Russia is squaring up for a fight with America over Syria

CON COUGHLIN - London Telegraph

Confirmation that the U.S. and its allies are studying their military options for helping the anti-Assad rebels in Syria is a worrying development on a number of levels, not least of which is the prospect of the West becoming embroiled in a direct confrontation with the Russians.

As I have argued before, I think the West – and that includes Britain – needs to proceed with great caution before it gets too closely involved in the Syrian crisis. As with the Libya situation last year, we still have no clear idea who the rebels are in Syria, or what their ultimate objective might be.

Homs, the centre of the anti-Assad rebellion, is a known centre for Islamist extremists, and if all Western intervention achieves is the replacement of the Assad regime with an Iranian-style Islamist dictatorship,  then we will have scored a monumental own goal.

Of deeper concern, though, is the possibility that the U.S. could find itself involved in a direct military confrontation with Russia over the future of Syria's destiny. We have been here before, of course, during the 1980s when, at the height of the Cold War, Moscow and Washington  fought a proxy war over the fate of neighbouring Lebanon.

Even though U.S. President Ronald Reagan deployed thousands of U.S. Marines to Beirut, the Americans were eventually sent packing. During that conflict Russia backed the Syrians, who in turn used the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia to carry out a series of devastating terrorist attacks against the Americans, ultimately forcing them to withdraw their forces from Lebanon.

The Cold War might be consigned to the history books, but a similar confrontation could easily arise if Washington decides to become engaged militarily in Syria to protect anti-government rebels.

This week's visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Damascus has highlighted Syria's importance to Moscow. The Syrian port of Tartus is Russia's only military base outside the old Soviet Union and, at a time when the West is strengthening its ties throughout the Arab world, the Russians regard Syria as a vital strategic asset. Consequently any attempt by the Western powers to meddle in Syria's internal affairs is likely to prompt a robust response from Moscow.

One of the reasons the Lebanese civil war dragged on for fifteen years was that the conflict ended up being caught in a turf war between Washington and Moscow. I fear a similar fate could soon befall Syria.

Pentagon Declares the Internet a Domain of War

Thursday, July 14, 2011 by The Hill (Washington, DC)
by John T. Bennett

The Pentagon released a long-promised cybersecurity plan Thursday that declares the Internet a domain of war.

The plan notably does not spell out how the U.S. military would use the Web for offensive strikes.

The Defense Department’s first-ever plan for cyberspace calls on the DoD to expand its ability to thwart attacks from other nations and groups, beef up its cyber workforce and expand collaboration with the private sector.

Like major corporations and the rest of the federal government, the military “depends on cyberspace to function,” the DoD plan says. The U.S. military uses cyberspace for everything from carrying out military operations to sharing intelligence data internally to managing personnel.

“The department and the nation have vulnerabilities in cyberspace,” the document states. “Our reliance on cyberspace stands in stark contrast to the inadequacy of our cybersecurity.”

Other nations “are working to exploit DoD unclassified and classified networks, and some foreign intelligence organizations have already acquired the capacity to disrupt elements of DoD’s information infrastructure,” the plan states. “Moreover, non-state actors increasingly threaten to penetrate and disrupt DoD networks and systems.”

Groups are capable of this largely because “small-scale technologies” that have “an impact disproportionate to their size” are relatively inexpensive and readily available.

The Pentagon plans to focus heavily on three areas under the new strategy: the theft or exploitation of data; attempts to deny or disrupt access to U.S. military networks; and any attempts to “destroy or degrade networks or connected systems.”

One problem highlighted in the strategy is a baked-in threat: “The majority of information technology products used in the United States are manufactured and assembled overseas.”

DoD laid out a multi-pronged approach to address those issues.

As foreshadowed by Pentagon officials’ comments in recent years, the plan etches in stone that cyberspace is now an “operational domain” for the military, just as land, air, sea and space have been for decades.

“This allows DOD to organize, train and equip for cyberspace” as in those other areas, the plan states. It also noting the 2010 establishment of U.S. Cyber Command to oversee all DOD work in the cyber realm.

The second leg of the plan is to employ new defensive ways of operating in cyberspace, first by enhancing the DoD’s “cyber hygiene.” That term covers ensuring data on military networks remains secure, using the Internet wisely, and designing systems and networks to guard against cyber strikes.

The military will continue its “active cyber defense” approach of “using sensors, software, and intelligence to detect and stop malicious activity before it can affect DOD networks and systems.” It also will look for new “approaches and paradigms” that will include “development and integration … of mobile media and secure cloud computing.”

The plan underscores efforts long underway at the Pentagon to work with other government agencies and the private sector. It also says the Pentagon will continue strong cyber R&D spending, even in a time of declining national security budgets.

Notably, it calls the Department of Homeland Security the lead for “interagency efforts to identify and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical infrastructure.” Some experts have warned against DOD overstepping on domestic cyber matters.

The Pentagon also announced a new pilot program with industry designed to encourage companies to “voluntarily [opt] into increased sharing of information about malicious or unauthorized cyber activity.”

The strategy calls for a larger DoD cyber workforce.

One challenge, Pentagon experts say, will be attracting top IT talent because the private sector can pay much larger salaries — especially in times of shrinking Defense budgets. To that end, “DOD will focus on the establishment of dynamic programs to attract talent early,” the plan states.

On IT acquisition, the plan lays out several changes, including: faster delivery of systems; moving to incremental development and upgrading instead of waiting to buy “large, complex systems”; and improved security measures.

Finally, the strategy states an intention to work more closely with “small- and medium-sized business” and “entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and other U.S. technology innovation hubs.”

Another Illegal War

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Fox News' one semi-rational voice.

Are Obama’s New Iran Sanctions an An Act of War?

Dangerous Crossroads in World History 
by Shamus Cooke | Global Research, July 3, 2010

When the UN refused to agree to the severe sanctions that the U.S. wanted, Obama responded with typical Bush flair and went solo. The new U.S. sanctions against Iran — signed into law by Obama on July 1st — are an unmistakable act of war.

If fully enforced, Iran’s economy will be potentially destroyed. The New York Times outlines the central parts of the sanctions:

“The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” (July 1, 2010).

Iran must import a large part of its refined oil from foreign corporations and nations, since it does not have the technology needed to refine all the fuel that it pumps from its soil. By cutting this refined oil off, the U.S. will be causing massive, irreparable damage to the Iranian economy — equaling an act of war.

In fact, war against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.

Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama Administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as “peaceful” solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.

But the U.S. is provoking militarily too. According to the New York Times: “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).

The same article mentions that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that, “… the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran, as well as the whole world, knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.

Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it be the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations (not to mention Zionist Israel, a U.S. cohort in its war aims against Iran). Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily.

It remains to be seen how closely U.S. allies will follow the new oil sanctions; they will be under tremendous pressure to do so. The European Union has already signaled that it will follow Obama’s lead.

Ultimately, the march to war begun by Bush is picking up momentum under Obama. Congressional Democrats and Republicans gave the President their overwhelming support in passing these sanctions, proving that the two party system agrees to the necessity of more war.

Uniting the U.S. anti-war movement is crucial if current and future wars are to be stopped. A step in this direction will take place at the National Peace Conference, in Albany, New York, July 23-25.