DTN News: Taliban Fighters Being Taught At Secret Camps In Iran

DTN News: Taliban Fighters Being Taught At Secret Camps In Iran. Source: DTN News / The Sunday Times By Miles Amoore in Kabul (NSI News Source Info) KABUL, Afghanistan - March 21, 2010: THE Taliban fighters scurried up the craggy mountainside. As they neared the top, their 30-strong platoon split into three sections and they launched a ferocious assault on an enemy fort, opening fire from numerous positions. The bullets they sprayed at the fort’s mud-coloured walls were blank, however. They merely pretended to fire their rocket-propelled grenades. When they reached the desert at the foot of the mountain, they did not race away on motorbikes, but filed into sand-coloured tents to refresh themselves with tea and naan. The attack was a training exercise overseen by Iranian security officials in plain clothes. The Taliban do not know whether they were police officers, soldiers or secret service agents. What they can say is that in camps along the border between Afghanistan and Iran, Taliban recruits are being taught how to ambush British, American and other Nato troops using guns and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They are learning to attack checkpoints as well as mountain bases. Iranian instructors are also giving them target practice on desert ranges with Kalashnikov assault rifles. In the past, Shi’ite Iran has opposed the Sunni Taliban. But western officials say Iran now wants to expand its influence within the Taliban movement. A Taliban commander who has been trained in Iran said last week: “Our religions and our histories are different, but our target is the same — we both want to kill Americans.” In recent months, senior American officials have accused Iran of playing “a double game” by training and arming the Taliban while supporting the Afghan government. Taliban leaders interviewed by The Sunday Times last week provided the first direct evidence of how Iran is training insurgents on its own soil. According to one Taliban source, emissaries travelled to Iran early last year to discuss a training programme with Iranian officials. The training began during the winter. Working through local mediators, this newspaper persuaded two Taliban commanders who had attended the programme in Iran to travel to Kabul, the Afghan capital, to tell their stories. The men, interviewed separately in a partially constructed concrete building on the edge of the city, were both extremely nervous. “How do I know you are not spies and that you will not follow me when I leave?” said one before the interview began. At times, their voices dropped to whispers as they spoke about their role in the insurgency and drank cups of tea on dirty cushions. One of the commanders, from the central province of Wardak, described how he travelled to Iran with 20 of his men. His journey took him south into Pakistan, then west to the border with Iran and on to Zahedan, a city of 600,000 people in southeast Iran. The second Taliban commander, from Ghazni province in southern Afghanistan, took a group of his men on a five-day drive to Nimroz, in the southwest. From there, he crossed into Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province, a hotbed of drug smuggling and tribal rivalry. The militants paid a $500 fee to Afghan people-smugglers using routes usually taken by refugees looking for work in Iran. They crossed the border at night in cars with the help of Baluch traffickers who guided the groups along dirt tracks to avoid checkpoints. After stopping to rest in the mountains, they headed out again at first light. Finally, they were met by their Iranian instructors in white Toyota pick-up trucks and were taken to a village on the outskirts of Zahedan, an hour’s drive from the training camps. There they were placed in basic compounds, each housing up to 30 Taliban fighters, mostly from the south and southeast of Afghanistan where the insurgency against British and American forces is fiercest. Battered buses and pick-up trucks ferried the militants back and forth between the village and the camps every morning and night. “Iran paid for the whole trip. We paid the travel fees to begin with and once we got to Iran they refunded us. They paid for our food, our mobile phone cards, any expenses,” said the Ghazni commander. At one camp, a cluster of low tents erected in the shadow of a mountain, the Taliban fighters conducted live firing exercises, physical training and mountain assaults under the watchful eye of the plain-clothes Iranians, the commander said. During a course lasting three months, the Iranian instructors worked in groups of two to five men. Their programme was split into three parts, each taking a month to complete. For the first month, the recruits were taught how to launch complex ambushes on moving convoys. They learnt where to set up firing positions, when to trigger the ambush and how to escape before the enemy had time to respond. “They were strong on the planning side. We would sit in the tents and they would take us through things like where the best escape routes were, making sure we had good cover and where to place our lookouts,” the commander said. The second month was spent learning how to plant the roadside bombs that are responsible for most of the deaths of British soldiers in Helmand province. The insurgents were taught to use carefully positioned secondary and tertiary devices to kill or wound rescuers organising medical evacuations. During the third month, the instructors taught the Taliban how to storm fixed enemy positions, climbing mountains in formation to launch attacks on checkpoints and bases. “We were told ambushing was a very useful tool compared with a straightforward attack. They taught us how to select a good hiding position and how to limit the enemy’s response to our attacks by laying well- positioned mines,” said the commander. “We can kill a lot of our enemies this way.” Both commanders said Iran also supplied them with weapons, often paying nomads to smuggle ammunition, mines and guns across the desert and mountain passes between Iran and Afghanistan’s western provinces. The nomads used donkeys, camels and horses to carry the military supplies into provinces such as Ghazni and Wardak, the commanders said. Although the commanders believed that, after years on the battlefields of Afghanistan, they already possessed some of the skills that were taught in Iran’s camps, they agreed the training had improved their ability to launch more sophisticated attacks. “I found some elements of the training in Iran very useful, especially the escape and evasion techniques I was taught,” said the commander from Wardak as he showed me video footage of his men patrolling on motorbikes with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers slung over their shoulders. The commanders gave no indication of precisely who was behind the training. Late last year General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of foreign troops in Afghanistan, accused Iran’s al-Quds force — an elite wing of the Revolutionary Guard — of undermining the efforts of the Afghan government and Nato forces. “The problem with dealing with the Iranian regime is knowing to what extent these initiatives are conducted by local commanders and to what extent they are backed by the government,” said a western defence source. He added that, although he had seen no direct evidence, the accounts of Taliban training camps in Iran were “credible”. American officials believe Iran’s support for the Taliban has reached “troubling” proportions, although it is not on the same scale as its backing for Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq. The commanders’ accounts suggest the number of Taliban fighters trained in Iran may already have reached the hundreds. Taliban militants still receive much of their training in neighbouring Pakistan. Elements of the ISI, Pakistan’s secret service, are known to train, equip and fund the Taliban. But a recent crackdown on Taliban safe havens in Pakistan has forced many insurgents to look to Iran for support. “The military is pressuring the Taliban in Pakistan. It is certainly harder to reach places that were once easy to get into. I think more of my fighters will travel to Iran for training this year,” said the Ghazni commander. Two weeks ago Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said of the Iranians: “They want to maintain a good relationship with the Afghan government. They also want to do everything they possibly can to hurt us, or for us not to be successful.” Days later, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran insisted he wanted to rebuild Afghanistan and criticised the presence of foreign troops. The Taliban commander from Ghazni province said he had no doubt Iranian police and intelligence services knew about the training camps, however. “The government is not sleeping,” he said. “You just have to wiggle your ears in Iran and they will know about it.”

