6, 2007 Pg. 21 Calming The Waters In The Gulf By David Ignatius Here's an American acronym we ought to translate promptly into the Iranian language of Farsi: INCSEA. It's shorthand for a May 1972 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to prevent dangerous incidents at sea, and it's a model for how to begin reducing dangerous tensions with Iran. The moment for such a dialogue is ripe, now that the Iranians have opted for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis they provoked two weeks ago when they seized15 British sailors and marines in disputed waters off the Iraqi coast. The British hostages are back home, but it's obvious that a better system is needed to avoid confrontations in the crowded waters of the northern Persian Gulf. U.S. naval commanders with the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain have been interested for many months in the possibility of a "naval hotline." They know how quickly an incident in the Gulf could trigger an inadvertent escalation that could push the United States and Iran toward war. U.S. admirals are said to favor some system that would allow them to talk directly with the Iranian navy and, more important, with the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces that seized the British sailors. The current system for avoiding confrontations is informal and haphazard. The U.S. Navy, in effect, draws imaginary lines in the Gulf and stays within those boundaries. By repeating the same patterns over and over, it signals to the Iranians that it doesn't have hostile intent. But one unplanned action -- a loose torpedo that strikes an American warship -- and the two nations could be on the verge of war. "Our naval commanders are very concerned about confrontation coming out of misunderstanding," says Eric Thompson, who directs the international affairs group of the Center for Naval Analyses, a Washington think tank. The INCSEA agreement was negotiated during the dark years of the Cold War, after a series of dangerous incidents involving the U.S. and Soviet navies. In May 1967, two Soviet warships collided with the American destroyer USS Walker while it was escorting a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Sea of Japan. That was part of an ongoing game of "chicken" at sea, with American jets routinely buzzing Soviet warships. What finally prompted action was an incident involving a British ship. The aircraft carrier Ark Royal collided with a Soviet destroyer in November 1970, killing a number of Soviet sailors. Moscow decided to accept an American proposal for "Safety at Sea" talks, and the roiling waters began to calm. The American assigned to lead the U.S. negotiating team was none other than John Warner, then undersecretary of the Navy and now a U.S. senator from Virginia. As the negotiations progressed, Warner invited the Soviet delegation to his house for dinner -- where they watched President Richard Nixon announce the mining of Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam. The Russian admiral leading the Soviet delegation turned to Warner and said, "I need another bourbon; this matter is for the politicians to decide," according to naval historian David F. Winkler in his book "Cold War at Sea." INCSEA talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran aren't likely to involve bourbon. But the Cold War agreement offers some useful guideposts. The United States and the Soviet Union pledged in 1972 to try to avoid collisions, to refrain from close surveillance and to inform each other before potentially dangerous maneuvers. Most important, they agreed to exchange information promptly through naval attachés in the event of an incident and to hold annual meetings to review how the agreement was working. This confidence-building measure followed the 1963 hotline agreement that established a direct communications link between the White House and the Kremlin. The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis had convinced both sides that the risk of misunderstanding in a crisis was too high -- and that they needed some reliable channel for contact. Surely we are at a similar moment now with Iran, when the risks of escalation are obvious to everyone. Perhaps the British, who have diplomatic relations with Iran, could begin the dialogue about an INCSEA for the Persian Gulf. The goal would be an official blessing for navy-to-navy contacts. The British could then draw in the United States for a broader discussion about naval "rules of the road" in the Gulf. It might make sense to embed this naval hotline in a larger framework for discussing regional security, similar to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which helped defuse Cold War tensions. Crisis brings opportunity. The British sailors and marines are back home. The Iranians are patting themselves on the back for exercising restraint. Now it's time for discussions that begin to move Iran and the West back from the brink.

Washington Post April 6, 2007 Pg. 21 Britain's Humiliation -- And Europe's By Charles Krauthammer Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that pretend to maintain international order. You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation. The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat" who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck. Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf. Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused. Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch," reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity. Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical. The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council. Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf. Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury. Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town. What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated. The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern.") Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

