#Indo-Pacific Command
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
youtube
#youtube#militarytraining#Pacific Command#US Indo-Pacific Command#Lloyd J. Austin III#Indo-Pacific Command#Change of Command#Defense Minister#Leadership#Military#Speech#US Army#Security#Commander#Ceremony#Defense#Army General#Indo-Pacific Region#Army Chief#Military Ceremony#Asia-Pacific#US Military.#lloyd austin
0 notes
Text
Rodrigo Duterte has been proven right again as the United States (US) just announced that they are now asking the Philippines to give them more Military Bases on top of the nine that they have already been given
#digong#rodrigo duterte#philippines#china#united states us#indo-pacific command#john aquilino#armed forces of the philippines afp#romeo brawner jr#enhanced defense cooperation agreement edca
0 notes
Video
#USINDOPACOM#U.S. Indo-Pacific Command#Arctic#LR#Alaska#U.S. Marine Corps Aviation#Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson#USA#flickr
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
14 Aug 23
With the deadline for residents to weigh in on the proposed 360-degree missile defense system for Guam passing Friday, demonstrators gathered at the Chief Kepuha Park roundabout in HagÄtña for a protest for peace. Members of activist group Prutehi Litekyan: Save Ritidan and Independent GuÄhan, as well as other concerned citizens, stood along the roadside holding signs emblazoned with the slogans "No war for GuÄhan," "Defend the sacred!" and "No more imperialist war games" as the evening traffic rush ramped up.[...]
Beyond raising concerns regarding the environment, natural and cultural resources, and land that the group has raised with previous military construction projects, Flores said she doesn't believe the system will bring more security for Guam. "It's really important that we ask ourselves what genuine security means," she said. "It ... definitely means more than national security. It means having clean water, living in our homeland without the risk of war ... and we feel that the missile defense system definitely makes us a bigger target for war."
Though the system is being sold as a way to protect Guam, its purpose is to help use Guam as a base for the U.S. military to project force and protect the nation, she said.[...]
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has called the Guam Defense System the top national defense priority for the region.
19 Aug 23
461 notes
·
View notes
Text
Seal Team 6, the clandestine US Navy commando unit that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, has been training for missions to help Taiwan if it is invaded by China, according to people familiar with the preparations. [...]
CIA director Bill Burns told the Financial Times last week that 20 per cent of his budget was devoted to China, a 200 per cent rise over three years. [...] âWith the Pentagonâs reorientation over the past few years to focus on great power competition, it was inevitable that even the nationâs most elite counterterrorism units would seek out roles in that arena, for that path leads to relevance, missions and money[.]â [...]
Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of US Indo-Pacific command, recently warned that the US military would turn the Taiwan Strait, which separates Taiwan from China, into an âunmanned hellscapeâ if Beijing were about to attack. He said doing so would involve unmanned submarines, ships and drones to make it much harder for the PLA to launch an invasion.
44 notes
·
View notes
Note
A few weeks ago, when we were having the Visa discussions, you said you suspected that the US military might have some role in securing whatever Harry's visa status is. With this Nigeria visit announcement coming from the Nigerian Dept of defence do you think that suspicion has more meat now? Last week Harry also did that random award announcing for a US army vet while wearing his medals. He seems to be doing a lot of these weird things lately, almost acting like an ambassador for the US army which is just so odd.
Why do you think the army is going with this? What's the basis for having a high profile foreign prince who served in the foreign army being a face of US military? Surely someone in the higher up ranks must find this odd and unsuitable.
The army, pretty much being an arm of the country's govt and security services (even if independent) does not need a face or a brand ambassador. Especially, when these gigs are more beneficial to the person acting important rather than the army itself.
What could Harry possibly bring to the table??
No, I don't think the US military had anything to do with the Nigeria visit. That was all exclusively Harry and Invictus Games / Archewell / whatever charity sponsored them. Largely because if the US military was involved, they'd have sent an American representative, not a British national living in the US.
