http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123334765


U.S. Air Forces in Europe
February 1, 2013



KC-135s support French mission in Mali
By Capt. Jason Smith
100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs


FORWARD OPERATING LOCATION EUROPE: A detachment from the 100th Air Refueling
Wing, RAF Mildenhall, England, operating from a forward deployed location, has
completed aerial refueling mission in support of French Operations in Mali.

The first roughly 10-hour mission, during the daytime, gave the aircrew the
opportunity to see the land area they will be potentially flying over on future
missions.

"If you know distinguishing landmarks, it always helps," said Capt. Tim Gerne,
aircraft commander for this mission...

A detachment from the 100th ARW deployed on short notice on Jan. 26 and launched
the first support refueling mission on Jan. 27.

"It's good to see things coming together," said 1st Lt. John Lachiewicz, the
co-pilot of the mission and Chapel Hill, N.C. native. "We hope to make a
positive difference in helping our NATO ally."

...

The KC-135 is capable of refueling a variety of U.S. and NATO aircraft. It can
off-load a maximum of 200,000 pounds of fuel.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_01/The-politics-of-aggressive-war/


Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013



The politics of aggressive war
John Robles



When is it acceptable for a country to engage in an act of aggressive war? Can
it be justified to engage in an act that has been recognized by the world
community and laid down in international law as a crime against humanity? Not
just my humanity but all humanity?

These are questions the world community should have been asking itself every day
for approximately the past two decades, but it has not. For it was approximately
that long ago that one of the world’s superpowers began engaging in acts of
aggression wherever it saw fit in order to show its strength and military might
and terrorize the world into bending to its will.

Suppose for a minute you and I are that power. We are righteous, rich and
powerful and control much of the planet through our economic manipulations and
massive media and political know-how. We also have bombs and weapons all over
the planet ready to wipe out any adversary and the adversaries of our friends.
We are righteous, our God is the proper god and our people are beautiful, fairly
well educated and created in our God’s image.

We have more of a right to exist on earth and consume the world’s resources
than any of the other nations, because we are the chosen, the beautiful and the
strong. They are weak, poor, envious of our power, and worth almost nothing
compared to us. What is more, their god is the wrong god and they are not as
beautiful and tall and proud as we are. The world is ours, we own it and
everyone else has to bow down before us. We take what we want, from where we
want, when we want.

Above all else is our moral superiority; we have been victimized in the past and
the world must side with us and allow us to seek revenge on our enemies who want
to destroy us because we are powerful, beautiful, free and our God is better and
more righteous than their god. Our word must be good enough for everyone. If we
say someone wants to destroy us, that is the way it is. We do not need to
provide proof or receive permission from anyone to destroy whoever we decide is
our enemy.

We know that one of us is worth thousands of them because we are the chosen and
live in God’s land, a land given to us by our God. A land we cleansed of the
savages and animals that had claimed it was theirs. We also know we are worth
more than them because we were persecuted for our God and our God has chosen us
over other, false, gods.

Since we are the chosen, if we have the idea that you are not worthy of life and
are a useless eater, we can kill you, we can bomb you and we can take your
lands. After all you are less worthy than us, we are the beautiful and strong
and we were created in our God’s image.

So if we have “intelligence” that your country is arming our enemies we can,
at our discretion and when we please, enter any country’s territory, including
yours, and murder the people and destroy their facilities. Sure we can. After
all we are the righteous and you are a bad guy in the eyes of me and my friends.
And what is more we control the international courts and all of the
international bodies that you could use to complain against us.

What is more, if we decide we don’t like your ruler we will replace him,
assassinate him or publically execute him before your eyes.

But you will never complain or do anything against us because what is more we
control you, and if we decide you are a threat we will come to you and destroy
you. Or cripple you, or torture you, or take you to a secret prison and make you
disappear forever. We can even kill you without leaving our own bunker on the
other side of the world.

Do you doubt our power? We have satellites, the Internet, cameras and even
tracking devices set up in your cell phone. We know where you are every minute.
We record your every move, we know what you watch and what you buy at the shop
and we know where your children are and we can kill them if you get out of line.
For you are nothing. You are the mud people and we are your masters.

Did you imagine you and I were that powerful? Did you feel the righteousness and
superiority? Do you understand who we are dealing with? If you feel a little
uneasy, queasy or even nauseous that is okay. It means you are still human and
there is still hope; if you feel rage and feel you are being mocked it is time
you took off your blinders and imagined you were the “lesser” people and
your lands were being taken and your women and children were being murdered
before your eyes and there was nothing you could do about it.

Wake up!
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_01/Dr-Alon-Ben-Meir-and-Rick-Rozoff-give-their-vi\
ews-on-Israeli-Air-Strike/


Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013


Israel preemptively strikes Syria, why can’t Syria do the same? - interview
John Robles


Audio at URL above


Voice of Russia regulars Rick Rozoff and Alon Ben-Meir, NATO and Middle East
experts respectively, both gave their views on the air strike by Israel on the
sovereign territory of Syria near the capitol Damascus. Their views on the
matter are almost diametrically opposed, with both giving solid arguments.

Hello! I’m John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff. He is the manager
and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list.


John Robles: Can you give us your views on the strike by Israel inside of Syria,
supposedly on a convoy, supposedly supplying Hezbollah, with supposed weapons?

Mr. Rick Rozoff: Yes, those "supposeds" are all warranted. The fact of the
matter is what we know from Syrian government sources is that an Israeli
warplane launched an attack against a military research center within Syria, on
the outskirts of the capital city of Damascus, so this marks a dramatic
escalation of the conflict not so much in Syria, but against Syria.

And what it does is confirm the suspicions and the statements made, not only by
governmental officials in Iran, but by a lot of us throughout the world, that
part of what is going on inside Syria right now is a warm-up exercise, if you
will, a miniature version or a preview of what is intended for Iran. So, the
fact that an Israeli warplane could strike near the capital city of Syria is
clearly I think an indication that Israel might harbor both the intent and the
means to try something similar within Iran. That’s the first thing.

Second of all, the brazen, unprovoked attack within the borders of a sovereign
nation, is, as I believe Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned over
the last 24 hours since the Israeli attack, a crude and flagrant violation of
international law and should be condemned as such. And what is necessary is for
there to be an international investigation to substantiate the Syrian
government’s claim of the Israeli attack and it needs to be taken up in the
United Nations Security Council.

If the situation were reversed I can promise you that the United States and its
allies would not hesitate a second to take the case up, to demand that a hearing
be held in the United Nations. And this is what has to happen now, because what
this is, is more than just a blatant, criminal violation of the national
sovereignty of Syria, but it is clearly an escalation of the conflict to the
point where if you are sitting in Tehran, as well as Damascus, you are wondering
what the next move is going to be and this is why it think it is so dangerous.

Robles: What would you say to people on the Israeli side, who were claiming and
who will claim that Israel was defending itself?

Rick Rozoff: To believe for a moment that the Syrian government was arming
Hezbollah fighters with weaponry for use against Israel when the government of
Syria itself is under siege from foreign-supported insurgents, including
terrorists, defies one’s credibility. It is very difficult to believe that
could have been the case.

And again the Syrian government’s case is that Israel bombed well inside
Syrian borders. This is comparable to, for example, the deployment by Turkey of
a warplane inside Syrian air space in the summer of last year. But I think also
what needs to be seen here is the fact that Israel has now exposed itself as
being on the very same side as extremist elements, that is Wahhabi and Salafi
elements, backed by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf
monarchies in their attack against the government in Damascus, against the
Syrian government.

So, you have this interesting motley medley of forces arrayed against Syria at
the moment, you have the US and its NATO allies, you have Israel, you have the
most backwards and benighted governments on the face of the earth in the Persian
Gulf all operating in tandem.

So, when the United States talks about democracy or praises Israel as being the
only democracy in the Middle East and so forth, we have to understand with the
military attack of yesterday that it is aiding and abetting, it is supporting,
it is complementing other efforts by the likes of governments in Saudi Arabia
and Qatar.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

Robles: Dr. Alon Ben-Meir he is a professor in international relations and
affairs at NY University. Could you give us your views and your comments on the
Israeli airstrike and of the supposed convoy?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: Israel has stated all along that if it detects anything that
may constitute a threat to its national security, it will act.

In this particular case the Israelis have detected two things. One, there was a
convoy moving from Syria towards the Lebanese border, apparently a shipment
carrying the SA-17, which is a very accurate anti-aircraft missile. Several
trucks actually.

As well there was also a military research center near Damascus and I think the
Israelis have concluded that the first convoy has to be destroyed because they
do not want these kinds of weapons to fall into the hands of Hezbollah and hence
constitute a serious threat to Israel.

And the other one is the concern over the chemical weapons. I’m not sure it
was an attack on one or the other, I believe it was the two simultaneously.

Robles: Do you believe they have the right to attack within another country if
they say that the threat is to their own security?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: It is not what they say. I think every country, including
Russia, the United States, all European, anyone, if they feel there is a
credible threat, and I repeat the word “credible”, it is not an excuse to
attack, but if there is a credible threat, and I think Israel shared that with
the United States before it took action, then the country has the right to do
whatever it takes in order to protect national security interests. And I have no
doubt, any country, irregardless of where it is and where the threat is coming
from, is going to take similar actions.

Robles: Using that logic, I mean, then. We know that Patriot missiles have been
deployed in Turkey, so then if we follow the same line of logic, then I guess
Syria has the right to strike these Patriot missiles in Turkey. Why not?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: The Patriot missiles in Turkey is a different story. These
Patriot missiles are there in a defensive posture. Every country has many, many
such weapons in a defensive posture.

Robles: Mr. Rozoff, if you follow that logic, then wouldn’t that give Syria,
for example, the right to strike inside of Turkey which is basing Patriot
missiles and NATO armaments aimed at Syria?

Mr. Rick Rozoff: It is an extremely vital point you raise. Not that the two of
us believe in pre-emptive or preventive attacks or wars. This is a notoriously
criminal concept that was really practiced, to its furthest degree, by the Third
Reich in the late 1930s and the early 1940s, so-called preventive war.

That’s correct! If Israel can claim that Syria, under a siege as it is, is
capable in any way of threatening the internal security of Israel, then with a
thousand times, a million times more justification Syria can claim that it is
being threatened by its neighbor Turkey, that it is being threatened by other
governments in the area, including those I’ve mentioned in the Persian Gulf,
by the United States, by its European NATO allies, who are providing material
sustenance as well as diplomatic coverage to terrorist groups within Syria which
are implicated in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
civilians in that country.

And the fact that Israel has now struck Syria makes it the aggressor and not the
other way around of course.

Robles: China is being surrounded by NATO, Russia is being surrounded by NATO, I
mean there are weapons all around both countries that pose a threat to their
national security. So, if we followed that same logic Russia and China could
launch first strikes on the United States and all NATO countries I believe.

Mr. Rick Rozoff: With far more justification, again, than anything that Israel
has the right to claim in regard to the attack of yesterday or the American
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or murderous drone Hellfire missile attacks
inside nations like Yemen and Libya and Somalia and all the way down the line.

Yes, it is in fact a nations like Russia, China and Iran which are being
militarily encircled by the United States and its regional and global allies.
And it is the aggressor who is claiming they are being threatened and have to
launch so-called preventive attacks. Its a complete inversion of the truth.

