2014-10-18 by Ed Timperlake

American combat veterans, from fighting an enemy or a disease, should always be concerned about a grateful nation not protecting them.

A generation of Vietnam Veterans were ignored and allowed to die alone waiting in the dark during their end of life years.

So active duty military and their families have every right to be concerned when the Government finds a new mission for them involving new risks.

With respect to putting the US Government front and center in helping the troops who were exposed to Agent Orange and environmental factors causing Gulf War illness one visionary DVA Secretary said not on his watch.

On May 11, 1989 DVA Secretary Derwinski held a news conference and sided with America’s Veterans; he stopped the US Government legal case that was denying disability compensation to Vietnam in-theater veterans based on exposure to Agent Orange (AO). The Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) were very appropriately aggressive in support of USG taking full responsibility to address the adverse health effects of Agent Orange.

Consequently, prior to his action there was little to no motivation for Vietnam Veterans to apply for disability compensation based on exposure to Agent Orange because the VA rejected AO service-connected disability requests.  Also, many in those days had justified distaste for the government.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/breaking-faith-with-vietnam-combat-veterans-and-those-veterans-soon-to-need-help?f=puball

The Washington Post in Secretary Derwinski’s obituary acknowledged his vision and leadership.

Siding with the veterans, Mr. Derwinski reversed the government’s position and authorized payments to some veterans who had suffered from a rare form of cancer linked to Agent Orange.

Secretary Derwinski corrected an historic violation of the social contract between those who protect us and all other citizens.

Now, for younger veterans, tragically, the environmental effects of the battlefield are now being seen.

Starting with Desert Storm veterans and continuing for those serving in our current wars, the Government has learned from AO.

This time the VA has created an early registry motivated by Secretary Derwinski. The American Legion was very aggressive in leading the effort to create a Gulf War registry.

I noted in an article written in 2009, that the Iraq War introduced problems of its own.

For our next generation of veterans, one cause of the growing problem of “Gulf War Illness” is exposure to Iraq chemical munitions inside bunkers that were blown up in Desert Storm.

Even today, some residual chemical munitions (yes, WMDs) have been found.

Unfortunately, the impact of chemical weapons in Iraq followed a similar pattern to AO: the US Government and Military again reverted true to form in covering up deadly agents on the battlefield. It took five more years for the New York Times to break the story:

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs.

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

There was one senior political appointee in the Bush Administration who did try and bring “sunlight” on Chemical Munitions in Iraq.

In 2004, Dr John “Jack” Shaw Deputy Under Secretary Defense for International Technology Security/OSD focused on Chemical munitions in Iraq, and he was fired.

Bill Gertz broke the story:

Documents shown to U.S. officials in 2004 revealed that among the weapons removed by the Russians were chemical agents used in making poison gas.

Mr. Shaw was removed from his position shortly after going public with the disclosures.

The Defense Intelligence Agency dismissed the claims of covert Russian-Iraqi weapons transfers to Syria and Lebanon as Israeli propaganda, officials said at the time.

Consequently, for another decade troops were being exposed to chemical munitions and the Department of Defense covered it up.

Now the President, as Commander-in-Chief has ordered US military into one of the most dangerous Ebola hot zones in the world.

To be fair to President Obama he gave the order with full transparency, and has had some very public Congressional support.

But it is a good idea to “trust but verify” when dealing with exposing troops to new risks.

Learning from the ugliness of Agent Orange and Chemical Munitions in Iraq it is very important to ask some very hard questions up front.

And checking official US Government publications on Ebola can provide significant insight into exactly how much a risk Ebola is to our troops.

The entry for Ebola designates it as a Bio Safety Level (BSL) 4 agent.

http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_sect_VIII_f.pdf See, p. 251

The definition of what “Bio Safety Level 4 Agent” is:

Biosafety Level 4 is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections and life-threatening disease that is frequently fatal, for which there are no vaccines or treatments, or a related, agent with unknown risk of transmission.

http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_sect_IV.pdf See, p. 45,

For a counterpoint, here’s the CDC’s press release: “Ebola is not spread through the air or by water, or in general, by food.”