Related Links

Explosions in Kandahar as Taliban target prison

Special forces infiltrate Taliban stronghold

Taliban hi-tech weapons to fight British

DTN News: Illusion Of “21st Century, The Century Of China”

DTN News: Illusion Of “21st Century, The Century Of China” Source: DTN News / Global Times By Zhao Fasheng (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 21, 2010: A louder and louder message has been heard recently, one that claims China will dominate the 21st century. As a Chinese citizen, I really hope the “superpower dream” will come true. But, the reasons presented by the message makers make me feel ill at ease. I remember the message was originally put forward by a scholar who claimed to be a master of Chinese classics. (It's funny that while we are living in a time with no Chinese classics, more masters of it keep showing up.) I read this master's article carefully, hoping to find sound reasons. The master told us that because the past century was the one of Western culture, the 21st century will naturally be China's, because Chinese culture is superior to Western culture. He didn't make it clear how Chinese culture is superior, and I am reluctant to agree with this point. The 21st century needs scientific facts, so it's dangerous to put the future of our country in the hands of a fengshui theory that means “fortune knocks at least once at every man's gate.” In modern Chinese history, the debate about which culture is superior, Western or Chinese, has become a cliché. The invincible Western firepower in the Opium War and the subsequent tragedy that put China in ruins best illustrated this debate. China does have the potential in the future to generate culture that is richer than Western culture, but only after Chinese culture completely digests the essence of the values of Western culture. When we were young, we heard so many times the grandiloquence that we would eventually emancipate the people of capitalistic countries that we even forgot we were starving and determined to fulfill the honorable duty. Not until we opened the door in the 1980s did we find that we were the ones who really needed rescuing. Someone raised an interesting question – what's right with Deng Xiaoping? My answer is that he brought Chinese people's spirit back to normal from the ideological paranoia that the Chinese would emancipate mankind. We finally began another surge of learning from the West since the late 19th century. This is an emancipation of the mind. Bo Yang, a famous Chinese writer, made an important observation that the US and Japan never claimed their dominance in the next century. After the global financial crisis began, the view that China would save the world economy continually appeared in local newspapers. China's GDP accounts for only 6 percent of the world's total, and the per-capita GDP ranks far behind the 100th. How can a country like that save the world? We also have problems in social administration, official management and moral beliefs. China was less affected by the recession because our capital market was not developed enough. The odd thing is that Uncle Sam seems to agree with the opinion of that Chinese classics scholar. For months, people in the West talked about the precautions that the era of the US will end. Actually this is the secret strategy for the US to maintain its superpower status. As long as the alarm that the US is declining keeps ringing in its people's heads, the US will maintain its No. 1 position. So an important task for the US intellectuals is to find the most likely candidate to replace the US and generously crown it with the “next century” award. When high-quality and low-priced Japanese products flooded the US in the 1980s and the GDP of Japan jumped to the world's second place, the US asserted that Japan would be the world's No. 1 and the next century would be Japan's. Japanese people, however, were not so gullible to accept this award. They manifested their awareness of their national crisis by shooting a movie Submersion of Japan. In recent years, the voice of ultra-nationalism gradually grows louder in the Chinese mainland and the message “China will be the world's No. 1” shocks the world. Yet Japan remains serene. Its serenity reminds us of the warning from Lao Tse: “Gravity is the foundation of levity. Serenity masters hastiness.” Who will dominate the 21st century? Maybe only God knows the answer. But one thing is for sure: the 21st century could belong to anyone – except those who are too arrogant to remember a short time ago they have barely survived. The author is a scholar with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. This article was translated by Ren Yaling

