DTN News: Former U.S. President George Bush Backs India's Nuclear Role In Last Week Visit To New Delhi

DTN News: Former U.S. President George Bush Backs India's Nuclear Role In Last Week Visit To New Delhi *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) NEW DELHI, India - November 2, 2009: Former U.S. President George Bush said Oct. 31 that the Indo-U.S. nuclear civil cooperation agreement is "India's passport to the world." Former U.S. President George W. Bush delivers a speech Oct. 31 during a leadership summit in New Delhi. Speaking in New Delhi as chief guest at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, Bush said, "[By signing the deal] the U.S. recognized India's nuclear weapons program. "It is India's passport to the world, a sign that India has taken its rightful place as a great nation on the global stage." Bush's statement comes as the Obama administration wants India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a senior official of the Indian Foreign Ministry said. The Indo-U.S. civil nuclear cooperation deal was finally concluded between Bush and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh shortly before Bush's term ended. The countries agreed to the framework of the accord in 2005, and it went through a politically arduous route in India before it was passed in 2008. In the process, India's Communist Party pulled support to Singh's government, which barely survived a vote of confidence. To resounding applause, Bush also said he wants a seat for India at the United Nations Security Council. On Afghanistan, Bush warned that Afghanistan should not be allowed to go back in the hands of Taliban and the al-Qaida, otherwise "the world would face serious threats," he said. "If the Taliban, al-Qaida and their extremist allies were allowed to take over Afghanistan again, they would have a safe haven and the Afghan people, particularly the Afghan women, would face a return to a brutal tyranny," Bush said.

Obama Taking First Air Force One trip As President

Obama Taking First Air Force One trip As President

(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON — February 6, 2009: Suffice to say, President Barack Obama likes his new ride. Before taking off today on Air Force One for his first trip as president, Obama told reporters traveling with him that the plane is "spiffy" and showed off his new crew jacket with his name stitched on it.

"It's pretty nice," he told House Democrats tonight in Williamsburg, Va., in an after-dinner speech. "Thank you for giving me a reason to use Air Force One." The president spoke after a 31-minute maiden voyage on the specially outfitted 747 that will be his airborne home and office for the next four years. U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to reporters during his first flight aboard Air Force One February 5, 2009. Obama was traveling to Williamsburg, Virginia, to speak at the House Democratic Issues Conference. Moments before taking off from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama visited the press cabin in the rear of the plane to show reporters his Air Force crew launch jacket, his name stitched on the breast. "What do you think about this spiffy ride?" he asked reporters. "It's not bad." It's the kind of impression the massive blue-and-white plane makes wherever it goes. Obama said he'd been a guest on the plane with former President George W. Bush — though he couldn't recall on which of the two identical 747s in the Air Force's presidential fleet. Before his inauguration, he also flew from Chicago to Washington on one of the fleet's smaller jets. But it wasn't called Air Force One then — the moniker is used only when the president is on board. Obama was clearly impressed finally to have the full experience. The helicopter ride from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base also got the nod. "Very smooth, very impressive," Obama said, adding that the view is "spectacular." "You go right over the Washington Monument and then you kind of curve in along the Capitol," he remarked. The flight from to Williamsburg, Va., was a brief one. Just time enough for an onboard meal of a cheeseburger and fries, according to aides. The purpose of his maiden journey outside Washington was to push his economic rescue package through Congress, a telling choice for a president who took office at a time of deep economic uncertainty. "He's saying that he's willing to go anywhere and talk to anybody in order to get a recovery and reinvestment plan that moves this economy forward," press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Departing from the South Lawn, Obama broke from tradition as he boarded Marine One, the presidential helicopter. He seemed to stun the Marine standing at attention by reaching out to shake his hand. The Marine obliged, shaking the president's hand before returning to a steady salute. Then at Andrews, Obama climbed the stairs and headed straight on the plane — without the traditional wave to onlookers. As for other recent presidents, George W. Bush's first flight as president may sound familiar. Two weeks after his swearing-in, and following the bitter 2000 recount battle, he went to a resort near Pittsburgh to talk to skeptical Democratic lawmakers. The subject was his tax cuts. For Bill Clinton, the first flight was to Detroit for a televised town hall meeting, a format seized on during the 1992 campaign. Calling on the first questioner, Clinton said: "I suspect this is going to be about, well, 'It's the economy, stupid."' In 1989, Bush's father, a former Navy pilot, took his first Air Force One trip as president to the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia. Long before his son's notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech, Bush spoke on an aircraft carrier — about wasteful military spending. Ronald Reagan, at 69 the oldest man to assume the presidency, took a more leisurely approach. His first out-of-town trip was by helicopter to a restful weekend at Camp David in Maryland. His maiden Air Force One trip was to California — and a restful weekend at his ranch in the Santa Ynez mountains. Presidents invariably reveal their personality on board. The garrulous Clinton would restlessly roam the jet, chatting with aides and reporters or sitting down to play hearts. The younger Bush usually stayed put up front and hardly ever saw the press compartment; aides had warned him offhand remarks there could cause trouble. It's an open question whether Obama will continue visiting reporters as his administration hits the inevitable turbulence. Also unclear is when the new M&Ms will arrive. Air Force One has long stocked boxes with the presidential seal and facsimile signature. But stewards said those bearing the new president's signature are still likely months from arriving.

