Daily Archives: May 2, 2017

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is considering appointing a senior official to oversee counterterrorism efforts, a move aimed at meeting one of President Donald Trump's demands that the alliance focus more on terror threats.

The proposal is similar to NATO's recent decision to create a top intelligence post, a move that Mr. Trump has repeatedly praised and that he has cited as evidence the alliance has responded to his criticisms and is no longer obsolete.

While no NATO country has vocally opposed the idea of a senior counterterrorism coordinator, some diplomats are skeptical about the role's impact unless alliance members also agree to expand the organization's counterterror efforts, including funding additional training initiatives.

NATO diplomats have been discussing how they can expand counterterrorism training, including ways to use allied special operations forces to better train antiterror commandos in the Middle East and Africa. Those proposals could include expanding the work or mandate of the NATO Special Operations Headquarters, which develops NATO counterterrorism plans.

No NATO member, including the U.S., has advocated the alliance conducting counterterrorism strikes or taking a direct attack role in the military fight against Islamic State in Syria, Libya or Afghanistan.

But expanding the alliance's use of its scarce resources, such as special-operations forces, is difficult and could weigh on NATO's budget, which some countries oppose expanding.

Bruno Lt, a security expert at the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund, said the U.S. has indicated it wants NATO to do more to combat terrorism. "NATO allies are going to need to subscribe to Trump's desire for a new NATO that can engage in counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Lt said.

Allied ambassadors are set to formally discuss the counterterrorism post and other proposals at a May 5 meeting, officials said. Diplomats have been debating various proposals as they prepare for the meeting of allied leaders, including Mr. Trump, later this month. Turkish, British and French delegations have circulated papers.

The U.S. however hasn't submitted a paper or made any formal requests to the alliance. While Mr. Trump has said he wants the allies to do more on counterterrorism, neither he nor other U.S. officials have stated any specific desires, according to allied diplomats.

Some NATO allies have said privately that without a formal proposal from the U.S., reaching consensus on new counterterrorism plans is difficult.

Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.

Continue reading here:
NATO weighs new counterterrorism post following Trump's demands - Fox News

NATO staged the two-day "Ramstein Alloy 4" exercise in late April over Lithuania, giving locally deployed air forces the opportunity to practise quick reaction alert procedures and boost interoperability.

During the activity, fighters from the two nations currently providing Baltic Air Policing services for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania worked together. This involved Lockheed Martin F-16s from the Royal Netherlands Air Force, flown from iauliai air base in Lithuania, and German air force Eurofighter Typhoons deployed to mari, Estonia.

Mark Kwiatkowski/FlightGlobal

Staged three times a year, the Ramstein Alloy series of exercises was launched in 2016 as a replacement for the earlier Baltic Region Training Event, conducted more than 20 times.

Providing airspace security for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, NATO's Baltic Air Policing detachments are rotated every four months between the allliance's members. Jets held at short readiness are launched in response to military or civilian aircraft that do not properly identify themselves, fail to file proper flightplans, or have lost communication with air traffic controllers.

Separately, a detachment of four UK Royal Air Force-operated Typhoons arrived at Mihail Koglniceanuair base in Romania on 27 April. The aircraft will support Romanian air force RAC MiG-21s in flying air policing missions from the site until 31 August.

A pair of US Air Force Lockheed F-35As flown to Europe for a training detachment at RAF Lakenheath in the UK also touched down at Graf Ignatievo air base in Bulgaria in late April. Lightning IIs also have visited mari during the type's inaugural European deployment.

By Mark Kwiatkowski, iauliai air base, with additional reporting by Craig Hoyle in London

Read more from the original source:
PICTURE: NATO puts Baltic air defences to the test - Flightglobal - Flightglobal

The U.S. missile strike on the air base from which the regime of President Bashar Assad conducted a chemical-weapons attack on Syrian civilians has prompted debate about U.S. strategy in the region. The Trump Administration has said that Assad must go, but that may take considerable time and faces Russian opposition. Given growing Islamic State losses in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, there is a pressing need and a golden opportunity for a strategy to deal with the related problem of suturing the wounds left after the impending defeat of ISIS.

Steps are needed to fill the vacuum left as the caliphate collapses, lest forces on the ground Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, and Iranian proxies turn on each other to gain control. The U.S. can no more afford to turn its back on this post-ISIS danger than it can take full responsibility for it. The answer is for NATO to act under U.S. leadership. The alternative is either chaos or Iran, backed by Russia, filling the void, with great harm to U.S. and allied interests in either case.

NATO is the only security organization with the skills and breadth to take on this task. The U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition of 68 partners is ill equipped to engage in this complex task. A more cohesive organization such as NATO should lead, but in ways that allow continued Arab participation. A creative version of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition could provide the answer.