In essence the press release highlights it that :

Airborne transmission of Ebola virus has been hypothesized but not demonstrated in humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/human-transmission.html

In dealing with Ebola, the Government has prepared guidelines for dealing with “Selected Agents.”

The select agent program requires adherence to the BMBL for any entity registered with the CDC Division of Select Agents and Toxins.

Select agents and toxins are a subset of biological agents and toxins that the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) have determined to have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, to animal or plant health, or to animal or plant products.

The protective regulations covers industry, although diagnostic clinics may be exempt.  Note that it says “should consider” the BMBL.  There is some flexibility in implementation, but significant variance from the BMBL can get a lab put on a “Performance Improvement Plan” or have their registration suspended or revoked.

42 C.F.R. §73.12   Biosafety.

(a) An individual or entity required to register under this part must develop and implement a written biosafety plan that is commensurate with the risk of the select agent or toxin, given its intended use. The biosafety plan must contain sufficient information and documentation to describe the biosafety and containment procedures for the select agent or toxin, including any animals (including arthropods) or plants intentionally or accidentally exposed to or infected with a select agent.

(b) The biosafety and containment procedures must be sufficient to contain the select agent or toxin (e.g., physical structure and features of the entity, and operational and procedural safeguards).

(c) In developing a biosafety plan, an individual or entity should consider:

(1) The CDC/NIH publication, “Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.” This document is available on the National Select Agent Registry Web site at http://www.selectagents.gov.

(2) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations in 29 CFR parts 1910.1200 and 1910.1450. This document is available on the National Select Agent Registry Web site at http://www.selectagents.gov

(3) The “NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,” (NIH Guidelines). This document is available on the National Select Agent Registry Web site at http://www.selectagents.gov

(d) The biosafety plan must include an occupational health program for individuals with access to Tier 1 select agents and toxins, and those individuals must be enrolled in the occupational health program.

(e) The plan must be reviewed annually and revised as necessary. Drills or exercises must be conducted at least annually to test and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan. The plan must be reviewed and revised, as necessary, after any drill or exercise and after any incident.

[70 FR 13316, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 61114, Oct. 5, 2012]

Remembering the Agent Orange and currently breaking Chemical Munitions health impact, the military is preparing for engaging against Ebola.

Sweeping under the rug the effects the government does not like, and putting the burden on the troops is not acceptable.

And the approach being taken to deal with Ebola seems to be falling into this historical pattern.

The adverse health effects of Ebola can move at light speed compared to toxin exposure in previous wars.

As the U.S. military rushes to combat Ebola in West Africa, soldiers are receiving on-the-fly instructions on how to protect themselves against the deadly virus.

So a key question–Where is the Military published Ebola “Bio-Safety Program?”

And if the US Army can spend $52 Billion on building 22,000 MRAPS mostly abandoned and rusting off shore where are the protective suits for all troops actually having even a remote possibility of being exposed.

This is what Industry wears to deal with Ebola:

http://www.ilcdover.com/personal-protection-equipment/chemturion-suits

They call these space suit labs, in part because Dover makes both space suits for NASA and protective suits for maximum-security bio facilities.

Any pundits, reporters and Pols in favor of engaging Ebola in Africa relying on what is being reported about protecting the troops should have no problem being embedded with the front line troops-or would they?

How does the Army medical protocol bible get rewritten to support an insertion of troops into an Ebola contagion zone?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/243228798/US-Army-Medical-Management-Of-Biological-Casualties-Handbook-USAMRIID-BlueBook-7th-Edition-Sep-2011-1

Clearly, the US Army  “protocol’s” should be compared with other USG procedures, guidance and protocols  to see Army comportment  with other written guidance along with actual employed training, practice and actions in Africa.

In addition, a publicly available inventory of gear available with the troops going into Ebola infested territory should be made known and any difference between  level 4 pathogen treatment research and exposure gear and battlefield Chem/Bio gear be presented.

Essentially do the troops have enough of what is best for their protection and how are all being trained?

