person:paul rogers

  • Islamic State v. al-Qaida
    Owen Bennett-Jones
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n21/owen-bennett-jones/islamic-state-v-al-qaida

    For Paul Rogers, violent jihadism is a symptom first and foremost of global inequality, a revolt from the margins by people who see no evidence that increases in total global wealth are a benefit to them. On the contrary, improvements in education and mass communication only mean that they can appreciate more clearly the extent of their disadvantage and marginalisation. In that sense they are not all that different from the Naxalites in India, the Maoists in Nepal and Peru and the Zapatistas in Mexico.

    There are other, on the face of it more surprising, non-religious sources of jihadi violence. The jihadists may have severely disrupted the international system of nation states, but they have had support in doing so from ‘enemy’ governments. The story of the United States and Saudi Arabia helping Osama bin Laden fight the Soviets in Afghanistan is now familiar. Iran supported Zarqawi in Iraq, tolerating his slaughter of Shias because he offered the most effective opposition to the US occupation of Iraq. Syria took the same view, allowing al-Qaida in Iraq’s fighters to slip across the border. One of Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails reveals that as recently as 2014 she believed Qatar and Saudi Arabia were providing ‘clandestine financial and logistic support’ to IS. Turkey also helped both organisations in Syria in the hope that they would oust Assad. Even Assad himself helped them. Calculating that the jihadists would not have the strength to oust him, he released them from jail, bought oil from IS and bombed the Free Syrian Army while leaving IS positions alone. Assad’s idea was to scare either the Americans or the Russians into defending his regime. Putin took the bait.

    These policies generally turn sour. A direct line can be drawn from American support for the Afghan Mujahidin to 9/11. Iran’s backing of Zarqawi may have helped Tehran gain influence in the power vacuum left by America’s withdrawal from Iraq, but the Iranians now find themselves having to raise militias to confront IS. Assad and Erdoğan both believed that, having used the violent jihadis to further their purposes in Syria, they could dispose of them when they were no longer needed. Whether that will be as easy as Ankara and Damascus hope remains an open question.

    There is another aspect to these machinations. Governments of all types reckon it is better to export violent jihadism than to experience it at home. The Saudis have been the most brazen advocates of this policy but before 9/11 many Middle Eastern governments complained that the UK offered sanctuary to Islamists in the hope that London would not be attacked. And papers captured in Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad hideout revealed that the chief minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif, offered al-Qaida a restoration of good relations with the Pakistan government in return for no attacks in his province.

    #apprentis_sorciers #mėdiocrité_meurtrière

  • #Irak : Paris confirme qu’un #drone piégé a blessé deux membres des forces spéciales françaises à Erbil
    http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2016/10/11/irak-deux-commandos-francais-gravement-blesses-a-erbil-par-un-drone-piege_50

    Le gouvernement français a confirmé, mercredi, cette attaque. L’engin, qui a aussi tué deux peshmergas kurdes, aurait été envoyé par un groupe lié à l’organisation Etat islamique, un mode d’action inédit contre les forces françaises.

    Pentagon Urgently Pushing Anti-Drone Tech to #ISIS Fight
    http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/10/pentagon-urgently-pushing-anti-drone-tech-isis-fight/132308

    #Pentagone #Etats-Unis #France

    • Septembre 2012, Paul Rogers: Then comes the blowback.
      https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/suicide-bombs-without-suicides-why-drones-are-so-cool

      As paramilitary movements learn to respond, their range of options starts with the utilisation of many readily available technologies. They may be aided by support from a sympathetic regime - witness the unarmed TV-guided drones from Hizbollah, deploying Iranian technology, that have caused the Israelis such concern (see “Hizbollah’s warning flight”, 5 May 2005). Even short of that, the fusion of so many available dual-use technologies and the abilities of skilled engineers and technicians working within radical movements means that armed-drones from non-state actors will be a feature of asymmetrical, transnational war very soon (see An asymmetrical drone war", 19 August 2010).

      In addition, and even without using drones, paramilitary movements should be expected to target the drone-war centres such as the Creech and Waddington bases - if not the bases themselves, then soft targets in their vicinity.

      What military planners and policy-formers in the west realise least of all is that while the results of drone-warfare rarely make the western media in any depth, they are extensively reported on regional and satellite TV stations across the middle east and into Asia. Even more pertinent is the pervasive coverage of drone-attacks on the worldwide jihadist social media. Moreover, the graphic images of death and suffering on both these kinds of outlets are far grimmer than anything seen in the west (see “Every casualty: the human face of war”, 15 September 2011).

      For now, the drones hold sway - but it is no more than a temporary phenomenon, a transient phase. Within a very few years, and maybe even only months, the next phase will commence as paramilitary groups respond. As with other elements of the “war on terror”, the seduction of short-term advantage disguises damaging longer-term consequences.

  • Remote warfare: the chemical danger
    PAUL ROGERS 7 January 2016
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/remote-warfare-chemical-danger

    Much of this increase is focused on “remote warfare”, using special forces and armed drones. These forms of combat – as chronicled and analysed by the London-based Remote Control Project – are themselves continually adapting. Armed #drones, for example, are now able to do more than their commonly understood task of firing lethal ordnance such as Hellfire missiles.