Japan Frets Over The US's F-22s

Japan Frets Over The US's F-22s

By Kosuke Takahashi

(NSI News Source Info) TOKYO - February 5, 2009: Across the world, potential buyers, rivals and military experts are watching closely United States President Barack Obama's decision on whether or not to continue building the costly F-22 stealth fighter, Japan is certainly no exception.

No one expects the US to lose its global military hegemony any time soon, but Obama's decision - which has to be made by March 1 - could be a bellwether of how the global economic upheaval will shape American military planning in the coming years. It is also likely to be a good indication of how he will manage relations between the US government and the military-industrial complex.

In Japan, the first would-be overseas buyer if given the chance, there is all kinds of speculation on the issue of Lockheed-Martin's F-22 Raptor, considered the most advanced air-superiority fighter in the world, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation, one-engined supersonic stealth aircraft. Japan could eventually buy one, or both, or neither. It's still hard to find anything concrete.

The US Air Force estimates that the F-22s would cost about $142 million apiece, but when development expenses are added, the price tag soars to more than $350 million per plane. News reports in 2007 said Japan would be willing to pay $300 million each for a fleet of 100.

Some military analysts have said that to replace its aging fleet of about 90 Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ fighters, the Japanese Ministry of Defense will maintain its pursuit of F-22 fighter jets. This is based on the assumption that the US Congress will lift its ban on the export of its most advanced US fighters to Japan, which is feasible considering Japan's role as a linchpin of US security interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

They believe Washington is willing to preserve the golden era of US-Japan relations, epitomized by the rapport between former US president George W Bush and former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Some Japanese newspapers, such as the Yomiuri Shimbun, have also reported that faced with continued intransigence from the US Congress over lifting the ban, which is afraid of a cutting-edge technology leak over the possible F-22 fighter sale to Japan, Tokyo will begin to shift towards the other five contenders to replace the F-4 fleet.

Namely, these are Lockheed-Martin's F-35, Eurofighter's Typhoon, Boeing's F-15FX and F/A-18E/F and Dassault's Rafale.

But many are afraid that should the Japanese government order the Eurofighter's Typhoon, the US government would interrupt such negotiations and ask Japan to reconsider them in respect of the bilateral security relationship.

Some are also concerned that Japan's stalled efforts to relocate the US Marine Corps' Air Station Futenma within Okinawa prefecture have already discouraged the US from exporting F-22 stealth fighters to Japan, an indication they say of Washington's waning desire to strengthen the US-Japan alliance as part of its security strategy in the northeast Asian region. The relocation issue has been deadlocked for more than a decade, mainly due to local opposition.

"I don't think Okinawa is a factor at all," Michael Green, former senior director for Asian affairs of the White House National Security Council, said in an interview with Asia Times Online last week. The "biggest issue is whether the USAF [US Air Force] will buy enough to keep the line open until a Japan export version is ready."

Others have also pointed out that Washington is less willing to export F-22 stealth fighters to Tokyo as it could strain strategically important Sino-US relations. Obama's decision on the F-22 fighter program - with its wider implications for Japan-US and China-US ties - will make things clearer on this subject.

"The US is cautious of military technology transfer," said Hideshi Takesada of the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies, a think-tank attached to the Japanese Ministry of Defense. "It also won't sell the F-22 to the UK and Australia, among others. It should be hard for Japan to receive such special considerations from the US. Should Japan stick to [its plans to buy] the state-of-the-art fighter, it would prove to be damaging to the national interest."

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) currently possesses about 360 jet fighters, with three different models. It has about 200 F-15s, about 70 F-2s and about 90 F-4EJ jets, but the latter have been used since the Vietnam War and are scheduled to be retired by 2013.

Japan has repeatedly said throughout 2008 that it is seeking access to information on the F-22's technologies and performance data to review its capabilities before procuring next-generation (FX) fighters for the JASDF to replace the aging F-4EJs.

