Category Archives: Military

Europe Spooling up Military Activities vs. Russia

Posted on by

When Putin took over Crimea and as he continues to do the same with Ukraine. it is important to know it shocked much of the world leaders but never should have if anyone is a student of history. Even the U.S. intelligence community declared it was a probability.

Operation Atlantic Resolve; Operation Hedgehog

Marines with Black Sea Rotational Force and service members from Bulgaria, Romania, the United Kingdom and Albania kicked- off Exercise Platinum Lion 15-3, July 6, 2015 at the Novo Selo Training Area. The two-week training exercise is designed to strengthen the partnerships between the NATO nations and share knowledge to help improve their military skill sets.

Ukraine/Crimea important to Putin and Russia

Sevastopol was the foundation of the Cold War headquarters for the Soviet Union. It was home to the Black Sea Fleet and was the base of the Soviet military with batteries built as layered levels deep into the earth. Sevastopol held back the German invasion during World War II due to the heavy fortifications.

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow refused to recognise Ukrainian sovereignty over Sevastopol as well as over the surrounding Crimean Oblast, using the argument that the city was never practically integrated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic because of its military status.

Today, Europe and the Baltics vs. Russia

Europe Puts Its Finger on the Trigger

Hedgehog. Seemingly innocent, this word takes on extraordinary significance in a tiny Northern European country, reminding their population of barely 1 million of the constant threat of invasion by their former conquerers. You see, Hedgehog is the code name of Estonia’s largest-ever military exercise, which took place in early May, where tanks and aircraft from around the world joined with some 13,000 Estonians to practice avoiding the same fate that has befallen Ukraine. Government video shows everyday volunteers, who make up about half of the Estonian Defense Forces, firing automatic weapons from wooded hideouts and tossing smoke grenades before calling out, “The battle is over, all are friends!” But the message to Russia is clear and backed by unprecedented force: We are not friends.

U.S. military photo essay here with Europe.

 

While Putin’s brazen land grab in Ukraine, perceived threats from the Islamic State group to the south and an influx of immigration understandably put European nations on high alert, it’s surprising that all of this is happening on the coattails of a crippling economic crisis that has made millions cringe at the mention of “debt” and “austerity.” With social services being slashed while unemployment skyrockets, some are far from thrilled that their governments are beefing up infantry units and spy networks.

Naturally, it’s in the countries nestled snug against Mother Russia’s borders, mostly the Baltic and Scandinavian states, where the biggest increases in defense are happening. In Lithuania, the government overwhelmingly voted to reinstate conscription in March, which will see some 3,500 citizens recruited to serve in the military each year. It also just approved a 30 percent increase in military spending and has plans for further increases in coming years. And just in case citizens weren’t convinced of the code-red threat, the national defense minister released a booklet titled “Things to know about readiness for emergency situations and warfare.”

Then there’s Poland, which is quickly becoming one of the continent’s most prominent military and economic powers. Its approximately $37 billion budget increase from 2012 to 2022 will include 70 drones, 70 helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery in a bid to become one of the region’s military powerhouses — meaning it wants a greater say on NATO policy and to build a homegrown industry that can export goods to other countries.

What is a bit more surprising than countries at Russia’s doorstep arming themselves is the fact that Western Europeans, like the war-averse Germans and economically strapped French, are doing the same. In March, Germany passed an $8.5 billion increase through 2019 on military spending. Over the same period, France will up its budget by about $3.5 billion. It could be seen as sending a message to the Kremlin that the NATO agreement holds weight, but remember: If Russia invades a NATO-member nation, other members must go to war.

In March, both European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen threw their weight behind a proposal for a European Union army, which would be in addition to existing NATO forces. The EU army would be a direct counter to the threat of Russia. But the proposal was called “fantasy” by a number of critics, particularly in the U.K.

So tanks and missiles on the border regions are sure to make Putin think twice about marching soldiers into European countries. But the big, bad shirtless horseman to the east isn’t the only thing making Europeans get defensive. From the south, the rise of the Islamic State group has sparked fears of extremism breeding on European soil, particularly from fighters who have traveled to Syria and Iraq, only to return radicalized, says Anthony Glees, director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham.

