#Indo-Pacific Command

[rhk111sblog]

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

[zvaigzdelasas]

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 Hagåtña for a protest for peace. Members of activist group Prutehi Litekyan: Save Ritidan and Independent Guåhan, as well as other concerned citizens, stood along the roadside holding signs emblazoned with the slogans "No war for Guåhan," "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

[loving-n0t-heyting]

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. [...] “With the Pentagon’s reorientation over the past few years to focus on great power competition, it was inevitable that even the nation’s most elite counterterrorism units would seek out roles in that arena, for that path leads to relevance, missions and money[.]” [...]

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 “unmanned hellscape” 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.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

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.

[usafphantom2]

The aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is leaving the Middle East

Sep 12, 2024 at 11:41 AM

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s 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 — 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 Command’s 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

[beardedmrbean]

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."

[mariacallous]

KODIAK, Alaska—At 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 Guard’s 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 Guard’s unofficial mottos is “We do more with less.” 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 country’s 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 Stratton’s crew was up to this task, their equipment was not. A brief tour aboard the cutter shed light on the Coast Guard’s operational limitations and resource constraints. Unless Washington significantly shifts its approach, the Stratton will remain a microcosm of the United States’ 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 country’s 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 Alaska’s potential as a linchpin of national defense, leaders also invested heavily in the region’s 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 “Arctic exceptionalism”—or, as the Norwegians put it, “high north, low tension.”

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 Pole’s seabed. Russia wasn’t 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 years—once Washington noticed the advances being made by China and Russia—have 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. “Happy lights,” 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 States’ 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, “A strategy without budget is hallucination.” 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.

“Once we have the detailed design, it will be several years—three plus—to begin, to get completion on that ship,” Adm. Linda Fagan, the commandant of the Coast Guard, told Congress last April. “I would give you a date if I had one.”

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 Guard’s 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 “hinder implementation of U.S. Arctic priorities outlined in the 2022 strategy.”

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 Stratton’s 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. “We are an Arctic nation that doesn’t know how to be an Arctic nation,” 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, “Welcome to the #1 Commercial Fishing Port in the United States.” 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 Department’s sluggish response to its Arctic Energy Office’s open call for funding opportunities. “I don’t know what they’re doing,” 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 nation’s 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 States’ 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.

“I know we’re supposed to do more with less,” a steward aboard the Stratton told me, “but it’s hard.”

[sassenach082]

Hi different anon — I think there’s a detailed/ accurate post somewhere on here where someone (flyingfightingfishy I think) laid out a hypothetical path Ice could take based on the Navy’s traditional golden path for aviators who want to be in command. The post also said that if Ice didn’t 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 he’d 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.

[argumate]

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 “extreme scenarios”, the chair of the East Asia Summit brought proceedings to a close with a plea to all the leaders present to ease regional tensions: “I can guarantee you,” said Indonesian President Joko Widodo, “that if we are not able to manage differences, we will be destroyed.”

Neither Xi Jinping nor Joe Biden was there to hear him.

[lboogie1906]

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 Martínez 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

[head-post]

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 – with all the sacrosanct foreign policy and military powers that entails, POLITICO reports.

However, his right-wing opponent Marine Le Pen is signalling that if her National Rally party wins the prime minister’s post, she will not be content to let Macron set the country’s 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 France’s 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 president’s powers will simply be unchecked on the international stage after the election may prove unfounded.

France has experienced periods of co-rule before – when the president and prime minister belonged to different parties – but it was always a fairly straightforward co-operation between parties with similar worldviews. This time, a right-wing prime minister – perhaps Jordan Bardella of the Rassemblement Nationale, ahead in the polls – 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 France’s commander-in-chief as an “honourable title” and said the real power, particularly over the budget, lies with the prime minister’s government. Le Pen told daily Le Télégramme:

“Jordan [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.” 

Macron said earlier this month he was “finalising” plans to send military trainers to Ukraine, and tensions with Russia are likely to take centre stage in the debate over France’s 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 Macron’s right to appoint France’s 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 – such as strengthening European industrial champions – at the top of the EU agenda.

According to five officials, Macron is pushing for Thierry Breton, who has promoted Macron’s vision for defence and industry, to continue as French commissioner.

Bardella, however, insists it will be his government that will choose France’s commissioner in Brussels, saying this week that the appointment will be one of the “first decisions” 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, Macron’s 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 Sébastien Lecornu said “the constitution is not ceremonious” and quoted de Gaulle as saying the president was “responsible for France” and “responsible for the Republic.” François Bayrou, leader of the French centrist party MoDem, allied to Macron, said:

“You are profoundly challenging the Constitution.”

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:

“It’s 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.”

According to Landot, Le Pen is wrong when she says the president’s role is only “ceremonial” – but there are many ways the prime minister can clip the president’s wings. He also said:

“If 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: ‘No, I’m not signing that. The constitutional ambiguity would block decision-making.”

