New Chinese Military Base in Africa Presents Security Concerns for US

China’s first non-domestic military outpost is slated to be finished by the end of the summer, according to Marine General Thomas Waldhauser, who said the base presents security concerns to the US.

The 90-acre naval base is located a mere four miles from the headquarters of US African Command, Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti, where some 3,000 to 4,000 US personnel are stationed at any given time.

Under Waldhauser’s watch, the US hopes to keep tabs on what China does and does not do at the new base. Waldhauser recently requested an audience with Djibouti President Ismail Omar, to whom he "expressed [US] concerns about some of the things that are important to us about what the Chinese should not do at that location."

The US uses Camp Lemonnier base as a hub for highly secretive operations, Defense Tech reported. For instance, the camp was involved in the January 29 raid in Yemen that killed Navy Seal Team 6 member William “Ryan” Owens, as well as 14 Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula militants and at least 25 civilians.

Both the Chinese and US military in the region will likely seek to address the issue of Somali pirates. The marauders have been virtually absent from the Horn of Africa since 2013, according to data from Office of Naval Intelligence, but popped back up on the radar Monday after buccaneers raided an oil tanker and its Sri Lankan crew. 

​"The question wasn’t really if an attack was going to happen, the question was when," John Stee, head of the Horn of Africa desk at the Oceans Beyond Piracy non-governmental organization, said. "The one thing that’s not really been addressed is the real root cause of this, which is poverty."

Chinese investors have poured $400 million into Djibouti to build a trading port and to develop a free trade zone in the region. In addition to bolstering China’s naval presence in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea, the base will likely serve as headquarters for roughly 2,200 Chinese soldiers stationed in Africa as part of peacekeeping operations, Waldhauser noted.

China Rejects U.S. Accusations, Calls Its Fighter Jet Intercept ‘Professional’

China’s Defense Ministry has rejected U.S. accusations that a Chinese fighter jet conducted a “dangerous intercept” of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off the coast of China in international airspace.

The ministry issued a statement Saturday night attributed to spokesman Yang Yujun calling the U.S. accusations “groundless.” It says the Chinese pilot conducted operations that were “professional and the Chinese jet kept a safe distance from the U.S. planes.”

 

The Chinese jet made several close passes by the Navy P-8 Poseidon plane, coming within 30 feet of it at one point, the Pentagon said, adding that the Aug. 19 encounter was the fourth such incident since March.

 

The Chinese statement says “the U.S. large-scale and highly frequent close-in reconnaissance against China is the root cause of accidents.”

 

Meanwhile the Navy is reportedly sending a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Asia Pacific region on the heels of the intercept incident, according to the Washington Free Beacon. The strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson left San Diego on Friday, the Free Beacon reported, citing the Navy’s announcement of a “planned” deployment.

Standard Missile Shows Versatility with “Juliet” Flight Test

During flight test “Juliet,” the Navy examined the missile's ability to intercept a subsonic, low- altitude target over land. Juliet is one of 10 follow-on operational test and evaluation (FOT&E) events planned for SM-6's missile performance and demonstration.
 

 "This event demonstrated SM-6's ability to detect and engage a slow moving target in the presence of complex land clutter," said Jim Schuh, Anti-Air Warfare Missiles technical director at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, which is among the Navy's SM-6 partners. "It is another victory for this very versatile weapon."
 

 The SM-6 provides an over-the-horizon engagement capability when launched from an Aegis warship. It uses the latest in hardware and software missile technology to provide needed capabilities against evolving threats.
 

 "This is an important achievement for Naval warfare," said Capt. Michael Ladner, Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems 3.0 Program Manager. "SM-6 is undoubtedly the most advanced anti-air missile the Navy has ever produced and delivered to our Sailors."
 

 The SM-6 is the sixth variant of the Standard Missile family developed for the Navy with Raytheon Missiles Systems. Last June, Raytheon was awarded a $275 million contract modification covering SM-6's all-up round production and its spares. The SM-6 program has been in development for seven years and achieved Initial Operational Capability in November 2013. It is now undergoing FOT&E, which is projected to be completed during the second quarter of FY16.
 