I suspect why the US military is entertaining Harry may have to do with declining enlistment numbers. They may see him as someone who can help recruit younger generations. The military does do this from time to time - they get worried about declining enlistment so they get schemey and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Don't get me wrong; we still have a huge military, but the enlistment numbers today is a steep 40% drop from the enlistment numbers of the 1980s, and for an all-volunteer force, that's concerning.
It doesn't make any sense to me. The US military has never had celebrity ambassadors like this. They've always used their base commanders, flag officers, joint chiefs, secretaries, other politicians with a military background, etc. for that kind of recognition and acknowledgement. The celebrities are really only used for entertaining troops that are deployed to combat in USO tours (which Meghan participated in during her Suits days).
I know the US military is concerned about Russian, Chinese, and North Korean aggression in the Indo-Pacific but they wouldn't be partnering with an ex-prince to do their negotiations and contribute to their national defense strategy.
This is utterly bizarre and something I can't figure out. I have no idea what the US military's goal with this is.
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
The aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is leaving the Middle East
Sep 12, 2024 at 11:41 AM
WASHINGTON â The Pentagonâs rare move to keep two Navy aircraft carriers in the Middle East over the past several weeks has now finished, and the Theodore Roosevelt is heading home, according to U.S. officials.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had ordered the TR to extend its deployment for a short time and remain in the region as fellow carrier Abraham Lincoln was pushed to get to the area more quickly.
The Biden administration beefed up the U.S. military presence there last month to help defend Israel from possible attacks by Iran and its proxies and to safeguard U.S. troops.
U.S. commanders in the Middle East have long argued that the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier and the warships accompanying it has been an effective deterrent in the region, particularly for Iran. Since the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip began last fall, there has been a persistent carrier presence in and around the region â and for short periods they have overlapped to have two of the carriers there at the same time.
Prior to last fall, however, it had been years since the U.S. had committed that much warship power to the region.
The decision to bring the Roosevelt home comes as the war in Gaza has dragged on for 11 months, with tens of thousands of people dead, and international efforts to mediate a cease-fire between Israel and the Hamas militant group have repeatedly stalled as they accuse each other of making additional and unacceptable demands.
For a number of months earlier this year the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower remained in the Red Sea, able both to respond to help Israel and to defend commercial and military ships from attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. The carrier, based in Norfolk, Virginia, returned home after a more than eight-month deployment in combat that the Navy said was the most intense since World War II.
U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss troop movements, said the San Diego-based Roosevelt and the destroyer Daniel Inouye are expected to be in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Commandâs region on Thursday. The other destroyer in the strike group, the Russell, had already left the Middle East and has been operating in the South China Sea.
The Lincoln, which is now in the Gulf of Oman with several other warships, arrived in the Middle East about three weeks ago, allowing it to overlap with the Roosevelt until now.
There also are a number of U.S. ships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and two destroyers and the guided missile submarine Georgia are in the Red Sea.
@DefenseNews.com
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
North Korea has issued a fresh nuclear warning to the U.S. over its activities on the Korean Peninsula, interpreting them as rehearsals for an armed conflict.
The statement, issued by Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry, was in response to ongoing bilateral military exercises involving South Korea and the U.S.
On Monday, state-run news agency KNCA released a statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry taking aim at exercise "Ulchi Freedom Shield," which it called "large-scale provocative joint military exercises."
"The current exercises, including a drill simulating a nuclear confrontation with the DPRK, bring to light clearer the provocative nature of Ulji Freedom Shield as a prelude to a nuclear war," the ministry said.
Newsweek has contacted the United States Indo-Pacific Command for comment on North Korea's claims.
On Monday, the US began its annual joint military drills with South Korea, with this year's exercises focused on improving their capabilities to deal with growing threats posed by North Korea.
The drills, set to continue through August 29, will involve over 40 types of field exercises, as well as drills intended to simulate missile attacks, GPS jamming and cyberattacks.