Japan's Defense Ministry was previously scheduled to begin the acquisition of next-generation FX fighters for the JASDF during the fiscal year 2009 starting this coming April, but delayed this before its deadline of September, 2008. It refrained from requesting any part of the national budget, citing difficulties gathering information about candidate airplanes such as the F-22. Instead, it requested 89.2 billion yen (US$996 million) in the national budget to upgrade 22 F-15s to improve air defense capabilities, according to a spokesman at the ministry.

In an effort to reduce the impact of a delayed FX selection, the JASDF is seeking to extend the life of the F-4EJ fighters by using them "more efficiently", the spokesman said.

Although this is little-known among foreign observers, the ministry also requested about 8.5 billion yen in the next fiscal year budget for preliminary work to develop a Japanese version of the stealth fighter called Shinshin, meaning the Heart of God. The ministry plans to spend a total of 39.4 billion yen until the fiscal 2015 to develop the Shinshin. "This is a long-term plan, so nothing related to the FX selection this time around," the spokesman said.

Pakistan Pays Heavily In International Fight Against Terrorism

Pakistan Pays Heavily In International Fight Against Terrorism

(NSI News Source Info) February 4, 2009: Islamabad - February 4, 2009: Pakistan has faced direct and indirect losses to the tune of 34.52 billion dollars in its fight against Islamist militants since 2001 when it joined the international alliance against terrorism, the latest government data revealed. The financial losses, which have impacted all sectors of the economy, were expected to hit 8.46 billion dollars during the current financial year, which ends June 30, according to a document from Pakistan's Finance Ministry obtained by Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. A Pakistani police officer look for evidences after a grenade attack on mosque in Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan on Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009. Officials say someone threw a grenade inside a mosque in the northwest town of Dera Ismail Khan, killing at least two people and wounding eight.

"The war on terror negatively affected Pakistani exports, prevented the inflows of foreign investment, affected the pace of a privatization programme, slowed overall economic activities, reduced import demand and tax collection, and caused expenditure overruns," the report said. Thousands of jobs have been lost, both civilian and military infrastructure has been damaged in the conflict and Pakistan's domestic tourism industry has suffered, it added. "Pakistan continued to pay a heavy price in terms of both economic and security concerns," Ashfaque Hassan Khan, special secretary to the Finance Ministry, told dpa. "A large portion of its resources, both men and material, have been consumed by this war for the last several years." He said the economy initially suffered losses of 2.67 billion dollars in the financial year 2001-02, an amount that rose to 6.26 billion dollars in the past financial year and were projected to amount to 8.46 billion dollars this year. Pakistan has seen a constant rise in its Islamist militancy and terrorist attacks since 2001 when thousands of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters sought refuge in its ungoverned tribal region after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. Initially, they used their safe havens in Pakistan's tribal belt to launch cross-border attacks on international troops in neighboring Afghanistan, but then also started to strike Pakistani security forces when Islamabad launched operations against them in mid-2007, mainly because of US pressure to do so. The sudden rise in the Islamist insurgency in late 2007 combined with political instability the following year under former president Pervez Musharraf, caused a meltdown in Pakistan's economy, which flourished in the first five years of the country's anti-terrorism coalition with the United States and other Western countries. Pakistan's rupee lost 27 per cent of its value and the country's stocks fell nearly 50 per cent last year, mainly because foreign investors fled the country on security concerns. The country then sought help from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a looming default on its foreign debts. The country's losses in terms of human lives have also been high over the past eight years. According to some estimates, Pakistan has lost more than 1,200 soldiers, around 10,000 other security personnel and civilians while around half a million people have been displaced internally because of operations against militants in Pakistan's tribal areas and the adjacent North-West Frontier Province. In return, Pakistan has complained that it has received little aid from its Western allies, including the United States, which continue to press the poor Islamic country to do more against the insurgents. According to Musharraf, who decided to join the US-led fight against terrorism in 2001, Islamabad has received 11 billion dollars in military and non-military aid from the Americans in the past eight years, compared with the 143 billion dollars the United States spent in Afghanistan during the same period. "It is very strange that, on one side, the US keeps asking us to step up our fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and, on the other, it does nothing to economically stabilize the country," said a Foreign Ministry official. "It is a wrong approach since an economically weak Pakistan would be more vulnerable to the forces [of the Taliban and al-Qaeda] that the US wants to defeat," he said. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said President Barack Obama's administration plans to triple non-military aid to Pakistan, which has been far lower than the 6 billion dollars in military assistance sent to it under former president George W Bush.

Iran Faces Choice On Co-Operation: Clinton

Iran Faces Choice On Co-Operation: Clinton

(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - February 2, 2009: President Barack Obama’s intent to change the direction of US foreign policy gives Iran a “clear opportunity” to engage more productively on its nuclear program and other issues, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday. In her first remarks to reporters at the State Department, Clinton said Obama’s first days in office have made it clear that a more open Iranian approach to the international community could benefit Iran. She said this was reflected in statements Obama made in an interview Monday with an Arab TV network.