*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com

Disclaimer statement

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: American Is The Arsenal Of Democracy. And The Arsenal Of Tyranny. The Profits Are Bigger That Way

DTN News: American Is The Arsenal Of Democracy. And The Arsenal Of Tyranny. The Profits Are Bigger That Way Source: By Fabius Maximus....(click for link) (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 20, 2010: Summary: This discusses an often unsavory aspect of one the few remaining American export industries. We close our eyes to it. The people of the nations on the side of this trade often find it difficult to do so.

Contents

1. An introduction by George Bernard Shaw
2. Introduction by Tom Englehardt: Pimping Weapons to the World
3. The Main Feature: “America’s Global Weapons Monopoly – Don’t Call It “the Global Arms Trade” by Frida Berrigan
4. About the author, the classic work about the arms industry, and an Afterword

(1) An introduction by George Bernard Shaw

CUSINS. What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer?

UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.

• The first Undershaft wrote up in his shop If God Gave the Hand, Let Not Man Withhold the Sword.
• The second wrote up All Have the Right to Fight; None have the Right to Judge.
• The third wrote up To Man the Weapon; To Heaven the Victory.
• The fourth had no literary turn; so he did not write up anything; but he sold cannons to Napoleon under the nose of George the Third.
• The fifth wrote up Peace Shall Not Prevail Save with a Sword in her Hand.
• The sixth, my master, was the best of all. He wrote up Nothing is Ever Done in this World Until Men Are Parepared to Kill One Another If It Is Not Done.
• After that, there was nothing left for the seventh to say. So he wrote up, simply,Unashamed.

— From the play “Major Barbara”

(2) An Introduction by Tom Englehardt: Pimping Weapons to the World

As last week ended, the American and British military in Afghanistan finally launched a long awaited operation to occupy the city of Marja in Taliban-controlled Helmand Province.According to Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal, to win “hearts and minds,” the U.S. Army and Marines were arriving with “a government in a box” — Afghan governing and security structures evidently ready to be unpacked as part of the sort of nation-building operation that once would have staggered the American officer corps.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to the Afghan War, “hearts and minds” pieces are now a dime a dozen in the U.S. press. (Can McChrystal’s new counterinsurgency strategy of “protecting the people” work? Will the Afghans start to love us, love themselves, and reject the Taliban?) In one recent piece about Marines in a Taliban “stronghold” near the southern city of Kandahar, “Forces Strain to Hire Afghans,” Wall Street Journal reporter Yaroslav Trofimov described the crisis a U.S. Army captain faced. He had more than a million dollars to spend on reconstruction projects meant to gain local loyalties, and few Afghan takers. The third paragraph of his piece went like this: “Yet, the only construction work here so far has been the hammering of U.S. Navy Seabees, or construction troops, erecting a vast American base overlooking Senjaray. The town’s unemployed men prefer to stay home, for fear of Taliban retribution.”

This is fairly typical of U.S. press coverage of the Afghan War. That “vast American base,” just now under construction, is noticed and mentioned in passing by an American reporter, and then never comes up again. Yet it is one of approximately 400 bases built or being built in the country, as Nick Turse of TomDispatch.com recently discovered — a staggering Pentagon military construction splurge that is almost never reported on. It’s simply taken for granted.

As TomDispatch regular and weapons-export expert Frida Berrigan of the New American Foundation points out, the American position in what U.S. news reports always call “the global arms trade” is similarly taken for granted. If the Hollywood export Avatar sweeps the world, bringing in multi-billions, it’s front-page news. If American arms exports sweep the world, bringing in multi-billions, you’re lucky to find out about it deep inside your ever-thinning daily newspaper (and such stories seldom even make it onto the TV news). If we sell weaponry repeatedly to the Indonesians or the Saudis or the Qataris or the Israelis, it’s a ho-hum matter. The norm. Like those bases in Afghanistan. It’s only if some country with clout screams bloody murder, as the Chinese recently did about a massive arms deal with Taiwan, that we have news; or if some other country sells weapons to whatever state is eager, as France recently agreed to dowith the Russians, and the Americans responsible for distributing most of the advanced weaponry on the planet disapprove, is attention paid. Go figure.

(3) The main feature: “America’s Global Weapons Monopoly – Don’t Call It “the Global Arms Trade”

By Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch, 16 February 2010 — Reposted with permission.

On the relatively rare occasions when the media turns its attention to U.S. weapons sales abroad and shines its not-so-bright spotlight on the latest set of facts and figures, it invariably speaks of “the global arms trade.”

Let’s consider that label for a moment, word by word:

• It is global, since there are few places on the planet that lie beyond the reach of the weapons industry.
• Arms sounds so old-fashioned and anodyne when what we’re talking about is advanced technology designed to kill and maim.
• And trade suggests a give and take among many parties when, if we’re looking at the figures for that “trade” in a clear-eyed way, there is really just one seller and so many buyers.