According to a spokesperson for South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted by Reuters, the alliance's bilateral exercises will also "further strengthen its capability and posture to deter and defend against weapons of mass destruction."
However, Pyongyang said that these defensive exercises resemble the historical behavior of countries preparing for conflict, and accused the two states of rehearsing a "beheading operation" against the Kim Jong Un regime.
"It is clearly recorded in the world history of wars that in preparation for a war, aggressor states followed a series of procedures, including adoption of war policy and military operation plan for its execution, advance deployment of forces, ceaseless simulated and actual war drills and war provocation," the ministry's statement read.
These annual drills have consistently drawn the ire of Pyongyang, as has the increasing presence and activity of the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific.
North Korea responded to last year's Freedom Shield drills by carrying out tests of a strategic cruise missile, overseen by Kim Jong Un, according to KNCA.
In June, following the conclusion of the first "multi-domain" trilateral exercises involving the U.S., South Korea and Japan, Pyongyang condemned the three countries' "reckless and provocative" actions, and warned that these would be met with "fatal consequences."
In its Monday statement, North Korea's Foreign Ministry also criticized America's "nuclear confrontation policy against the DPRK," which it said was evidenced by the creation of the U.S.-South Korean "Nuclear Consultative Group" in April 2023.
According to a joint statement from Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol in July, after the pair signed their first guidelines on nuclear deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, this group has "directly strengthened U.S.-ROK cooperation on extended deterrence, and managed the threat to the nonproliferation regime posed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
Since the consultative group was launched in 2023, U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarines have been sent to South Korean waters, which North Korea has warned "may fall under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons."
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
KODIAK, AlaskaâAt Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, the USCGC Stratton, a 418-foot national security cutter, was hemmed into port by a thin layer of ice that had formed overnight in the January cold. Named for the U.S. Coast Guardâs first female officer, Dorothy Stratton, the ship was not designed for ice; its home port is in Alameda, California. After serving missions in the Indo-Pacific, it was brought to Alaska because it was available.
Soon the sun would rise, and the ice would surely melt, the junior officers surmised from the weather decks. The commanding officer nevertheless approved the use of a local tugboat to weave in front of the cutter, breaking up the wafer-like shards of ice as the Stratton steamed away from shore and embarked toward the Bering Sea.
In the last decade, as melting ice created opportunities for fishing and extraction, the Arctic has transformed from a zone of cooperation to one of geopolitical upheaval, where Russia, China, India, and Turkey, among others, are expanding their footprints to match their global ambitions. But the United States is now playing catch-up in a region where it once held significant sway.
One of the Coast Guardâs unofficial mottos is âWe do more with less.â True to form, the United States faces a serious shortage of icebreaker ships, which are critical for performing polar missions, leaving national security cutters and other vessels like the Stratton that are not ice-capable with an outsized role in the countryâs scramble to compete in the high north. For the 16 days I spent aboard the Stratton this year, it was the sole Coast Guard ship operating in the Bering Sea, conducting fishery inspections aboard trawlers, training with search and rescue helicopter crews, and monitoring the Russian maritime border.
Although the Strattonâs crew was up to this task, their equipment was not. A brief tour aboard the cutter shed light on the Coast Guardâs operational limitations and resource constraints. Unless Washington significantly shifts its approach, the Stratton will remain a microcosm of the United Statesâ journey in the Arctic: a once dominant force that can no longer effectively assert its interests in a region undergoing rapid transformation.