“There is a clear opportunity for the Iranians, as the president expressed in his interview, to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community,” she said. “Whether or not that hand becomes less clenched is really up to them.”Obama told the Al-Arabiya news channel that he wanted to communicate to Muslims that “the Americans are not your enemy.” He condemned Iran’s threats to destroy Israel and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, but said “it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress.”

Clinton, who criticized Obama for his willingness to speak directly with leaders of rogue nations like Iran during their contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, told reporters that the administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of US policy options toward Iran. “There is just a lot that we are considering that I’m not prepared to discuss,” she added. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari, speaking in Athens, Greece, said Tuesday that it was too early to say whether relations with the United States would improve with Obama as president.“We will wait and see (if there is) actual change or just slogans,” he said.

Clinton’s comments came one day after US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the Obama administration will engage in “direct diplomacy” with Iran. Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are US officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. Rice said Iran must meet UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

More broadly, Clinton said her initial round of telephone calls with world leaders has yielded positive signs.

“There’s a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that’s being set and the team that’s (been) put together by the president,” said the former New York senator and first lady.

“In areas of the world that have felt either overlooked or not receiving appropriate attention to the problems they are experiencing, there’s a welcoming of the engagement that we are promising,” she said. “It’s not any kind of repudiation or indictment of the past eight years so much as an excitement and an acceptance of how we are going to be doing business.”

She dismissed suggestions that Obama’s foreign policy team will find it difficult to work together. She said all are determined to find the best way to execute the president’s foreign policy objectives. “We have a lot of damage to repair,” she said, referring to US foreign relations as they stood when President George W. Bush left office Jan 20.Clinton said she spoke by telephone Tuesday with top Iraqi officials to make clear that there will be continuity in US policy. She said her call was intended to “reinforce our commitment to a democratic and sovereign Iraq and the importance of their provincial elections.” Iraqis are scheduled to vote on Saturday in a set of elections that US and Iraqi officials hope will further solidify progress toward national political reconciliation.

Al-Qaeda

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday the United States will “go after Al-Qaeda wherever Al-Qaeda is,” and said Washington’s position has been relayed to Pakistan.

“Both President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama have made clear we will go after Al-Qaeda whereever Al-Qaeda is, and we will continue to pursue that,” he told lawmakers.

Asked whether that decision has been transmitted to the government of Pakistan, Gates said “Yes, sir.”

As the Pentagon prepares for a major buildup of US troops in Afghanistan, Robert Gates warned Tuesday that the United States cannot become bogged down in the unrealistic goal of turning the devastated country into an economically prosperous nation.

Instead, the US must limit its focus to ensuring terrorists do not regain control of the region and use it to coordinate attacks, Gates said.

“If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there,” Gates said, referring to the mythic haven of purity, “we will lose because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money to be honest.”

Gates testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee as President Barack Obama considers his options for drawing down US operations in Iraq and doubling the force size in Afghanistan. Obama planned to meet Wednesday with the service chiefs.

Gates told lawmakers that the Pentagon could send two more brigades to Afghanistan by late spring and a third by midsummer in an effort to try to salvage a country besieged by corruption and increasing violence.

More troops could be sent after that but that would hinge on the Defense Department’s ability to build a larger infrastructure, he added. The secretary cautioned against sending too many troops, because he said it could send the wrong message and Afghan citizens must see their own security forces take control.

When asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican and frequent visitor to the region, whether he expects casualties to rise with the uptick in military operations, Gates responded that it was “likely.”

“This is going to be tough, it’s going to be difficult and in many ways more difficult than Iraq. Do you agree with that?” Graham asked Gates.

“Yes,” Gates responded.Gates said the Pentagon is preparing for Obama various scenarios for winding down the war in Iraq, including a plan that would cease US involvement in combat within 16 months. Gates said military planners are looking at later dates as well and are prepared to brief Obama on all his options and the their associated risks. “I believe the president will have had every opportunity to hear quite directly from his commanders about what they can accomplish and what the attendant risks are under different options,” Gates said.Gates said he does not expect the military buildup in Afghanistan to put an additional strain on troops. By the end of September, soldiers deployed for 12 months should be allowed 15 months at home. In the 2010 budget year, that ratio will stretch further, giving troops two years at home for every one year deployed. By 2011, they should see 30 months at home, he said.

Weapons

Robert Gates vowed to reform the way the Pentagon buys weapons and said budget pressures resulting from two wars and the economic crisis would force tough choices in coming years.

“We will not be able to ‘do everything, buy everything’ ... I believe now is the time to take action,” Gates said in testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Gates singled out procurement as one of the biggest challenges facing the Pentagon, and said finding a solution would require the support of industry and Congress.

