DTN News - WHITE HOUSE NEWS: Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda Visits White House

Asia News Report: DTN News -  WHITE HOUSE NEWS: Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda Visits White House
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Time
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 30, 2012: Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda was meeting Monday with President Barack Obama, looking to reaffirm Japan's strong alliance with the U.S. and boost his leadership credentials as his popularity flags at home.

Noda, who came to power in September and is Japan's sixth prime minister in six years, faces huge challenges in reviving a long-slumbering economy and helping his nation recover from the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

His Oval Office meeting and working lunch with Obama, to be followed by a joint news conference and then a gala dinner hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, could offer Noda some brief relief from domestic woes. The two sides are determined to show that U.S.-Japan ties are as close as ever, particularly after the assistance from the U.S. lent following the massive March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that triggered a meltdown at a nuclear plant.

The U.S. alliance with Japan, the world's third-largest economy, is at the core of Obama's expanded engagement in Asia — a diplomatic thrust motivated in part by a desire to counter the growing economic and military clout of strategic rival China.

Their meeting takes place during a delicate time in U.S.-China relations, as the two world powers reportedly negotiate an asylum deal for a blind Chinese legal activist who escaped from house arrest. Activists say he is under the protection of U.S. diplomats in Beijing, but U.S. officials have yet to comment on the diplomatically sensitive case.

Obama and Noda are expected to say they want to strengthen the U.S.-Japan security alliance. The U.S. has about 50,000 troops in Japan, and both sides never tire of saying that their defense cooperation underpins regional peace and security.

Days before Noda's visit, the U.S. and Japan announced an agreement on shifting about 9,000 Marines stationed on the Japanese island of Okinawa. The plan would spread U.S. forces more widely in the Asia-Pacific as part of a rebalancing of U.S. defense priorities after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is a move also aimed at easing what Okinawans view as a burdensome U.S. military presence and goes some way to ameliorate a long-term irritant in bilateral relations. But there's still no timetable and the plan faces opposition in Okinawa and in the U.S. Congress.

Among other issues for discussion Monday will be North Korea's recent failed rocket launch and expectation it could soon undertake its third-ever nuclear test, democratic reforms in Myanmar and the international pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

Noda is the first Japanese leader to be hosted at the White House since his Democratic Party of Japan, which had an initially awkward relationship with Washington, came to power in the fall of 2009. The party had at first favored a foreign policy more independent of the United States.

Noda is seen in Washington as capable and practical, and the Obama administration will be hoping he can weather his political problems and stick around longer than his immediate predecessors. His poll numbers have dwindled to below 30 percent as he pushes an unpopular rise in a consumption tax to tackle Japan's vast national debt and looming social security crisis to cope with the nation's aging population.

No breakthroughs on trade were anticipated at Monday's summit. In November, Noda signaled Japan's interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact under negotiation by nine nations and a key plank in U.S. trade strategy to crank up its exports to support America's fragile recovery after the global slowdown.

While Noda is believed to be personally supportive of declaring Japan's intent to join the talks, he faces opposition at home, even within his own party. The pact could demand an assault on the heavy subsidies enjoyed by Japan's farmers.

Noda also faces an uphill battle to persuade Japan to restart dozens of nuclear power plants that were idled as a safety precaution after the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant after last year's quake and tsunami. The plants were a source of about one third of Japan's power needs, and last week Japan reported its largest annual trade deficit ever, after decades of surpluses, as oil and gas imports grow.

U.S. companies are major players in Japan's nuclear sector, and the White House may be looking for reassurance that the plants will go back on line. Japan is likely interested in natural gas exported from the U.S.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Time 
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: U.S. DoD Awarded Contract To Sikorsky For Rework On 2 VH-3D And 1 VH-60N Helicopters

Asia News Report: DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: U.S. DoD Awarded Contract To Sikorsky For Rework On 2 VH-3D And 1 VH-60N Helicopters
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources DTN News & U.S. DoD  issued No. 125-12 February 21, 2012 
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - February 22, 2012: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Conn., is being awarded a $20,521,388 modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-07-D-0004) for special progressive aircraft rework of two VH-3D and one VH-60N executive helicopters, including vendor repairables and component overhaul.  

Funds will be obligated on individual delivery orders as they are issued.  