During the Cold War, the United States invested in Alaska as a crucial fixture of the countryâs future. Of these investments, one of the most significant was the construction of the Dalton Highway in 1974, which paved the way for the controversial Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the U.S. entry as a major player in the global oil trade. Recognizing Alaskaâs potential as a linchpin of national defense, leaders also invested heavily in the regionâs security. In 1957, the United States began operating a northern network of early warning defense systems called the Distant Early Warning Line, and in 1958, it founded what became known as the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, such exigencies seemed excessive. The north once again became a domain for partnership among Arctic countries, a period that many call âArctic exceptionalismââor, as the Norwegians put it, âhigh north, low tension.â
But after the turn of the millennium, under President Vladimir Putin, Russia took a more assertive stance in the Arctic, modernizing Cold War-era military installations and increasing its testing of hypersonic munitions. In a telling display in 2007, Russian divers planted their national flag on the North Poleâs seabed. Russia wasnât alone in its heightened interest, and soon even countries without Arctic territory wanted in on the action. China expanded its icebreaker fleet and sought to fund its Polar Silk Road infrastructure projects across Scandinavia and Greenland (though those efforts were blocked by Western intervention). Even India recently drafted its first Arctic strategy, while Turkey ratified a treaty giving its citizens commercial and recreational access to Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago in the Arctic Ocean.
Over the past decade, the United States lagged behind, focusing instead on the challenges posed to its interests in the Middle East, the South China Sea, and Ukraine. Its Arctic early warning system became outdated. Infrastructure off the coast of Alaska that climatologists use to predict typhoons remained uninstalled, seen as a luxury that the state and federal governments could not afford. In 2020, an engine fire in the sole Coast Guard Arctic icebreaker nearly scuttled a plan to retrieve scientific instruments and data from vessels moored in the Arctic Ocean. Two years later, a Defense Department inspector general report revealed substantial issues with the structural integrity of runways and barracks of U.S. bases across the Arctic and sub-Arctic.
Until recently, U.S. policymakers had little interest in reinstating lost Arctic competence. Only in the last three yearsâonce Washington noticed the advances being made by China and Russiaâhave lawmakers and military leaders begun to formulate a cohesive Arctic strategy, and it shows.
On patrol with the Stratton, the effects of this delay were apparent. The warm-weather crew struggled to adapt to the climate, having recently returned from warmer Indo-Pacific climates. The resilient group deiced its patrol boats and the helicopter pad tie-downs with a concoction conceived through trial and error. âHappy lights,â which are supposed to boost serotonin levels, were placed around the interior of the ship to help the crew overcome the shorter days. But the crew often turned the lights off; with only a few hours of natural daylight and few portholes on the ship through which to view it anyway, the lights did not do much.
The Coast Guard is the United Statesâ most neglected national defense asset. It is woefully under-resourced, especially in the Arctic and sub-Arctic, where systemic issues are hindering U.S. hopes of being a major power.
First and foremost is its limited icebreaker fleet. The United States has only two working icebreakers. Of these two, only one, the USCGC Healy, is primarily deployed to the Arctic; the other, the USCGC Polar Star, is deployed to Antarctica. By comparison, Russia, which has a significant Arctic Ocean shoreline, has more than 50 icebreakers, while China has two capable of Arctic missions and at least one more that will be completed by next year.
Coast Guard and defense officials have repeatedly testified before Congress that the service requires at least six polar icebreakers, three of which would be as ice-capable as the Healy, which has been in service for 27 years. The program has suffered nearly a decade of delays because of project mismanagement and a lack of funds. As one former diplomat told me, âA strategy without budget is hallucination.â The first boat under the Polar Security Cutter program was supposed to be delivered by this year. The new estimated arrival date, officials told me, will more likely be 2030.
âOnce we have the detailed design, it will be several yearsâthree plusâto begin, to get completion on that ship,â Adm. Linda Fagan, the commandant of the Coast Guard, told Congress last April. âI would give you a date if I had one.â
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long warned that the U.S. government and military, including the Coast Guard, have made serious miscalculations in their Arctic efforts. For one, the Coast Guardâs acquisition process for new boats is hampered by continual changes to design and a failure to contract competent shipbuilders. Moreover, the GAO found in a 2023 report that discontinuity among Arctic leadership in the State Department and a failure by the Coast Guard to improve its capability gaps âhinder implementation of U.S. Arctic priorities outlined in the 2022 strategy.â
Far more than national security is at stake. The Arctic is a zone of great economic importance for the United States. The Bering Sea alone provides the United States with 60 percent of its fisheries, not to mention substantial oil and natural gas revenue. An Arctic presence is also important for achieving U.S. climate goals. Helping to reduce or eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon in the Arctic protects carbon-storing habitats such as the tundra, forests, and coastal marshes.