“I believe that the FY 2010 budget must make hard choices. Any necessary changes should avoid across-the-board adjustments, which inefficiently extend all programs,” he said.

He said long-standing systemic problems had resulted in “the situation we face today, where a small set of expensive weapons programs has had repeated — and unacceptable — problems with requirements, schedule, cost and performance.”

Gates said the department had already begun to purchase weapons at more efficient rates, and he would work to buy larger quantities of systems that represent the ‘75 percent solution’ instead of waiting for a nearly perfect system.

The Pentagon also needed to ensure that services did not continue to add requirements once a weapons program began, and write contracts that gave incentives for good work.

“The department should seek increased competition, use of prototypes and ensure technology maturity so that our programs are ready for the next phases of development,” Gates said.

Threat

Gates meanwhile, assured lawmakers that the United States is ready to handle any Chinese military threat, even as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for increased US engagement with Beijing. Gates, speaking at a Senate hearing, said that US forces “have the capability in place to be able to deal with any foreseeable Chinese threat for some time to come.”

Clinton, meanwhile, told reporters at the State Department that the Bush administration’s dialogue with China “turned into an economic dialogue,” referring to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Strategic Economic Dialogue, high-level discussions that have been held twice a year starting in late 2006.

“We need a comprehensive dialogue with China,” Clinton said. Economic engagement, she added, is “a very important aspect of our relationship with China, but it’s not the only aspect our relationship.”

The Obama administration is “going to be working together in the government across our agencies to design a more comprehensive approach that will be more in keeping with the important role that China is playing and will be playing,” Clinton said.

Analysis: Obama Unlikely To Widen Afghan War

Analysis: Obama Unlikely To Widen Afghan War By Anne Gearan - The Associated Press

(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON — January 31, 2009: President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to redirect U.S. troops and resources to Afghanistan from Iraq, but he has done little so far to suggest he will significantly widen the grinding war with insurgents in Afghanistan. On the contrary, Obama appears likely to streamline the U.S. focus with an eye to the worsening economy and the cautionary example of the Iraq war that sapped political support for President George W. Bush. “There’s not simply a military solution to that problem,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last week, and Obama thinks “that only through long-term and sustainable development can we ever hope to turn around what’s going on there.” Less than two weeks into the new administration, Obama has had little to say in public about what his top military adviser says is the largest challenge facing the armed forces. He did say Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the struggle against terrorism, a clue to the likely shift toward a targeted counterterrorism strategy. After Obama’s first visit to the Pentagon as president, a senior defense official said the new president surveyed top uniformed officers about the strain of fighting two wars and warned that the economic crisis will limit U.S. responses. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama’s meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff was private. Obama said he wants to add troops to turn back a resurgent Taliban, but he has not gone beyond the approximately 30,000 additional forces already under consideration by the previous administration. Those troops will nearly double the U.S. presence in Afghanistan this year, but they amount to little while Obama recalibrates a chaotic mishmash of military and development objectives. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week warned of grandiose goals in Afghanistan, prescribing a single-minded strategy to prevent Afghanistan from being a terrorism launch pad. “Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose,” Gates said, referring to a haven of purity in Norse mythology. “Nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money, to be honest.” Obama has ordered a fast internal review of his military, diplomatic and other options in Afghanistan before he makes decisions that define how aggressively he will answer the growing threat of failure in Afghanistan. Along with that review, coordinated by the National Security Council, Obama will have results of a just-completed classified Joint Chiefs of Staff assessment of a largely stalemated fight against the Taliban and counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaida and affiliated groups along the Pakistan border. That report, which has not yet gone to the White House, talks broadly about tamping down expectations in the Afghan war. Instead, it suggests that key goals should be to make modest gains to stabilize the governance and to eliminate terrorist safe havens, senior defense officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is secret. It also calls for military commanders to better articulate what their objectives in Afghanistan are because only then can leaders determine what types of troops should be deployed and how many. The Joint Chiefs review also stresses that the strategy must be driven by what the Afghans want and that the U.S. cannot impose its own goals on the Afghan government. Also coming: Army Gen. David Petraeus’ wider survey of both the Afghan and Iraq wars and other issues in the Middle East. Petraeus, military architect of the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq, is not likely to recommend a similar increase in Afghanistan. Like Gates, Petraeus has argued that the U.S. cannot shoot itself into victory in Afghanistan. And waiting for Obama when he arrived was an unreleased assessment by the Bush White House that sketched grim options in a war that the Bush administration once thought was all but won. “It is clear that 2009 will be a crisis year in Afghanistan,” said Anthony Cordesman, a close student of military developments in Afghanistan at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Fundamental changes are needed in U.S. strategy, force levels and aid effort to reverse years of inadequate and incompetent efforts.”