Robles: Thanks for listening.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://prn.fm/2013/02/01/progressive-radio-news-hour-rick-rozoff-020113/#axzz2Ji\
3BmIV0


Progressive Radio News Hour
February 1, 2013



Stephen Lendman interviews Rick Rozoff


Audio at URL above


Rozoff’s an activist, anti-war supporter, and editor of the web site Stop
NATO.

It “document(s) and oppose(s) global militarist trends and an expanding
theater of war that began” by balkanizing Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

It then expanded to South Asia, and now ravages the Middle East, North Africa
and Central Asia.

Major world and national issues will be discussed.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-2283C2C1-6DE3C481/natolive/news_94417.htm


North Atlantic Treaty Organization
February 1, 2013


Building connectivity between Special Forces and partners


Optimising the employment of Special Forces and building on the lessons learnt
in current operations is crucial to improving Alliance capabilities. To help do
this, the NATO Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ) is training Allied and
partner Special Forces to improve their interoperability and to create a network
of trained personnel.

“The purpose of the NSHQ mission is to make the employment of Special
Operations Forces as effective, efficient, and coherent as possible, so as to
deliver to the Alliance a highly agile Special Operations capability across the
range of military operations,” explains Scott Morrison, Director of the
Commander’s Action Group at NSHQ. “21st century NATO Special Operations
brings much more to the table than the commando work most are familiar with,”
he adds.

Located at SHAPE Headquarters in Mons, Belgium, the NSHQ was set up to
coordinate NATO’s Special Operations and to optimise the employment of Special
Forces. It has one of the most diverse multinational compositions within the
Alliance, with 33 NATO countries and partners working together.
“One of the most critical instruments to enabling this NATO SOF capability is
an enduring NATO SOF Headquarters’ Allied and Partner Collaborative Network,
the centrepiece of which are the people,” Morrison adds.

Connected through training

Much of the training led by NSHQ takes place at the NATO Special Operations
School at nearby Chièvres Air Base, where students are taught and work with
common NATO doctrine, processes, and methods. This means that a Special Forces
Network is comprised of those who have the same training, background and
understanding to allow them to operate more effectively and coherently when
deployed.

During the last year, the NATO Special Operations School had almost 1,000
graduates, with a total of 3,453 graduates since 2007. “The Special Forces
Network is about fostering deeper, more effective and enduring partnerships
throughout the Special Forces community,” says Major Remigijus Bridikis from
Lithuania.

While many of these relationships are built on the ground or in training, the
NSHQ also makes use of communications that include secure video teleconferencing
to bring together personnel in all areas of operations for conferences,
workshops and information sharing.

“The investment in the relationships among Special Operations Forces
facilitates information sharing among a rich multinational Special Forces
community, and develops understanding and perspectives that are essential
ingredients to operating successfully in the complex operational environment of
the 21st century,” he adds.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

R2P and 'Genocide Prevention': The Good Intentions That Pave the Road to War
By Diana Johnstone


Paris: Opposing genocide has become a sort of cottage industry in the United
States.

Everywhere, “genocide studies” are cropping up in universities.  Five years
ago, an unlikely “Genocide Prevention Task Force” was set up headed by
former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary
William Cohen, both veterans of the Clinton administration.

The Bible of the campaign is Samantha Power’s book, “A Problem from Hell”.
Ms. Power’s thesis is that the U.S. Government, while well-intentioned, like
all of us, is too slow to intervene to “stop genocide”.  It is a suggestion
that the U.S. government embraces, even to taking on Ms. Power as White House
advisor.

Why has the U.S. Government so eagerly endorsed the crusade against
“genocide”?

The reason is clear.  Since the Holocaust has become the most omnipresent
historical reference in Western societies, the concept of “genocide” is
widely and easily accepted as the greatest evil to afflict the planet. It is
felt to be worse than war.

Therein lies its immense value to the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to a
foreign policy elite seeking an acceptable pretext for military intervention
wherever they choose.

The obsession with “genocide” as the primary humanitarian issue in the world
today relativizes war.  It reverses the final judgment of the Nuremberg Trials
that:

War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the
belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of
aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains
within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Instead, war is transformed into a chivalrous action to rescue whole populations
from “genocide”.

At the same time, national sovereignty, erected as the barrier to prevent strong
nations from invading weaker ones, that is, to prevent aggression and “the
scourge of war”, is derided as nothing but a protection for evil rulers
(“dictators”) whose only ambition is to “massacre their own people”.

This ideological construct is the basis for the Western-sponsored doctrine,
forced on a more or less reluctant United Nations, of “R2P”, the ambiguous
shorthand for both the “right” and the “responsibility” to protect
peoples from their own governments.

In practice this can give the dominant powers carte blanche to intervene
militarily in weaker countries in order to support whatever armed rebellions
they favor. Once this doctrine seems to be accepted, it can even serve as an
incitement to opposition groups to provoke government repression in order to
call for “protection”.

One among many examples of this cottage industry is a program called “World
Without Genocide” at the William Mitchell College of Law in my home town,
Saint Paul, Minnesota, whose executive director Ellen J. Kennedy recently wrote
an article for the Minneapolis Star Tribune which expresses all the usual
clichés of that seemingly well-meaning but misguided campaign.

Misguided, and above all, misguiding.  It is directing the attention of
well-intentioned people away from the essential cause of our time which is to
reverse the drift toward worldwide war.

Ms. Kennedy blames “genocide” on the legal barrier set up to try to prevent
aggressive war: national sovereignty.  Her cure for genocide is apparently to
abolish national sovereignty.

For more than 350 years, the concept of “national sovereignty” held primacy
over the idea of “individual sovereignty.” Governments basically had
immunity from outside intervention despite human-rights violations they
perpetrated within their borders. The result has been an “over and over
again” phenomenon of genocide since the Holocaust, with millions of innocent
lives lost in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Guatemala, Argentina, East Timor
— the list is long.

In fact, Hitler initiated World War II precisely in violation of the national
sovereignty of Czechoslovakia and Poland partly in order, he claimed, to stop
human rights violations that those governments allegedly perpetrated against
ethnic Germans who lived there. It was to invalidate this pretext, and “save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, that the United Nations was
founded on the basis of respect for national sovereignty.

Of course, there is no chance that the United States will abandon its national
sovereignty.  Rather, all other countries are called upon to abandon their
national sovereignty – to the United States.

Ms. Kennedy’s lengthens her list by arbitrarily grouping disparate events
under the single label of “genocide”, mostly according to their place in the
official U.S. narrative of contemporary conflicts.

But the significant fact is that the worst of these slaughters – Cambodia,
Rwanda and the Holocaust itself – occurred during wars and as a result of
wars.

The systematic rounding up, deportation and killing of European Jews took place
during World War II.  Jews were denounced as “the internal enemy” of
Germany.  War is the perfect setting for such racist paranoia.  After all, even
in the United States, during World War II, Japanese American families were
dispossessed of their property, rounded up and put in camps.  The result was not
comparable, but the pretext was similar.

In Rwanda, the horrific slaughter was a response to an invasion by Tutsi forces
from neighboring Uganda and the assassination of the country’s president.  The
context was invasion and civil war.

The Cambodian slaughter was certainly not the fault of “national
sovereignty”.  Indeed, it was precisely the direct result of the U.S.
violation of Cambodia’s national sovereignty. Years of secret U.S. bombing of
the Cambodian countryside, followed by a U.S.-engineered overthrow of the
Cambodian government, opened the way for takeover of that country by embittered
Khmer Rouge fighters who took out their resentment against the devastation of
rural areas on the hapless urban population, considered accomplices of their
enemies. The Khmer Rouge slaughters took place after the United States had been
defeated in Indochina by the Vietnamese.  When, after being provoked by armed
incursions, the Vietnamese intervened to overthrow the Khmer Rouge, they were
condemned in the United Nations by the United States for doing so.

Some of the bloodiest events do not make it to Ms. Kennedy’s “genocide”
list.  Missing is the killing of over half a million members of the Indonesian
Communist Party in 1965 and 1966. But the dictator responsible, Suharto, was
“a friend of the United States” and the victims were communists.

But while ignoring over half a million murdered Indonesians, she includes Bosnia
on her list.  In that case, the highest estimate of victims was 8,000, all men
of military age.  Indeed, the NATO-linked International Criminal Tribunal (ICTY)
has ruled that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was “genocide”.   To arrive at
this verdict, despite the fact that the alleged perpetrators spared women and
children, the ICTY found a sociologist who claimed that since the Muslim
community of Srebrenica was a patriarchy, murdering the menfolk amounted to
“genocide” in a single town, since the women would not return without the
men.  This far-fetched judgment was necessary to preserve “Bosnia” as
Exhibit A in the case for NATO military intervention.

It is generally overlooked that Srebrenica was a garrison town where the Muslim
men in 1995 were not all natives of that originally multi-ethnic town and had
been carrying out attacks on surrounding Serb villages.  Nor have Western media
given much attention to the testimony by Srebrenica Muslim leaders of having
heard the Islamist party leader, Alija Izetbegovic, confide that President
Clinton had said that a massacre of at least 5,000 Muslims was needed to bring
the “international community” into the Bosnian civil war on the side of the
Muslims.  Those Muslim leaders believe that Izetbegovic deliberately left
Srebrenica undefended in order to set up a massacre by vengeful Serbs.

Whether or not that story is true, it points to a serious danger of adopting the
R2P principle.  Izetbegovic was the leader of a party which wanted to defeat his
enemies with outside military aid.  The world is rife with such leaders of
ethnic, religious or political factions.  If they know that “the world’s
only superpower” may come to their aid once they can accuse the existing
government of “slaughtering its own people”, they are highly motivated to
provoke that government into committing the required slaughter.

A number of former U.N. peacekeepers have testified that Muslim forces in Bosnia
carried out the infamous “Marketplace bombings” against Sarajevo civilians
in order to blame their Serb enemies and gain international support.

How could they do such a horrid thing?  Well, if a country’s leader can be
willing to “massacre his own people”, why couldn’t the leader of a rebel
group allow some of “his own people” to be massacred, in order to take
power?  Especially, by the way, if he is paid handsomely by some outside power
– Qatar for instance – to provoke an uprising.

A principal danger of the R2P doctrine is that it encourages rebel factions to
provoke repression, or to claim persecution, solely to bring in foreign forces
on their behalf. It is certain that anti-Gaddafi militants grossly exaggerated
Gaddafi’s threat to Benghazi in order to provoke the 2011 French-led NATO war
against Libya.  The war in Mali is a direct result of the brutal overthrow of
Gaddafi, who was a major force for African stability.

R2P serves primarily to create a public opinion willing to accept U.S. and NATO
intervention in other countries.  It is not meant to allow the Russians or the
Chinese to intervene, say, to protect housemaids in Saudi Arabia from being
beheaded, much less to allow Cuban forces to shut down Guantanamo and end U.S.
violations of human rights – on Cuban territory.

U.S. intervention does not have a track record of “protecting” people.  In
December 1992, a Marine battalion landed in Somalia in “Operation Restore
Hope”.  Hope was not restored, Marines were massacred by the locals and were
chased out within four months.  It is easier to imagine an effective
intervention where none has been attempted – for instance in Rwanda – than
to carry it out in the real world.

For all its military power, the United States is unable to make over the world
to its liking. It has failed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The 1999 “Kosovo
war” is claimed as a success – only by studiously ignoring what has been
going on in the province since it was wrested from Serbia by NATO and handed
over to Washington’s ethnic Albanian clients.  The “success” in Libya is
publicly unraveling much faster.