Some of this funding is much more under the radar. Then there’s France, which has just passed an ambitious surveillance bill — the “French Patriot Act” — that allows for sweeping intelligence gathering in the wake of  extremist attacks in Paris in January, much like the Patriot Act did after the U.S. passed it following 9/11. In many ways, countries see intelligence as a cheaper and more effective way to safeguard from threats than conventional tanks and missiles, says Glees. But it does come at the cost of skeptical and often outraged members of civil society who doesn’t see the security benefits as outweighing their privacy rights.

Naturalized Citizens can Omit the Pledge to America Per Obama

Posted on by

What say you America? No requirement of loyalty to the United States of America. ‘We the People OF the United States’ has no meaning anymore.

Under this edict by Barack Obama, El Chapo Guzman and Osama bin Ladin would be accepted as a U.S. citizen. Under this scenario, how does anyone take the oath to join the military?

Obama: New citizens can skip pledge to take up arms and defend the U.S.

Washington Examiner:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Tuesday said it will no longer require incoming U.S. citizens to pledge that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” or “perform noncombatant service” in the Armed Forces as part of the naturalization process.

Those lines are in the Oath of Allegiance that people recite as they become U.S. citizens. But USCIS said people “may” be able to exclude those phrases for reasons related to religion or if they have a conscientious objection.

USCIS said people with certain religious training or with a “deeply held moral or ethical code” may not have to say the phrases as they are naturalized.

The agency said people don’t have to belong to a specific church or religion to use this exemption, and may attest to U.S. officials administering the oath that they have these beliefs.

USCIS said it would take “feedback” on this policy change through August 4, 2015.

The current naturalization oath reads as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

 

Russian Bear is Growling, Who Hears it?

Posted on by

FreeBeacon:  Two Russian nuclear bombers flew within 40 miles of the California coast and one of the pilots relayed a veiled threat during the Fourth of July aerial incident, defense officials said.

 “Good morning American pilots, we are here to greet you on your Fourth of July Independence Day,” a Russian Tu-95 Bear bomber crew member stated over the emergency aircraft channel. 

Meanwhile, Russia’s across-the-board buildup of nuclear forces and revised doctrine are increasing the danger of a nuclear war, according to a think tank report on nuclear threats.

Defense officials and the Colorado-based U.S. Northern Command said this week that two U.S. F-15 jets intercepted the Russian bombers on July 4 as they flew as close as 39 miles from the coast of Mendocino County, north of San Francisco.

During the intercept, a crew member on one of the bombers issued a warning in a radio message, according to defense officials familiar with the incident this week.

Earlier the same day, the Bear bombers intruded on the U.S. air defense identification zone (ADIZ) near Alaska. The zone is a 200-mile controlled airspace patrolled by U.S. and Canadian jets under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

It was the second time the Russians conducted provocative bomber flights on the Fourth of July holiday. The last incident occurred on July 4, 2012, when two Bear bombers were intercepted off the California coast in what was then the closest such encounter near sovereign U.S. air space since the end of the Cold War.

***

Russia Presents Threat to U.S., Army General Says

By David Vergun and Lora Strum
Army News Service

WASHINGTON, July 22, 2015 – Russia is the only country on Earth that presents a nuclear existential threat to the United States, the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee here yesterday.

Army Gen. Mark A. Milley addressed the committee regarding his nomination to become the next Army chief of staff.

The general said he couldn’t divine Russia’s intent going forward. But recent Russian actions have “been very, very stressful,” he added.

“They’ve attacked and invaded Georgia. They’ve [annexed] Crimea. They’ve attacked Ukraine. That’s very worrisome,” Milley said of Russian actions. “So, I’d put Russia right now, from a military perspective, as our No. 1 threat.”

One senator asked the general if he thought the United States should arm the Ukrainians with counter-battery systems, with which it could defend the nation from Russian artillery and rocket strikes.