    A new report from the project by Michael Crowley – Tear Gassing by Remote Control: the development and promotion of remotely operated means of delivering or dispersing riot control agents – is one of the first to identify the way that drones are being integrated with so-called “riot-control agents” in ways that would permit a wide range of uses, from policing actions to military use.

    #toxiques

  • Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers - NYTimes.com

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?

    WASHINGTON — The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict, a report published Tuesday by a leading government-funded military research organization concluded.

    The Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes. The report also found that rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like eastern India, Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.

    #climat #sécurité #défense #géostratégie #géopolitique

    • Le Pentagone n’a jamais nié le changement climatique, bien au contraire, mais jusque-là dans une optique essentiellement sécuritaire comme le fait remarquer depuis un certain temps Paul Rogers :
      http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/monthly_briefings/climate_change_and_security

      Much of the analysis on climate change coming from military sources produces results that coincide with the ideas of radical environmental analysts, pointing to the social and political consequences, the risks of state failure and the rise of radical oppositional movements.

      However, when it comes to responses, the primary military focus is on maintaining the security of the state, either on its own or in alliance with others. This is to be expected and is legitimate from the perspective of a military organisation – its reason for being is to keep the state secure. Thus, the emphasis may be on increased border security and the patrolling of potential migratory routes, and the intervention capabilities necessary to stabilise failing states and ungoverned space that may be a consequence of the impact of climate change.

      What this almost never involves, is advocating the primary preventative measure that is required for responding to climate change – a rapid move towards an ultra-low carbon economy.

  • Syria, war and negotiation
    PAUL ROGERS 19 September 2013
    http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/syria-war-and-negotiation

    .... the position of Qatar and especially Saudi Arabia presents a difficulty to this evolving equation, for their support for Islamist rebels has a strong strategic basis. These states believe that Assad has to be defeated, as part of a wider war to prevent the establishment of a powerful Shi’a crescent stretching from the Mediterranean through southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran to the Indian Ocean.

    In this complex diplomatic process, the extent of Washington’s influence with the Saudis may determine the chance of further advance. It may just be that previous experience, namely Rowhani’s involvement in negotiating with the Saudis earlier in his career, may come into play - just as the Kerry-Lavrov relationhip has been important in the chemical-weapons negotiations.

    Even taken together, all these factors offer only a small dose of optimism. Yet they cannot be discounted. If they do cohere and are built on, the UK parliament’s decision on 29 August could yet be seen as a historic turning-point.

  • Syria’s war, Israel’s trap | openDemocracy
    http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/syrias-war-israels-trap

    Par Paul Rogers.

    Le likoudien (et champion de l’unilatéralisme par la force) INSS israélien serait tellement inquiet des évènements dans la région qu’il appelle Netanyahou à « présenter un plan raisonnable aux leaders de la Cisjordanie. »

    Paul Rogers n’y voit pas une ultime tentative d’anesthésier son monde, mais une « petite raison d’espérer. »

    There appears to be some recognition of this in the surprising decision of the hawkish Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) - which has close links with prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu - to urge a resumption of talks with the Palestinians (see Barbara Opall-Rome, “Israeli Experts: Palestinian Peace Plan Could Push Agenda for Region”, Defense News, 11 February 2013).

    True, Israel’s perceived need to gain diplomatic credence, not least with the Obama administration, is part of the reason for this move. Defense News says:

    “Before Washington and the international community impose conditions on both parties - and in order to forestall new rounds of violence that will further inflame public opinion in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries with a common interest in derailing Iran’s nuclear weapons program - INSS experts urge the new Netanyahu government to present a reasonable plan to Palestinian leaders in the West Bank.”

    There is something more than political calculation in the Israeli institute’s analysis. The wider reality is that events are moving against Israel across the region. Indeed, the massive border defences are a clear indicator of this. Israel is now completely surrounded, and its treatment of the Palestinians both isolates it further and creates the potential for deeper instability. The INSS’s move indicates that the depth of this predicament is understood by some among Israel’s security elite, and no longer confined to critical analysts who have long pointed this out. So far, there is little sign that Netanyahu has got the message. But this shift in an Israeli think-tank’s outlook gives some small cause for hope.

  • Mali, war after war. PAUL ROGERS 31 January 2013 http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/mali-war-after-war

    Pour l’auteur les indices sont nombreux qui indiquent que les puissances occidentales se positionnent dans une optique de « contre-insurrection » plutôt que de « négociations », dans quel cas un scénario afghan (longue guerre) est à envisager.

    There is (..) a core ambiguity in the western position. The major states are reluctant to get involved on the ground in direct combat, yet their military planners know that their Malian and west African allies are for the foresseable future incapable of maintaining control in an insecure region.

    An obvious exit from this dilemma would be to put every effort into negotiations with the rebels, including serious offers to meet the legitimate complaints of many inhabitants of northern Mali (especially Tuareg) about their past treatment, persistent marginalisation, and aspirations for autonomy. The difficulty here is accentuated by the Malian army’s recent actions and the increasing anti-Tuareg mood in Bamako. It is also sharpened by clear signs (if so far little-noticed in polite circles) that some western states - not only the French - are preparing for counterinsurgency operations.