Like all the R2P advocates, Ms. Kennedy exhorts us “never again” to allow a
Holocaust. In reality there has “never again” been another Holocaust. 
History produces unique events which defy all our expectations.

But what, people ask me, if something that dreadful did happen?  Should the
world just stand by and watch?

What is meant by “the world”?  The Western ideological construct assumes
that the world should care about human rights, but that only the West really
does.  That assumption is creating a deepening gap between the West and the rest
of the world, which does not see things that way.  To most of the real world,
the West is seen as a cause of humanitarian disasters, not the cure.

Libya marked a turning point, when the NATO powers used the R2P doctrine not to
protect people from being bombed by their own air force (the idea behind the
“no fly zone” UN resolution), but to bomb the country themselves in order to
enable rebels to kill the leader and destroy the regime.  That convinced the
Russians and Chinese, if they had had any doubts, that “R2P” is a fake, used
to advance a project of world domination.

And they are not alone and isolated.  The West is isolating itself in its own
powerful propaganda bubble. Much, perhaps most of the world sees Western
intervention as motivated by economic self-interest, or by the interests of
Israel.  The sense of being threatened by U.S. power incites other countries to
build up their own military defenses and to repress opposition militants who
might serve as excuses for outside intervention.

By crying “genocide” when there is no genocide, the U.S. is crying wolf and
losing credibility. It is destroying the trust and unity that would be needed to
mobilize international humanitarian action in case of genuine need.

DIANA JOHNSTONE is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western
Delusions. She can be reached at  diana.josto@...

A shorter version of this article appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on
January 25.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://blog.gmfus.org/2013/02/01/natos-second-annual-report-defense-matters/


The German Marshall Fund of the United States
February 1, 2013


NATO’s Second Annual Report: Defense Matters!
Mark R. Jacobson*


====

NATO has demonstrated the ability to react on short-notice with airpower in
Libya and addressed Alliance concerns about Syria through the deployment of
Patriot missile batteries to Turkey

NATO members must deal with the economic realities at home and the need to
ensure that alliance capacity remains relevant. But they must also address the
third ring — a ring that extends past Europe and into Africa and Asia. The
NATO Alliance remains transatlantic at its core, but it must recognize that its
solidarity requires a more global perspective.

====




On Thursday morning, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen released
NATO’s Second Annual Report. His presentation was not simply an overview of
the past year’s defense priorities and capabilities, but also an opportunity
to candidly address the challenges facing the Alliance.

Arguably, over the past several years, NATO has conducted missions that even
ardent advocates would not have predicted possible a decade ago. NATO has
adapted tactically and operationally in Afghanistan and, significantly, is still
on schedule to transition to a train and assist mission at the end of 2014.
Likewise, NATO has demonstrated the ability to react on short-notice with
airpower in Libya and addressed Alliance concerns about Syria through the
deployment of Patriot missile batteries to Turkey. Admittedly, the record is not
perfect, and the blemishes of a 28-nation political-military Alliance will
challenge efforts from time to time.

As NATO moves forward, however, it will have to consider how to adapt to an
increasingly unpredictable international environment. Not only must NATO remain
engaged and capable, but must do so with increasing effectiveness and, of
course, efficiency. Rasmussen, as well as Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral
James Stavridis, has led the charge to shore up NATO’s competitive advantages
and focus on “smart” approaches to using limited resources. The new
Strategic Concept, guidance for NATO Forces 2020, and initiatives to re-energize
the NATO Response Force has each helped set the stage for this evolution, but
NATO must now execute. The challenge, however, is that only a few NATO members
have met the 2 percent of GDP defence spending requested by the Alliance, while
the United States continues to hold the lion’s share of the financial burden.
NATO members must provide the spending needed to bridge gaps and correct current
and potential imbalances in
  Alliance capacity. NATO’s versatility, effectiveness, and credibility are at
stake if this principal inequity is not corrected.

Equally important is the conceptual shift that must take place throughout the
Alliance. NATO faces a range of new and emerging threats — cyber security,
proliferation, terrorism, and regional instability — certainly not those
envisioned by the Washington Treaty in 1949. Budget austerity, however, cannot
be an excuse for failing to live up to the obligations required for collective
security. As Secretary Rasmussen made clear, these threats “will not go away
as we focus on fixing our economies.”

I was told years ago of a NATO Secretary General who once chided diplomats
complaining about NATO having too much to handle at one time by telling them,
“if you can’t handle three rings, what are you doing in the circus.” NATO
must learn to handle the three rings, militarily and politically. In this case,
NATO members must deal with the economic realities at home and the need to
ensure that alliance capacity remains relevant. But they must also address the
third ring — a ring that extends past Europe and into Africa and Asia. The
NATO Alliance remains transatlantic at its core, but it must recognize that its
solidarity requires a more global perspective.


*Mark R. Jacobson is a Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund
and a Senior Advisor to the Truman National Security Project. He was previously
the Deputy NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan and, as a military
reservist, deployed to NATO missions in Bosnia (1996) and Afghanistan (2006).
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/638440.html


Itar-Tass
February 2, 2013


Moscow calls on West not to impose outside values on peoples of Middle East,
Africa


====

“If we consider the most unstable regions – the Middle East, Northern
Africa, the Sahel zone, it is complicated to ignore a feeling of some curved
space. Does support for change of regimes justify terror methods? Is it possible
to be fighting in one situation against those who you support in another one?”

“The objective of the removal of Bashar al-Assad is the only reason of the
tragedy which continues in Syria. All discussions about interpretation of the
Geneva Communique are not serious, there is nothing to be interpreted here,
everything is absolutely clear.”

====


MUNICH: Moscow calls on the West not to impose any values scale to peoples of
the Middle East and Africa, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a
conference on security in Munich on Saturday.

“We all aspire for stability and conditions for sustainable development in the
Middle East and in Africa, we want the peoples of countries there to be able to
move towards the democracy and well-being, to have guaranteed human rights,
smooth supplies of hydrocarbons and other vital resources,” he said.

“If those are our joint objectives, then, we may agree on transparent and
clear rules, which should be used by all players in their practical actions,”
Lavrov said. “Agree that we all will be supporting the democratic reforms of
the changing countries, but not to impose an outside value scale, acknowledging
the variety of development models.”

“Should agree that we shall be supporting the peaceful settlement of the inner
state conflicts and the stopping of violence via conditions for an inclusive
dialogue with involvement of all national political groups,” Lavrov continued.
“Should agree that we shall refrain from outside interference, especially by
force, without a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and from any
unilateral sanctions. That we should continuously and firmly fight extremism and
terrorism in all forms, should demand the observation of rights for ethnic and
confessional minorities.”

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asked his foreign counterparts if it
is possible to be fighting in one situation against those who you support in
another one.

“If we consider the most unstable regions – the Middle East, Northern
Africa, the Sahel zone, it is complicated to ignore a feeling of some curved
space,” Lavrov said during the Munich conference on Saturday. “Approaches of
our Western counterparts cause many questions.”

“Does support for change of regimes justify terror methods? Is it possible to
be fighting in one situation against those who you support in another one?” he
asked the foreign ministers participating in the conference.

“How to make sure the weapons you supply to a conflict zone are not directed
against yourself? Which governor is legitimate, and which not? When is it
possible to cooperate with authority regimes both civil, and not that much
civil, and when is it possible to support their overthrow by force?”

Lavrov continued. “Which are the cases where it is necessary to accept forces
elected during democratic polls, and in what cases should one refuse from
contacting those? What are criteria and standards to make considerations about
all this?”

These are the questions, he said, “answers to which should be found jointly,
especially regarding final objectives for the efforts to settle crises in
countries of the Euro-Atlantic region, which have more uniting aspects rather
than discrepancies.”

If all participants in the Syria Action Group fulfilled the Geneva Communique,
the war in Syria would have stopped, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
told the 49th Munich Conference on Security on Saturday.

“But for this, it is necessary to fulfill honestly what has been agreed upon
and not to extract or add anything,” he said.

For that purpose Moscow “has been suggesting a new meeting of the Action
Group.”

Russia is against organisation of a humanitarian air corridor in Syria, as it
considers as unacceptable any use of force, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov said on Saturday.

“We can remember perfectly well what happened to the UN Security Council’s
resolution on Libya,” he said. “A humanitarian corridor is possible in an
armistice only.”

“The objective of the removal of Bashar al-Assad is the only reason of the
tragedy which continues in Syria,” Lavrov said. “All discussions about
interpretation of the Geneva Communique are not serious, there is nothing to be
interpreted here, everything is absolutely clear.”
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.act.nato.int/news-stories/nato-finnish-partnership-at-highest-level


North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Transformation
February 1, 2013


NATO, Finnish Partnership at Highest Level
MCC Hendrick L. Dickson, HQ SACT PAO


====

Finland intensively uses Operational Capability Concept to evaluate troops
designated to participate in NATO Response Forces and NATO-led operations.

Both sides agreed the partnership between NATO and Finland is at a very high
level and needs to be maintained and further enhanced.

====



Deputy, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (DSACT) Polish General
Mieczyslaw Bieniek met with Finnish military leaders during a recent visit to
Finland to discuss ways to enhance regional security, improve interoperability
and their strengthen partnership.

The General was welcomed by Commander, Finnish Defence Forces, General Ari
Tapani Puheloinen; Chief of Defence Command, Vice Admiral Juha Sakari Rannikko
and Defence Counselor Helena Partanen as they shared their thoughts on Finnish
Security and Defence Policy, Defence Reform and International Cooperation.

General Puheloinen stressed the Nordic Defence Cooperation is one of the key
elements of Finnish security policy and it is in vital interest of all countries
in the region. Finland intensively uses Operational Capability Concept to
evaluate troops designated to participate in NATO Response Forces and NATO-led
operations. DSACT expressed his appreciation for these efforts and encouraged
his interlocutor to continue following this path.

Both sides agreed the partnership between NATO and Finland is at a very high
level and needs to be maintained and further enhanced. In 2012 Finnish Defence
Forces International Centre offered a major contribution to the new education
and training landscape by volunteering to lead Peace and Support Operations. The
Finnish leaders suggested NATO should consider opening more possibilities in the
future.

The group also discussed issues such as Smart Defence, Connected Forces
Initiative and Partnerships - the latter with a special emphasis on training.
General Bieniek said Allied Command Transformation fully supports Finnish
efforts in the field of interoperability and enhancement of military
capabilities and hopes for more detailed discussions of common cooperation
initiatives during potential visit of Finnish Chief of Defence Command to
Supreme Allied Command Transformation.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119176



U.S. Department of Defense
February 2, 2013


Rasmussen: NATO Must be Ready for Any Future Threat
By Cheryl Pellerin


====

“Missile defense is a core element of our collective defense,” [Rasmussen
said], “and the deployment of Patriot missiles to Turkey is a real response to
a real threat.”

Many European allies contribute to NATO’s missile defense system, but
Rasmussen said he can envision European navies upgrading their ships with
missile defense radars and interceptors so they can deploy alongside United
States vessels.

To make sure that NATO remains the gold standard of Euro-Atlantic security into
the 21st century, he said, the alliance must build on its gains from operations
like its International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan
“rather than cash in what some may perceive as a post-ISAF dividend.”

====



MUNICH: On the second day of the Munich Security Conference, NATO
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the international audience here
that the end of the war in Afghanistan gives the alliance a chance to plan for
the future.