“I’d be in favor of lethal, defensive equipment” in addition to nonlethal aid that’s already been provided to Ukraine, Milley said.

The general also responded to a question regarding how the United States might strengthen its position in Europe, in light of recent Russian activities.

“We need to increase ground forces” and deploy them on a rotational basis, Milley said, which would reassure allies and deter Russian aggression.

Already, he said, the Army is moving out on that, as well as placing activity sets and prepositioning equipment in Europe.

Besides Russia, he said, there are other countries that “each in their own different way represents security threats to the United States.”

Chattanooga Shootings

Regarding the July 16 shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Milley extended his condolences to the families of the four Marines and a sailor who were killed in the “horrible tragedy.”

Citing other recent attacks on military personnel in the United States, including the attacks on Fort Hood, Texas, and the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., another lawmaker asked if Milley thinks military personnel should be armed so as to be able to defend themselves from such attacks.

Milley said force protection is a key task for commanders at all levels and steps should be taken to defend personnel. He noted that guidance on a variety of active and passive measures has been put out by U.S. Northern Command, but the details are sensitive and he could not go into them during an open hearing.

Without going into the specifics of the guidance, Milley said, there are a number of prudent steps that could be taken to protect service members, who work in public locations, such as at recruiting stations. One possible measure involves installing bullet-proof glass. Another includes working more closely with local law enforcement to anticipate or head off attacks.

But “as far as arming recruiters go[es], I think it’s complicated legally,” the general said.

A senator said that Congress could resolve any related legal issues and pressed Milley for his own thoughts on arming uniformed personnel, who work in high-profile venues such as at recruiting stations.

“Under certain conditions, both on military installations and recruiting stations, we should seriously consider it, and, in some cases I think it’s important,” Milley said.

Women in Ranger School

Asked about how women are doing in the Ranger Course, Milley noted that as of July 20, three women were in the second, or “mountain phase,” of the three-phase course. The Ranger Course is difficult, he added, whether the soldier is male or female. Less than half of those who enter the Ranger Course, he said, will eventually graduate from it.

Questioned as to why no woman has yet completed the course, Milley said that since combat arms units have traditionally been filled by males, females have had limited opportunities to do patrolling and other types of training that would be especially advantageous to completing the course.

Milley said that in time, as more women go into the combat arms specialties that were previously open only to men, he expects women will gain the experience necessary to successfully complete the course.

The general said the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command continues to evaluate opening up new positions for women in combat arms. He told lawmakers that when those positions are opened to women, the standards are not being lowered.

Allaying doubts about the capacity for women to perform in combat arms, the general pulled on his own experience leading men and women in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“They’ve been doing it for 10 years,” he said, of female soldiers being involved in combat.

Combating Sexual Assault

Milley told lawmakers that there are indications that the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault has decreased in the Army, while at the same time reporting of those crimes has gone up. This indicates increased trust in the chain of command, he said.

The important thing is to prevent an incident from occurring or intervene up front, and that means changing the culture and educating the force, he continued, referring to bystander intervention.

If an incident does occur, the responsibility is for leaders to protect the alleged victim, the general said. And then, he added, to fully investigate and hold perpetrators accountable.

“The key is using the chain of command, and all of us have to be fully engaged,” he said. “An engaged commander makes the difference between success and lack of success.”

Milley noted that despite a decline in incidents of sexual assault, there remains a problem of retaliation against victims.

“We have to literally be our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper,” he said.

Cost-saving Measures

One lawmaker said he was concerned about the number of highly paid contractors working alongside soldiers. He suggested that those positions should instead be given to those in the reserves and the National Guard.

Milley said he intends to reduce the number of government contractors. He said he also plans on streamlining bureaucracy, where his authorities allow him to do so. He noted that when he was commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Afghanistan in 2013 and 2014, there were about one-and-a-half contractors for every soldier serving there.