If National Guard Units are called up Governors are also responsible for safe pattern and practices to protect their troops.

Let’s get this right and not make Ebola the third strike after AO and chemical weapons in violating the sacred trust of protecting those who has borne the battle to his widow and orphans.

For a chance to comment on this article please go to the following:

http://www.sldforum.com/2014/10/military-intervention-deal-ebola-contagion-cautionary-lessons-agent-orange-chemical-weapons-iraq/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014-10-10 By Robbin Laird

Secretary of State Kerry commented during the early part of the Ukrainian crisis that Putin was living in the 19th century.  We are now dealing with forces in Iraq and Syria who are not even close to making into that century.

Indeed, rather than shaping new policies for such globalization bromides as the “global commons” we are fighting to preserve our values and our way of life in a turbulent 21st century.

President Obama was recently projected on the cover of The Economist as the new George W. Bush.  And one can correctly argue that the President and his national security team has spent more time distancing themselves from the past Administration than looking hard into the mirror of the future and shaping strategic space within which American values and interests can be met.

The President faces an historical opportunity in the surge of the ISIL in Iraq and Syria to commit America and work with its allies to stop this surging brand of irredentist Islamic fundamentalism and to lead the attack in favor of secularism and tolerance for which the supporters of ISIL have total disdain.

The President can build on two important realities providing him opportunities in Iraq.   First, Iraq 2014 is not Iraq 2003. Not the least of the difference is the embrace of allies in the effort.  Second, there is a secular force in Iraq fighting for its very lives, which provides the force on the ground, which can anchor sanity in the region, namely the Kurds. And even more significantly, the first trend intersects with the second.

The George W. Bush Administration did not have a rush of allies wishing to join in the invasion of Iraq. And today, there are few who would like to join in the effort to manage all of Iraq and work with the “new” government in Baghdad.

But what is different is that the emergence of Kurdistan and the ISIL threat to the Kurds, the Christians and throughout the region has put an option on the table not so clear in 2003: the opportunity to shape an independent Kurdistan as a focal point for the region.

Here there are allies who see the need, in large part because of the ISIL threat, to back the Kurds and help them to defend themselves. First, there is the dramatic difference between 2003 and 2014 with regard to the Turks and the Kurds.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal assessment:

Turkey’s relations with Kurds were once one of the region’s most toxic relationships, as Ankara fought a three-decade war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party that left more than 40,000 people dead.

But since the U.S. invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago, Turkey has built close ties to the Kurdish government in its regional capital of Erbil, expanding bilateral trade and coordinating on vital policy issues, including the Syrian conflict.

Security analysts said Iraqi Kurdistan is not only an ally, but is also forming an important security buffer for Turkey that is helping to shield its borders from an influx of refugees and insulating it against the Islamic State militants in Iraq.

Turkish companies have invested heavily in Erbil’s booming oil-rich economy, and Turkish brands dominate the Kurdish region’s consumer market.

Turkish exports to the Kurdish government, or KRG, make up the bulk of its total trade with Iraq, which surged to a record $12 billion last year, ranking second only to Germany.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-giving-aid-to-iraqi-kurds-battling-islamic-state-or-isis-1407777223

Of course, Turkey is an Article V member of NATO. The ISIL threat is not just about “global terrorism” in the abstract; we now face a pinching action from Russia on Ukraine and ISIS on Turkey, Syria and beyond and both are very close to impacting on Article V obligations.

The Turks will be concerned that reinforcing the military capabilities of the Kurds can enhance the internal security threat within Turkey; Western aid and assistance to the Kurds in Iraq must be combined with the kind of on the ground training and limited engagement to ensure that this is not the outcome.

The Turks are not an easy ally, but working to gain their cooperation is a crucial part of any effort, which now includes not only the US, but European, Australian and Arab Allies.

This is a turning point for Turkey as well and the US should work hard to ensure an historic opportunity is not lost.

And remember “Freedom Fries?” Well things have changed.