 PEO IWS is an affiliated Program Executive Office of the Naval Sea Systems Command.  IWS is responsible for spearheading surface ship and submarine combat technologies and systems, and for implementing Navy enterprise solutions across ship platforms

Xinhua's 'de-Americanized world' report worries the US

Washington is said to have expressed its concerns that China is trying to establish a new world order after the state-run news agency Xinhua published a report on Oct. 14 to discuss a world without American influence, according to the Washington Post.

China is the largest holder of the US government debt with about US$1.3 trillion. In response to the recent US government shutdown, Xinhua reported that China and other nations should be ready for a "de-Americanized world". It added that default from the United States would have an adverse affect on China's assets and currency-issuing and cause exchange-rate fluctuations. "Under what is known as the Pax-Americana, we fail to see a world where the United States is helping to defuse violence and conflict, reduce poor and displaced population, and bring about real, lasting peace," the report said.

"Instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power," continued the Xinhua article, "A self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies." Observers said that statements like this are sending a strong message to Washington that China is challenging the United States not only economically, but politically as well.

However, in an article titled Calm down, Washington: China doesn't really want to de-Americanize, written for the blog of Washington Post, foreign affairs blogger Max Fisher stated that Beijing has no true intention of challenging the United States because the Chinese currency is not able to replace its US counterpart yet. Fisher stressed that it is a big mistake for America to think that China has a goal to displace the United States as the global leader.

"China has shown little to no indication that it seriously wants to displace the United States as the global leader anytime soon or even that it believes it could do this, perhaps outside of a few hard-liners in the government," stated Fisher, "The fact that China is so rightly panicked about the possibility of a US default just goes to show that Beijing knows it is, and will long continue to be reliant on a US-dominated global order."

In the blog post, Fisher added that Beijing is more concerned about its internal issues than about its international standing. While indicating that someone at Xinhua may want China to replace the United States as the new global leading power, Fisher said that China's actual leaders want the US to stay at the top of the global order. It is the reason why China is betting huge amounts of the money on the future of the American economy.

Pentagon Points Finger at Chinese Army Over Computer Attacks

For years now security companies have described that attacks originating in China routinely infiltrate and steal data from U.S. corporate networks, and that similar activity targets U.S. government systems, too. But even as politicians and government officials have begun to speak more freely about the issue (see “U.S. Power Grids, Water Plants a Hacking Target”), they have stopped short of making specific accusations about who is responsible. In April, President Obama’s national security adviser Tom Donilon talked vaguely of attacks “emanating from China.”

A new report from the Department of Defense (PDF) uses much firmer language, singling out the Chinese military:

“China is using its computer network exploitation (CNE) capability to support intelligence collection against the U.S. diplomatic, economic, and defense industrial base sectors that support U.S. national defense programs.”

That information could be used to help out Chinese defense companies, technology industry military planners, political leaders, says the report, which adds:

“Although this alone is a serious concern, the accesses and skills required for these intrusions are similar to those necessary to conduct computer network attacks.”

That seems to refer to the fact that an intruder on a computer network could also use their access to shut it down and disrupt communications or other – perhaps physical – systems connected to it.

It’s not within the scope of the Pentagon report to mention that the U.S. has expanding computer-based espionage and attacks capabilities of its own (see “Welcome to the Malware Industrial Complex”), that China isn’t the only nation targeting the U.S. (see “Which Four Countries Most Actively Attack the U.S.?”), or to discuss the state of defenses against such actions.

From a technical perspective, the prevalence of successful infiltration of U.S. companies – even defense and security companies such as Lockheed Martin and RSA – suggests they are slim. Recent research has shown that a determined adversary could likely find many opportunities to access physical industrial systems (see “What Happened When One Man Pinged the Whole Internet”).

