SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_urchin who wrote (25827)10/1/2007 5:54:16 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 81101
 
Israel's toy soldiers

commondreams.org



To: sea_urchin who wrote (25827)10/2/2007 4:15:11 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 81101
 
Re: All the Iraqis can afford are IEDs, which are home-made. How can they possibly know about the latest Russian rocketry?

RUSSIAN EXPERTS REPORTEDLY GAVE IRAQ MISSILE AID

By JAMES RISEN
Published: March 5, 2004


A group of Russian engineers secretly aided Saddam Hussein's long-range ballistic missile program, providing technical assistance for prohibited Iraqi weapons projects even in the years just before the war that ousted him from power, American government officials say.

Iraqis who were involved in the missile work told American investigators that the technicians had not been working for the Russian government, but for a private company. But any such work on Iraq's banned missiles would have violated United Nations sanctions, even as the Security Council sought to enforce them.

Although Iraq ultimately failed to develop and produce long-range ballistic missiles and though even its permitted short-range missile projects were fraught with problems, its missile program is now seen as the main prohibited weapons effort that Iraq continued right up until the war was imminent.

After the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, Iraq was allowed only to keep crude missiles that could travel up to 150 kilometers, or about 90 miles, but the Russian engineers were aiding Baghdad's secret efforts illegally to develop longer-range missiles, according to the American officials.

Since the invasion last March, American investigators have discovered that the Russian engineers had worked on the Iraqi program both in Moscow and in Baghdad, and that some of them were in the Iraqi capital as recently as 2001, according to people familiar with the intelligence on the matter.

Because some of the Russian experts were said to have formerly worked for one of Russia's aerospace design centers, which remains closely associated with the state, their work for Iraq has raised questions in Washington about whether Russian government officials knew of their involvement in forbidden missile programs. ''Did the Russians really not know what they were doing?'' asked one person familiar with the United States intelligence reports.

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington denied any knowledge of the allegations of recent Russian technical support for Iraq's missile effort.

''The U.S. has not presented any evidence of Russian involvement,'' said Yevgeny Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy.

Russia and the former Soviet Union were among Iraq's main suppliers of arms for decades before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, leading to the first gulf war.

The Bush administration has previously said it had uncovered evidence that Iraq had unsuccessfully sought help from North Korea for its missile program, but had not disclosed the evidence that Iraq had also received Russian technical support.

C.I.A. and White House officials refused to comment on the matter, and people familiar with the intelligence say they believe that the administration has been reluctant to reveal what it knows about Moscow's involvement in order to avoid harming relations with President Vladimir V. Putin.

''They are hyper-cautious about confronting Putin on this,'' complained one intelligence source.

In his public testimony last week about the worldwide threats facing the United States, George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, restated Washington's longstanding concerns about Russia's controls over its missile and weapons technology, without mentioning the evidence of missile support for the Hussein government.

''We remain alert to the vulnerability of Russian W.M.D. materials and technology to theft or diversion,'' Mr. Tenet said. ''We are also concerned by the continued eagerness of Russia's cash-strapped defense, biotechnology, chemical, aerospace and nuclear industries to raise funds via exports and transfers -- which makes Russian expertise an attractive target for countries and groups seeking W.M.D. and missile-related assistance.''

The Iraq Survey Group, the United States team that has hunted for evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, also found indications that Baghdad had received assistance from sources in Ukraine, Belarus and Serbia, according to American officials.

In an interim report on the progress of the Iraq Survey Group made public in October, David A. Kay, then the C.I.A.'s chief weapons hunter, reported that his group had found ''a large volume of material and testimony by cooperating Iraq officials on Iraq's effort to illicitly procure parts and foreign assistance for its missile program.''

It listed several examples detailing assistance from foreign countries, but apart from North Korea, no other countries were identified.

More than 10 months after the end of major military operations in Iraq, American teams have still not found conclusive evidence that Iraq had any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, raising doubts about one of the Bush administration's main arguments for going to war. Since he resigned from his post last month, Dr. Kay has said he believes that Iraq largely abandoned the production of weapons of mass destruction after the first gulf war, and that it gradually destroyed its remaining stockpiles during the 1990's.

But Dr. Kay has said the evidence shows that Iraq tried to keep upgrading its ballistic missiles even as its other weapons programs were stalling out. In interviews with Iraqi scientists, examinations of documents and other sources, the Iraq Survey Group has determined that Iraq was actively seeking ways to upgrade its crude missile abilities in order to try to build a rocket fleet that could become a regional threat, reaching American forces based in neighboring countries.

American officials now say that the United Nations restrictions that allowed Iraq to keep missiles with ranges of up to 150 kilometers had an unintended effect. From the Iraqi perspective, it meant that it was still legal for Baghdad to continue some missile development activities, since short-range missiles were permitted.

By contrast, United Nations sanctions completely banned Iraq from keeping any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and it now seems that Iraq eventually abandoned those programs.