How about updating it this way: “the global weapons monopoly.”

In 2008, according to an authoritative report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), $55.2 billion in weapons deals were concluded worldwide. Of that total, the United States was responsible for $37.8 billion in weapons sales agreements, or 68.4% of the total “trade.” Some of these agreements were long-term ones and did not result in 2008 deliveries of weapons systems, but these latest figures are a good gauge of the global appetite for weapons. It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to recognize that, when one nation accounts for nearly 70% of weapons sales, the term “global arms trade” doesn’t quite cut it.

Consider the “competition” and reality comes into focus. Take a guess on which country is the number two weapons exporter on the planet: China? Russia? No, Italy, with a relatively paltry $3.7 billion in agreements with other countries or just 9% of the U.S. market share. Russia, that former Cold War superpower in the “trade,” was close behind Italy, with only $3.5 billion in arms agreements.

U.S. weapons manufacturers have come a long way, baby, since those Cold War days when the United States really did have a major competitor. For instance, the Congressional Research Service’s data for 1990, the last year of the Soviet Union’s existence, shows global weapons sales totaling $32.7 billion, with the United States accounting for $12.1 billion of that or 37% of the market. For its part, the Soviet Union was responsible for a competitive $10.7 billion in deals inked that year. France, China, and the United Kingdom accounted for most of the rest.

Since then, the global appetite for weapons has only grown more voracious, while the number of purveyors has shrunk to the point where the Pentagon could hang out a sign: “We arm the world.” No kidding, it’s true.

Cambodia ($304,000), Comoros ($895,000), Colombia ($256 million), Guinea ($200,000), Greece ($225 million), Great Britain ($1.1 billion), the Philippines ($72.9 million), Poland ($79.8 million), and Peru ($16.4 million) all buy U.S. arms, as does almost every country not in that list. U.S. weapons, and only U.S. weapons, are coveted by presidents and prime ministers, generals and strongmen.

From the Pentagon’s own data (which differs from that in the CRS report), here are the top ten nations which made Foreign Military Sales agreements with the Pentagon, and so with U.S. weapons makers, in 2008:

• Saudi Arabia $6.06 billion
• Iraq $2.50 billion
• Morocco $2.41 billion
• Egypt $2.31 billion
• Israel $1.32 billion
• Australia $1.13 billion
• South Korea $1.12 billion
• Great Britain $1.10 billion
• India $1 billion
• Japan $840 million

That’s more than $17 billion in weapons right there. Some of these countries are consistently eager buyers, and some are not. Morocco, for example, is only in that top-ten list because it was green-lighted to buy 24 of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter planes at $360 million (or so) for each aircraft, an expensive one-shot deal. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia (which inked $14.71 billion in weapons agreements between 2001 and 2008), Egypt ($13.25 billion) and Israel ($11.27 billion) are such regular customers that they should have the equivalent of one of those “buy 10, get the 11^th free” punch cards doled out by your favorite coffee shop.

To sum up, the U.S. has a virtual global monopoly on exporting tools of force and destruction. Call it market saturation. Call it anything you like, just not the “global arms trade.”

Getting Even More Competitive?

It used to be that the United States exported goods, products, and machinery of all sorts in prodigious quantities: cars and trucks, steel and computers, and high-tech gizmos. But those days are largely over.

The Obama administration now wants to launch a green manufacturing revolution in the U.S., and in February, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced a new “National Export Initiative” with the aim of doubling American exports, a move he said would support the creation of two million new jobs. The U.S. could, of course, lose the renewable-energy race to China and that new exports program may never get off the ground. In one area, however, the U.S. ismanufacturing products that are distinctly wanted — things that go boom in the night — and there the Pentagon is working hard to increase market share.

Don’t for a second think that the American global monopoly on weapons sales is accidental or unintentional. The constant and lucrative growth of this market for U.S. weapons makers has been ensured by shrewd strategic planning. Washington is constantly thinking of new and inventive ways to flog its deadly wares throughout the world.

How do you improve on near perfection? In the interest of enhancing that “competitive” edge in weapons sales, the Obama administration isinvestigating the possibility of revising export laws to make it even easier to sell military technology abroad. As Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell explained in January, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to see “wholesale changes to the rules and regulations on government technology exports” in the name of “competitiveness.”

When he says “government technology exports,” Morell of course means weapons and other military technologies. “Tinkering with our antiquated, bureaucratic, overly cumbersome system is not enough to maintain our competitiveness in the global economy and also help our friends and allies buy the equipment they need to contribute to global security,” he continued, “[Gates] strongly supports the administration’s efforts to completely reform our export control regime, starting ideally with a blank sheet of paper.”

The laws that regulate U.S. weapons exports are a jumbled mess, but in essence they delineate what the United States can sell to whom and through what bureaucratic mechanisms. According to U.S. law, for example, there are actually a few countries that cannot receive U.S. weapons. Myanmar under the military junta and Venezuela while led by Hugo Chavez are two examples. There are also some weapons systems that are not intended for export. Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor jet fighter was — until the Pentagon recently stopped buying the plane — deemed too sophisticated or sensitive to sell abroad. And there are reporting requirements that give members of Congress a window of opportunity within which they can question or oppose proposed weapons exports.