However, how far China might be willing to test any computer espionage and attack capabilities will be determined by traditional political and strategic concerns more than technical questions. President Obama, secretary of state John Kerry and other senior U.S. officials are all known to have raised the question of computer-based industrial espionage with China in recent months and presumably they are also raising the matter of the actions against Pentagon and government networks described in the new report out today.

For now, China’s government is publicly sticking to its previous line that it does not condone or support any such activity, with a spokesperson telling the New York Times today that:

 “China has repeatedly said that we resolutely oppose all forms of hacker attacks…we are firmly opposed to any groundless accusations and speculations.”

Military Grooms New Officers for War in Cyberspace

The U.S. service academies are ramping up efforts to groom a new breed of cyberspace warriors to confront increasing threats to the nation’s military and civilian computer networks that control everything from electrical power grids to the banking system.

Students at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies are taking more courses and participating in elaborate cyberwarfare exercises as the military educates a generation of future commanders in the theory and practice of computer warfare.

The academies have been training cadets in cyber for more than a decade. But the effort has taken on new urgency amid warnings that hostile nations or organizations might be capable of crippling attacks on critical networks.

James Clapper, director of national intelligence, called cyberattack the top threat to national security when he presented the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment to Congress this month. “Threats are more diverse, interconnected, and viral than at any time in history,” his report stated. “Destruction can be invisible, latent, and progressive.”

China-based hackers have long been accused of cyber intrusions, and earlier this year the cybersecurity firm Mandiant released a report with new details allegedly linking a secret Chinese military unit to years of cyberattacks against U.S. companies. This year, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post all reported breaches in their computer systems and said they suspected Chinese hackers. China denies carrying out cyberattacks.

On Tuesday, hackers compromised Associated Press Twitter accounts and sent out a false tweet. AP quickly put out word that the report was false and that its accounts had been hacked. AP’s accounts were shut down until the problem was corrected.

Once viewed as an obscure and even nerdy pursuit, cyber is now seen as one of the hottest fields in warfare – “a great career field in the future,” said Ryan Zacher, a junior at the Air Force Academy outside Colorado Springs, Colo., who switched from aeronautical engineering to computer science.

Last year the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., began requiring freshmen to take a semester on cybersecurity, and it is adding a second required cyber course for juniors next year.

The school offered a major in cyber operations for the first time this year to the freshman class, and 33 midshipmen, or about 3 percent of the freshmen, signed up for it. Another 79 are majoring in computer engineering, information technology or computer science, bringing majors with a computer emphasis to about 10 percent of the class.

“There’s a great deal of interest, much more than we could possibly, initially, entertain,” said the academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael Miller.

Since 2004, the Air Force Academy has offered a degree in computer science-cyberwarfare – initially called computer science-information assurance – that requires cadets to take courses in cryptology, information warfare and network security in addition to standard computer science. The academy is retooling a freshman computing course so that more than half its content is about cyberspace, and is looking into adding another cyber course.

“All of these cadets know that they are going to be on the front lines defending the nation in cyber,” said Martin Carlisle, a computer science professor at the Air Force Academy and director of the school’s Center for Cyberspace Research.

About 25 Air Force cadets will graduate this year with the computer science-cyberwarfare degree, and many will go on to advanced studies and work in their service’s cyber headquarters or for U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Md., the Defense Department command responsible for defensive and offensive cyberwarfare.

Almost every Army cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., takes two technology courses related to such topics as computer security and privacy. West Point also offers other cyber courses, and a computer security group meets weekly. One of the biggest cybersecurity challenges is keeping up with the head-spinning pace of change in the field.

“You know American history is pretty much the same” every year, said Lt. Col. David Raymond, who teaches a cybersecurity course. “In this domain, it’s really tough to keep up with how this thing evolves.”

In his congressional report, Clapper noted that the chance of a major attack by Russia, China or another nation with advanced cyber skills is remote outside a military conflict – but that other nations or groups could launch less sophisticated cyberattacks in hopes of provoking the United States or in retaliation for U.S. actions or policies overseas. South Korea accused North Korea of mounting a cyberattack in March that shut down thousands of computers at banks and television broadcasters.