The French have expressed concern about the deteriorating situation facing the Christians in Iraq and that of the Kurds in various ways. In early August, French Bishops visited Iraqi Christians to demonstrate their support. The French President has been a very strong and active opponent of Islamic terrorism, and the French government is providing arms and assistance as well as training to the Kurds. As early as mid-August, the French government announced a policy of working with the Kurds to defend them against the ISIL.

During my current visit to Europe, I have had a chance to talk and meet with various officials and analysts in France, Germany and Italy.  And all three countries are committing resources and attention to the Kurdish opportunity.  Put another way, for President Obama ensuring that the West works effectively with the Kurds is no longer a PowerPoint bullet, but a real requirement of shaping the strategic situation in the region.

For Chancellor Merkel, arming the Kurds and transporting those arms as well as training Kurds is a sharp break from the past and a clear step forward to meeting the broader security goals of Germany and the West.  Ukraine has been difficult because of the many interconnected and internecine issues with Russia and Ukraine and the real absence of a reliable Ukrainian government with whom one can be allied.  In Iraq, the Kurds are providing a real option to have a secular ally.

We have seen acts of unbelievable brutality,” said Angela Merkel, describing before the Bundestag, threats, persecutions, tortures and murders committed on Christians, Yazidis and others minorities, by the ISIS terrorists. Whatever the limits of the New Germany, the commitment against the kind of barbaric policies represented by ISIL is a clear one.

According to the German Defense Minister, the shipment will include 16,000 assault rifles (8,000 G36 and the same amount of G3 rifles), 30 Milan anti-tank missile systems equipped with 500 missiles, 8,000 pistols, hand grenades, ammunitions and five Dingo armored vehicles. Non-lethal equipment will be added (mine-clearing equipment, night-vision goggles, helmets, radio and helmets). All of these deliveries valued at 70 million euros ($92 million) and aims to equip 4,000 Kurdish soldiers.

My discussions in Germany have underscored how sharp a break with the past; the Merkel Administration sees their new policy as laying the groundwork for a broader policy of engagement against the forces threatening Western democracy.  One German defense industrialist bluntly put the case with how he saw this decision perhaps impacting on the wider German view on defense and security.

The decision to arm and train the Kurds is a sea change. Too many Germans believe we should be like Switzerland, Sweden or Costa Rica. This will only change when Putin enters Poland or the Baltic states. But we are already supplying body protection to the forces in the Ukraine. We should do more.

And the decision to work with the Kurds underscores the limits of what German can currently do.

For example, airlift is obvious to support the arms transfers and training of the Kurds and to ensure responsibility in the use of arms.  The government is highlighting the need to get on with the modernization of their air cargo transit means, and to get on with the acquisition of the new A400M airlifter.

An article published in The Financial Times on October 5, 2014 highlighted the problem:

Two weeks ago, Germany’s first shipment of arms to Iraq’s Kurds, to help in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), was delayed when the designated transport plane broke down. The defective aircraft was Dutch but was leased because of the lack of a suitable German aircraft. 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3c9d0754-4a3b-11e4-bc07-00144feab7de.html#axzz3FTT8k0AD

My discussions in Rome also underscored that even in the context of a government largely focused on economic recovery, there was a growing realization of the need to deal with the ISIL threat.  The government is providing arms from Italian equipment stores as well as equipment seized in the Serbian war.  And the Italian Air Force is flying tankers in support of air strikes in Iraq and Syria as well.

Arab allies have joined the fight as well, but their engagement comes with crosscutting benefits.  But clearly one key player, the UAE has demonstrated as well reasonable tolerance with regard to working with non-Muslims which can allow the President to shape a “secular” coalition to support the Kurds in the war against the ISIL.

And to be clear, on the one side you have an ethnic group which is prepared to fight and die for their freedom and to provide sanctuary to others, including Christians, and on the other side, you have a force of complete intolerance towards anyone who is not of their version of Islam. And the fact that the leader of ISIL dresses in black and the “brand” uses a black flag is not to be lost on the Islamic world.