War on Terrorism Over?

War on Terrorism Over?

Author: John Feffer

(NSI News Source Info) January 31, 2009: Last week, shortly after being inaugurated, President Barack Obama ended the "global war on terror" (GWOT). Or so The Washington Post reported. The new president countermanded the Bush administration's extralegal approaches by mandating the closure of Guantánamo within a year, outlawing the use of torture in interrogations, and putting the CIA out of the secret prisons business. Obama announced that he wanted to "send an unmistakable signal that our actions in defense of liberty will be as just as our cause." Sounds good. But the Post's declaration might be just as premature as President George W. Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" speech on the USS Lincoln that signaled the "end" of the Iraq War. On the civil liberties front, for instance, the administration retains the right to use renditions, by which the CIA secretly abducted suspects and transferred them to third countries without trial. "I think it's a glaring hole," Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights said last week on Democracy Now! "I think that one way that the Obama administration could have dealt a more decisive blow to the illegal Bush policies and even the rendition policy, which originated under Bill Clinton, is to specifically reference this and to say that we are going to disavow this." Also, the inmates at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, which holds more prisoners than Gitmo, and the thousands held in Iraq won't get the case-by-case review accorded to their counterparts in Cuba. Non-military agencies like the CIA, after a six-month review, might get "additional or different guidance" on interrogations -- and who knows what that means.

And, as Politico points out, the guy in charge of the 30-day review of Gitmo is the same fellow who was in charge for the last two years -- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. That's not exactly a recipe for reform. But even if Obama holds to his word on torture, closes Guantánamo within the year, applies the same yardstick to detainees at Bagram and in Iraq, and eliminates the Clinton-era policy on extraordinary rendition, the death of the "global war on terror," as Mark Twain once said of his own prematurely published obituary, is greatly exaggerated.

Indeed, on the day after it published GWOT's obituary, The Washington Post reported on two U.S. unilateral air strikes in Pakistan that killed 20 suspected terrorists. Although it observed an uncharacteristic silence over these strikes, the Pakistani government has previously expressed outrage at these violations of its sovereignty. Then there's Afghanistan, which will be the new epicenter of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. Here's the relevant excerpt from the official White House statement on foreign policy: "Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan's economic development." Why does Obama believe that he can escape the same outcome in Afghanistan that Bush faced in Iraq? As former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern argued in a recent appeal for a five-year "time-out" on war, "In 2003, the Bush administration ordered an invasion of Iraq, supposedly to reduce terrorism.

But six years later, there is more terrorism and civil strife in Iraq, not less. The same outcome may occur in Afghanistan if we make it the next American military conflict." So, is this a kinder, gentler GWOT? Certainly the new Obama administration is more concerned about observing international law. It's more prudent in its willingness to use diplomacy over force. But so far at least, the new president still treats terrorism as a war to be won rather than an endemic problem to be dealt with patiently and largely by law enforcement agencies. We're still at war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and for the time being in Iraq.

We're still selling arms to Indonesia, Israel, and Colombia as part of an overall counterterrorism approach. The Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) still looks at counter-terrorism through a military lens.

U.S. Navy Retires Last Lockheed Martin S-3B Viking From Fleet Service; Carrier-Based Multi-Mission Aircraft Completes 35-Year Career

U.S. Navy Retires Last Lockheed Martin S-3B Viking From Fleet Service; Carrier-Based Multi-Mission Aircraft Completes 35-Year Career

(NSI News Source Info) NAS JACKSONVILLE, Fla., - January 31, 2009: The U.S. Navy retired the last Lockheed Martin S-3 Viking from fleet service in ceremonies here this morning, closing out the aircraft's distinguished 35-year Naval career. Development of the S-3 began in August 1969, and first flight occurred on January 21, 1972. Sea Control Squadron 41 (VS-41), the S-3 training unit known as the Shamrocks and the first operational S-3 unit, received its first aircraft in February 1974. A total of 187 S-3s were built (eight test and 179 operational aircraft) between 1971 and 1978. Over its career, the Viking served with 18 Navy squadrons and accumulated approximately 1.7 million flight hours.