Capt. Brian Krautler, the Strattonâs commanding officer, knows these problems well. Having previously served on Arctic vessels, he was perhaps the ideal officer to lead the Stratton on this unfamiliar mission. After a boarding team was recalled due to heavy seas and an overiced vessel, Krautler lamented the constraints under which he was working. âWe are an Arctic nation that doesnât know how to be an Arctic nation,â he said.
The Stratton reached its first port call in Unalaska, a sleepy fishing town home to the port of Dutch Harbor. Signs around Unalaska declare, âWelcome to the #1 Commercial Fishing Port in the United States.â The port is largely forgotten by Washington and federal entities in the region, but there is evidence all around of its onetime importance to U.S. national security: Concrete pillboxes from World War II line the roads, and trenches mark the hillocks around the harbor.
As Washington pivoted away from the Arctic, Alaska and its Native communities have become more marginalized. Vincent Tutiakoff, the mayor of Unalaska, is particularly frustrated by the shift. Even though Washington made promises to grant greater access to federal resources to support Indigenous communities, it has evaded responsibility for environmental cleanup initiatives and failed to adequately address climate change.
Federal and state governments have virtually abandoned all development opportunities in Unalaska, and initiatives from fish processing plants to a geothermal energy project have been hindered by the U.S. Energy Departmentâs sluggish response to its Arctic Energy Officeâs open call for funding opportunities. âI donât know what theyâre doing,â Tutiakoff said of state and federal agencies.
Making matters worse, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead to make the northern Alaska city of Nome the site of the nationâs next deep-water port rather than build infrastructure near Unalaska, the gateway to the American Arctic and the port of call for the few patrol ships tasked with its security. It seems that the decision was based on the accessibility needs of cruise ships; Unalaska is not necessarily a vacation destination.
By failing to invest in places like Unalaska, the United States is hobbling its own chances for growth. The region could be home to major advances in the green energy transition or cloud computing storage, but without investment this potential will be lost.
In the last year, the United States has tried to claw back some of what it has lost to atrophy. It has inched closer to confirming the appointment of Mike Sfraga as the first U.S. ambassador-at-large to the Arctic. In March, the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy participated in NATO exercises in the Arctic region of Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The U.S. Defense Department hosted an Arctic dialogue in January ahead of the anticipated release of a revised Arctic strategy, and the State Department signed a flurry of defense cooperation agreements with Nordic allies late last year.
Nevertheless, it has a long way to go. Tethered to the docks at Dutch Harbor, the weather-worn Stratton reflected the gap between the United Statesâ Arctic capabilities and its ambitions. Its paint was chipped by wind and waves, and a generator needed a replacement part from California. Much of the crew had never been to Alaska before. On the day the ship pulled into port, the crew milled about, gawking at a bald eagle that alighted on the bow and taking advantage of their few days in port before setting out again into hazardous conditions.
âI know weâre supposed to do more with less,â a steward aboard the Stratton told me, âbut itâs hard.â
7 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi different anon â I think thereâs a detailed/ accurate post somewhere on here where someone (flyingfightingfishy I think) laid out a hypothetical path Ice could take based on the Navyâs traditional golden path for aviators who want to be in command. The post also said that if Ice didnât retire, he would most likely probably advance to a post in Washington for the Navy as part of Naval Operations (Chief or Vice Chief), and someone in the tags mentioned that one of the previous COMPACFLTs advanced to USINDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific Command) if that helps at all. If he did retire after COMPACFLT, I do think heâd eventually be tapped for SECNAV given that I do think he was very good at what he did when he was in the brass. I hope this helps?