Focusing upon what is needed to pulverize military capabilities of ISIS to move rapidly and lethally, can buy some strategic maneuver space for the US and allies to sort out what kind of aid the Kurds might really need to protect their augmented territory within a fragmenting Iraq.

As Dr. Amatzia Baram, the leading Israeli expert on Iraq recently told me during a meeting in Europe, “the Kurds are the most secular force in the region.  They are fighters and will fight for their freedom.  They are the boots on the ground, and have female battalion commanders, something even Israel does not do.  They need Western aid and support and represent the best hope to provide a force to counter Islamic extremism.”

And working with the Kurds has another core advantage: by supporting Kurdish autonomy we can buy time in the region to sort out the longer-term relationships with Syria and Iraq.

We can buy time to shape a realistic policy in the region.

But there can be no waffling in this policy nor can there be delay. 

History is being compressed into a very short period of time.

The President has an historic opportunity to leave an historic achievement behind for his Presidency.  Rather than worrying about the cover of The Economist, the Administration needs to work with the European and Arab allies to carve out a zone of secular security and to defend our core values.

My colleague Ed Timperlake has argued that perhaps the four freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt can be recalled as a foundation for the assault on the ideological threat, which ISIL poses to Western civilization.

On January 6 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt gave his State-of-the-Union Speech and he brilliantly articulated “The Four Freedom Speech: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship. Freedom from Want and the Freedom from Fear.

America was not yet at war, but Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan were all showing their abject hatred personified by the word Freedom. The genius of President Roosevelt’s speech is that it was not a battle cry for war it was a statement of principle for all humanity to rally around.

It is a perfect list to capture the goals of why a Nation and people can and should fight to defend four elegant and essential freedoms that can make the world a better place.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/conducting-an-information-war-against-islamic-extremists/

Working with the Kurds, rolling back the ISIL brand and destroying its leaders is a moral obligation for those of us who support democracy and its core values.

Shaping a Kurdish ally can provide as well a lever for the emergence of the 21st century, and its “civilized forces,” when those arrive.

For an earlier version of this article see the following:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/president-obamas-historic-middle-east-opportunity/

Editor’s Note: For earlier articles on the evolving situation with regard to ISIL see the following:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/us-navy-and-marine-team-a-global-combat-force-for-good

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-iraq-dynamic-working-with-kurds-to-save-iraqi-christians

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/confronting-schrecklichkeit-in-iraq

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/revisiting-iraq-the-kurds-provide-an-option

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/isis-and-information-war-shaping-the-battlespace

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/its-not-airpower-vs-boots-on-ground-any-more/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-crafting-strategic-maneuver-space/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/seizing-the-moment-in-iraq-shaping-an-effective-way-ahead/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-is-not-iraq-2003-the-allied-dimension/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-not-repeating-coin/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/revisiting-iraq-the-kurds-provide-an-option/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-dynamic-working-with-kurds-to-save-iraqi-christians/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-crisis-the-kurdish-opening/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/isis-and-information-war-shaping-the-battlespace/

And an earlier piece from 2012:

http://www.sldforum.com/2012/09/the-iraq-withdrawal-missing-the-point-and-taking-a-victory-lap/

2014-10-12 The new Norwegian Sec Gen of NATO has wasted little time in putting a face on the defense of NATO.

He has underscored that the Alliance is about defending the territory of all of its members.

The background of the new Sec Gen was highlighted in September 30, 2014 BBC story as follows:

Nato’s 13th secretary general, former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, looks an unlikely choice on several counts: an economist with no defence background, a social democrat who built up good relations with Russia, another Scandinavian hard on the heels of Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Actually, the veteran social democrat presents a sharp contrast to his predecessor, the conservative former prime minister of Denmark, who could come over as strident and uncompromising about Russia.

There is likely to be concern among some east Europeans that he may be too accommodating towards Russia in the crisis over Ukraine.

Yet those fears may be premature.

He is a politician who will deal flexibly with facts on the ground, whether it is Nato’s withdrawal from Afghanistan or conflict in eastern Europe, Harald Stanghelle, a leading Norwegian journalist, told BBC News.