Read more HERE

[freetheshit-outofyou]

“Do we need to a have a radio in every vehicle? I don’t know. Do we need to have one radio per team? Or is it one radio per squad?” Daiyaan said at the 22nd annual C4ISRNET Conference. “We are looking at that, and looking at those things hard.” 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.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

If a foreign power attacked Hawaii – say the US Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu – the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha State’s defense.

“It’s the weirdest thing,” 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!?

[nicklloydnow]

“Because, you see, a sociopath can help a psychopath.”*

“As a presidential candidate, Trump has threatened to quit NATO unless European allies contribute more, and should he carry it out Europe may decide to go it alone on defense, the game suggests. "A US policy of frustrating NATO has the potential to cause the alliance to collapse, with the EU as a candidate for eventually replacing NATO's ultimate function — defending Europe from Russia," wrote Finley Grimble, the British defense expert who designed and ran the game.

The US doesn't have to withdraw from NATO to imperil the 75-year-old alliance. Technically, the US is barred from leaving NATO after Congress voted in 2023 to prohibit withdrawal without congressional approval.

But the game showed how Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who said on the campaign trail that he'd encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" with NATO allies who spend too little on their militaries — could undermine NATO simply by doing as little as possible to support the alliance. "What Donald Trump can do is just really hollow out what NATO does," Grimble told Business Insider. "He doesn't need to leave NATO to ruin it. He can ruin it from within."

Grimble, who has conducted wargames for the British government, conceived of this game after claims by former US National Security Adviser John Bolton that he talked then-President Trump out of withdrawing from NATO in 2018. He designed a tabletop simulation where the players — mostly British specialists in defense, intelligence and foreign policy — assumed the role of leaders of the 32 NATO nations, plus Ukraine and Russia; China was played by the umpires. The US was played by an American who "was trying to enter into the psyche of Trump, which was no easy task," Grimble recalled.

(…)

It is the first domino to fall. Trump then drastically reduces US participation in NATO, including redeployment of 50 percent of American military assets in Europe, where more than 100,000 US troops are based, to the Indo-Pacific theater. The Trump administration also institutes a new policy called "dormancy." This includes a variety of go-slow tactics, such as less US participation in NATO exercises. A particularly damaging move is to bar the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) — the second-highest military position in NATO, and always a US officer — from acting without prior consultation with Washington.

"Ultimately, SACEUR is answerable to the president of the United States," said Grimble. "So he [SACEUR] can start slowing things down, or prevent things from happening. The US can just take the funding from NATO programs and they will collapse."

(…)

NATO was created four years after the end of World War II in an attempt to avoid the failures of the interwar years. American security guarantees have precluded European powers from re-arming in exchange for the greater expenses borne by the US. But with this US security umbrella suddenly diminishing in the game, France and Germany call for the European Union to take over from NATO. This angers Poland, which saw this as an attempt by the French to kick the US out and to have France become the top military power in Europe.

(…)

Meanwhile, with its campaign in Ukraine stalemated, Russia mulls invading the Baltic States — which are NATO members — to take advantage of NATO disunity and perhaps split the alliance over willingness to risk war with Moscow. But the Russian player ultimately decides that Russia doesn't have the resources to fight Ukraine and occupy the Baltics — and invading NATO territory just might bring America back into the alliance.

However, fictional Moscow does launch new offensives in Ukraine. Bereft of US support — which Europe is unable to compensate for — Ukraine feels compelled to sign a peace that cedes eastern Ukraine to Russia and installs a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Europe faces another problem: fear that Russia might attack NATO is scaring off domestic and international investors, causing European economies to stumble.

By the end of the game, the effects of a US pullback from NATO are global. China realizes that the US has really shifted its focus from Europe to the Pacific, which deters Beijing from invading Taiwan. Yet this doesn't reassure Japan, Australia and South Korea — US allies whose forces and bases are essential to efforts to counter China — which worry that Trump might change his mind and abandon them too. Iran becomes emboldened to assert its power in the Middle East, which spurs an arms race with Saudi Arabia.

All of which left the British frustrated. The UK has traditionally backed a transatlantic, America-Europe alliance rather than a purely European defense bloc. Yet in the game, it could neither persuade Trump to ease his demands, nor the European NATO members to spend more on defense. "The British felt, 'for God's sakes, Trump, give the Europeans some time,'" Grimble said. "But also, 'Europeans, please do something. Let's all come to an accord and keep NATO alive.'"

Wargaming experts always caution that games shouldn't be treated as predictors of the future, but only as experiments to explore possibilities. Nonetheless, this wargame seemed to confirm the worst fears of critics who believe Trump could destroy NATO and make Europe vulnerable to attack.