The end in 2014 of NATO’s biggest operation gives NATO a chance to generate
key capabilities, engage robustly with new geopolitical realities and rebalance
its priorities and commitments, he said.

“In other words, an opportunity to plan for the future,” Rasmussen said,
adding that such a plan must determine what NATO will do next, how NATO will do
it, and what kind of alliance it will be.

“We will continue to respond to crises whenever and wherever the allies judge
their security interests are at stake because this is our core business,” the
secretary-general said.

“When I look at our world, I see an arc of crises stretching from the Sahel to
Central Asia,” he added, “[but]...this does not mean we will have to
intervene everywhere nor that we are set for confrontation. But it does mean we
must stand ready to deter and defend against any threat.”

Rasmussen said NATO must keep its operational edge and retain a complete range
of capabilities, with increased importance for missile and cyber defense and
special operations forces.

“Missile defense is a core element of our collective defense,” he added,
“and the deployment of Patriot missiles to Turkey is a real response to a real
threat.”

Many European allies contribute to NATO’s missile defense system, but
Rasmussen said he can envision European navies upgrading their ships with
missile defense radars and interceptors so they can deploy alongside United
States vessels.

“We must also improve our cyber resilience,” he said, describing a
potentially critical role for NATO in defining a common training approach among
allies and in providing expert help to allies who come under cyber attack.

“We will also need forces with the skills and speed to act decisively,”
Rasmussen said, envisioning a vital role for NATO’s new Special Operations
Forces Headquarters in planning and coordinating missions and improving the
ability of allied special operations forces to work together.

To make sure that NATO remains the gold standard of Euro-Atlantic security into
the 21st century, he said, the alliance must build on its gains from operations
like its International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan
“rather than cash in what some may perceive as a post-ISAF dividend.”

A better choice is to reinvest the ISAF dividend in defense for a maximum
return, Rasmussen said, including through NATO’s Connected Forces - which
seeks to create forces that act and think as one - and its Smart Defense
initiatives.

NATO’s multinational response force can deploy quickly when needed, but
Rasmussen wants the alliance to revitalize that force, he said, “to keep our
ability to train and operate together as allies and with partners, take
advantage of the United States’ decision to rotate dedicated units to Europe
and conduct more demanding, realistic and frequent exercises.”

The NATO Response Force should become the engine of the alliance’s future
readiness, he added, and multinational cooperation is key to keeping costs down
and capabilities strong.

Rasmussen sees NATO connecting more closely with the alliance’s most able
operational partners, reinforcing its cooperation with the United Nations and
the European Union, deepening its strategic relationship with Russia and
shifting from operational engagement to operational readiness.

Such readiness and flexibility come at a cost, he added.

“In the decade since 2001, the U.S. share of NATO defense expenditure has
increased from 63 percent to 72 percent,” the secretary-general said, and in
the last few years all but three European allies have cut their defense budgets.

“I am concerned about this gap in defense spending but I am even more
concerned by the gap in some key capabilities,” he added.

To correct this, Rasmussen said, he would like to see the alliance moving toward
a day when no single ally provides more than 50 percent of certain critical
capabilities.

“This will require European allies to do more,” Rasmussen said, adding that
a strong European contribution to NATO’s capabilities will sustain a strong
U.S. commitment to NATO.

All allies must also show the political will to support each other, living up to
NATO’s role as the political forum for transatlantic consultations on common
security concerns, he said, “...because now and after 2014, we can only stay
successful together.”
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_94321.htm


North Atlantic Treaty Organization
February 2, 2013


''NATO after ISAF – Staying Successful Together''
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Munich Security
Conference


====

We need a multinational force we can deploy quickly when needed.  Fortunately,
we already have it. It’s called the NATO Response Force...The NATO Response
Force should become the engine of our future readiness.

====



The theme of our discussion today is Transatlantic security. And like Vice
President Biden, I consider US and Europe indispensable partners.

Today I would like to talk about NATO after 2014 when we complete the ISAF
mission in Afghanistan. The end of NATO’s biggest operation presents us with a
big opportunity.

An opportunity to generate key capabilities. To engage robustly with  new
geopolitical realities.  And to rebalance our priorities and commitments.  In
other words, an opportunity to plan for the future.

That plan must answer three questions:  What will NATO do next?  How will we do
it?  And what kind of Alliance will we be?

So let me answer those questions. First, what will NATO do next?

We will continue to respond to crises whenever, and wherever, the Allies judge
their security interests are at stake.  Because this is our core business.

When I look at our world, I see an arc of crises stretching from the Sahel to
Central Asia.

...

So we have to keep our operational edge, and  retain the complete range of
capabilities. Among these, I see increased importance for missile defence, cyber
defence, and special forces.

Missile defence is a core element of our collective defence...

Many European Allies already contribute to NATO’s missile defence system.  But
I could see other possible contributions. For instance, European navies
upgrading their ships with missile defence radars and interceptors so they can
deploy alongside United States vessels.

We must also improve our cyber-resilience.  I see a critical role for NATO in
defining a common approach among the Allies...

We will also need forces with the skills and speed to act decisively.  I see a
vital role for NATO’s new Special Operations Forces Headquarters in planning
and coordinating missions.  And in improving the capability of our special
operations forces to work together.

All this we CAN do. So that NATO remains the gold standard of Euro-Atlantic
security in the 21st century.

But how?

We must build on what we have gained in operations such as Afghanistan.  Not
cash in what some may perceive as the post-ISAF dividend.

[M]ore cuts now  will lead to greater insecurity in the future, at a cost we
simply can’t afford. We saw this after the Cold War, when we were ill prepared
to respond to the crises in the Balkans.

Now, we need to reinvest the ISAF dividend in defence. And get the maximum
return from it, including through NATO’s Connected Forces and Smart Defence
initiatives.

We need a multinational force we can deploy quickly when needed.  Fortunately,
we already have it. It’s called the NATO Response Force.

I see us revitalising this Force, to keep our ability to train and operate
together, as Allies, and with partners. To take advantage of the United
States’ decision to rotate dedicated units to Europe. And to conduct more
demanding, more realistic, and more frequent exercises. The NATO Response Force
should become the engine of our future readiness.

Multinational cooperation is also key to keeping our costs down, and our
capabilities strong.

For example, through Smart Defence, we are fielding a new Alliance hub for
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, to provide political and military
decisions makers with more accurate and up-to-date information.  Our lessons
learned from Afghanistan and Libya have shown how crucial such a hub will be for
any future operation.

I see us connecting more closely with our most able operational partners.
Because keeping close links in peacetime will help us work better together in
times of crisis.

...

Overall, I see our Alliance shifting from operational engagement to operational
readiness. From campaign to contingency. From deployed NATO to prepared NATO.

So, what kind of Alliance will we be after 2014?

...I would like to see us moving towards the day when no single Ally provides
more than 50% of certain critical capabilities.

This will require European Allies to do more. And it shows why initiatives by
European Allies are so vital.  Because a strong European contribution to
NATO’s capabilities will sustain a strong US commitment to NATO.

The good news is that the balance is already improving in some critical areas.
For example, in large transport aircraft.

However, we also need to re-balance politically.  All Allies must show the
political will to support each other. So we must live up to our role as the
political forum for transatlantic consultations on common security concerns,
including on those that lie beyond the Euro-Atlantic area.

...
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119197


U.S. Department of Defense
February 4, 2013


Carter Visits Turkish Defense Leaders, U.S. Patriot Battery Troops
By Cheryl Pellerin


ANKARA, Turkey: On his first official visit to this prosperous capital as deputy
defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter spent the day with Turkish defense leaders,
then traveled southeast to Gaziantep near the Syrian border to examine the first
of two U.S. Patriot missile batteries to be located there.

...

He also met - in person and by telephone and digital video conference - with
about 45 embassy staff members from Ankara, Istanbul and the consulate in Adana,
as well as with U.S. staff members from Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base.

...

Carter said that later in the day he would visit the 80 or so Army troops
manning and supporting the NATO-led U.S. deployment of two Patriot missile
batteries at Gaziantep “because that...stands for the strength of our alliance
and the willingness of America to stand with Turkey...when so many unsettled
things are happening in Syria [that] pose a threat to the people of Turkey.”

The deputy secretary added, “We stand with the people and the government of
Turkey, and missile defense is just one way we are doing that.”

This afternoon Carter began meeting with Turkish defense leaders.

At the Ministry of National Defense, he and Undersecretary of Defense for
Industries Murad Bayar met and discussed three major U.S.-Turkey defense
acquisition efforts.

Later, at the Ministry of National Defense, Carter met with Defense Minister
Ismet Yilmaz, and both made statements ahead of their discussion.

...

In his remarks, Carter said he planned his trip to Turkey to discuss with Yilmaz
and other leaders the military-to-military cooperation long shared by the United
States and Turkey in...counterterrorism, missile defense and every other area of
cooperation.”

...

Later in the day, Carter traveled to a military facility in Gaziantep, just over
60 miles from Aleppo, Syria, where one U.S. Patriot battery is operational and
another will be moved from nearby Incirlik as soon as the grounds at the base
are prepared for its massive components and the troops required to operate the
systems.

The Patriot missile system uses ground-based radar to find, identify and track
incoming missile targets. The system can lock onto an incoming missile that’s
up to 50 miles away. The system can even be made to operate automatically.

Patriot missiles, each weighing nearly a ton, launch from ground-based
batteries. A battery is made up of MIM-104 surface-to-air missiles; a launcher
that holds, transports, aims and launches the missiles; an MPQ-53 or MPQ-65
radar antenna for detecting incoming missiles; an equipment van called an
engagement control station that holds computers and consoles to control the
battery; and power-plant truck with two 150-kilowatt generators that power the
radar antenna and van. Each Patriot missile battery can have up to 16 launchers.

At the missile launch site, Carter spoke with about 18 soldiers - men and women
- who operate the site, and then spoke with 80 more in a small theater near the
battery site. They’re assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery
Regiment, based on Fort Sill, Okla.

“I’m so pleased that two days ago you rolled all the way in from Incirlik
with all this fantastic equipment,” Carter told the troops.

“Your country is watching and the world is watching and what they see is this
magnificent performance,” he added. “The good people of Gaziantep see it and
the good people of Turkey see it and the good people of the Middle East see it
and your country sees it. And you know what? The bad guys see it too.”

...

====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_05/Sweden-won-t-last-2-days-against-Russia-Swedis\
h-Commander/


Voice of Russia
February 5, 2013


Sweden won’t last 2 days against Russia – Swedish Commander


A scandal has erupted in Sweden after the Swedish Armed Forces chief, Sverker
Göranson, said that his country wouldn’t last even two days against Russia,
in an attempt to spur Sweden’s NATO entry.

Swedish Prosecution has accused the General of divulging state secrets.

The number of Swedes backing NATO entry has been declining ever since Gen.
Göranson told the local Svenska Dagbladet daily that Sweden had never been
armed well enough to stand against the Soviet Union or Russia on its own. He
stressed that in case of a Russian threat Stockholm would require the help of
NATO or America. The General pointed out that Swedish politicians were standing
in the way of the country’s militarization.

To add substance to his warning, Gen. Göranson reminded the journalist about
the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, which allegedly proved that European borders
could be changed as a result of a military attack. The Commander also drew
attention to Russia’s beefing up its Army under President Vladimir Putin,
although he stressed that such an attack on Sweden was very unlikely.