Gen. Keith Alexander, head of U.S. Cyber Command, told Congress in March the command is creating teams to carry out both offensive and defensive operations. A spokesman said the command is drawing cyber officers from the service academies, officer schools and Reserve Officer Training Corps programs.

Teams from the three academies compete in events such as last week’s National Security Agency Cyber Defense Exercise, in which they try to keep simulated computer networks running as an NSA “aggressor team” attacks. Teams from the U.S. Coast Guard and Merchant Marine academies also took part, along with graduate students from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and Canada’s Royal Military College.

Air Force won among undergraduate schools. The Royal Military College won among graduate schools.

That hands-on experience is invaluable, said 2nd Lt. Jordan Keefer, a 2012 Air Force Academy graduate now pursuing a master’s degree in cyberoperations at the Air Force Institute of Technology.

“You can’t just go out there and start hacking. That’s against the law,” he said. The competitions, he said, “gave me actual experience defending a network, attacking a network.”

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke, noting that really high-level computer skills are rare, suggested the military might have to re-examine some of its recruiting standards to attract the most adept cyberwarriors.

“Hackers are the 1 percent, the elite and the creators,” said Clarke, who served as White House cybersecurity adviser during the Clinton administration. “I wouldn’t worry a whole heck of a lot (about whether they) can they run fast or lift weights.”

Cyber’s appeal was enough to get Keefer to put aside his dream of becoming a fighter pilot, a job with undeniable swagger. “It’s a challenge, and for people who like a challenge, it’s the only place to be,” Keefer said.

Russia - Sharing Some History With Boston

The April 15th terrorist in the United States (Boston) has made the world more aware of Russia’s terrorism problem in the Caucasus. The two Boston terrorists (the Tsarnaev brothers) were Chechens from Dagestan. Russia had alerted the American FBI and CIA about the elder brother in 2011. Russia had no hard evidence but their intelligence had picked up some data on the elder Tsarnaev brother’s interest in Islamic radicalism. In the United States the FBI and CIA are being grilled over why this vague tip did not result in the April 15 attack being prevented. One defense that will probably be heard (more likely from the CIA, which has long monitored the Caucasus) is that there are a lot Islamic radical Chechens these days, but few to them proceed to become Islamic terrorists and fewer still attempt to make attacks outside Russia. That has given Russia lots of problems in the last two decades.

 

Despite this formidable terrorist threat the security forces (local and national police plus specialized counter-terror forces from the police and military) have managed to reduce the terrorism in the Caucasus, but not eliminate it. Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia are still full of nationalist and Islamic radical gangs that pursue criminal activities (theft, kidnapping, extortion) as well as frequent attacks on government officials. Local resentment of Russian rule goes back to the 19th century, when Russia conquered the Caucasus, in part to halt the raids by criminal gangs into Russia. It's an old problem made worse by the current popularity of Islamic terrorism among young Moslem men. The violence emanating from the Caucasus has long generated an animosity towards Caucasians (especially the Moslem ones) by most Russians. Refugees from the Caucasus violence often face violence and discrimination when they settle in other parts of Russia. 

 

The current situation developed when the Chechens tried, throughout the 1990s, to maintain their independence from Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union dissolving in 1991. But the Chechens could not govern themselves, and Chechnya became a hideout for numerous criminal gangs. These guys started a kidnapping, robbery and extortion crime wave all over southern Russia. In 1999, Russia, now led by Vladimir Putin, invaded, to reassert its authority and reduce the Chechen criminality in southern Russia and the Caucasus. Several years of bloody fighting followed, until a majority of the population agreed to shut down the gangsters. For the last few years, Chechnya has been at peace, at least by local standards. 

 

Many of the criminals and Islamic militants fled to neighboring "republics" (as the semi-autonomous ethnic enclaves in Russia are called); mainly Ingushetia to the west, and Dagestan to the east. 