Intriguingly, Mr Stoltenberg is also German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s choice to lead the alliance, often regarded as the main instrument for keeping America in Europe.

The first travels of the new Sec Gen seem to demonstrate his clear concern about the direct defense of NATO against the old and new threats facing the alliance.

He took little time to make a trip to Poland and to meet with the Polish Minister of Defense.

According to a NATO article:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that NATO would defend every Ally on a visit to Poland on Monday (6 October 2014). “NATO’s most important task is to protect and defend our nations against attack. We will defend our Allies, all Allies”, Mr Stoltenberg said after meetings with Polish President Bronisław Komorowski and Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz in Warsaw.

International security challenges including Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine, progress in implementing the decisions taken at the NATO Summit in Wales, and preparations for the 2016 Summit in Poland were the main themes during the talks. The Secretary General expressed his commitment to implementing the Wales Summit decisions in full. He stressed that the steps being taken by NATO to reinforce collective defence are fully in line with NATO’s international commitments.

Mr Stoltenberg praised Poland for its significant contribution to the Alliance’s operations and its commitment to strong defence: “Polish troops serve with great distinction in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo.  You are a key contributor to our Missile Defence system. Soon, Poland will spend 2% of its Gross Domestic Product on defence. And you are making the right decisions to invest in new equipment and capabilities”.

Mr Stoltenberg also held talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Tomasz Siemoniak, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Grzegorz Schetyna, before heading to Łask Air Base to meet with air force personnel from Poland and other Allied countries. The visit to Poland is NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s first official country visit since taking up his post as earlier this month.

And according to the Polish Foreign Ministry:

“It is really symbolic and important that NATO’s new Secretary General pays his first foreign visit to Poland,” underscored Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna on welcoming Jens Stoltenberg. Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Tomasz Siemoniak also took part in the talks. The discussion centred on the situation in the region, including in the context of the security crises in Ukraine and in Europe’s southern neighbourhood, especially activities of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq. Another topic was the Alliance’s cooperation with Afghanistan after the conclusion of the ISAF operation.

Much attention was also devoted to the next NATO summit which will take place in Warsaw in two years’ time. “We want it to end the two-year work on implementing the arrangements made in Newport,” said Minister Schetyna. It was emphasized that the event will be held in a city that back in 1955 saw the establishment of the Warsaw Pact, NATO’s principal opponent for many decades.

While in Warsaw, Jens Stoltenberg, who assumed his office on 1 October, also met with President Bronisław Komorowski and Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz. After the talks in Poland’s capital city, he visited the 32nd Tactical Air Base in Lask. At the military airport, he met with Air Force commanders and pilots who take part in the Baltic Air Policing mission over the Baltic States, and see service in Poland as part of the aviation detachment.

Next up was a visit to Turkey by the Sec Gen.

According to a Euro News piece about the visit published on 10/6/14:

The NATO military alliance will stand by Turkey if it proves necessary to protect the country from attacks by the group calling itself Islamic State (ISIL), NATO Secetary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday.

This comes as ISIL militants raised their flag on a building on the outskirts of the Syrian border town of Kobani, just one kilometre away from Turkish territory.

“Turkey should know that NATO will be there if there is any spillover, any attacks on Turkey as a consequence of the violence we see in Syria,” said Stoltenberg.

Kobani’s Kurdish defenders said ISIL fighters had not reached the city centre.

A black ISIL flag was visible from across the Turkish border, close to some of the most intense clashes in recent days.

“ISIL have only planted a flag on one building on the eastern side of town,” said Ismail Eskin, a journalist in the town. “That is not inside the city, it’s on the eastern side. They are not inside the city. Intense clashes are continuing.”

According to the Turkish based Hürriyet Daily News in an article written by Sevil Erkuş:

Ankara has asked NATO to put the issue of a safe haven and no-fly zone in Syria on its agenda, diplomatic sources have told the Hürriyet Daily News.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu requested that the issue be discussed among allies during a meeting Oct. 9 with new NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who has been in talks with Turkish leaders. Stoltenberg is on his first visit to Turkey since assuming his new post earlier this month.