Voice of Russia, Newsru.com
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_05/Sweden-won-t-last-2-days-against-Russia-Swedis\
h-Commander/


Voice of Russia
February 5, 2013


Sweden is no longer neutral, drones are ‘totally illegal’ – Norberg
John Robles


Audio at URL above


In part 2 of an interview with the Voice of Russia, Agneta Norberg, Vice Chair
of the Swedish Peace Council, Member of Steering Committee of the International
Peace Bureau and a member of the board of directors of Global Network Against
Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space discusses the facts surrounding Sweden's
non-neutrality and the country's involvement in NATO and Western military
expansion. Ms. Norberg gives her views on drones which she calls "murder
machines" and the development and testing of drones in Sweden, including a new
drone being developed in a joint European project.


Part 1 of the interview:

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_30/Militarization-of-the-Arctic-We-have-to-rethin\
k-how-war-is-fought-Nordberg/

Robles: How does Sweden officially explain that they allow these installations?
And do you think all these maneuvers are designed to intimidate Russia or to try
to exercise sovereignty on the Arctic?

Norberg: Well, when we drift to the Arctic, I think there are two things going
on here. When they are interviewed, those who are in charge of these maneuvers,
they always answer that this is for the Arctic, they openly express this –
these maneuvers are for the Arctic and the resources which will be available
when the ice is melting.

But the NATO maneuvers are so seldom covered in the news, in media, specifically
not here in the south - I live in Stockholm; up in the north, in the local
newspapers they are covered rather extensively. And they used to send quotes
from the newspapers for me, otherwise I wouldn’t have known of it, because the
media don't cover it in the south, in Stockholm, where most of the people live.

So, it is sort of secretly hidden from the public to understand what is really
going on. But when they are asked, they say: this is for the Arctic.

And also one thing I think you’ve mentioned is that Sweden is neutral. Forget
that! We are not neutral! We have for long ago abolished neutrality. We are not
non-aligned; we are nothing, because we are openly conducting war games with
NATO.

But there is one difficulty, because the people in Sweden and in Finland are
against. It is only about 19% of the Swedish population that accept NATO; the
others don’t. So, they have that problem here.

But I can see the lust, how they try to form an enemy out of Russia, and you
should understand this: how Russia now is demonized, again. And I’m so old, so
I remember how they were demonizing the former Soviet Union, always, and almost
on a daily basis. And now we are there again.

So, we have here in one of the latest (Names Swedish newspaper in Swedish) a
picture of Putin and Russia is arming, here, and how the Russian bear now starts
showing its muscles. So, at the same time, as you have these military maneuvers
and military flexing of muscles, you seldom get information to the public here.

I was speaking in Norway last summer and they didn’t know about these things.
I’m very often on speaking tours in the north. I was in Finland last autumn
and they didn’t know about these military maneuvers either. They were really
shocked when I told them.

So, here we are again, from the Cold War days, gradually Russia is the threat.
And when I talk to Russian people they are not aware of this. It is like when I
was travelling in the former Soviet Union, they were not aware of how you were
depicted and described as a big, big threat. And I think we are there again,
hiding what NATO is doing in our country and in the north, and describing the
threat of Russia coming. There we are again.

Robles: Would you say it is worse than it was in the Soviet times?

Norberg: It is about the same now. We are at square one, we are back in the Cold
War sentiment in a way. But it is even worse now because during the Cold War, at
least Sweden had a posture that we are non-aligned and neutral. Not anymore! We
have left our neutrality, we have left our non-aligned posture.

Not openly, the neutrality we have left openly, but not the non-aligned posture.
I can give you an example: they are now training in North America (for) war in
Nevada.

They were training together with the US in 2006 in Alaska. They went with 6 or 7
warplanes to Alaska and made a huge maneuver outside North Korea together with
the US.

So, we are actively joining in different parts of the world. Of course we are in
Afghanistan now.

And so I think you have to start to understand that Sweden has quite another
position now and we are a NATO country. It is only a document that is left to be
done. That’s the situation now in Sweden.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about what you think the US and NATO’s
plans are for the Arctic?

Norberg: I can see that they are making a lot of war games together up in the
north.

And I also know that the US and Canada are the same; I mean they are in the same
organization. Canada has lost much of what they had before. I have a map in
front of me where I have all the installations, and the North American-Canada
Command had merged together.

So, up in the north you have a very strong militarization from Canada's point of
view and they are building up their military as never before.

And one thing that I think is important to mention is the drones. Canada is
planning for a huge drone fleet, and so is Sweden. Now we have one of the
world’s biggest drones which is ready in the North European Airspace Test
Range which is one of the biggest in Europe for training drones.

Robles: What’s your opinion on drones?

Norberg: They should be banished, abolished or banned because they are terrible
murder...we call them “murder machines”. They are conducted from a Nevada
test site. They sit there in front of computers and kill people in Yemen, in
Pakistan and many places.

We have a huge training area, big as Macedonia, called the North European
Airspace Test Range in the northern part of Sweden where they train these
drones. So, we are in this arms buildup, it’s rather dangerous I think.

The newest one is Neuron. It is a cooperation between Sweden, France, Italy,
Germany, Switzerland on one of the world’s biggest drones, Neuron. That is a
prototype that is now ready this year.

Robles: What is your opinion on the legality of drones because the users face no
risk?

Norberg: They are totally illegal. You sit in a bunker, you don’t see
anything, you just sit in front of a screen and see the target. We call them
“murder machines” because these are murders. They say they kill Al-Qaeda?

Agneta Norberg is the Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council, a member of the
Steering Committee in International Peace Bureau and on the board of directors
of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/287321.html


Press TV
February 5, 2013


‘No surprise if US stays in Afghanistan’


Audio at URL above


It should come as no surprise to anyone if U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan
beyond the 2014 deadline for NATO operations in the country, says Rick Rozoff
from the Stop NATO organization.

On Sunday, the Pentagon’s top civilian and military officials expressed a
desire that U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, the
deadline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from the country.

“I would be surprised if the U.S. doesn’t want to retain its
geo-strategically important position or presence, particularly in upgraded air
bases like those at Shindand, Bagram, Kandahar, and elsewhere in Afghanistan,”
said Rozoff in a phone interview with the U.S. Desk on Monday.

Earlier in January, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon was
considering plans to leave up to 9,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan beyond Dec.
31, 2014.

Moreover, AFP reported that new Pentagon plans would heighten the U.S. reliance
on drones in Afghanistan.

Right after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, former
president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and it has now
become the longest-running war in U.S. history.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has vowed a prolonged war in Afghanistan if U.S. troops
stay in the country beyond the end of 2014.

====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.stripes.com/news/us-patriot-missile-battery-in-turkey-comes-under-nat\
o-command-1.206582


Stars and Stripes
February 5, 2013


US Patriot missile battery in Turkey comes under NATO command
By John Vandiver


STUTTGART, Germany: A U.S. Patriot missile battery now up and running near
Turkey’s border with Syria fell under NATO command and control Tuesday,
bringing the alliance’s effort...one step closer to becoming fully
operational, U.S. military officials said.

Currently, five of six Patriot batteries belonging to Germany, the Netherlands
and the U.S. are operating in Turkey...

A second U.S. Patriot battery is expected to become operational in the coming
days as construction at its operational site in Gaziantep nears completion.

While four Patriot batteries belonging to Germany and the Netherlands have been
operating for more than a week, the U.S. effort has been slower to get off the
ground. U.S. officials have said the effort was delayed because of legal
complications in obtaining the needed approvals from the Turkish government.
Now, the mission appears to be back on track.

On Saturday, a battery of soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense
Artillery out of Fort Sill, Okla., made the move from Incirlik Air Base to a
Turkish army base in Gaziantep, said Capt. Royal Reff, a spokesman for the U.S.
mission in Turkey. That battery became operational Saturday evening, he said.
The other U.S. battery, still positioned in Incirlik, will soon make the move to
Gaziantep to man the second Patriot system, bringing the NATO mission up to full
capacity...The mission is expected to last up to one year.

In December, NATO defense ministers authorized the deployment of Patriots...

NATO deployed several air defense batteries to southeastern Turkey 10 years ago
during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq...
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/02/04/904806/us-guided-missile-destroyer-vis\
it-subic-bay-tuesday


Philippines News Agency
February 4, 2013


US guided missile destroyer to visit Subic Bay Tuesday


====

The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers (DDGs) is the United States
Navy's first class destroyers built around the Aegis combat system...They were
designed as multi-role destroyers to fit the AAW (anti-aircraft warfare) with
their powerful Aegis radar and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW (anti-submarine
warfare), with their towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, and ASW
helicopter, ASUW (anti-surface warfare) with their Harpoon missile launcher, and
strategic land strike using their Tomahawk missiles.

With an overall length of 510 feet (160 meter), displacement of 9,200 tons, and
weaponry including over 90 missiles, the Arleigh Burke-class ships are larger
and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile
cruisers.

====


MANILA, Philippines: One of the US Navy's most advanced warship, the Arleigh
Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Stockdale (DDG-106), will make a
routine port visit to Subic Bay, Zambales on Tuesday.

The stop in Subic Bay will allow the American warship to replenish supplies as
well as offer its crew an opportunity for rest and relaxation.

“Visiting Subic Bay provides us with a great opportunity to continue the
long-term relationship between the Philippines and the United States and that is
very important to us,” USS Stockdale commanding officer, Cmdr. Lex Walker,
said.

...

This will be the USS Stockdale’s first visit to the Philippines.

The visit is part of the ship’s nine-month deployment to the Western Pacific
that began in January 2013.

...

The USS Stockdale was commissioned on April 18, 2009, and is homeported in San
Diego, California.

The ship is named after Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, who was the highest
ranking US naval officer held prisoner during the Vietnam war.

The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers (DDGs) is the United States
Navy's first class destroyers built around the Aegis combat system and the
SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar.

They were designed as multi-role destroyers to fit the AAW (anti-aircraft
warfare) with their powerful Aegis radar and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW
(anti-submarine warfare), with their towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets,
and ASW helicopter, ASUW (anti-surface warfare) with their Harpoon missile
launcher, and strategic land strike using their Tomahawk missiles.

The first ship of the class was commissioned on July 4, 1991.

With the decommissioning of the Spruance-class destroyer, USS Cushing, on Sept.
21 2005, the Arleigh Burke-class ships became the US Navy's only active
destroyers; the class has the longest production run for any postwar US Navy
surface combatant.

The Arleigh Burke class is planned to be the third most numerous class of
destroyer to serve in the US Navy, after the Fletcher and Gearing classes.

With an overall length of 510 feet (160 meter), displacement of 9,200 tons, and
weaponry including over 90 missiles, the Arleigh Burke-class ships are larger
and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile
cruisers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/63491/another-us-warship-to-dock-in-subic-tuesd\
ay


Philippine Daily Inquirer
February 5, 2013


3rd US warship to visit PH in 3 weeks arrives in Subic Tuesday
By Tarra Quismundo



The third US warship to visit the Philippines in three weeks is arriving Tuesday
in Subic, Zambales province, a sign of unchanged relations between the two
allies despite the environmental damage caused by the grounding of a US
minesweeper on the protected Tubbataha Reefs in the Sulu Sea.

The US Embassy in Manila announced Monday that the USS Stockdale, an Arleigh
Burke-class guided missile destroyer, would dock at the former US naval base on
Subic Bay off Olongapo City for a routine resupply stop and a rest and
relaxation break for its crew.

The Stockdale follows the nuclear attack submarine USS Cheyenne that docked at
Subic last week to restock and allow its crew to go on shore leave.