Dagestan was able to handle the influx of Chechen gunmen, at least at first. But in Ingushetia, the violence kept getting worse. Some of the violence was just criminal activity, because tiny (population half a million) Ingushetia has an unemployment rate of over 50 percent. But there are also Islamic radicals who used to operate in Chechnya. And then there are a lot of guns in the hands of the population, so it's often difficult to tell who shot who and why.

 

The Russian government blames a lot of the unrest on local officials who, while pro-Russian (and dominated by a former KGB officials) are generally inept and corrupt. As these things go, the national government won't intervene unless the gangs based in Ingushetia began raiding into southern Russia. Corruption and feuds (between clans and ethnic groups) causes a lot of the violence, which is organized and focused via gangs of Islamic radicals. Most of the 4.2 million people in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan are Moslem, and never much liked Russians. Although the Russians have reduced the violence over the last decade, it persists, much to the embarrassment of the Russian government. This volatile mixing of organized Russians and unruly Caucasus minorities has been a problem for centuries (ever since the Russian empire reached the Caucasus two centuries ago.) Many of the largely Moslem Caucasian tribes saw it as their right to raid the Christian Russians (who had lots of stuff to steal). The Russians fought back, escalating to Cossacks and eventually the army and violence has persisted ever since. During World War II the Russians mistrusted the Chechens so much that they moved most of the Chechen population to Central Asia in 1944 (killing many in the process). Over the next two decades those exiles were allowed back to the Caucasus but both Russians and Chechens have not forgotten. That a couple of Chechens would carry out an attack in the United States (killing a woman, a child and a student from China) does not surprise a lot of Russians, and disturbs a lot of Chechens who would like to move away from their outlaw reputation.

What's surprising is that there aren't more attacks by Russian Moslems. Some 14 percent of Russians are Moslem, but only some of those in the Caucasus (where a few percent of the Russian population lives) are really into Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Relations between Slav Russians and the various ancient peoples of the Caucasus (which includes Christians Georgians and Armenians, as well as Moslem Chechens and dozens of other distinct ethnic groups) have been bad for centuries. But as the Russians discovered in the 1990s, even allowing Chechens to be independent did not solve the problem.

 

April 25, 2013:  For the first time a Russian Air Force pilot flew the new Russian stealth fighter the PAK-FA (comparable to the American F-22).  All previous flights had been handled by test pilots. The PAK-FA is a joint development deal with India and is expected to start production in three years. Six years ago India agreed to partner with Russia in the development and production of a “Fifth Generation Fighter.” The Russian-Indian effort is meant to build a fighter that can give the American F-22 some competition. The PAK-FA looks a lot like the F-22. The 37 ton PAK-FA is about the same weight as the F-22, and has a similar shape. 

 

April 24, 2013: In the south (Dagestan) police killed two Islamic terrorists. 

 

April 23, 2013: The Russian Navy held several days of training exercises in the Caspian Sea. Some twenty patrol boats, larger warships and support vessels were involved. This was not just to improve skills, but to send a message to Iran that Russian was still the primary naval power in the Caspian. This message was also to calm Russian ally Azerbaijan, which Iranian officials recently announced ought to be annexed by Iran. 

 

April 22, 2013:  Islamic terror groups in the Caucasus announced that they had nothing to do with two Chechens carrying out a terror attack in the United States last week. The policy of Islamic terrorists in the Caucasus has been to concentrate on attacking Russia, But individual terrorists from the Caucasus have showed up in many other areas (Pakistan and Syria in particular.)

 

April 18, 2013: President Putin threatened to fire several of his department ministers if they did not find ways to carry out social spending increases he had ordered. Letting incidents like this go public, and actually carrying out increases in social spending, is one way Putin maintains his high poll numbers. Putin also denied creating a new version of the Soviet era dictatorship, but more Russians continue to openly complain about the growing use of police state tactics. 

 

April 17, 2013: A former Russian Army lieutenant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for corruption while he was a company commander two years ago. The bad lieutenant took bribes and extorted money from his subordinates. While extreme, this sort of thing is not unusual in the Russian military. 