Nonnie you are a godsend I'm going to go find this. Most of my fam are Army so I'm flying a bit blind here (pun intended) and that will help so much. My cousin is a baby aviator so he is NO HELP at all lol kid is basically drowning in his NATOPS right now.
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Last year, the former chief of US Indo-Pacific Command, Philip Davidson, said war over Taiwan was possible by 2027. Xi Jinping reportedly has told his own military leadership to be ready for combat by the same deadline.
As Xi was finishing his tour of rice paddies and preparing for âextreme scenariosâ, the chair of the East Asia Summit brought proceedings to a close with a plea to all the leaders present to ease regional tensions: âI can guarantee you,â said Indonesian President Joko Widodo, âthat if we are not able to manage differences, we will be destroyed.â
Neither Xi Jinping nor Joe Biden was there to hear him.
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
youtube
#youtube#militarytraining#2024#Pacific Command#Camp Schwab#Change of Command#Marine Corps Leadership#Japan#Marine Corps Base#Leadership#United States#Military#Transition#U.S. Forces Japan#Marine Corps#Marine Corps Command#Ceremony#Marines in Japan#Military Ceremony#U.S. Marines#Asia-Pacific#US Pacific Command#US Indo-Pacific Command#US Marine Corps Change of Command#June 5 2024#Transfer#US Marine Corps Leadership#Japan US Alliance#US Marine Corps Ceremony#US Marine Corps Pacific
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
General Charles Quinton Brown Jr. (born March 2, 1962) is a USAF four-star general who currently serves as the 22nd chief of staff of the Air Force. He is the first African-American to be appointed as chief of staff and the first African-American to lead any branch of the US Armed Forces. He assumed office from Gen. David L. Goldfein who served as chief of staff since 2016 in a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews on 6 August 2020.
He served as commander of the Pacific Air Forces, air component commander for the US Indo-Pacific Command, and executive director of the Pacific Air Combat Operations Staff. He served as the deputy commander of US Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Before serving as the deputy commander of CENTCOM, he was the Commander of Air Forces Central. As the air component commander for CENTCOM, he was responsible for developing contingency plans and conducting air operations in a 20-nation area of responsibility covering Central and Southwest Asia. He took over Pacific Air Forces from acting commander Jerry MartĂnez on July 26, 2018. On June 9, 2020, he was confirmed as the first African American Chief of Staff of the USAF.
He was a distinguished graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps with a BS in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech University. He is a brother of the Eta Upsilon Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated.
In 1994, he earned an MS in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
Le Pen to clash with Macron on Ukraine, defence issues
No matter how unfortunate the upcoming snap parliamentary elections turn out for Emmanuel Macron, he has always had to take comfort in the fact that he will remain president until 2027 â with all the sacrosanct foreign policy and military powers that entails, POLITICOÂ reports.
However, his right-wing opponent Marine Le Pen is signalling that if her National Rally party wins the prime ministerâs post, she will not be content to let Macron set the countryâs strategic course through the presidential prerogative, which traditionally covers hot topics such as Ukraine, defence, diplomacy and the choice of EU commissioner.
This struggle for core powers is sparking fierce debate within France and terrifying Franceâs EU and NATO partners as the 68-million-strong nuclear-armed country looks set for a period of instability. Assumptions from the US to the Indo-Pacific that the presidentâs powers will simply be unchecked on the international stage after the election may prove unfounded.
France has experienced periods of co-rule before â when the president and prime minister belonged to different parties â but it was always a fairly straightforward co-operation between parties with similar worldviews. This time, a right-wing prime minister â perhaps Jordan Bardella of the Rassemblement Nationale, ahead in the polls â will blow up the political order.
On Wednesday, Le Pen gave the clearest indication yet that she intends to snatch any shred of power she can from Macron if her party wins a strong enough majority in parliamentary elections.