The minesweeper Guardian ran aground in Tubbataha while sailing for Indonesia
after a port call at Puerto Princesa City early on Jan. 17.

The Guardian remains stuck on the southern atoll of Tubbataha, waiting to be
broken up to save the reefs from further damage.

“Visiting Subic Bay provides us with a great opportunity to continue the
long-term relationship between the Philippines and the United States and that is
very important to us,” said Cmdr. Lex Walker, the Stockdale’s commanding
officer.

Based in San Diego, California, the Stockdale is visiting the Philippines for
the first time as part of a nine-month deployment to the Western Pacific region.

...
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=71820


U.S. Navy
February 2, 2013


Olympia visits Singapore during Western Pacific Deployment
By Lt. Cmdr. Lara Bollinger, Submarine Group 7 Public Affairs


CHANGI, Republic of Singapore: The Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine USS
Olympia (SSN 717) arrived at Changi Naval Station, Singapore Feb. 2 for a visit
as part of her deployment to the Western Pacific.

With a crew of approximately 140, Olympia will conduct a multitude of missions
and showcase the latest capabilities of the U.S. Submarine Force.

...

Measuring more than 370 feet long and weighing more than 6900 tons when
submerged, Olympia is one of the stealthiest submarines in the world. She is
capable of supporting a multitude of missions, including anti-submarine warfare,
anti-surface ship warfare, strike, naval special warfare involving special
operations forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, irregular
warfare and mine warfare.

Named for the city of Olympia, Wash., this submarine is the second U.S. ship to
bear the namesake. Olympia was homeported in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1986, and
has since completed numerous regular deployments to the Western Pacific.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/10284/bloody-hundredth-flies-back-into-a\
ction


United States Africa Command
February 2, 2013


"Bloody Hundredth" flies back into action
1st Lieutenant Christopher Mesnard
100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs


====

The “Bloody Hundredth” was called to action to conduct refueling missions in
support of the French and their partners taking part in operations in Mali...The
“Bloody Hundredth” has a recent history supporting operations in AFRICOM’s
area of operation...In 2011, the wing supported Operations Odyssey Dawn and
Unified Protector.

====


RAF MILDENHALL, England: More than 100 Airmen from the 100th Air Refueling Wing,
RAF Mildenhall, England deployed Jan. 26 to a location in Western Europe in
support of international military operations in Mali.

The deployment makes highly valued air-to-air refueling assets available to U.S.
Africa Command.

The “Bloody Hundredth” was called to action to conduct refueling missions in
support of the French and their partners taking part in operations in Mali, a
country in North-Western Africa.

Shortly after receiving the deployment order, the men and women of the 100th ARW
quickly moved through numerous deployment processing stations with the
assistance of personnel from the 100th Logistics Readiness Squadron and 100th
Force Support Squadron.

Then, prior to boarding their aircraft, deploying Airmen were met by Colonel
Christopher Kulas, 100th ARW commander, Chief Master Sergeant Christopher
Powell, 100th ARW command chief and a number of 100th ARW group commanders.

Also on the flightline here were pilots and maintainers, loading the deploying
Airmen’s equipment and ensuring the deployment process was as expeditious as
possible.

...

As events in Mali unfolded, France requested aerial refueling support from the
United States. The 100th ARW stood ready to respond even though the wing was
participating in an operational readiness exercise. An ORE tests an
installation’s ability to effectively deploy in support of contingency
operations.

...

The “Bloody Hundredth” has a recent history supporting operations in
AFRICOM’s area of operation. In 2012, members from the 100th ARW supported
operations in Libya following terrorist attacks against a U.S. Embassy. In 2011,
the wing supported Operations Odyssey Dawn and Unified Protector.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/military/uss-barry-deployment


WAVY
February 6, 2013


USS Barry to deploy



NORFOLK, Va. - USS Barry will embark on a Ballistic Missile Defense deployment
Thursday.

The ship will leave Naval Station Norfolk and head to the European theater as
part of the Phased Adaptive Approach...

USS Barry last deployed in July of 2011.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2013/feb/06/norfolk-based-destroyer-uss-barry-deploy-e\
uropean-ar-2513944/


Associated Press
February 6, 2013


[Excerpt]


During its last deployment in July 2011, the Barry launched 55 Tomahawk cruise
missiles in support of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.

====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/760677.shtml


Global Times
February 6, 2013


Japan sends dubious signals of war


Japan on Tuesday lodged a protest against China, claiming Chinese military
frigates locked their fire-control radar on to a Japanese navy vessel as well as
a helicopter.

Details of the situation remain unclear. The Japanese defense military
reportedly said that the Japanese vessel sounded a combat alert after being
locked on to and the situation reached quite a dangerous point. It prompted
Japanese media to criticize China's "offensive" and "provocative" act on the
high seas.

China is not skilled when it comes to publicity efforts, thus far it has never
taken the initiative in publicizing information on Sino-Japanese disputes. The
first commentaries on Sino-Japanese conflicts have been always from the Japanese
side.

But if Japan was a reasonable nation, the Diaoyu Islands dispute wouldn't have
become as tense as it is now.

Now, we only have Japan's one-sided arguments over the radar incident. Since
Japan often seizes opportunities to exaggerate these kinds of incidents to sway
public opinion, the legitimacy of Japan's arguments has come under question.

No matter how skilled Japan is in making use of public opinion, it's Japan
itself that is driving the Diaoyu dispute in the direction of a possible
military clash. Japan has conducted several military exercises aimed at
"safeguarding Diaoyu," and it's Japan's fighter jets that first appeared in the
air above the disputed islands to disperse Chinese civilian aircraft.

It was also Japan that first indicated that it might use tracer bullets against
Chinese aircraft, and Japan's fighter jets that were frequently scrambled to
deal with Chinese aircraft that had allegedly entered into its air defense
identification zone. Because of Japan, mutual military trust in the East China
Sea has been destroyed.

The news disclosed by Japan on Tuesday hasn't stirred up Chinese society. Many
have mentally prepared themselves for the first shots between China and Japan,
but fewer and fewer people still hold out hope for a peaceful solution to the
escalating dispute.

Chinese people thought in the past war was unlikely, but now, we often hear
extreme pledges from Japan like "Protecting Diaoyu at any cost" and
"Negotiations are unacceptable" via media and the Internet, and we are also well
informed of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces' full preparations for a war. The
information flow between China and Japan is increasingly narrowing the room for
peaceful negotiation.

Japan's attempts to highlight this radar incident only sound an alert between
the Chinese and Japanese public, telling them that war is around the corner.

If the Abe administration's real intention is to implant the idea of an imminent
war in the minds of the public, China also must send the same message to the
Chinese public. If this is not the case, Japan should try to dispel the Chinese
public's doubts and remove the harmful side-effects of its actions.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://en.for-ua.com/news/2013/02/07/101547.html


ForUm
February 7, 2013


Ukraine offers NATO troop withdrawal from Afghanistan through its territory


Ukraine has proposed the North Atlantic Alliance and partners transit services
for the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan through its territory, the
UKRINFORM news agency reports.

The head of Ukraine's mission to NATO, Ihor Dolhov, said that taking into
account the extent and timing of the activities to be implemented by the
contributor countries to provide regular and rhythmic withdrawal of their forces
and resources from Afghanistan, Ukraine is ready to offer its transit services.

The ambassador expressed his belief that the Ukrainian opportunities for the
organization and implementation of transit of the cargos of the International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan through the territory of Ukraine can be
attractive and beneficial to the allies and partners and called for their
thorough study.

Speaking at the meeting, Dolhov said that Ukraine...will participate in NATO
operations in Afghanistan until the end.

The Ukrainian side also reiterated that it would support further efforts by the
international community in that country.

Ukraine's peacekeeping personnel numbering 28 people are performing tasks as
part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Those are, in particular, military doctors, advisors in preparing helicopter
onboard engineers, specialists in application of avionics, airfield support
groups, experts in logistics and clearance.

The mission in Afghanistan is to be completed before 2014. About 100 thousand
personnel, a significant amount of property and equipment must be withdrawn.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_07/Kosovo-to-get-an-army-In-June/


Voice of Russia
February 7, 2013


Kosovo to get an army in June



Kosovo is planning to convert its lightly-armed Kosovo Security Force into a
full-fledged army.

Established in 2009, the force consists of 2,500 active and 800 reserve members
and is primarily responsible for crisis response.

Over the past few years, it has been intensively trained by KFOR, which reports
to NATO. Based on the Kosovo Security Force’s success, the alliance will
decide on the future of the Kosovo army.

“NATO nations are considering the right time for the KSF final endorsement,”
KFOR spokesman Alexander Willing said. “The North Atlantic Council, NATO's
highest decision-making body, will make a political decision based on the
assessment of NATO's military authorities,” he added.

The council is expected to decide on the force's status at its June meeting.
Voice of Russia, SETimes.com
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.marforres.marines.mil/MFRNews/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/7930/Article/1\
37659/african-lion-rockets-into-2013.aspx


U. S. Marine Corps Forces Reserve
February 6, 2013


African Lion rockets into 2013
By Gunnery Sgt. Will Price
4th Marine Aircraft Wing


====

Formerly a bi-lateral exercise between joint U.S. services and the Kingdom of
Morocco Royal Armed Forces, African Lion is opening its doors internationally to
military representatives from more than 14 different partner nations.

“The intent is to invite our partner nations from Europe and Africa to act as
observers this year and expand to participation in the years ahead.”

[African Lion is] the largest exercise for U.S. African Command on the continent
and is growing...

“This year the comfort level of both U.S. and Moroccan leadership has enabled
our team to pursue events of greater complexity, namely the introduction of
rockets. The launching of HIMARS [High Mobility Artillery Rocket System] will
take our U.S./Moroccan team to greater limits in terms of our coordination and
interoperability.”

More than  1,400 U.S. military personnel will arrive in April joining  more
than 900 Moroccan RAF in various regions of the Kingdom of Morocco...

====



PRINTAGADIR, Morocco: Marine Corps Forces Africa conducted the final planning
conference for African Lion 13 at the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces southern
headquarters facilities in Agadir, Morocco, Jan. 29 – Feb. 1.

AL-13 is a U.S. African Command-sponsored, MFA-led exercise that involves
various types of training including command post, live-fire and maneuvering,
peace-keeping operations, an intelligence capacity building seminar, amphibious
operations, aerial refueling/low-level flight training, as well as medical and
dental assistance projects.

In preparation for AL-13, JTF Marines and sailors from 4th Marine Logistics
Group, Marine Forces Reserve, in cooperation with teams from U.S. Transportation
Command, Marine Forces Africa, and II Marine Expeditionary Force, will conducted
a large-scale offload of both a Marine prepositioned ship and a commercial
shipping vessel at the Port of Agadir, in early April.

...

Formerly a bi-lateral exercise between joint U.S. services and the Kingdom of
Morocco Royal Armed Forces, African Lion is opening its doors internationally to
military representatives from more than 14 different partner nations.

“In keeping with the guidance of General Ham (AFRICOM), the Embassy has
invited a host of nations this year to expand African Lion's into a true
multi-lateral exercise,” said U.S. Army Maj. Barrett McNabb, U.S. Embassy
Rabat liaison officer.  “The intent is to invite our partner nations from
Europe and Africa to act as observers this year and expand to participation in
the years ahead.”