A senator asked the general’s opinion on the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative. The ARI is a cost-cutting plan that, in part, moves AH-64 Apache helicopters from Army National Guard units to active-duty Army units. In return, Guard units will get Black Hawk helicopters from the active Army, which are deemed more appropriate for National Guard state-support missions.

The general said that ARI would result in significant savings to the service. He said Government Accountability Office documents show that ARI, once fully executed, would save $1.09 billion a year.

Despite steps that the Army has taken to cut costs, such as ARI, he said the prolonged implications of sequestration and the recent 40,000-member force reductions have had a severe impact on readiness.

Regarding acquisition, Milley said he intends to hold himself and his office “responsible and accountable” for more prudent spending habits.

“We need to link requirements to resources and acquisition,” he said.
Contact Author

Biographies:
Army Gen. Gen. Mark A. Milley

 

 

Obama’s Either OR on Immigration, Senate Hearing

Posted on by

President Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director tells lawmakers that no consequences are planned for sanctuary cities until Congress first passes “comprehensive immigration reform.” Sarah Saldaña testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on criminal alien violence.

 

by Julia Hahn:

After hearing emotional testimony from families torn apart by illegal immigrant murderers, Republican members of Congress grilled two administration witnesses: Leon Rodriquez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and Sarah Saldaña, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Both Rodriquez and Saldaña have been tasked with carrying out President Obama’s executive amnesty for so-called DREAMers, which includes work permits and medical benefits for low-income illegal aliens funded by citizen taxpayers.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) repeatedly pressed Saldaña on why the Administration was taking no action against sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to turn over dangerous criminal aliens from their prisons and jails to federal law officers.  Saldaña replied that Congress would first have to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Vitter: “This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those [sanctuary] jurisdictions. When is that going to change?”

Saldaña: “I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform; perhaps it can be addressed there.”

Vitter described Saldaña’s answer as “ridiculous” and kept pressing: “And absent Congress passing that [Senate immigration] bill, that you and the Obama Administration prefer, you don’t think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law? You don’t think right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law with immigration enforcement?”

Saldaña gave a muddled reply: “That’s what I understand that all of you are working on.”

Ironically, an immigration bill pushed by Senators Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) would have given amnesty to many of the criminal aliens the families who testified today wish to see deported.  As Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, noted at the time:

Senator Rubio left unchanged legislative provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed. Legislation written behind closed doors by handpicked special interest groups which put their political agendas and financial gains before sound and effective law and the welfare and safety of the American public. As a result, the 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future. It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa overstays which account for almost half of the nation’s illegal immigration crisis.

Senator Grassley offered an amendment that would that would have barred gang members, such as the notorious MS-13 gang members who have wreaked havoc across the country, from getting amnesty but that amendment was defeated in the Judiciary Committee. The final bill 68 senators voted for therefore expressly made amnesty available to gang members – an amnesty that included access to green cards, welfare and the prize of U.S. citizenship.

As The Washington Post reported at the time, this was part of a coordinated effort by members of the Gang of Eight to quash amendments that might have damaged the likelihood of the bill’s speedy passage:

 The eight met in private before each committee hearing, hashing out which amendments they would support and which oppose as a united coalition. Senate aides said amendments were rejected if either side felt they would shatter the deal.

Politico confirmed this report:

During the Judiciary Committee markup in May, the Gang routinely met to decide which amendments they would support or oppose. In one meeting, the senators thought they had all agreed to defeat a proposal from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

The day the bill passed the Senate, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council president Ken Palinkas and president of the National ICE Council Chris Crane, who together represent more than 20,000 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees on the front line of immigration enforcement, issued this joint statement:

ICE officers and USCIS adjudications officers have pleaded with lawmakers not to adopt this bill,” they wrote, “The Schumer-Rubio-Corker-Hoeven proposal will make Americans less safe and it will ensure more illegal immigration—especially visa overstays—in the future. It provides legalization for thousands of dangerous criminals while making it more difficult for our officers to identity public safety and national security threats. The legislation was guided from the beginning by anti-enforcement special interests and, should it become law, will have the desired effect of these groups: blocking immigration enforcement.