The post-caliphate political circumstances and potential stabilization missions vary in these three countries. Separate but related missions would need to be designed. Those missions might be guided by three principles.

First, the political circumstances for success need to be created in each country. NATO involvement could help create those circumstances.

In Iraq, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi should recognize that the Sunni area around Mosul requires a degree of political self-rule and cannot be dominated by the Shia and Kurdish forces now leading the charge to liberate the city. Dominating Iraqs Sunnis would lead to yet another violent reaction. A neutral organization like NATO can help create that more benign environment.

In Syria, a transitional safety zone could be created in the area currently controlled by the Islamic State. Many entities ranging from Assads government, to Turkey, to Sunni-led militias, to the Kurds, to residual elements of the Islamic State will all be vying for influence. Without some agreed transitional arrangement a post-caliphate clash could drive more Syrian refugees and terrorists to Europe.

In Libya, a new agreement brokered in Rome between the warring state council and house of representatives could set the stage for a new stabilization effort. The role of Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar in any new government still needs to be settled.

In all three cases, some degree of international legitimacy would be needed for these post-caliphate operations. This could include a request by the internationally recognized sovereign power and/or a UN Security Council Resolution. In the case of Iraq and Libya, the internationally recognized government would probably request a stabilization force and a Security Council Resolution should be possible. Syria may be more problematic given the fact that the Assad government would not request any operation that would weaken its own sovereign claims and that Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council.An arrangementfor post-caliphate Syria between Russia and NATO may be needed to achieve international legitimacy.In extremis, if Russia proves completely intransigent, NATO would have the option to proceed under its own authority, as it did in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

The second principle is that NATO missions would need to be carefully circumscribed and exit strategies designed. NATO engagement in this region cannot be allowed to undermine NATOs primary task today of deterring Russian incursions into the NATO area.

In Iraq, a small NATO force deployed in the Mosul regions plus an enhanced NATO military training program could be enough to give the Sunni population confidence and to provide NATO with needed political leverage in Baghdad.

In Syria, a larger NATO force deployed around Raqqa supported by air operations would have a more difficult mission than in Iraq. It would be tasked with enforcing the transitional safety zone, deterring Syrian military thrusts in that region, defeating any residual Islamic State acts of terrorism, and keeping the peace between Turkish, Kurdish and Sunni militia forces in the zone.

In Libya, a NATO mission could be limited to special operations forces securing the area around Sirte from Islamic State revival, to provision of military training for those loyal to the GNA, and to enhanced naval operations off the Libyan coast to deal more effectively with refugee flows. Large NATO forces would be ineffective absent strong national support for the GNA.

The third principle is that these NATO deployments would need to be flexible and reflect a division of labor commensurate with the national interests and capabilities of the NATO nations involved. Flexibility would be needed to maximize Arab participation in these operations. A division of labor according to national interests is now more possible because of NATOs new framework nation concept. This concept has major European nations taking leadership roles supported and augmented by smaller NATO nations.

In Iraq, for example, the U.S. has perhaps the greatest interest given its long involvement there. So any NATO transition force deployed around Mosul might be U.S. led. European nations might play a leadership role in training the Iraqi military.

Visit link:
NATO's Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations - The National Interest Online (blog)

Late last week, Montenegro's parliament voted to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, adding perhaps the most militarily useless memberto the alliance. The move served no purpose except to maintain the shaky hopes of Georgia and Ukraine that they might be allowed to join, too -- someday.

Montenegro, with 2,080 military personnel, will have the second-smallest military in the alliance after Luxembourg, with its 900-strong defense force. Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's insistence that NATO members spend the agreed-upon 2 percent of economic output on defense, few people in the U.S. or NATO appear worried about Montenegro's inability to meet that target. This year, in line with previous practice, it's spending about 50 million euros ($54.5 million), or about 1.3 of its gross domestic product. It's the smallest military budget of anyNATO member. Albania spends more than twice as much, Luxembourg five times as much.

When Montenegro's admission was first discussed, some analysts made the point that it would complete the NATO "ownership" of the entire coastline of the Adriatic Sea: the rest of it belongs to Italy, Slovenia, Croatia and Albania, NATO members all. But even if Italy were the sole NATO member on the Adriatic, the narrow sea would have been a death trap for any invading force. During World War II, the allies decided against invading in the area, instead providing aid to Marshal Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia. The German navy held out inthe Adriatic until the very end of the war.