Already the largest exercise for U.S. African Command on the continent and
growing, this year Task Force African Lion commander Col. Roger Garay brings
back his Marines and sailors from 14th Marine Regiment, out of Fort Worth,
Texas, for their unit's third consecutive AL iteration. Col. Maj. Brahim Hassani
is the lead planner for more than 900 Royal Moroccan Royal Armed Forces
throughout the exercise.

With a wealth of knowledge working with African Lion, both Garay and Hassani,
have brought an added dynamic to this year's exercise that plans to 'rocket' the
exercise into history.

“Coming back for a third year has created a dynamic of continuity which has
enabled us to take African Lion even further than ever,” said Garay. “This
year the comfort level of both U.S. and Moroccan leadership has enabled our team
to pursue events of greater complexity, namely the introduction of rockets. The
launching of HIMARS will take our U.S./Moroccan team to greater limits in terms
of our coordination and interoperability.”

The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, is the Marine Corps'
premier artillery system, accurately engaging targets over great distances and
under all weather conditions. With high volumes of lethal rocket and missile
fire, the HIMARS can deliver precise strikes from more than 40 miles away.

More than  1,400 U.S. military personnel will arrive in April joining  more
than 900 Moroccan RAF in various regions of the Kingdom of Morocco to take part
in the annual exercise, designed to improve interoperability and mutual
understanding of each nation's military tactics, techniques and procedures.

...

With the signing of the official minutes by Hassani and Garay, and leadership
from the U.S. Embassy and MFA, all the African Lion 13 elements were lined up
and ready to conduct the exercise.

“I am very excited to complete our final exercise conference. The Moroccan and
U.S. planning has been superb on both sides of the house,” said an exuberant
Col. Garay.  “I feel like we  have been ahead of the power curve the whole
way this year in preparation and we are all ready to see African Lion 13 take 
military exercises with our partner nations to the next level!”

This year's multi-national African Lion 13 and its maritime offload, joint
service exercise and HIMARS are scheduled to launch in April.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corps/top-us-marine-wants-to-train-in-vietnam\
-1.206969


Stars and Stripes
February 7, 2013


Top US Marine wants to train in Vietnam
By Kevin Baron


====

Two new F-18 squadrons already are flying off of Tinian Island, in the Northern
Mariana Islands, north from Guam. The Marines...evoking an even earlier American
war in the Pacific, once again are taxiing down the same runway used by the
Enola Gay, the World War II B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, Japan.

====


WASHINGTON: Within the next few years, U.S. Marines could once again be knee
deep in the rice paddies of Vietnam.

Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, said he would like to see
Marines training in Vietnam. His remarks came while speaking to local reporters
at a conference in San Diego last week.

Amos said he wanted to see additional Marines training on the ground in Vietnam
and other locations around the Pacific as part of the U.S. military's pivot
toward Asia.

"I'm optimistic," Amos said about the possibility of getting back into Vietnam.
"We're not training in Vietnam, but I would hope that someday down the road
through relationships that we build over the next year or two that we'll be able
to train in Vietnam."

Vietnam has drawn keen interest in the Pentagon, which wants agreements for
American warships to use Cam Ranh Bay, a strategic harbor in Southeast Asia.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited the bay aboard U.S. naval sealift ship,
last summer. In a moment of bluster in the harbor, Panetta recalled a line from
the movie "Master and Commander," saying "The captain of the ship says, 'We may
be a long way from England, but this ship is England.' Well, this ship is the
United States."

Amos last week said Marines already are fulfilling his goal to expand training
in the Pacific. Two new F-18 squadrons already are flying off of Tinian Island,
in the Northern Mariana Islands, north from Guam. The Marines, he said proudly,
evoking an even earlier American war in the Pacific, once again are taxiing down
the same runway used by the Enola Gay, the World War II B-29 bomber that dropped
the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.

The squadrons on Tinian are living under "very austere conditions," Amos said.
For now, the Marines in training are "limited," he said, "but there."
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

The Anti-Empire Report #113
By William Blum – Published February 7th, 2013

American Foreign Policy – Have our war lovers learned anything?
Over the past four decades, of all the reasons people over a certain age have
given for their becoming radicalized against US foreign policy, the Vietnam War
has easily been the one most often cited. And I myself am the best example of
this that you could find. I sometimes think that if the war lovers who run the
United States had known of this in advance they might have had serious second
thoughts about starting that great historical folly and war crime.

At other times, however, I have the thought that our dear war lovers have had 40
years to take this lesson to heart, and during this time what did they do? They
did Salvador and Nicaragua, and Angola and Grenada. They did Panama and
Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and Iraq. And in 2012 American President Barack
Obama saw fit to declare that the Vietnam War was “one of the most
extraordinary stories of bravery and integrity in the annals of military
history”. 1

So, have they learned nothing? When it comes to following international law, is
the United States like a failed state? The Somalia of international law? Well,
if they were perfectly frank, the war lovers would insist that the purpose of
all these interventions, and many others like them, was to keep the atheists out
of power – the non-believers in America’s god-given right to rule the world
– or to at least make life as difficult as possible for them. And thus the
interventions were successful; nothing to apologize for; even the Vietnam War
achieved its purpose of preventing that country from becoming a good development
option for Asia, a socialist alternative to the capitalist model; precisely the
same reason for Washington’s endless hostility toward Cuba in Latin America;
and Cuba has indeed inspired numerous atheists and their alternatives for a
better world.

If they were even more honest, the war lovers might quote George Kennan, the
legendary State Department strategist, who wrote prophetically during the Cold
War: “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean,
the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on,
substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything
else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” 2

But after all these years, after decades of American militarism – though not a
day passes without some government official or media acolyte expressing his
admiration and gratitude for “our brave boys” – cracks in the American
edifice can be seen. Some of the war lovers, and their TV groupies would have us
believe that they have actually learned something. One of the first was
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in February 2011: “In my opinion, any future
defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land
army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head
examined.”

And here’s former Secretary of State George Shultz speaking before the
prestigious Council of Foreign Relations last month (January 29): “Iraq and
Afghanistan cannot be the template for how we go about” dealing with threats
of terrorism.

A few days earlier the very establishment and conservative Economist magazine
declared: “The best-intentioned foreign intervention is bound to bog its
armies down in endless wars fighting invisible enemies to help ungrateful
locals.”

However, none of these people are in power. And does history offer any example
of a highly militaristic power – without extreme coercion – seeing the error
of its ways? One of my readers, who prefers to remain anonymous, wrote to me
recently:

It is my opinion that the German and Japanese people only relinquished their
imperial culture and mindset when they were bombed back to the stone age at the
end of WWII. Something similar is the only cure for the same pathology that now
is embedded into the very social fabric of the USA. The USA is a full-blown
pathological society now. There is no other cure. No amount of articles on the
Internet pointing out the hypocrisies or war crimes will do it.

So, while the United States is busy building bases and anti-missile sites in
Europe, Asia and Africa, deploying space-based and other hi-tech weapons
systems, trying to surround Russia, China, Iran and any other atheist that
threatens American world hegemony, and firing drone missiles all over the Middle
East I’m busy playing games on the Internet. What can I say? In theory at
least, there is another force besides the terrible bombing mentioned above that
can stop the American empire, and that is the American people. I’ll continue
trying to educate them. Too bad I won’t live long enough to see the glorious
transformation.

Afghanistan: Manufacturing the American Legacy
“A decade ago, playing music could get you maimed in Afghanistan. Today, a
youth ensemble is traveling to the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall. And it even
includes girls.”

Thus reads the sub-heading of a Washington Post story of February 3 about an
orchestra of 48 Afghan young people who attended music school in a country where
the Taliban have tried to silence both women and music. “The Afghan Youth
Orchestra is more than a development project,” the article informs us. For
“the school’s many international donors, it serves as a powerful symbol of
successful reconstruction in Afghanistan. And by performing in Washington and
New York, the seats of U.S. political and financial power, the orchestra hopes
to showcase what a decade of investment has achieved.”

“The U.S. State Department, the World Bank, the Carnegie Corporation and
Afghanistan’s Ministry of Education have invested heavily in the tour. The
U.S. Embassy in Kabul awarded nearly $350,000 footing most of the estimated
$500,000 cost. For international donors, the tour symbolizes progress in a
country crippled by war.”

The State Department’s director of communications and public diplomacy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan declares: “We wanted Americans to understand the
difference their tax dollars have made in building a better future for young
people, which translates into reduced threats from extremists in the region.”

“There’s a lot of weariness in the U.S. and cynicism about Afghanistan,”
said William Harvey, an American violinist who teaches at the school, where 35
of 141 students are girls. “What are we doing there? What can be achieved?
These concerts answer those questions in the strongest way possible: Cooperation
between Afghanistan and the international community has made it safe for young
girls and boys to learn music.”

There can be no question that for the sad country of Afghanistan all this is
welcome news. There can also be little doubt that a beleaguered and defensive US
foreign policy establishment will seek to squeeze out as much favorable
publicity as possible from these events. On the issue of the severe oppression
of women and girls in Afghanistan, defenders of the US occupation of that
desperate land would have you believe that the United States is the last great
hope of those poor females. However, you will not be reminded that in the 1980s
the United States played an indispensable role in the overthrow of a secular and
relatively progressive Afghan government, one which endeavored to grant women
much more freedom than they’ll ever have under the current Karzai-US
government, more probably than ever again. Here are some excerpts from a 1986 US
Army manual on Afghanistan discussing the policies of this government concerning
women:

“provisions of complete freedom of choice of marriage partner, and fixation of
the minimum age at marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men”
“abolished forced marriages”
“bring [women] out of seclusion, and initiate social programs”
“extensive literacy programs, especially for women”
“putting girls and boys in the same classroom”;
“concerned with changing gender roles and giving women a more active role in
politics”. 3
The US-led overthrow of this government paved the way for the coming to power of
Islamic fundamentalist forces, which led directly to the awful Taliban. And why
did the United States in its infinite wisdom choose to do such a thing? Because
the Afghan government was allied with the Soviet Union and Washington wanted to
draw the Russians into a hopeless military quagmire – “We now have the
opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War”, said Zbigniew
Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser. 4

The women of Afghanistan will never know how the campaign to raise them to the
status of full human beings would have turned out, but this, some might argue,
is but a small price to pay for a marvelous Cold War victory.

Guantánamo Bay
People on the left never tire of calling for the closing of the US prison at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The fact that President Obama made the closing a promise
of his 2008 campaign and repeated it again in the White House, while the prison
still remains in operation, is seen as a serious betrayal. But each time I read
about this I’m struck by the same thought: The horror of Guantánamo is not
its being open, not its mere existence. Its horror lies in its being the site of
more than 10 years of terrible abuse of human beings. If the prison is closed
and all its inmates are moved to another prison, and the abuses continue, what
would have been accomplished? How would the cause of human rights be benefitted?
I think that activists should focus on the abuses, regardless of the location.

The War on Terror – They’re really getting serious about it now
For disseminating classified materials that exposed war crimes, Julian Assange
is now honored as an official terrorist as only America can honor. We Shall
Never Forget 9/11, Vol. II: The True Faces of Evil - Terror, a graphic coloring
novel for children, which comes with several pages of perforated, detachable
“terrorist trading cards”. Published by Really Big Coloring Books Inc. in
St. Louis, the cards include Assange, Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Ted
Kaczynski, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Bill Ayers, and others. 5

Superpower – the film
Starring Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Michel Chossudovksy, Karen Kwiatowski
(Pentagon “defector”), William Blum, Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita),
Kathy Kelly, and many others: https://vimeo.com/55141496 (enter password when
prompted: barbarasteegmuller) – 2 hours long.