 

April 15, 2013: Russia has begun its semi-annual conscription for the armed forces. This time the military needs to obtain 153,000 recruits. Because of a shrinking population the government was forced to allow fewer exemptions (especially for students). Avoiding conscription has turned into a big business with brokers available to advise parents on whom to bribe and how much to offer to keep their son out of uniform

Moscow fires warning shot across bow of US naval-based ABM

The guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain

A top Russian official says a US missile defense system near Russia’s border is strategically destabilizing and may prompt an arms race.

Speaking to SW on the threat of mobile naval-based elements of the US missile defense system  “suddenly appearing” on Russia’s coastline, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said such an event would trigger “the harshest reaction from Russia."

"We must consider the effective protection of our strategic nuclear forces," Rogozin said in an interview with the magazine Voyenny Parade (‘Military Parade’).

Rogozin, while not elaborating on what Russia’s response would be, noted that Russia is taking definite steps to counter American ships “equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system.”

Russia has warned its US and NATO partners on numerous occasions that unless the two sides can reach an acceptable agreement over NATO plans to unilaterally build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, another arms race is inevitable.

Ironically, it was US President Barack Obama – the same American leader who pushed for a “reset” with Moscow – who introduced the current missile defense plans that may include stationing Aegis missiles aboard US warships in the Black Sea.

Washington says the missile defense system, which is capable of intercepting short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, is vital for protecting Eastern Europe from “rogue states,” like Iran and North Korea. At the same time, however, the western military alliance ignores Moscow’s concern the strategic balance may be upset. In fact, NATO even refuses to provide Moscow with written, legal guarantees that the system will not in the future target Russian territory.

Judging by Rogozin’s strong words, it seems that another arms race has already begun.

"U.S. missile defense in its current form is obviously destabilizing and prompting an arms race between Russia and the U.S. and NATO," Rogozin noted.

Russia is considering ways of “suppressing and penetrating” the missile defense system in ways that will guarantee “unacceptable damage to any aggressor, and force it to resist the temptation to test Russia's strength,” the Deputy Prime Minister added.

Rogozin, who served in a previous capacity as Russia’s NATO envoy, explained his use of blunt language.

"We must be frank about this. I was the Russian envoy to NATO for four years and I know what language they understand best of all," he said.

US seeks ‘world supremacy’ through advanced weapons - Security Chief

 A RIM-7P NATO Sea Sparrow Missile being launched from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during a stream raid shoot exercise.

The Secretary of the Security Council of Russia has provided his views on a number of national security issues, including the importance of preserving Russia’s nuclear arsenal against potential adversaries.

­Nikolay Patrushev, commenting on how atomic weapons play more of a political role than a military one, said the consequences of even a “limited nuclear intervention” are so catastrophic that it makes the usage of such weapons absolutely impossible. 

Nuclear arsenals therefore continue to serve as an effective deterrent against any possible large-scale war, Patrushev told Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper in an interview.

Patrushev spoke candidly on the nature and source of threats to Russian security, and what those challenges mean for the country.

“We…understand that the atomic weapons of leading western counties are aimed mainly against Russia,” he said. “In these conditions – and given the insufficient strength of Russia’s conventional armed forces – the preservation of the nuclear potential is a priority task.”

While ruling out the possibility of total nuclear disarmament, Patrushev nevertheless explained that a new generation of weapon systems – including anti-ballistic missiles – is changing the nuclear calculus.

Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin spoke on the threat mobile, naval-based elements of the US missile defense system “suddenly appearing” on Russia’s coastline. Such an event would trigger “the harshest reaction from Russia," he warned.

Rogozin said that Russia is now taking definite steps to counter US warships “equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system.”

Moscow has frequently warned of “another arms race” unless a bilateral agreement is reached on NATO’s plans for missile defense near the Russian border.

Patrushev continued that theme in his interview, underlining the technological advances that have changed the face of war.