The Lockheed S-3 Viking is a jet aircraft originally used by the United States Navy to identify, track, and destroy enemy submarines. In the late 1990s, the S-3B's mission focus shifted to surface warfare and aerial refueling. After the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II, the Viking was the only airborne refueling platform organic to the Carrier Air Wing(s) until the fielding of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. "The S-3 Viking was known as the 'Swiss Army Knife of Naval Aviation' and served the U.S. Navy well in a wide variety of roles over the course of its operational service life," said Ray Burick, Lockheed Martin vice president of P-3/S-3 programs. "The Viking has played a critical role in carrier-based anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, as well as overland operations, refueling, targeting, and electronic surveillance. And of course Lockheed Martin is proud of the role it will continue to play in support of these critical Navy carrier-based missions, as many of these missions will eventually be carried out by the F-35C Lightning II." The first S-3 was built at the then-Lockheed Aircraft Co. plant in Burbank, Calif., and was trucked to the company's facility in Palmdale, Calif., for first flight. Company pilots John Christiansen and Lyle Schaefer were at the controls, kicking off a 26-month test program. Among its notable firsts, the S-3 was the first antisubmarine warfare (ASW) platform to have a computerized acoustic system. Sea Control Squadron 29 (VS-29), known as the Dragonfires, made the first S-3 deployment aboard the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-67) in July 1975. The S-3 fleet surpassed 100,000 flight hours less than two years after that first deployment. Several variants of the S-3 carried out a range of missions for the U.S. Navy. Seven aircraft were modified to US-3A Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft, capable of carrying 4,250 lbs. of cargo. The ES-3A Shadow was designed for fleet electronic surveillance, replacing the EA-3B. Sixteen aircraft were modified to ES-3A configuration, and the first mission capable Shadow flew in May 1991. Development of a KS-3A tanker variant began in 1979; although the KS-3A was never produced, it did prove the concept of "buddy tanking" (aerial refueling using a wing-mounted pod), which most S-3s later performed. At the height of combat operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, S-3 crews transferred nearly eight million pounds of fuel to Coalition aircraft. The significantly improved S-3B was developed in the early 1980s to better detect quiet Soviet submarines, identify targets and carry standoff weapons. The S-3B flew for the first time in prototype form in September 1984. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, an S-3B from VS-38, the World Famous Red Griffins, carried out the first S-3 attack mission, disabling Saddam Hussein's ocean-going yacht with a laser-guided Maverick air-to-surface missile. In 2003, an S-3B from VS-35 became the first aircraft ever to have the Navy One call sign when it carried former President George W. Bush to the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). Under the S-3 Integrated Maintenance Program (IMP), Lockheed Martin and Navy personnel worked side-by-side to perform scheduled depot maintenance and repairs on the S-3s to return the Vikings rapidly to the operational fleet. The program began in 2001, primarily as a means of reducing the backlog at Naval Aviation depots. IMP increased S-3 aircraft operational availability by 53 percent and reduced maintenance tasking by 47 percent over the depot-level maintenance plan. IMP also resulted in significantly reduced costs to the Navy. A total of 149 aircraft were processed through the IMP inspections, and nearly all of the aircraft were redelivered to the Navy on or ahead of schedule. The program concluded in 2007, as the Viking fleet was being drawn down. "The S-3 Viking will long be remembered for its mission capability, its flexibility and its reliability," said Burick. "The aircraft has served the U.S. Navy admirably for more than three decades. We salute all who have flown and supported the Viking." The NASA Glenn Research Center near Cleveland, Ohio, currently has four S-3B Vikings, performing aircraft icing research missions. It is likely that four S-3Bs will remain in Navy service, although in a support role providing range surveillance at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at Point Mugu, Calif. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 146,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2008 sales of $42.7 billion.

Farewell To President Bush, God Bless The USA

George W. Bush As The 43rd President Of The United States Of America....Job Well Done, Considering the Challenges - President Bush Carried Out His Duties With Calm, Honesty, And The Best Intentions

Why His Critics Are Wrong

(NSI News Source Info) January 20, 2009: When George W. Bush was governor of the state of Texas, he quickly gained marked popularity among constituents. He wasn't long into his first term before many began to hope he would have presidential aspirations. Little did they know, he already had.

When he was re-elected to his second term in November 1998, he became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms. Of course his being elected to the Presidency of the United States of America was a victory for American conservatives, but it was also an indication that many wanted someone in the White House who cared about the issues that would make America better: socially and economically.

America was very fortunate that President Bush was the Commander in Chief in September 2001. Terrorists like the evil ones that attacked America on September 11 count on there being someone in charge who will fold to accommodate them, who will sympathize with their ridiculous messages and who will appease them in the false hope that they will leave American people alone. President Bush was not that person, and they hated it.

President Bush greets President-elect Barack Obama on the North Portico of the White House, January 20, 2009.

President George W Bush.

It's fair to state that President Bush has faced challenges that few who served have. When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a recession. Then there were the exposure and prosecution of corporate greed and corruption by Enron, WorldCom, and others. And then there was the largest attack ever on America, by al Qaeda on 9/11, which was followed by a well thought out and swift response.

This wonderful man with good sense of humor has been the leader of the free world for almost 8 years now and during that time President Bush has accomplished many achievements.