Taking advantage of the loophole permitting short-range missiles, Iraq sought foreign advice on such technical matters as guidance and airframe systems in order to develop missiles with greater range and accuracy than its previous missiles, according to officials familiar with the intelligence. In his October interim report, Dr. Kay said Iraqi detainees and other sources had told American investigators that beginning in 2000, Mr. Hussein approved efforts to develop ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 kilometers.

Still, the evidence gathered by the Iraq Survey Group suggests that Iraq's missile development efforts were poorly organized and ultimately unsuccessful.

''They had too many scattered programs, and so they didn't focus their efforts on any one missile,'' said one person familiar with the intelligence on the matter.

When United Nations weapons inspectors returned to Iraq in late 2002 just before the war, they found that Iraq had produced short-range Samoud 2 missiles that had slightly longer ranges than the United Nations sanctions allowed. In the weeks before the war, Iraq agreed to destroy many of those missiles, but those highly publicized actions were not enough to convince the United States that Iraq was in compliance with United Nations sanctions. In fact, the evidence suggests that Iraq was seeking to upgrade to missiles with greater range and accuracy than the older, Scud-based Samoud.

After the war, the Iraq Survey Group found evidence that Iraq had agreed to pay North Korea $10 million for technical support to upgrade its ballistic missile program in violation of the sanctions. But American officials believe that North Korea never actually delivered anything to the Iraqis, even though it apparently kept Iraq's $10 million. By contrast, the Iraq Survey Group found evidence that the Russian missile engineers actually did provide technical support for the Iraqis for years.

The Bush administration's reluctance to raise publicly the issue of Russian support for Iraq's missile program appears to stem from the White House's effort to cultivate better diplomatic relations with Moscow, particularly in the wake of last year's tensions over the war in Iraq. Russia opposed the war, but President Bush and Mr. Putin have still developed a good personal relationship, and there seems much less residual tension between Washington and Moscow over the war than there does between the United States and France and Germany.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States has also appeared more willing to view Russia's fight with separatists in Chechnya as part of the global war on terror.

query.nytimes.com



To: sea_urchin who wrote (25827)10/2/2007 4:38:03 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 81101
 
Re: I am far more inclined to believe that Russia's best interests are served by using Iran as a buffer or a proxy against any US attack.

Nonsense. In case you haven't noticed: the Cold War is over! Ever since Sept 2001, the US is at war with Islam, not Communism, much less anarcho-capitalist Russia...

Re: As you well know, the US has designs on Central Asia and therefore Russia needs all the allies it can get.

As I put it years ago, the US's only designs in Central Asia are to contain the expanding influence of both Pakistan and Iran --a geopolitical task that actually behooved Russia. However, following the collapse of Gorbachev's regime, Russia proved unable to keep Afghanistan under control... Hence the need for the US firefighter to join in and help "police" the squall line in Central Asia. Somehow, as the article below shows, Afghanistan is to Pakistan what Canada is to the US: remove Québec and you're left with nine Canadian provinces that all speak English, are predominantly Judeo-Protestant, and enjoy an American lifestyle --why couldn't they merge with the US? Likewise, in the late 1990s, Afghanistan was in a merging process with Pakistan. Pakistan is now a nuclear power with 150 million people, that is, about 10 million more than Russia. Pakistan and Afghanistan share a common religion, Sunni Islam, a common language, Pashtun, so, why couldn't Afghanistan turn into a satellite of Pakistan? Because both Russia and her American buddy have other designs for her....

Gus

The Yearnings of the Pashtuns

By VARTAN GREGORIAN
Published: November 15, 2001


As the Taliban's position in Afghanistan continues to crumble, the political future of the Pashtuns -- a plurality of Afghans and a majority within the Taliban -- has become a crucial issue. All sides recognize that it must be resolved if reconstruction of Afghanistan is to begin. To develop an effective strategy, the United States will need to understand some of the Pashtuns' past and aspirations, and in particular how these have affected Afghan-Pakistani relations.

About 13 percent of Pakistan's population speaks a version of Pashto, the Pashtun language. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- the Durand line -- was drawn by the British more than a century ago but Pakistan's Pashtuns feel little separates them from their Afghan cousins. The border was considered by the British as binding, by successive Afghan governments as imposed and by Pashtuns as ''a line drawn on water.'' Negotiations today with Afghanistan's Pashtun leaders have been taking place on both sides of the line.

Based on its objections to the Durand border, Afghanistan cast the sole vote against Pakistan's entry into the United Nations. From 1893 on, British India's and later Pakistan's policies toward Afghanistan have been greatly influenced by anxiety over the Afghans' claim to a ''Pashtunistan'' that would unite the Pashtuns of both countries and give Afghanistan easier access to the Indian Ocean.

In the 1950's, the Soviets supported Afghanistan as it constantly agitated Pakistan on the question of Pashtun self-determination. In 1971, when East Pakistan broke away and became Bangladesh, Pakistani strategists faced the grim prospect of their shrinking country being squeezed between a hostile India and an expansionist, Soviet-backed Afghanistan. The insecurity of Pakistan -- a very young state -- reached alarming heights. It only got worse with the Soviet Union's increasing involvement in Afghanistan.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided Pakistan with a unique opportunity to assert leadership in the region and neutralize the Pashtunistan issue. It did so by backing the resistance to Soviet rule and doing so in the name of Islam. Having artfully gathered the right list of enemies, Pakistan was able to count on the political, financial and military help of the United States, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states and the Islamist mujahedeen.