Not long ago, any state that possessed nuclear weapons was undoubtedly a “dominating force” in the international arena, he noted. However, in a clear reference to US plans for a naval-based missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Patrushev mentioned that a new generation of weapons is being developed, and that “the United States has proven successful in this field of research.”

Patrushev explained that Russia, which has seen success in developing state-of-the-art technology, had not given enough attention to that field of research. As new weaponry appears, the US appears to be reconsidering the role of strategic nuclear arms in the fulfillment of a “geopolitical idea of world supremacy,” the security official added.

US Navy pulls two aircraft carriers from Syria shores

Two aircraft carriers stationed off the Syrian coast were sent back to the US this week in a move that the Obama administration thought would ease tensions, but angered Turkish officials who hoped for significant US military presence in the region. 

The USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and its 2,500 marines were recalled after being stationed on the Syrian coast, allegedly in preparation of potential military invasion. 

The USS Eisenhower, which has the capacity to hold thousands of men, joined the other warship during the first week of December, ready to launch an American-led military intervention “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons against the opposition, Time reported. But as the violence escalated in the past few days, the warships took off and headed back to the US.

The US usually has two aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf at all times, but will only have one deployed this month –  the USS John C. Stennis, which is stationed nowhere near Syria. By recalling the USS Eisenhower and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the US simply outraged its key ally in the region – Turkey. 

An unnamed senior Turkish officer told Israel's DEBKAfile that America’s removal of the aircraft carriers is “hard to understand and unacceptable to Ankara.” Turkey became one of the main opponents of the Assad regime on the international stage and fears that the Syrian missiles with chemical weapons might be used against it. Syria never recognized that it has a chemical stockpile. Nevertheless Syrian officials repeatedly said that their country would never use such weapons "even if they had them." 

None of Syria’s neighbors, which include Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, have officially criticized the Obama administration for its recall of its naval forces, but unnamed officials told DEBKAfile that Turkish officials are very upset about the move. 

According to the Israeli news outlet, Washington hoped to “to appease the Turks” by sending to the region US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to sign a deployment order for the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, which would be stationed at the Syrian border. While Panetta visited Turkey on Friday, the defense secretary allegedly visited an air base where US strike aircraft are stationed alongside Turkish warplanes. 

But the US attempt to ease tensions and calm Turkey had little effect: Turkish officials remain outraged at the US abandonment at a time when violence with its neighbor has escalated and relations with Iran and Syria are at its worst. 

Meanwhile  the deployment of the Patriot missile interceptors has escalated tensions between Turkey and Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a trip to Turkey for an annual ceremony this week, claiming the missile interceptors might lead to a “world war.”

Rail wars? Russia ponders new railroad-based missile systems

Plans are underway to create combat railway-based missile systems designed to give Russia a more flexible means of defense.

­The system consists of a train with two or three diesel locomotives and specialized railcars, which look like refrigerator or passenger railcars, but carry intercontinental ballistic missiles, together with command posts, Col. Vadim Koval, the Russian Defense Ministry's spokesman for the Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN)the Russian Defense Ministry, told reporters.

Although the last railway-based missile unit was decommissioned almost a decade ago, the system is getting a second look as a means of protecting Russia’s vast landmass as global threats become more diversified.

"A final decision, however, has not been taken on the issue," Koval added.

The idea of using railroads to move around missiles is not new. Koval noted that the first unit of railway-based missile systems was put on combat duty in Kostroma in October 1987, and removed from service in 2005.

However, with the nature of warfare changing and the global situation increasingly volatile and unpredictable, military leaders argue it may be a good time to give some versatility to Russia’s missile defenses.

Meanwhile, Russia is looking for ways to counter the US missile defense system, which is being deployed in Eastern Europe. Despite Moscow’s warning that the technology has the potential to spark a new arms race, US and NATO officials remain adamant and refuse to cooperate with Russia. Washington has even rejected Moscow’s request to provide it with legal assurances that the system will never be activated against Russian territory.