Standing Firm

At a time when almost all the world’s leaders were going crazy and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush stood firm and made the correct decision…he did not ratify Kyoto. What President Bush realised was climate change was a natural process and had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Bush understood that any targets in reducing CO2 emissions would have no effect on the climate and would only serve to harm businesses.

World Security

His Presidency saw a rise in terrorism by al-Qaeda and many countries around the world had a problem with dealing with terrorists. President Bush kindly offered to deal with the terrorists for them. He rounded them up and placed them in a detention centre called Guantanamo Bay. This of course made the world a much safer place.

Iraq

Saddam Hussein, former dictator of Iraq, failed to comply with 11 UN Resolutions so President Bush had no choice but to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil man and rid Iraq of terrorist groups. Iraq was not an overnight success but President Bush has decided to stay the course until the job is done and not cut and run like some of our so-called allies have done.I consider President Bush to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time. He stood firm against the climate nutters; he made the world a safer place; he liberated the Iraqi people; he pointed out to the world, the axis of evil; and of course he had many more achievements, too many to put in a small blog article.

Miliband Criticized Outgoing US President Bush's Foreign Policy - Unwarranted Remarks / Miliband: War On Terror 'Misconceived'

Miliband Criticized Outgoing US President Bush's Foreign Policy - Unwarranted Remarks / Miliband: War On Terror 'Misconceived'

(NSI News Source Info) January 20, 2009: The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, says that the 'war on terror' has brought "more harm than good" for the West. In an article published in the Guardian, Miliband called on the global community to respond to future attacks by "championing the rule of law, not subordinating it."

Criticizing outgoing US President George W. Bush's foreign policy, Miliband went on to say the misuse of the phrase 'war on terror' had brought "more harm than good" for the West. Following the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, President Bush used the 'war on terror' as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and "defeat" terrorism by capturing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, destroying his terrorist cell and removing the Taliban regime.

"Seven years on from 9/11 it is clear that we need to take a fundamental look at our efforts to prevent extremism and its terrible offspring, terrorist violence," Miliband wrote. London was one of Washington's main allies in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British diplomat added that the 'war on terror' was misconceived and that the West cannot "kill its way" out of the threats it faces. "As [US] General [David] Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife," he wrote.

While thousands of British troops are set to withdraw from Iraq, hundreds of others are still locked in an eight-year fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Miliband attempted to distance the British government from the Bush administration by saying that Britain has not used the phrase 'war on terror' since 2006.

"The idea of a 'war on terror' gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda," he continued. Miliband urged the incoming US administration to shut down the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison and start a new era of "democratic opportunity" instead of "fear and oppression".

Enough Of The Bushes Already

Enough Of The Bushes Already

(NSI News Source Info) Source: Mike Lupica, Daily News - January 5, 2009: At a time when just about everybody named Bush is frantically trying to rehabilitate the image, and legacy, of the outgoing commander in chief, we now get the most amazing pronouncement yet from the family: Former President George H.W. Bush feels he has another son warming up in the bullpen. "I'd like to see [Jeb Bush] run," the old man said on television Sunday. "I'd like to see him be President one day." Former President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, together in 2006. Now this was a father sounding like a father and acting like one, straight up. That is exactly what the old man - far and away the best of all the Bushes - was Sunday, whether he was talking about Jeb or the current Bush in the White House, the one who will leave office in a couple of weeks being viewed as one of the worst and weakest Presidents in history, as much of a bust-out case as the economy he leaves behind for Barack Obama. That is why nobody, not even Bush 41, this quite honorable old man, a war hero who plans to jump out of an airplane this year to celebrate his 85th birthday, doesn't get to rewrite the story now. It is much too late in the game for that. "It's been tough on his father and his mother," the former President said Sunday, talking about Bush 43 and all the criticism he's received. Even the old man, who now looks like a giant as President compared with his kid, would have to admit it's been somewhat tougher on the country. But he was still out there punching away Sunday, a good soldier to the end, even suggesting that the media in general, and The New York Times in particular, have been "grossly unfair" in its coverage of his oldest son. Again, he's too nice a man to get caught in the crossfire directed at Bush 43 on his way out the door, because none of this mess is his fault. And the old man is allowed to think of the Oval Office as the family business if he wants to. But blaming his son's problems on the media would make about as much sense as Bill Clinton blaming all of his problems on a zipper that worked. Or Eliot Spitzer blaming his issues on the hotel. One week it's Dick Cheney trying to edit the last eight years in America, almost line by line. Then it's Laura Bush, trying to be as good a wife as George H.W. Bush is a father. You half expect them to start buying time on television trying to still run George W. Bush for President as the rest of the country gets ready to kick him to the curb. History, they all keep saying, will have a different view of the last eight years in America. Not without 3-D glasses it won't - or several stiff drinks.