Given what’s being sold, these export controls are remarkably minimal in nature and are constantly under assault by the weapons industry. Bans on weapons sales to particular countries are regularly lifted through aggressive lobbying. (Indonesia, for example, was offered $50 million in weapons from 2006 to 2008 after an almost decade long congressional arms embargo.) The industry also works to relax controls on new technology exports to allies. Japan and Australia have mounted campaigns to win the ability to buy F-22 Raptors, potential sales that Lockheed Martin is now especially happy to entertain. The reporting window to Congress remains an important export control, but the time frame is shrinking as more countries are being “fast tracked,” making it harder for distracted representatives to react when a controversial sale comes up.

In addition to revising these export controls, the administration is looking at the issue of “dual-use” technologies. These are not weapons. They do not shoot or explode. Included are high-speed computer processors, surveillance and detection networks, and a host of other complex and evolving technologies that could have military as well as civilian applications. This category might also include intangible items like cyber-entities or access to controlled web environments.

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other major weapons manufacturers have invested billions of dollars from the Pentagon’s research and development budgets in exploring and perfecting such technologies, and now they are eager to sell them to foreign buyers along with the usual fighter planes, combat ships, and guided missiles. But the rules as they stand make this something less than a slam dunk. So the weapons industry and the Pentagon are arguing for “updating” the rules. If you translate updating as “loosening” the rules, then the United States would indeed be more “competitive,” but who exactly are we trying to beat?

Weapons Sales are Red Hot

“What’s Hot?” is the title of Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieranga’s blog entry for January 4, 2010. Wieranga is the Director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which is charged with overseeing weapons exports, and such pillow talk is evidently more than acceptable — at least when it’s about weapons sales. In fact, Wieranga could barely restrain himself that day, adding: “Afghanistan is really HOT!” Admittedly, on that day the temperature in Kabul was just above freezing, but not at the Pentagon, where arms sales to Afghanistan evidently create a lot of heat.

As Wieranga went on to write, the Obama administration’s new 2010/2011 budget allocates $6 billion in weaponry for Afghan Security Forces. The Afghans will actually get those weapons for free, but U.S. weapons makers will make real money delivering them at taxpayers’ expense and, as the Vice Admiral pointed out, that “means there is a staggering amount of acquisition work to do.”

It’s not just Afghanistan that’s now in the torrid zone. Weapons sales all over the world will be smoking in 2010 and beyond.

The year began with a bang when Wieranga’s Agency announced that the Obama administration had decided to sell a nifty $6 billion in weapons to Taiwan. Even as the United States leans heavily on China for debt servicing, Washington is giving the Mainland a big raspberry by offering the island of 22 million off its coast (which Washington does not formally recognize as an independent nation), a lethal cocktail of weaponry that includes $3 billion in Black Hawk helicopters. This deal comes on top of more than $11 billion in U.S. weapons exports to Taiwan over the last decade, and is certain to set Chinese-U.S. relations back a step or two.

Other bonanzas on the horizon? Brazil wants new fighter planes and Boeing is battling a French company for the contract in a deal that could be worth a whopping $7 billion. India, once a major arms buyer from the Soviet Union, is now another big buy-American customer, with Boeing and Lockheed Martin vying to equip its air force with new fighter planes in deals that Boeing estimates may reach $11 billion.

Such deals are staggering. They contribute more bang and blast to a world already bristling with particularly lethal weaponry. They are a striking American success story in a time filled with failures. Put in the lurid but everyday terms of a nation weaned on reality television, the Pentagon is pimping for the U.S. weapons industry. The weapons industry, for its part, is a pusher for every kind of lethal technology. The two of them together are working to ensure that more of the same will flow out of the U.S. in ever easier and more lucrative ways.

Global arms trade? Send that one back to the Department of Euphemisms. Pimps and pushers with a lucrative global monopoly on a killing drug — maybe that’s the language we need. And maybe, just maybe, it’s time to launch a “war on weapons.”

Copyright 2010 Frida Berrigan

About the author

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Program Associate with the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative.“Weapons at War 2008,” a report she co-authored with William D. Hartung, goes into much more detail about the politics and pratfalls of weapons exports.

Click here to see Frida Berrigan’s other articles at TomDispatch.

For more information about the arms industry

Read the classic study of the international armament industry: Merchants of Death By H.C. Engelbrecht and F.C. Hanighen (1934).