In addition to Montenegro's utter lack of military importance, it has a population that's lessthan enthusiastic about NATO membership. Polls are unreliable, and public opinion is split roughly down the middle. This is far short of the nearly universal support NATO enjoyed in new eastern European members such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the 1990s.

QuickTake Cool War

The country's large Serbian population is wary of the alliance and would rather do business with Russia. Pan-Slavic ideas are popular, helped by Russia's economic expansion in the last 10 years. Even after Russian tourism to Europe shrank following the 2014 Crimea invasion, Russians are still responsible for about 22percent of tourist arrivals in Montenegro. Almost a third of Montenegrin companies and 40 percent of all real estate are owned by Russians, and Russia has provided a thirdof foreign direct investment in the nation. A lot of the money comes from the "patriotic" elite fostered by Russian President Vladimir Putin: loyalist legislators, state company managers, top law enforcers. Travel to Montenegro is visa-free for Russians; the neighbors are, for the most part, friendly; and owning a villa there is less of a risk than, say, across the Adriatic in Italy.

This Russian connection, Moscow's loud warnings against NATO's further expansion, and Montenegro's manageable size make it an ideal prop for a symbolic move. As Karl-Heinz Kamp of Germany's Federal Academy for Security Policy wrote ahead of Montenegro's invitation into NATO:

This sends above all a political message, not least to Russia, that NATO is sticking to its "open door policy" and that it refuses to accept a Russian veto against the right of free choice to form alliances. Montenegro's contribution to NATO may be limited, but that will make it easier to integrate this small country into the Alliance.

Most likely, Moscow realized back in 2015 that it couldn't do anything about Montenegro's NATO accession. It's a natural move for a countryso integrated into the European Union that it uses the euro as its currency despite not being an official euro-zone member. The character of Russian investment in the country doesn't give Moscow any direct political leverage. Montenegrin leaders are grateful for the money, but they don't feel indebted. After all, wealthy Russians choose their country of their own free will, to some extent as a form of protection against problems at home.

The Montenegrin government insists that Russian nationals took part in an anti-NATO coup attempt last year, but even if that's accurate, the amateurish plot looks as though it was hatched by Moscow pan-Slavists, a group that wants to appear closer to Putin's Kremlin than it actually is. The official line is based on the understanding that Russia can't stop Montenegro from joining NATO. The loud protestsregularly heard from the Russian foreign ministry and other quarters close to the Kremlin are a kind of ritual dance. For the Russian regime, as for NATO itself, the real issue isthe possibility of NATO's eventual expansion to post-Soviet countries.

In a recent column for state-owned propaganda outlet RIA Novosti, political scientist Gevorg Mirzayan wrote:

Tough opposition needs to be constantly stressed, even in an apparently unimportant case such as Montenegro's inclusion in NATO. If Moscow stays silent, it will be seen as a change in Russia's position on NATO expansion as such.

In this strange dance, both NATO and Russia know the limits of each other's courage. Russia won't launch a Crimea-style operation in Montenegro, since it wouldn't gain anything geopolitically or militarily, but the fallout might be even more toxic than from meddling in Ukraine. NATO won't ignore the frozen conflicts Russia has organized in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine; these mini-wars essentially prevent the three countries from joining the alliance without unduly endangering its existing members. It's a standoff in which all both sides can do is signal their positions. With Montenegro's accession, NATO is telling aspiring members to hang tough, for their time may yet come. By stamping its feet in frustration, Moscow is telling the same NATO aspirants and NATO itself that that's a pipe dream.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net

Read more from the original source:
Why NATO Wants Montenegro (Not for Its Military Might) - Bloomberg - Bloomberg

The U.S. team scored the most improved in this year's NATO Locked Shields cyberwar games, but experts said that result might not be reason to celebrate.

The Locked Shields event is a "live-fire" cyberdefense exercise organized by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in which teams are "tasked to maintain the services and networks of a military air base of a fictional country, which, according to the exercise scenario, will experience severe attacks on its electric power grid system, unmanned aerial vehicles, military command and control systems, critical information infrastructure components and other operational infrastructure."

During the cyberwar games, there were more than 2500 possible attacks that could be carried out against more than 3000 virtualized systems meant to simulate military air command and control systems, drone and ground control, a large-scale SCADA system controlling the power grid and programmable logic controllers.

Nathaniel Gleicher, head of cybersecurity strategy at Illumio and former director of cybersecurity policy for the White House, said this type of cyberwar practice is "essential to effective cybersecurity."

"Exercises like this are an important way that security teams can build experience for real threats. The Locked Shields war game is interesting in that it focuses entirely on defense: teams compete to protect their networks, with third parties playing the intruders," Gleicher told SearchSecurity. "This is an especially useful form of wargame -- defense is much more difficult than offense, and any opportunity our teams get to improve their skills in defense is a great opportunity."