"The US had reduced its resourcing of the NATO deterrence and defense missions, meaning NATO did not have credible warfighting plans ready to deal with a Russian invasion," said Grimble. "The whole thing had become dysfunctional. It certainly wasn't in any position to coherently defend against Russia at the end of the game."

Yet at the same time, there was a genuine desire to keep NATO alive. "Many NATO members — except for France mainly — thought post-Trump it could be salvageable," Grimble said. "So it was necessary to keep the US in, keep it together, and rebuild later."”

“Last month, NATO, the world’s most successful military alliance, celebrated its 75th anniversary. Some fear that it may have been its last anniversary with the United States playing a leading role. Former U.S. President Donald Trump still views the alliance as obsolete. If reelected, he says he would encourage Russian leaders to do “whatever the hell they want” to member states that do not pay what he considers to be enough for defense. A second Trump presidency could have dire implications for European security.

Trump’s defenders argue that he is bluffing to pressure Europe into spending more on defense. But former U.S. officials who worked closely with Trump on NATO during his tenure, including one of us (Hooker), are convinced he will withdraw from the alliance if he is reelected. Trump hugely resents the more moderate advisers who kept him in check during his first term. If he reaches the White House in 2025, the guardrails will be off.

The U.S. Congress is concerned, too. It recently enacted legislation to prohibit a president from withdrawing from NATO unless Congress approves, either by a two-thirds vote in the Senate or an act of both houses of Congress. But Trump could circumvent this prohibition. He has already raised doubts about his willingness to honor NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause. By withholding funding, recalling U.S. troops and commanders from Europe, and blocking important decisions in the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s top deliberative body), Trump could dramatically weaken the alliance without formally leaving it. Even if he does not withdraw American support completely, Trump’s current position on NATO and his disinterest in supporting Ukraine, if adopted as national policy, would shatter European confidence in American leadership and military resolve.

EUROPE, ABANDONED

If Trump is reelected and follows through on his anti-NATO instincts, the first casualty would be Ukraine. Trump has opposed additional military aid to Kyiv and continues to fawn over Russian President Vladimir Putin. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is already trying to Trump-proof aid to Ukraine by coordinating it under the aegis of the alliance rather than the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group. Should the United States weaken or terminate its defense commitment to Europe under Trump, European countries would feel more vulnerable and may become increasingly reluctant to send Ukraine their own vital military supplies. With dramatic aid cuts, Kyiv could be forced to negotiate an unfavorable agreement with Moscow that would leave Ukraine a rump state militarily and economically vulnerable to Russia. Should Ukraine’s defenses collapse altogether, brutal repression and forced Russification await some 38 million people.

The disastrous consequences would only start there. A deflated NATO would struggle to mount an effective conventional deterrent against further Russian aggression. Russia is now on a war footing, spending six percent of its GDP on defense, and its authoritarian leader is committed to an ultranationalistic mission to consolidate his rule over what he calls the “Russian world,” an unspecified geographic space that extends well beyond his country’s internationally recognized borders. Moscow could reconstitute its armed forces relatively quickly. After subjugating all of Ukraine, Putin would probably focus on the Baltic states—NATO members covered by the alliance’s security umbrella but claimed as historic Russian lands by Putin. Should NATO’s conventional deterrence be weakened by the withdrawal of U.S. support, Russia would only be tempted to act more brazenly.

(…)

Should the United States abandon NATO, the erosion of nuclear deterrence would severely compound Europe’s conventional deterrence problem. Nuclear weapons underpin the United States’ commitment to defend its allies and its nuclear capabilities form the bedrock of NATO’s capacity for deterrence. Should Trump close the American nuclear umbrella, Europe would have to rely on less than 600 British and French strategic nuclear warheads, a fraction of Russia’s total force of over 5,000 strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. Since Europe has no tactical nuclear weapons, it can hope to deter a Russian tactical nuclear attack only by threatening escalation to the strategic level, a move that Moscow may not find credible. In an attempt to scare Europeans away from backing Ukraine, Russia has on many occasions hinted it might use tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike the United States, France and the United Kingdom have not extended their nuclear deterrent to protect their allies. Should Washington leave Europe to fend for itself, Moscow might calculate that it could successfully resort to nuclear blackmail to capture the territory of NATO member states.

Without U.S. leadership in NATO, cohesion and unity among members would be difficult to maintain. It often requires a strong American voice to bring disparate member states to a consensus. Since NATO’s founding, a U.S. general officer has led the organization’s command structure, overseeing the military activities of all NATO member states. It is doubtful that any other country in the alliance could play this role.