This is anti-public safety bill and an anti-law enforcement bill.

Immigration and the transformation of America is shaping up to be the most passionate issue of the 2016 race.

When Governor  Scott Walker (R-WI) was question by a DREAMer during a recent campaign stop and said illegal aliens seeking to become Americans needed to return home. He also suggested at the same stop that foreign worker visas should be limited when American jobs and wages are in danger, a position that polls well with liberals and conservatives alike.

Iran Deal, Deviled Details White House is Avoiding

Posted on by

Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close

Hillel Fradkin & Lewis Libby

The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.

Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit.

Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.

Only if Iran’s “explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns” may the IAEA then “request access” to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn’t specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the “great Satan” improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let’s assume that Tehran won’t do that.

Now the IAEA must provide written reasons for the request and “make available relevant information.” Let’s assume that even though the IAEA may resist revealing the secret sources or technical means that prompted its suspicions, Iran acknowledges that a proper request has been supplied.

Only then do the supposed 24 days begin to run. First, Iran may propose, and the IAEA must consider, alternative means of resolving concerns. This may take 14 days. Absent satisfactory “arrangements,” a new period begins.

During this period Iran, “in consultation with” the Joint Commission, will “resolve” the IAEA concerns “through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” The Joint Commission includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K, the U.S., the European Union and, of course, Iran. Not exactly a wieldy bunch.

The Iranians will likely claim that “consultation” with the Joint Commission doesn’t bind Tehran, just as the U.S. president isn’t bound by consultations with Congress. The agreement says the consultation process will not exceed seven days, but Iran can point out that the nuclear deal doesn’t specify when Iran and the IAEA must reach agreement and “resolve” IAEA concerns.

In the absence of Iran-IAEA agreement, a majority of the Joint Commission has seven days to “advise” on the “necessary means” to resolve the matter. Iran may fairly argue that the commission’s right to “advise” is not the same as a right to “determine” the “necessary means.” Lastly, the agreement provides that “Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.” But what “necessary means” are these? As noted, the agreement refers to “necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” So these additional three days don’t even begin until an agreement is reached.

Now what? Well, the U.S. may take a “Dispute” to the Joint Commission, on which Iran sits, which has 15 days to resolve the issue. Parties may or may not invoke a similar 15 days for foreign ministers to act. Parties may also request a nonbinding opinion within 15 days from an advisory board consisting of three members, one appointed by Iran, one by the complaining country and “a third independent member.”

But Iran may argue that nothing in the nuclear deal specifies how quickly a country must appoint its advisory-board member or even how the “independent member” is selected. In short, this stage may take at least 30 days and possibly 45 of consideration at the different levels, but Iran may argue that the last 15 days don’t start until an advisory board has been duly formed. Then we get another five days of Joint Commission deliberation, before a disappointed U.S. or other commission member seeking IAEA inspections can hobble off to the United Nations seeking resolutions reimposing sanctions.

In short, as Iran is free to interpret the agreement, 63 or even 78 days may pass, plus three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of “explanations” before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and “resolve concerns,” and one for advisory-board selection near the end.

So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass. All along, the Joint Commission is required to act in “good faith,” and to make only “minimum necessary” requests limited to verification, not “interference.” Tehran could also cite these terms to challenge particular requests.

The description of this process is based on the English-language text of the nuclear agreement. The text lacks a provision that it is the entire agreement, so Iran may claim support in supposed side agreements or statements during negotiations.

Announcing this “comprehensive, long-term” deal, President Obama quoted President Kennedy’s 1961 call for negotiations with the Soviets. Kennedy reached two notable nuclear agreements. Mr. Obama didn’t mention that within a decade of Kennedy’s 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, Soviet nuclear forces—once a fraction of America’s—were at parity or had surpassed ours.

During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy reached secret agreements—undisclosed to Americans for decades—not to invade Cuba and to withdraw U.S. weapons from Turkey. By invoking Kennedy was President Obama signaling there is more to this “long-term” deal than we know?

He is a subtle man.