Ankara also plans to introduce the proposal in Brussels through Turkey’s permanent representative.

Asked about Turkey’s proposal for a safe haven and no-fly zone into Syria, Stoltenberg said the issue had yet to be discussed in NATO.

“We discussed this issue today during our meeting here. I believe there is no simple and straightforward way out of the problems we are seeing in Syria around Kobane these days. It has not been on the table in any NATO discussions yet; it is not an issue which has been discussed in NATO,” he said in a press conference after his meeting with Çavuşoğlu.

“I welcome decisive actions from several countries in the international effort fight against ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] by air strikes. I also welcome what Turkey has been doing in receiving refugees, and also the decision by the Turkish Parliament to authorize Turkey to take an even more active role,” Stoltenberg added.

“Our Patriot deployment reinforces Turkey’s air defense. NATO stands ready to support all allies in defending their security,” he said.

Turkey cannot be expected to take action for a ground operation against jihadists on its own, Çavuşoğlu said, noting that the world needed to focus on ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as fighting the jihadists.

“It’s not realistic to expect that Turkey will lead a ground operation on its own,” the foreign minister stated.

Çavusoglu said true peace could never be restored in Syria without the departure of “al-Assad and his regime.”

He said the current U.S.-led air strikes against jihadists would not be enough to bring peace to Syria and a ground operation in coordination with anti-ISIL Syrian rebels should be considered.

“Air strikes could reverse the balance of power and stop ISIL, but will not be enough to clear the region of ISIL,” Çavuşoğlu said.

“Therefore all other options, including a ground operation, should be considered and the Free Syrian Army should be supported,” he said, referring to the beleaguered anti-al-Assad rebel force.

The new Sec Gen should be applauded for showing up at the “front line” of NATO so to speak,, but ensuring that realities meet words will be the challenge, notably with Putin and ISIL engaging and actively reshaping the strategic environment without and without NATO.

Video above of Sec Gen visit to Turkey: Credit: NATO

By Harald Malmgren

Eurozone politics are currently being reformulated as the result of a rise in right-wing economic nationalism sentiment and growing Euro-skepticism.

In Germany, the FDP pro-market, conservative minority party had for decades been an important counterbalance to left socialist pressures in German economic policy.  Today, the FDP has essentially evaporated, and been replaced as a vital swing party with over 12% voting share, the Alliance for Deutschland (AfD), which is fundamentally skeptical of the benefits to Germany of membership in the Eurozone, and antagonistic to much of the social democratic political bias of most of the European Union, including especially the European Commission in Brussels.

For the time being, the CDU/CSU coalition with the SDP can ignore the AfD, but in the future, if the CDU/CSU were to regain majority, it would have to find accommodation with AfD to govern.

The Liberal Party in the United Kingdom has collapsed, and in its place the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is on the rise.  UKIP is another right-wing, Euroskeptic, anti-immigration, nationalist grouping which will tend to pull the Conservative Party further into its already growing Euroskeptic stance.

UKIP’s rise does not necessarily mean increased likelihood of British exit from the EU, but it does mean stronger pressure from the UK government on European leaders to renegotiate many aspects of the various European Treaties. 

Chancellor Merkel also needs to rein in the growing bureaucracy and significant intrusions on national sovereignty by the European Commission in order to retain her own popularity in Germany.  She is eager for the UK to press for renegotiation and restraint of the ambitions of the lesser nation state members of the EU, which would help Merkel in dealing with the French, Italians, and others.

The right-wing French National Front Party (FNP) scored a political shock when it gained a large number of seats in the May European Parliament elections.  Since then, the FNP and its leader Marine Le Pen have been gaining popularity at both the municipal and national levels as popularity of French President Hollande has plummeted.  The FNP is fundamentally antagonistic to the EU and supportive of assertive economic nationalism.

The prolonged European economic slump, which followed the 2008 post-Lehman global financial crisis, has been characterized by extraordinary fiscal austerity policies imposed by the EU Commission under the domination of Germany.  After the Euro financial crisis and the ECB’s promise to do “whatever it takes” the EZ banking system and sovereign bond markets seemed to recover, but now the EZ is evidently falling back into recession.