Afterword

Please email me if you have a correction to this post. Or email me if you wish to make a comment and either have expertise in this field or are mentioned in this post. Send messages to fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

Also — you can now subscribe, receiving posts by email — see the box on the upper right.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Does the US government have consent of the American people?
• The weak link in America’s political regime
• Another look in the mirror at America
• The Arsenal of Democracy
• *This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com Disclaimer statement Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama Hints At Leaving Disputed US Base On Okinawa

DTN News: Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama Hints At Leaving Disputed US Base On Okinawa Source: DTN News / AFP (NSI News Source Info) TOKYO, Japan - March 19, 2010: Facing mounting pressure from Washington, Japan's centre-left Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on Friday suggested a disputed US military base could stay on the southern island of Okinawa. Hatoyama, who was elected last year promising a less subservient relationship with Washington, has been reviewing a 2006 pact to relocate the Futenma airbase within Okinawa prefecture and suggested in the past it may be moved off the island instead. But Hatoyama told reporters Friday that "it is difficult to move it from the prefecture". He immediately added: "But we want to cherish what Okinawa people hope for. I'm working hard on that situation." Local media reported Hatoyama was preparing an alternative option. Japan's prime minister, who has promised a final decision by May, said his government would decide by the end of March on a basic relocation plan. Washington says the base is vital to defending Japan, which relies heavily on the United States for regional security and is home to some 47,000 US troops, of which more than half are based on Okinawa. "Peace and stability in the region depend in no small part on the enduring presence of forward deployed US forces in Japan," Michael Schiffer, a senior Pentagon official, told Congress on Wednesday. If implemented, the 2006 pact between the two countries would move the base from a crowded residential district to a quieter coastal part of the island. Some allies of Hatoyama's ruling coalition want it to be moved off Okinawa or even outside Japan, citing local complaints about the heavy American military presence. Japan's defence minister plans to visit Okinawa next week to meet the local governor to discuss the relocation of the base.

DTN News: Automobile News March 19, 2010 ~ McLaren Launches New Supercar

DTN News: Automobile News March 19, 2010 ~ McLaren Launches New Supercar

Source: DTN News / AFP (NSI News Source Info) LONDON - March 19, 2010: Formula One automaker McLaren has launched a supercar, part of a drive by the firm to shift up a gear in its battle to capture the high-performance commercial sports car market. The MP4-12C -- modelled on technology used by McLaren's Formula One team -- will go into production next year with 1,000 of the cars expected to roll off the production line in 2011, the firm said at a launch Thursday. It will have a price tag of 150,000 pounds (230,000 dollars, 170,000 euros) and its production will create 300 new jobs, said McLaren. The firm hopes to be producing 4,000 of the vehicles by the middle of the decade, and it is the first of a series of top-end sports cars McLaren plans to build in the coming years. "We have long held the dream of building a range of McLaren high-performance sports cars that take the raw elements of Formula 1 principles," said McLaren Automotive chairman Ron Dennis. "It is inspired by Formula One, built on the pride and passion to the highest quality and rich in McLaren DNA," he added. Dennis said the plans "confirm our intention to challenge convention at the highest levels of automotive design, from a hi-tech home that I am proud to say will deliver jobs, expertise and innovation in manufacturing and engineering." The 12C will be built at a specially designed plant south of London due to start production next year. McLaren will sell the car through retailers in 19 countries, with North America expected to account for up to 40 percent of the market.

DTN News: Technology News March 19, 2010 ~ Google May Cease Operations In China By April 10 (Information Technology News)

DTN News: Technology News March 19, 2010 ~ Google May Cease Operations In China By April 10 (Information Technology News) Source: DTN News / Asian Defense News (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 19, 2010: Internet search engine Google could cease operations in China by April 10, according to a Chinese newspaper. The Times quoted an authorised Google spokesperson as saying that the departure date could be announced on Monday - a day after the company's staff are due to receive their annual year-end bonus. "I have received information that Google will leave China on April 10, but this information has not at present been confirmed by Google," the Google spokesperson said. Since the search engine's January announcement that it no longer wished to be under the pressure of the country's Internet restrictions, speculations have been rife as to when Google would pull out of China and which of its services would be affected. China's online population is eager to know whether Gmail, Google Earth, its Chinese music search business and the popular Chinese version of its knowledge market site, Google Answers, will remain accessible after the closing of google.cn. Last week, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said he hoped to have an outcome soon from talks with Chinese officials on offering an uncensored google.cn search engine in the country. However, the chances that Chinese authorities will agree to such a request are believed to be nil. Meanwhile, Google has continued to filter google.cn results to abide by Chinese regulations but it said it if China did not permit it to cease the screening it would be forced to withdraw from the market. However, its google.com search engine, which is hosted on an offshore server, is unlikely to be affected unless Chinese cyber censors decide to block the service. Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are all blocked in China and the Great Firewall also prevents access to many other sites deemed to contain sensitive content. (ANI) *This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com. To read this article from Asian Defense News, click here or above.

DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated March 18, 2010

DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated March 18, 2010 Source: U.S. DoD issued March 18, 2010 (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - March 19, 2010: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contracts issued March 18, 2010 are undermentioned; CONTRACTS NAVY ~Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Irvine, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5405); ~Harper Construction Co., Inc., San Diego, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5406); ~Barnhart, Inc., San Diego, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5407); ~Sundt Construction, Inc., Tempe, Ariz. (N62473-10-D-5408); ~RQ Construction, Inc., Carlsbad, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5409); ~R. A. Burch Construction Co., Inc., Ramona, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5410); ~Solpac Construction, Inc., dba Soltek Pacific Construction Co., San Diego, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5411); ~T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc., San Diego, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5412); and ~Clark Construction Group - California, LP, Costa Mesa, Calif. (N62473-10-D-5413), are each being awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple-award construction contract for commercial and institutional building construction at various locations predominantly within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility (AOR). The maximum dollar value, including the base period and four option years, for all nine contracts combined is $900,000,000. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is being awarded task order 0001 at $5,775,000 for the design and construction of an industrial machine shop facility at the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Calif. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by December 2010. All work will be performed at various federal sites within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR including, but not limited to, Southern California (94 percent), Arizona (5 percent), and New Mexico (1 percent). The term of the contracts is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of March 2015. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site, with 54 proposals received. These nine contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, is the contracting activity. ~Lockheed Martin Corp., Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded an $83,305,442 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to design, develop, fabricate, integrate, and test the electronic Consolidated Automated Support System. In addition, this provides for the procurement of 14 engineering development models during the system design and development phase of the contract. Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla. (61 percent); Hunt Valley, Md. (26 percent); North Reading, Mass.(12 percent); and Reston, Va. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2015. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; three offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-10-C-0225). ~AECOM Technical Services, Inc., Raleigh, N.C., is being awarded a maximum $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity architect-engineering contract for utilities design and engineering services for projects located at Marine Corps installations at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. Work performed includes utility infrastructure design projects; providing/replacing/upgrading sanitary collection and treatment systems; potable water supply, treatment, and distribution systems; stormwater collection and conveyance systems; installation of security fencing and entry control facilities; installation/repair of shoreline erosion control measures; design of new and resurfacing of existing airfields, roads, and parking lots; performing property and topographic surveys; and facility site work to include demolition, underground storage tank removal, layout, and site preparation. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, N.C. (75 percent), and Havelock, N.C. (25 percent), and is expected to be completed by March 2015. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site, with 28 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N40085-10-D-5313). ~Mikros Systems Corp.*, Fort Washington, Pa.,is being awarded a maximum amount $25,959,991 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the procurement of adaptive diagnostic electronic portable test sets that will be used by technicians to maintain, calibrate and diagnose problems with complex electronic radar systems. Work will be performed in Fort Washington, Pa. (90 percent), and various other locations (10 percent), and is expected be completed by September 2015. Contract funds willnot expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured as a Phase III Small Business Innovation Research action; one offer was received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-10-D-GR63). ~Raytheon Network Centric Systems, St. Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded a $13,680,670 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5202) for the design agent and engineering services for the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) system. This contract combines purchases for the Navy (97 percent) and the government of the United Kingdom (3 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in Largo, Fla. (80 percent); St. Petersburg, Fla. (19 percent); and Dallas, Texas (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. ~Ocean Systems Engineering Corp., Oceanside, Calif., is being awarded $9,034,935 for task order # 0068 under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-02-A-9020). The scope of this effort is to provide on-going engineering, technical, acquisition, administrative, and management support to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Command and Control Systems Program Management Office; and a liaison representative on-site at Communications-Electronics Command, Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications Tactical, Project Manager Battle Command. This statement of work includes Combat Operations Center; MAGTF command and control combat operations center capability blocks 2010 and 2012; joint tactical common operational picture workstation; target location designation handoff system; advanced field artillery tactical data system; blue force situational awareness family of systems; joint interface control officer support system; and potential technology insertion opportunities under the science and technology transition office. The programs require support through all phases of the acquisition cycle. Work will be performed in Quantico, Va., and is expected to be completed in March 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $4,458,469 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps System Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity. ~Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $7,873,660 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) for the development, fabrication, and qualification of a polymer matrix composite drag brace for use on the main landing gear on the F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft. Work will be performed in Helmond, the Netherlands (67 percent), and Ft. Worth, Texas (33 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. ~P&S Construction, Inc.*, Lowell, Mass., is being awarded a $6,257,000 firm-fixed-price contract for main gate security improvements at Naval Weapons Station Earle. Work includes gate access realignment; reinforced fencing; new security fencing surrounding the guardhouse area; new hardened guard house; base-wide alarm duress system; site lighting; permanent vehicle inspection shelter with closed circuit television; undercarriage video surveillance equipment; permanent passive security barriers; two active pop-up vehicle barriers; new connector road to explosive ordnance disposal; demolition of existing pass and identification office; construction of new pass and identification office within a new inspection facility; and 54 parking spaces. The contract also contains one unexercised option which, if exercised, would increase cumulative contract value to $6,276,950. Work will be performed in Colts Neck, N.J., and is expected to be completed by Oct. 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site with 16 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N40085-10-C-9441). AIR FORCE ~Boeing Co., Long Beach, Calif., was awarded a $272,581,553 contract which will exercise FY10 third quarter option contract line items for the C17 Globemaster III sustainment partnership contract. At this time, the entire amount has been obligated. 330 ASW, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity (FA8614-04-C-2004, P00525). DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY ~Kentucky Bioprocessing, LLC, is being awarded a $17,900,500 other transaction/technology investment agreement for developing a proof-of-concept platform capable of yielding a purified vaccine candidate using a whole plant-based process. Work will be performed in Owensboro, Ky., and is expected to be completed in March 2011. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. A solicitation was issued via Federal Business Opportunities on March 6, 2009; more than 25 bids were received. The contracting activity is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Va. (HR0011-10-3-0004). ARMY ~Disc-O-Bed, LP, Duluth, Ga., was awarded on March 16, 2010, a $12,000,000 firm-fixed-fee contract to procure bunk beds with foot lockers and spare parts. The original estimated dollar value was $1,000,000. This action is to increase the amount of this indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity to $12,000,000. Work is to be performed in Duluth, Ga., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 3, 2013. Bids were solicited on the World Wide Web with one bid received. RDECOM Contracting Center, Natick Contracting Division, Natick, Mass., is the contracting activity (W58P05-08-D-0015). ~Arete Associates, Northridge, Calif., was awarded on March 17, 2010, a $7,810,252 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The program seeks to develop advanced technologies to provide superior situational awareness to war fighters operating in maritime environments. Work is to be performed in Arlington, Va. (76.6 percent); Tucson, Ariz. (9.9 percent); North Billerica, Mass. (4.9 percent); and various other locations (8.9 percent), with an estimated completion date of June 16, 2011. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity (HR0011-10-C-0006). ~NextiraOne Federal, LLC, Herndon, Va., was awarded on March 12, 2010, a $6,954,688 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This project manager, network service center performance work statement addresses the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program effort to engineer, furnish, install, secure, test, document, migrate, and cutover a turn-key solution to upgrade the existing infrastructure and facilities at Germany 3C (Hohenfels). Work is to be performed at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, with an estimated completion date of June 12, 2011. Ten bids were solicited with ten bids received. Army Contracting Command, National Capitol Regional Contracting Center, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W91QUZ-06-D-0027-0005). *Small business