Railway-based missile systems are designed for use along special military patrol routes, as well as railway lines used by the public.

Formerly, three missile divisions – near Kostroma, Krasnoyarsk and Perm – were deployed. Employing 12 trains, the system transported 36 missiles, each with 10 nuclear warheads.

Russian military experts say that with technological advances made in missile technology, the use of railroad-based systems could be an effective means of protecting Russia.

UK to double number of drones in Afghanistan

The UK military reportedly aims to double the size of its armed drone fleet in Afghanistan to ten by purchasing five US-made Reaper drones, which for the first time will be controlled from a UK base. The first five were controlled at US stations.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) announced the expedited purchase of the US-made unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), with operations set to begin in six weeks, AFP reported. The drones will be flown and operated from a tech hub built 18 months ago in the British region of Waddington in Lincolnshire, a leap forward in technological prowess for the UK.

The other five drones the UK operates in Afghanistan were controlled from a US Air Force base in Nevada, and target suspected insurgents in Afghanistan’s southwest province of Helmand.

"The new squadron will have three control terminals at RAF Waddington, and the five aircraft will be based in Afghanistan," an RAF spokesperson told the Guardian. “We will continue to operate the other Reapers from Creech though, in time, we will wind down operations there and bring people back to the UK.”

It is not known whether the drones will remain in Afghanistan following the NATO withdrawal in 2014.

Drone controversy deepens

The use of UAVs in Middle East is a controversial issue, as drones airstrikes frequently kill large numbers of innocent civilians.

Last month’s study from Stanford and New York universities titled ‘Living Under Drones’ claimed that only two percent of drone strike casualties in Pakistan are the top militants targeted in the attacks, and that the large number of collateral civilian deaths have turned Pakistanis against the US.

The “best available information,” according to the study, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan from June 2004 through mid-September of this year. An estimated 474 to 881 of those killed were civilians, including 176 children.

In early October, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that an overwhelming majority of those killed by US UAV strikes in Pakistan are innocent civilians. Malik asked the US to share its drone technology with Pakistan, claiming his government could do a better job at targeting terrorists than Washington.

"The Americans themselves often don’t know who they’ve hit,” anti-drone activist and filmmaker Carol Grayson told RT. “And this huge discrepancy over the figures… we’re finding out that a lot more civilians are being killed. But these are the people that the Americans don’t tell you about. And they actually class these people as ‘other.’”

The CIA has not responded to these calls for restraint, and recently asked the White House to increase the number of drones it employs, effectively transforming the program into a paramilitary force.

This summer, the UN lashed out against US drone policy, and asked Washington to clarify the legal basis for drone strikes against terror suspects rather than trying to capture them. The body argued that the airstrikes, which frequently kill innocent civilians, may be violating international law.

The US uses drone technology across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.

In the first nine months of 2011, leading up to the ten-year anniversary of the Afghan War, US-led spy drones operating with NATO conducted nearly 23,000 surveillance missions in Afghanistan. At around 85 flights a day, this figure nearly doubles the rate of such missions from two years previous.

As the Pentagon increases the number of drones used in NATO missions in Afghanistan, insurgent attacks have risen nearly 50 percent since 2009, according to a media brief released in the fall of 2011 by the Afghanistan International Security Assistance force.

The UK has operated UAVs in Afghanistan since 2008 for combat missions and surveillance operations. According to the UK’s Ministry of Defense, Britain’s five drones were flown for 39,628 hours and fired 334 laser-guided missiles and bombs at suspected insurgents.

The Ministry of Defense said that it does not know how many insurgents have died from drone attacks because of the risks involved in verifying who has been hit. The ministry also said that it relies on Afghans to handle complaints of civilians killed by such strikes, and gather statistics.

Heather Barr, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch, believes this system of verification is flawed because it lacks uniformity, and not all Afghans have ready access to NATO military bases where such complaints can be made. For some Afghans, there is “a certain sense of futility in doing so [reporting civilian deaths] anyway,” due to lack of trust in the West, she said.