Washington Times April 6, 2007 Pg. 9 China Mum On Pace Query On Anti-Satellite System By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times China's senior military leaders refused to disclose any details about a recent test of a new anti-satellite weapon system or other aspects of a secret space-arms program, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters yesterday. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, who recently returned from a four-day visit to China, also said NATO forces have launched a spring offensive in Afghanistan against ousted Taliban militia. On China's Jan. 11 test, Gen. Pace said he asked Chinese leaders during several meetings about the use of a missile to destroy a Chinese satellite in low-earth orbit. "I was very direct with them. I told them that, you know, as we look at transparency, it was difficult for the world to understand what China was doing with their anti-satellite test," Gen. Pace said. "They had not announced it beforehand, they did not acknowledge it until significantly after they did it, and therefore, the world was confused about what the intent was and what their policies toward space activity were. They did not answer that question." Gen. Pace said that on some issues, the Chinese military leaders were "very open," but "they were not open about that." Pentagon officials said intelligence estimates indicate that China will have produced enough satellite interceptors by 2010 to destroy most U.S. low-earth orbit satellites. It was hoped that the Chinese would disclose to Gen. Pace more details about the anti-satellite weapons program, which also includes ground-based lasers and electronic jammers that -- if used against both military and civilian satellites -- would severely damage U.S. government and society. Asked about the Chinese refusal to explain the anti-satellite program, Gen. Pace said, "Well, on that specific point, I don't know what their policy is and I don't know what their intent was, so I am still, as are others, confused." Gen. Pace met with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Liang Guanglie, chief of the Chinese general staff; Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing; and Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan. He discussed Taiwan with Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, the Communist Party entity that runs the military. Despite the silence on the anti-satellite test, Gen. Pace described the visit as "very productive" and said the Chinese "demonstrated their desire to increase" the transparency of their military activities. On the spring military offensive in Afghanistan, Gen. Pace said "the NATO operations have begun." "This is a NATO operation that, by name, started probably three or four weeks ago and will continue now for several months at various levels of intensity as various pockets of enemy are identified and taken under action," he said. Gen. Pace declined to say how large the military offensive is because it would reveal to "our enemies what they might possibly avoid or not avoid." Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who met reporters with Gen. Pace, said he has been worried that the level of violence in Afghanistan during springtime has increased "fairly steadily" in the past two or three years. The NATO offensive is to make sure "that with our focus on Iraq, that we did not take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, either." To bolster forces in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates said that he extended the mission of a U.S. brigade in the country and that other forces will be sent from Europe. "This is part of a longer-term effort not just to defeat renewed Taliban attempts to stake out a position in southern and eastern Afghanistan in particular, but to help the Afghan government strengthen its capacity to help the Afghan people for economic development, for better governance, to get control of the narcotics problem," Mr. Gates said. Mr. Gates said he met yesterday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to discuss Afghanistan and the need for NATO members to fulfill troop and equipment commitments and to improve coordination and cooperation. Both Pentagon leaders said the plan to add five combat brigades to Baghdad for stability operations is on schedule to have most of the forces in place by June. Mr. Gates said any decision on troops withdrawals from Iraq would be made by Central Command leaders no earlier than this summer.

DoD: Forces still ready for other conflicts By William H. McMichael - Staff writer Posted : Friday Apr 6, 2007 6:19:48 EDT U.S. forces have “enormous power and capacity” despite the demands of the war in Iraq and could defeat any potential enemy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said Thursday. “There’s zero doubt about the outcome,” Marine Gen. Peter Pace said at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “It would simply take us longer than we would like.” Pace acknowledged that the war’s demands, with units spending a year or less back home before being redeployed, mean that troops get “well-trained” for the war but do not get trained to the “full spectrum” of possible situations elsewhere while deployed. “You do forfeit some of the kind of training you would like to do just to have a little bit more readiness in case something happens that you’re not expecting,” Pace said. U.S. forces would prevail in such a case because they have “enormous residual capacity” of about 2 million nondeployed active and reserve troops, he said, echoing earlier testimony to Congress. Even though it would take longer to remobilize, train and deploy reserve forces, he said, “We have the vast power of our ... Navy and our Air Force still available to take on any potential foes.” But because so many precision intelligence and weapons delivery systems are committed overseas, he said, “You would potentially increase the number of casualties on both sides and the amount of damage done on both sides. ... You may end up using more ‘dumb’ bombs, for example, to get the job done.” Pace said some Army units are not undergoing predeployment training at Fort Irwin, Calif., home of the National Training Center. But he said units headed to the war get “properly trained” for their wartime missions at their home bases and that commanders must certify their units’ state of readiness to their chain of command before they deploy. Two of the five brigade combat teams that make up the administration’s ongoing “surge” into Iraq — the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, and the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division — did not travel to the NTC for their predeployment training but did or will receive home station training by NTC trainers, according to Army spokesman Lt. Col. Carl Ey. “Every single unit that goes to the war gets an NTC cadre-trained rotation,” Ey said, calling them “full-mission training exercises.” Gates said the surge is on track with previous plans to deploy about one brigade combat team per month. He said the department had looked at “whether we could accelerate that process” and concluded that was not possible because “we want to make sure that every single one of those brigades is adequately trained before they actually enter Iraq.” Another factor, he said, was that most equipment moves by sea, “and it’s 30 days no matter how much of a hurry you’re in.” The third of the five brigade combat teams, the 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, is currently moving into Baghdad and the next two are due in mid-April and mid-May, Pace said. The surge operation, aimed at pacifying Baghdad, will be in full swing by early June, he said. Find article here.