In explosive remarks, Le Pen dismissed the title of Franceâs commander-in-chief as an âhonourable titleâ and said the real power, particularly over the budget, lies with the prime ministerâs government. Le Pen told daily Le TĂ©lĂ©gramme:
âJordan [Bardella] has no intention of picking a quarrel with Macron, but he has set red lines. On Ukraine, the president will not be able to send troops.âÂ
Macron said earlier this month he was âfinalisingâ plans to send military trainers to Ukraine, and tensions with Russia are likely to take centre stage in the debate over Franceâs strategic direction.
Macron pushing for Thierry Breton
Ahead of the first round of voting on Sunday, Le Pen is also raising the stakes on EU policy after her party challenged Macronâs right to appoint Franceâs next European commissioner, a role traditionally seen as a gift from the president.
The European commissioner is a hugely important role for France, and Macron wants his candidate to be given a large economic portfolio that would allow Paris to put its priorities â such as strengthening European industrial champions â at the top of the EU agenda.
According to five officials, Macron is pushing for Thierry Breton, who has promoted Macronâs vision for defence and industry, to continue as French commissioner.
Bardella, however, insists it will be his government that will choose Franceâs commissioner in Brussels, saying this week that the appointment will be one of the âfirst decisionsâ they will make.
If the Rassemblement Nationale does not win enough seats to form a government, it will still be the largest group in parliament and will be well placed to reject government laws it does not like.
Strong constitution
On Thursday, Macronâs allies invoked legendary World War II leader Charles de Gaulle, former president and founder of the Fifth Republic, to hit back at Le Pen.
Armed Forces Minister SĂ©bastien Lecornu said âthe constitution is not ceremoniousâ and quoted de Gaulle as saying the president was âresponsible for Franceâ and âresponsible for the Republic.â François Bayrou, leader of the French centrist party MoDem, allied to Macron, said:
âYou are profoundly challenging the Constitution.â
Naturally, the devil is in the details. According to the French constitution, the president is the head of the armed forces and in charge of French foreign policy, while the prime minister runs the government and thus domestic policy. But a closer look at the division of powers between the president and the prime minister turns out to be a much more complicated picture. The budget, as Le Pen pointed out, is indeed the most important leverage over many policy areas in the National Assembly. Eric Landot, public law specialist, said:
âItâs super complicated, there is no clear boundary. The president is the chief of the armed forces, but Article 21 says the prime minister is responsible for national defence.â
According to Landot, Le Pen is wrong when she says the presidentâs role is only âceremonialâ â but there are many ways the prime minister can clip the presidentâs wings. He also said:
âIf the president wanted to send soldiers to Ukraine on support missions, a government that disagrees with that policy, could block the government decrees and say: âNo, Iâm not signing that. The constitutional ambiguity would block decision-making.â
Read more HERE
#world news#world politics#news#europe#european news#european union#eu politics#eu news#france#france news#french politics#emmanuel macron#president macron#le pen#marine le pen#ukraine#war in ukraine#ukrajina#ukraine war#ukraine conflict#ukraine news#ukraine russia conflict#ukraine russia news#russia ukraine war#russia ukraine crisis#russia ukraine conflict#russia ukraine today
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
âDo we need to a have a radio in every vehicle? I donât know. Do we need to have one radio per team? Or is it one radio per squad?â Daiyaan said at the 22nd annual C4ISRNET Conference. âWe are looking at that, and looking at those things hard.â Col. Shermoan Daiyaan Col. Shermoan Daiyaan, have you ever done anything beyond project work? I mean looking at your bio it seems like you were a very typical Commo officer with a somewhat typical career so for you to make that retarded statement is stunning. Nice Bronze Start by the way, nothing quite like rank based awards on deployments. Ground troops need, 3 things to make battlefield conditions survivable. 1. They have to be able to effetely move in their battlespace, know what other units and assets are available in a battlespace and have the equipment necessary to conduct sustained combat operations in those spaces. 2. They must have the overwhelming firepower at their disposal that allows them to win engagements with the least amounts of casualties and equipment loss to still be able to function as organic combat units. That means being able to call in Artillery, Air Assets, follow on support, resupply and reinforcements and medical evacuation assets. 