Pakistan's turn to Islamization was meant to stabilize Pakistan itself as much as to redirect Pashtun militancy and undermine the Soviet Union's exploitation of it. Pakistan envisioned itself as a bulwark of Sunni Islam against Iran's Shiite fundamentalism, India's policies in Kashmir and Soviet atheism to the north in Central Asia. Saudi Arabia was Pakistan's great backer in this effort, which brought fundamentalist Wahhabism forcefully to the area; Pakistan's other backers, like the United States, went along with it for reasons of their own.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan aided various Pashtun factions in the Afghan civil war, finally supporting the Taliban -- a movement emanating primarily from Pakistan's religious schools, established under President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq and his successors, and guided by Pakistan's intelligence services.

By supporting the Taliban, Pakistan thought to solidify its position as the dominant foreign power in Afghanistan. The country provided a training ground for Pakistani surrogates to prepare for their war in Kashmir and a safety valve for draining the energies of Pakistan's own fundamentalists. The Islamist, explicitly antitribal appeal of the Taliban also had the great benefit of neutralizing the Pashtunistan issue.

The Taliban, however, were restive protégés -- and Al Qaeda offered backing without all the Pakistani strings attached. The Taliban thrived not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, especially through their ideological cohorts (again, mostly Pashtun) in the cities of Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi. These remain vital centers of Pashtun activism.

After Sept. 11, with options and allies in short supply, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf agreed to cooperate with the United States against the Taliban. Both countries now face the thorny issue of the Pashtuns. Wiping out the Taliban won't end the prospect of Pashtunistan -- it may even energize it. If a government dominated by the Northern Alliance denies the Pashtuns power in Afghanistan proper, they will exert power elsewhere. Taliban forces could retreat into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and form alliances with their Pashtun cousins.

If, on the other hand, Pashtuns were to become a dominant power in Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era, Pakistan could face a revival of Afghan interest in expanding into Pakistani territory.

Pakistan cannot afford any movement that threatens to fragment it, and it cannot withstand simultaneous challenges in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Nor can it afford a civil war between disappointed fundamentalists and disappointed nationalists -- particularly given its possession of nuclear weapons.

What is the solution? The United Nations must lead the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan and guarantee the country's neutrality. It should secure nonaggression pacts to assure Pakistan that a new Afghanistan won't pursue Pashtun dreams -- and to assure Iran that Afghanistan will not become a platform for anti-Iranian militants. Finally, it should persuade Pakistan to help landlocked Afghanistan gain reliable access to the sea.

With some stability and enough trust, the Central Asian states, Pakistan and Afghanistan may be able to form a workable common market that would help minimize the divisions upon which so many outside powers have played over the past century and more. Saudi Arabia, the United States and Russia, having spent so much on sending guns and bombs since 1979, might at last send some more useful help.

Within Afghanistan, a reconciliation government must be established that is truly inclusive. Returning King Zahir Shah as a symbol of unity is welcome, but he must not be perceived as a puppet of the United States or the Northern Alliance. Pashtuns won't easily relinquish two centuries of memory and power. Without a major Pashtun role in the future of Afghanistan, there will be no viable peace.

In Afghanistan, the easy solutions have consistently had terrible unintended consequences. The country has endured war upon war, but its history demonstrates that what may prove to be far more dangerous than the shooting of weapons is the backfiring of policy.

Vartan Gregorian is president of the Carnegie Corporation and author of ''The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics of Reform and Modernization, 1880-1946.''

query.nytimes.com



To: sea_urchin who wrote (25827)10/2/2007 5:00:16 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 81101
 
Re: Russia's "latest military stuff" is worthless --just ask...

...the Syrians:

Oct 2, 2007 8:40 | Updated Oct 2, 2007
Report: Russia sent technicians to Syria
By JPOST.COM STAFF


Russia has sent technicians to upgrade Syria's air defense system, The Sunday Times reported Tuesday morning.

Reportedly, Moscow sent the team after Israel managed to foil Syria's air defenses using stealth technology to remain invisible during an alleged air strike on September 6.

Foreign reports that surfaced since the incident indicated that Israeli jets assisted by a unit of special operations ground troops bombed and totally destroyed a strategic site in eastern Syria built with North Korean help.

According to the Times' report, the Israeli Air Force used a sophisticated electronic warfare system operated by F-15I jets and a fleet of specialist electronic warfare aircraft over the Mediterranean during the attack on a suspected nuclear facility near Dayr az-Zawr. They transmitted signals that jammed the Russian-made radar and the Syrian army's communications.

Syria has been veering from condemnation to denial since the alleged attack, and in the past few days has stuck to strong denial of any nuclear activity and claimed that the IAF attack was aimed at a civilian agricultural research center.

The top-secret system used by Israel, the paper claimed, was being used for the first time. It is believed to have been designed in readiness for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

jpost.com