Voters in most of the Eurozone nations are balking at continued fiscal austerity and sustained, abnormally high unemployment.

Rising Euroskepticism should not be surprising in most of the EZ.  Even the Netherlands, normally a staunch supporter of German fiscal austerity pressures, is suffering growing nationalism sentiment.

The EU and Eurozone are not only showing fault lines of potential political earthquakes along national borders, but cracks are becoming deeper and wider within many of the member states.

Political forces of decentralization, fragmentation, localization can be seen in many geographic regions throughout the world.

Devolution of power is a growing response to economic slowdown and recession, encouraging devolution of power from the center to the periphery not only among nations but within nations.

This is a time not only of “Clash of Civilizations” but also a “Clash Within Civilizations.”  In Europe, long forgotten histories of linguistic, religious, and tribal differences are being revisited, and sovereign borders are again being brought into question.

Putin’s seizure of Crimea from the Ukraine and demand for devolution of central Ukraine power to its geographic regions, with greater autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, is another manifestation of growing skepticism of the legitimacy of present national borders – borders which, after all, were redrawn many times in recent decades, and not only in centuries past.

The recent failed attempt of Scottish independence was an historic marker for the United Kingdom, but other attempts at greater autonomy are emerging. 

Most notable is Catalonia, the political leaders of which are demanding autonomy from Madrid and national independence.  Belgium, historically continuously divided between Flemish and Walloons, continues to exist on the edge of national divide, with separate budgetary functions and never-ending sovereignty disputes.

Political fractures are appearing in unexpected places like Venice, which seemingly wishes to return to the historical autonomy of the Venetian Princes, Sardinia which is tilting towards greater autonomy from Rome, and Greenland, which finds itself on the edge of a boom in resources sought by China as well as its parent, Denmark, which wants to be the new Norway.Nationalism, tribalism, ethnicity issues are returning in Hungary and its close neighbors, and continue to fester among the Balkans.

For the foreseeable future the response of national governments in Europe will be to yield greater local economic and political autonomy, eroding the authority of national governments at the same time that the elites of Europe seek greater economic and political integration of the European Union.

Viewed from this perspective, and mindful of not only decades but centuries of frequent redrawing of sovereign borders in Europe, it is not surprising that the EU is suffering an identity crisis, elites pulling in one direction toward integration and universalization, and people in the cities, villages, and countryside pulling in another, increasingly dissatisfied with failure of the single European future to provide evident benefits during prolonged economic malaise.

The Eurozone is in an historic period of economic and political decline. 

Nationalism is on the rise, unlikely to be contained by either well-intentioned or ill-intentioned greater integration of economic, social, political, or security integration.  In this context, the economic downturn will likely regenerate a return of the EZ financial crisis.

 

2014-10-10  According to Andrew Rettman writing in the EU Observor, the EU is considering various responses in Africa including use of military forces as part of the containment effort.

The EU foreign service, in an internal paper discussed by EU countries’ ambassadors in Brussels on Thursday (9 October) – and seen by EUobserver – said: “The EU and MS [member states] have not yet designed an operational strategy making the best of all our collective assets”.

It speaks of the “unprecedented nature of the crisis”.

But it notes the EU response to the “pandemic” so far has “obvious limitations” due to “inadequate operational [and] financing frameworks”

It adds that EU institutions already put forward options for “a co-ordinated EU mechanism” to evacuate infected health workers and for a “strategic airlift mechanism” for humanitarian aid, but it says member states’ “responses did not fully meet expectations”.

The foreign’ service’s military staff has also carried out a “Strategic Military Estimate”.

The estimate considers: “possible military responses from the most basic scenario of co-ordinating scarce assets in support of emergency response operators to the most complex and degraded scenarios, including evacuation of EU citizens or the conduct of military operations to contribute to maintaining/restoring safe and secure environment in a given area”.

For the rest of the article see the following:

http://euobserver.com/foreign/126004