3. They have to be able to communicate with their subordinate units, their upper echelon commands side units and use those communications to coordinate EVERYTHING happening in their battlespace. Without the ability for units in the field to be able to coordinate in real time to get all those things mentioned above lined up as fast and efficiently as possible you're just killing troops to kill troops. Two real world examples from my Army Career, one in Bosnia in 1998 and one in Iraq 2006. I was a Squad leader in Bosnia, this particular day I was the trail vehicle in a convoy. As we were passing through a village the road broke under the weight of the XM-1114 we were in. The truck slid on it's side down the embankment eventually hitting a pig pen and righting the truck. In the process the radio mount with broke off it's mount laying on me in the TC seat and also cutting our communications. This was bad because in the slide my gunner doing what he should have done in a roll over drill, also broke his arm. I knew it was only a matter of time before they stopped the convoy and looked for us because the next check point call in was 3Km down the road. 2 things complicated our exit beyond no commo. Everything in Bosnia was a mine field, everything and we were in an area known to have bad commo. When my CPL stopped the convoy when we did not check in he came back looking for us after realigning the convoys security and sending them on. When they found us, they had no commo with Task Force (TF) so that quick thinking team put up an OE-254/GRC antenna in record time right in the middle of the road to get com's with TF and get the proper assets headed our way for recovery.
Iraq 2006, we were sent out to do MSR (Main Supply Route) security on ASR (Alternate Supply Route) Bug cool, only one problem, the commo in my gun truck were down so going against TF standards they pushed us out in one of the hairiest routs south of Baghdad. When we got into position, one of the gun trucks asked if we had enough start clusters to let them know if we ran into trouble, I laughed and said "Trust me, if we make contact you'll know." Shit was good for about 4 hours, then my gunner picked up a "hot spot" moving towards us in a canal on the thermals. Me and my dismount tried to see what he was talking about though the NOD's but we could not see past the reeds in the water. About then my gunner reports that the target(s) were caring one very hot object and had placed it on our side of the canal road and were, in his opinion, digging it in. IED's were the weapon of choose on BUG. Now, I'm in a fucked up spot, I can't call for backup, I can't warn any units that might try to go down ASR Bug, I can't call in a 9 Line if we get hit and I can't go very far from the truck without being out of voice distance of my crew. The Gunner sees a second target so I have to move. My dismount and I are about 40 meters from the truck when someone to our 9 o'clock opens up, my discount and I are now hangout there. The gunner opens up with the MK19 at first but moved to the 240B after 6 rounds. We start taking fire from 9 and 12, my gunner and driver are shooting at the 9 and my dismount and I are shooting at the 12. All of this with zero commo. I see the lights of the gun trucks behind and in front of us come and head our way, that was enough for Haji to break contact.
(Charlie Troop 1-10 CAv's rules for ASR BUG.) When I say field communications down as low as you can go is critical to effective battlefield survival I mean it. Anyone who's ever been on the ground where the bullets fly will tell you the samething. I have one exception for this, and time and technology might have changed this, but the Blue Force Tracker (BFT) and Force Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) were junk. (Yes I understand that the difference between the FBCB2 and BFT are software but it doesn't change the fact that they never worked right.) They worked way less than they didn't. The addition of the AN/VLQ-12 Counter Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) Duke system caused more complications for the FBCB2 and BFT. They never worked right and I never used them.
I know that is a lot when I'm just ranting about some clueless COL, but commo is that important when you are trying to stay alive.
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
If a foreign power attacked Hawaii â say the US Navyâs base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu â the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha Stateâs defense.
âItâs the weirdest thing,â says David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, who added that even most Hawaii residents have no idea their state is technically adrift of the alliance(..)
P.S. Wow! It's an interesting and unexpected turn...! I really did not know such a nuance of the NATO agreement...! Interesting, very interesting!?
4 notes
·
View notes