New Book and talk
The eagerly awaited (I can name at least three people) new book by William Blum
is here at last. “America’s Deadliest Export – Democracy: The Truth About
US Foreign Policy and Everything Else” is made up of essays which are a
combination of new and old; combined, updated, expanded; many first appeared in
one form or another in the Anti-Empire Report, or on my website, at various
times during the past ten years or so.

As mentioned in the book, activists like myself are sometimes scoffed at for
saying the same old things to the same old people; just spinning our wheels,
we’re told, “preaching to the choir” or “preaching to the converted”.
But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign
policy tells me it just ain’t so. From the questions and comments I regularly
get from my audiences, via email and in person, I can plainly see that there are
numerous significant information gaps and misconceptions in the choir’s
thinking, often leaving them unable to see through the newest government lie or
propaganda trick; they’re unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past
that illuminates the present; or knowing the facts but unable to apply them at
the appropriate moment; vulnerable to being led astray by the next person who
offers a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think
they believe; and, perhaps
  worst of all, many of them suffer pathetically from an over-abundance of
conspiracy thinking, often carrying a justified suspicion or idea to a
ridiculous level; virtually nothing is taken at face value.

The choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened to be better able to
influence others, to be better activists.

To order a signed copy directly from me you can go to my website:
http://killinghope.org.

I’ll be speaking about the new book at Politics and Prose bookstore, 5015
Connecticut Ave., NW, in Washington, DC, Saturday, March 2 at 1 pm.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013-02/06/content_16204898.htm


China Daily
February 6, 2013



Japan ups stakes in islands dispute
By Zhou Wa���



Japan on Tuesday intensified the ongoing territorial dispute with China by
setting up a new publicity office aimed at Diaoyu Islands-related propaganda
issues.

Observers warned that the move will undermine recent efforts made by the two
countries to improve ties.

On Tuesday, Chinese ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua also rejected Tokyo's
protest over Chinese marine surveillance vessels patrolling waters off the
islands, the Chinese embassy in Japan said.

Cheng stressed that the Diaoyu Islands are China's inherent territory and so are
the surrounding waters, and Chinese marine surveillance vessels are conducting
regular patrols in Chinese territorial waters.

The ambassador made the remarks in a meeting with Japanese Vice-Minister of
Foreign Affairs Akitaka Saiki.

Two Chinese marine surveillance ships continued patrols in territorial waters
surrounding the Diaoyu Islands on Monday, according to China's State Oceanic
Administration, according to Xinhua News Agency. Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Tuesday urged Japan to stop the illegal entry of
ships in waters off the islands and to stop sending jets into air space over
them.

Japan should face up to history and show more sincerity with practical actions
to cooperate with China in finding ways to control and resolve the dispute, she
said.

Tokyo on Tuesday said it was setting up an office to publicize Japan's stance on
territorial disputes, including the Diaoyu Islands row with China, and other
disputes over islands with Russia and South Korea.

The office, which will have 15 employees, will coordinate within the government
and draw up publicity strategies on territorial issues, according to Japanese
media.

At present, the Japanese Cabinet Secretariat, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign
Ministry all have teams dealing with propaganda for Tokyo's territorial claims.

Lu Yaodong, a researcher on Japanese studies with the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences, said establishing the office shows conservative power still dominates
in Japanese political circles.

Liang Yunxiang, a professor of Japanese studies at Peking University, said the
new office will affect Sino-Japanese ties and further provoke China.

Tokyo sent a series of officials to China last month to mend ties dented
following the Japanese government's illegal "purchase" of some parts of the
Diaoyu Islands in September. They included former Japanese prime minister Yukio
Hatoyama, and Natsuo Yamaguchi, leader of the New Komeito Party, the junior
coalition partner.

Pu Zhendong contributed to this story.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=394534


Interfax
February 9, 2013


Russia opposes NATO's role of global energy security guarantor


MOSCOW/BRUSSELS:  NATO must not be used as an instrument of ensuring energy
security in the world, said Russia's NATO ambassador Alexander Grushko.

"Someone here in Brussels made a most profound point by saying that if you are
holding a hammer, you should not think every emerging problem is a nail. We
think the world has ample opportunity to engage in energy cooperation and to
ensure energy security without making use of military-political organizations as
an instrument," he said in an interview with Interfax on Saturday.

"Russia's energy policy aims to attain these particular goals, and to strengthen
energy security through cooperation and on the basis of jointly developed
principles," Grushko said.

"Concerning the Russia-NATO Council, I think exchanges of practice and
experience in defending the critical infrastructure, including energy
facilities, from threats, among them cyber attacks, hold certain promise,"
Grushko said.

"We are just beginning to deal with this problem. However, agreements could be
reached in the future of great avail for all countries represented in the
Russia-NATO Council," he said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_09/Disagreement-on-missile-defence-may-tell-on-Ru\
ssia-NATO-cooperation-in-other-areas-Ambassador/


Voice of Russia
February 9, 2013


Disagreement on missile defence may tell on Russia-NATO cooperation in other
areas – Ambassador


The lack of agreement on missile defence may negatively affect Russia-NATO
cooperation in other areas, too, said Russian Ambassador to NATO, Alexander
Grushko, in a statement.

This follows from the fact that Russia-NATO relations rely on strategic
stability.

Therefore, if the nuclear balance is upset due to the implementation of
NATO-supported US plans for a stage-by-stage deployment of a missile defence
system, this would strongly affect the entire range of cooperation in the
framework of the Russia-NATO Council, Grushko said in a press interview.

According to the diplomat, the missile defence issue is crucial to Russia-NATO
interaction.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/news_article.php?id=7964&type=80


Southern Times
February 4, 2013


Western Hypocrisy and Double Standards
By Chandra Muzaffar
Originally published in Countercurrents


====

The ulterior motives for Western military action in Libya; for their covert
operations in Syria; for their hobnobbing with militant groups in Iraq; and for
their collusion with Jihadists in Afghanistan have been exposed in numerous
studies. There is no need to repeat them here. Suffice to note that they have
very little to do with defending human rights or upholding democracy.

====



The French military operation in Mali has brought to the fore the blatant double
standards in the approach of certain Western nations to the whole question of
terrorism.

In the case of Mali, France, with the support of Britain, Germany and the United
States, has committed itself to combating diehard militants who are determined
to use violence to establish their power and authority.

Yet in Libya, these countries and their allies in West Asia and North Africa
(WANA) had no compunctions about colluding with militant groups to oust Muammar
Gaddafi in a bloody and brutal campaign, which killed tens of thousands of
people in 2011.

Their hypocrisy becomes even starker in Syria.

Western powers and groups from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Turkey have been
providing funds, logistical support and sophisticated weapons to rebels within
Syria and mercenaries from a number of other countries, to overthrow the Bashar
al-Assad government.

  Many of these armed groups, like their counterparts in Libya and Mali, justify
their acts of terror and violence in the name of Islam ‑ albeit a distorted
and perverted interpretation of the religion.

Different armed groups in Iraq at different times in the course of the US-led
occupation of that country have also, it is alleged, received material
assistance from countries in the region and the US. It is an established fact
that the US under Ronald Reagan gave enormous financial and military aid to
so-called “jihadist” groups fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The US has often condoned acts of terror perpetrated by its close ally, Israel,
against Palestinians and other Arabs. Indeed, the US itself is regarded in some
circles as a “terrorist state”, given its record of killing innocent
civilians in various parts of the world, including Latin America, West Asia and
Southeast Asia.

What this shows is that there is terrorism that is condoned and terrorism that
is condemned by Western powers and other states.

If violence serves their interests, it is acceptable. If it doesn’t, the
militants are targeted. In other words, there are ‘good terrorists’ and
‘bad terrorists’.

One of the main reasons why the militants in Mali have to be defeated ‑ from
France’s standpoint ‑ is because France imports huge amounts of uranium from
that country for its nuclear plants that generate 80 percent of its electricity.
It is not because France abhors violence or seeks to protect human life!
Besides, France wants to maintain its hegemonic grip on West Africa and parts of
North Africa at a time when resource rich Africa is becoming increasingly
important to the global economy.

The ulterior motives for Western military action in Libya; for their covert
operations in Syria; for their hobnobbing with militant groups in Iraq; and for
their collusion with Jihadists in Afghanistan have been exposed in numerous
studies. There is no need to repeat them here. Suffice to note that they have
very little to do with defending human rights or upholding democracy.

It is the overwhelming desire to perpetuate their military, political, economic
and cultural hegemony over the world, which is the real reason why the US and
its allies seek to crush terrorism in one instance and consort with it in
another instance.

Why is it that this irrefutable truth about the attitude of the centres of power
in the West to terrorism is not widely known? Why is it that citizens in Western
democracies who are supposed to be informed and educated are not ashamed of the
double standards and the hypocrisy that surround the war on terror? One of the
primary reasons is because the media ‑ both the old and the new ‑ does not
want to tell the whole truth.

More often than not, the media regurgitates the propaganda put out by the
centres of power in the West.

If it is the ‘bad terrorists’ that say French troops are pursuing, the
latter are projected in the media as heroes on a noble mission, without any
analysis of the root causes of the conflict or what the motives are for
launching the assault.

If, on the other hand, it is the ‘good terrorists’ sponsored by the West who
are responsible for some merciless slaughter somewhere, their barbarity is
either played down by the media or the whole incident is turned and twisted to
present the adversary as the perpetrator of the killing.

This has been happening in the case of Syria. In one of the most recent episodes
the ‘good terrorists’, the rebels, claimed that the horrendous attack on
Aleppo University on January 15, 2013 that killed 87 people, many of them
students, was the work of the Bashar government.

This was the story that most media carried though a number of newspapers and
television channels also reported the government’s denial.

However, when evidence emerged that showed that the ‘good terrorists’ were
the actual culprits and independent journalists and student groups in Syria,
apart from a number of foreign governments, condemned the ‘good terrorists’
for their savagery, very few media outlets gave any prominence to their remarks.

It is through distorted reporting and analysis of this sort that the media
conceals the double standards and hypocrisy of the centres of power in the West.

This is why we should on our own look for alternative sources of news and
analysis and use the information at our command to challenge the powerful to be
honest and consistent about the fight against terrorism.

•Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a
Just World (JUST), Malaysia.

====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/288130.html


Press TV
February 9, 2013


Justification of US drone killings a travesty : Analyst


Audio at URL above


The justification of targeted killings by the United States government is "a
travesty" according to U.S. law, an analyst said.

U.S. senators are reportedly considering an idea to create a secret
“assassination court” that would be charged with deciding if “suspects”
can be assassinated by U.S. drone strikes.

“There is no way of justifying these killings and in fact they are
assassinations,” Rick Rozoff, manager of the organization Stop The NATO
International, told Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Saturday.

“This is what’s called targeted killing, but it’s not targeted. It’s
mass killing,” he added.

There are estimates that since 2004 when the CIA started the drone warfare,
between 4,500 and 5,000 people have been assassinated in Pakistan, Yemen,
Somalia and Libya and Iraq, Rozoff said.

The notion of a secretive court deciding who gets killed by robots looming
overhead anywhere on the planet strikes some as somewhat morbid.

Observers charge that the change would just be some “nominal court
oversight” to the targeted killings, which at present is entirely in the hands
of the executive branch.
====================================================================
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@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================