NATO without the United States might limp along, but it is more likely that the alliance would collapse altogether. The European Union is not in a position to take NATO’s place any time soon, as its military capabilities are limited and more capable of managing regional crises than fighting major wars. Even if a rump NATO survives without strong American involvement, the challenges of divided leadership, inadequate deterrence capabilities, and an assertive adversary would heighten the risk of war with Russia, a major power bent on overturning the liberal international order.

THE FALLOUT

The damage would not be limited to Europe. If Trump wants to withdraw from NATO to punish allies for their inadequate defense spending, why would the United States maintain its commitments to its Asian allies, many of whom currently spend even less than NATO countries? For now, the defense ties between the United States and its allies in Asia, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, are growing stronger in the face of Chinese provocations. But a lack of confidence in U.S. commitments may well lead some of these countries to pursue nuclear weapons to offset China’s and North Korea’s nuclear advantages, undercutting the fragile stability that has prevailed in the region for decades. The withering of U.S. global leadership would also have profoundly negative consequences in the Middle East, where U.S. forces and U.S.-led coalitions are needed to deal with terrorist threats.

The United States’ economy might also suffer. Should a breakdown of deterrence trigger a general war with Russia or China, the economic costs would be staggering. Just a few Houthi fighters in Yemen have been able to disrupt global shipping through their attacks in the Red Sea. Imagine the consequences of a war among major powers. Moreover, trade ties often follow security ties. Last year, two-way transatlantic trade in goods topped $1.2 trillion. The United States has about $4 trillion invested in European industry. Some five million Americans work in European-owned industries. The United States has a huge economic stake in maintaining a peaceful Europe.

The United States has been here before. Before both world wars, Washington sought neutrality. Neither effort at isolationism worked and only prevented the United States from being able to help deter the aggressors in those wars. Eventually, the United States was pulled into both conflicts. After World War II, having learned the dangers of isolationism, the United States remained engaged and paved the way for the founding of NATO and 75 years of relative peace in Europe. The United States must not forget the painful lessons of the last century. To do so would risk undercutting U.S. global leadership, undermining the Washington-built international order, and making the world safer for authoritarian rule.”

“'I'm not saying for certain that Trump will pull us out of NATO, but it's just too high a risk for Europe not to be prepared, because right now they're relying on America,' Harley Lippman, a foreign affairs analyst, told MailOnline.

(…)

Lippman, who has been re-appointed to a US commission under Trump, said: 'Europe has to go forward not counting on America staying in NATO. Europe has to have its own NATO.'

He added that even France has alluded to Europe's need for its own defence alliance and that Europe had to be prepared in case Trump followed through on his threat to leave NATO.

International affairs expert Lippman recently met MP Tobias Ellwood as well as former senior NATO Commander Sir Richard Shirreff in the House of Commons to discuss the dangers of American isolationism.

During the meeting organised the Henry Jackson Society think tank, Lippman warned attendees that Europe couldn't count on continued US support for NATO if Trump is re-elected.

He said that the attendees at the meeting in parliament agreed that a likely scenario would be Trump making a deal with Russia.

Lippman told MailOnline: 'Russia would get more of Ukraine than Ukraine wants and then, in another three years, Putin would come after Moldova and Georgia. He also certainly has his sights set on the Baltic Republics and Poland.

'And the problem with that is that no dictator in history who has successfully conquered a neighbour and then just stopped.

'If Putin defeats Ukraine, he is going to be so emboldened that he is going to go after other countries in Europe, almost all of which are NATO.'

Lippman said this could have devastating consequences: 'An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries, which would be WW3.

'To avoid WW3, you have to defeat Russia in Ukraine, and Europe cannot count on America to [have its back].'

Lippman, who has been repeatedly appointed to the US Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad by the last four presidents, also echoed Trump's calls for European nations to invest more in their defence.

He said: 'People need to understand the need to defend Europe from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. These four nations are united together to undermine the West and ultimately to defeat the West.

'They are all playing to win and the only way we're going to preserve peace is if we are determined to defend democracies.'

(…)

Under the Biden administration, the US has sent more than $100billion (£79.5 billion) in military aid to Ukraine - EU nations have given the same.

NATO members have agreed on a long-term support package for Ukraine last month, which will see alliance members commit $100billion over five years to ensure long-term support, even amid a Trump presidency.

The proposals, led by outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, will give the security bloc a more direct role in coordinating the supply of arms, ammunition and equipment to Ukraine as it fights Russia's invasion, diplomats say.

(…)

Under the new plans, NATO will be granted control of the US-led ad-hoc coalition known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates the sourcing and supply of lethal weapons and military kit to Kyiv.

The move is designed in part to guard against any cut in US support if Trump returns to the White House, with Stoltenberg saying it would 'shield the mechanism (of providing aid to Ukraine) against the winds of political change'.

(…)

'It goes some way to protecting in case of Trump. But it is impossible to create something Trump-proof,' one diplomat said.”

*as quoted in ���American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders’ (2024)