DTN News: US May Extend Tanker Deadline To Allow EADS Bid

DTN News: US May Extend Tanker Deadline To Allow EADS Bid Source: DTN News / AFP (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - March 19, 2010: The Pentagon said it might extend a deadline for bids on a new aerial refueling tanker after Airbus parent EADS signalled it could return to the competition. Having been informed by EADS of its possible interest in the contract, the Defense Department "would consider a reasonable extension to the RFP (Request for Proposals) deadline," press secretary Geoff Morrell told AFP. The US Air Force tanker aircraft project has been plagued by controversy and scandal, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European officials accusing Washington of setting up rules to favor US aviation giant Boeing. European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, parent of aircraft maker Airbus, said earlier Thursday that it would be "impossible" to meet the mid-May deadline for bidding on the 35-billion-dollar contract. "Its clear that in the 60-day timeframe, that its impossible for anybody, even for Lockheed Martin, to build a solution," EADS chief Louis Gallois said at a briefing in New York, according to his spokesman. The 60-day period roughly is the time left after EADS's US bid partner Northrop Grumman dropped out of the competition on March 8. Asked about Northrop's decision to bow out, Gallois called it a "huge frustration." Northrop Grumman's exit from the competition left the field open to Boeing, arch-rival of France-based Airbus. The Pentagon was committed to a "fair and open competition" and would "welcome" a decision by EADS to participate, Morrell said. Extending the deadline for proposals is "not unusual," he said. Deadlines for proposals have been postponed for other defense programs, Morrell said, including the US Navy's unmanned aircraft system (BAMS), the VH-71 helicopter, and a new version of the precision-guided small diameter bomb, SDB II. But it remained unclear if EADS would decide to take part, with analysts saying the terms of the contest favor Boeing's smaller, cheaper plane. In the last competition, EADS and Northrop offered a modified version of the Airbus 330, while Boeing proposed an altered 767 in its bid. Northrop, EADS, key European officials and US lawmakers whose states would have benefited from a Northrop victory have accused the Pentagon of unfairly structuring the bid requirements to benefit Boeing's smaller plane. The Pentagon has rejected the charges and insisted the terms of the project favor neither side. EADS, which enjoys support from key Republicans in Congress, could be trying to prolong the contest until legislative elections in November when Republicans are expected to make gains against rival Democrats, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group Corporation. "I think one of EADSs goals is to extend the competition beyond the US election, in the hope that Republicans take back the House of Representatives," he told AFP. "But the Pentagon seems to want to move forward now." The Defense Department released the final requirements for the contract to build 197 tanker planes on February 24, opening bidding for 75 days. Sarkozy last week criticised the United States over the tanker contest, saying it was not the way for Washington to treat its European allies. "These are methods which are not good for the partners of the United States, which is a great nation with which we are close and friends with," Sarkozy said in London. The Northrop-EADS team originally won the contract in February 2008, but the deal was cancelled after Boeing successfully appealed the decision to the investigative arm of Congress. In 2003, the Pentagon awarded a contract to Boeing but later suspended the deal after an ethics scandal involving a company executive and an Air Force official. The Air Force official was later convicted of criminal conspiracy. Military commanders view the planned KC-X aircraft as crucial to sustaining US air power and are anxious to replace the older Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers that date back to the 1950s.