John Bambenek, threat research manager at Fidelis Cybersecurity, said it was especially important for the cyberwar games to be "live-fire."

"Defenders learn best in a live-fire environment.When the 'red team' can simulate what adversarial nations are doing, that's even better," Bambenek told SearchSecurity."Tabletop exercises can only take learning so far.Operators need valuable experience, and they need to do so under fire."

The U.S. Army Cyber Brigade was one of 25 countries to compete in the Locked Shields 2017 cyberwar games and finished 12th, which is a marked improvement from the 2016 event where the U.S. was last out of 19 countries participating.

However, Bambenek said "given the threats we face as a nation, we simply can't accept anything less than number one."

"That said, the improvement from last place to the middle of the pack shows an increase in capability. It also shows that they are learning.That's exactly the point of these exercises," Bambenek said and noted that enterprises should take a lesson from the games. "Training, particularly hands-on training, is crucial for the continued improvement and development of defenders.Enterprises should set aside funds to participate in third-party exercises so their team can practice. Always use events within an organization as training.Successful, yet minor, breaches should not resort in blamestorming sessions. Instead, they should be used to help defenders improve."

Gleicher said the U.S. team's results offer an important lesson -- "everyone struggles with defense."

"To be honest, the cards are stacked against defenders from the beginning. The teams are placed in an unfamiliar environment to make life more difficult for them, but the truth is that most defenders are operating in an unfamiliar environment anyway, because most organizations understand surprisingly little about the applications that they are protecting," Gleicher said. "If there's any lesson from this exercise and others like it, it's that we need to substantially increase our ability to understand and control the environments we are protecting."

Learn about the benefits of a cybersecurity training center.

Find out why pen testing should focus on risk not box-ticking.

Get info on how cyberwar games are beneficial to test enterprise security.

See the original post here:
NATO cyberwar games shows the U.S. needs more practice - TechTarget

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Without providing specific figures, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg revealed on Sunday that the military alliance might boost its military presence in the war-devastated country.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trumps Pentagon is considering plans to send as many as 5,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan where the United States has been fighting the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies for more than 15 years, since October 2001.

Although the United States military argues the U.S. war has hit a stalemate, Bill Roggio from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) recently told lawmakers America is losingthe ongoing conflict, adding that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are growing stronger.

This year, American Gen. John Nicholson, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, told Congress he was facing a shortfall of a few thousand troops in Afghanistan.

In light of the challenging security conditions in the country, NATO may increase its military footprint, NATO Chief Stoltenberg told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

NATO will likely make a decision on the troop increase and whether to lengthen deployment times by June, he added.

Last week, new reports surfaced saying the Pentagon is considering options to send between 3,000 and 5,000 American troops to advise the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in their fight against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan.

The ANDSF includes police and army units.

On Monday, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) noted that the ANDSF has suffered a staggering number of fatalities.

Afghan losses have been the greatest of all: more than twice as many ANDSF members were killed in the single year of 2016 than U.S. forces in Afghanistan have lost since 2001, notes SIGAR, a U.S. watchdog agency, adding:

Afghanistan remains in the grip of a deadly war. Casualties suffered by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in the fight against the Taliban and other insurgents continue to be shockingly high: 807 were killed in the first six weeks of this year. Likewise, civilian casualties in 2016 were the highest since the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan began reporting them in 2009.

Moreover, SIGAR points out that security incidents, primarily fueled by battles with the Taliban, have reached record levels, noting that most of the attacks continue to take place along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, home to strongholds held by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Security incidents throughout 2016 and continuing into the first quarter of 2017 reached their highest level since UN reporting began in 2007, reports the watchdog agency. Armed clashes between the security forces and the Taliban comprised 63% of all security incidents in Afghanistan during that period and marked a 22% increase from the same period in 20152016.

Citing the United Nations, it adds, During the last year, half of all recorded security incidents continued to occur in the southern, southeastern, and eastern regions [along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border].

The Afghan government controls about 60 percent of Afghanistan, insurgents (primarily the Taliban) 11 percent, and the remaining 29 percent are contested, reveals SIGAR.

President Donald Trump has inherited security chaos in Afghanistan a stronger Taliban that controls more territory than at any time since the war started more than 15 years ago, an ISIS presence in a region already awash in jihadist groups, and historically high production and cultivation of opium and heroin.

The Taliban and likely other terrorist groups in the country use the lucrative profits from the opium business to fund their terrorist activities.

Originally posted here:
NATO, US Mulling More Troops to Afghanistan amid Worsening Security Situation - Breitbart News