Work will be performed in Stratford, Conn., and is expected to be completed in September 2012.  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.

Marine One is the call sign of any United States Marine Corps aircraft carrying the President of the United States. It usually denotes a helicopter operated by the HMX-1 "Nighthawks" squadron, either the large VH-3D Sea King or the newer, smaller VH-60N "WhiteHawk", both due to be replaced by the VXX program. A Marine Corps aircraft carrying the Vice President has the call sign Marine Two.


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources DTN News & U.S. DoD issued No. 125-12 February 21, 2012 
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - AFGHANISTAN NEWS: Afghanistan - Moving Toward A Distant Endgame

Asia News Report: DTN News - AFGHANISTAN NEWS: Afghanistan - Moving Toward A Distant Endgame
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources  By George Friedman - Stratfor
 (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - February 7, 2012:  U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suggested last week that the United States could wrap up combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2013, well before the longstanding 2014 deadline when full control is to be ceded to Kabul. Troops would remain in Afghanistan until 2014, as agreed upon at the 2010 Lisbon Summit, and would be engaged in two roles until at least 2014 and perhaps even later. One role would be continuing the training of Afghan security forces. The other would involve special operations troops carrying out capture or kill operations against high-value targets.

Along with this announcement, the White House gave The New York Times some details on negotiations that have been under way with the Taliban. According to the Times, Mullah Mohammad Omar, the senior-most leader of the Afghan Taliban, last summer made overtures to the White House offering negotiations. An intermediary claiming to speak for Mullah Omar delivered the proposal, an unsigned document purportedly from Mullah Omar that could not be established as authentic. The letter demanded the release of some Taliban prisoners before any talks. In spite of the ambiguities, which included a recent public denial by the Taliban that the offer came from Mullah Omar, U.S. officials, obviously acting on other intelligence, regarded the proposal as both authentic and representative of the views of the Taliban leadership and, in all likelihood, those of Mullah Omar, too.

The idea of negotiating with the Taliban is not new. Talks, as distinct from negotiations, in which specific terms are hammered out, have gone on for some time now. Several previous attempts have ended in failure, including one instance when the supposed representative proved to be a fraud. However, according to the Times report, the negotiations took on a degree of specificity last summer. They began in November 2010, initiated by a man named Tayyab Agha, who claimed to speak for Mullah Omar. The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama regards authenticating the present offer as unimportant and the intermediary as having authority; the question on the table is the release of Taliban captives as a token of American seriousness.

The Taliban see themselves as already having made a major concession. Their original demand was the complete withdrawal of Western forces from Afghanistan as a precondition for negotiations. The talks have continued in spite of the U.S. refusal to comply. The Taliban shifted their position to a very specific timetable for withdrawal, something Panetta may have been hinting at last week, though not on a timetable to the Taliban's liking. Two more years of combat operations -- not to mention an unspecified time in which U.S. special operations forces will continue working in Afghanistan -- is a long time. In addition, the United States has not delivered on the release of the Taliban, an issue that has not emerged as a campaign issue in the U.S. presidential election.

Still, U.S. operations have become less aggressive. This is in part due to the season: It is winter in Afghanistan, a time of year when large-scale operations are not practical in many areas. At the same time, we are not seeing the level of operations we have seen in previous winters after Obama increased the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This in part reflects a realization of the limits of U.S. military power in Afghanistan. Regardless of the motive, the Taliban interpret it as a signal -- and it is understood in Washington as a signal, too.

The Pakistani-Taliban Channel

To get negotiations going, the United States had to reach two conclusions. The first was that negotiations could not happen without Pakistani involvement. U.S. accusations that current and former military figures in Pakistan maintained close ties with the Taliban undoubtedly were true. Conversely, this meant Pakistan represented a clear channel the United States could use to reach the Taliban. That channel permitted the Obama administration to conclude that it had no hope of meaningfully dividing the Taliban.

Certainly, the Taliban are an operationally diffuse group. Even so, Mullah Omar is at their center, with the political operatives surrounding him representing the political office of the Taliban. The line of communications with the Taliban runs through Pakistan and terminates with Mullah Omar. This means that U.S. hopes of splitting the Taliban politically and conducting factional negotiations are not realistic. Particularly after a series of attacks and suicide bombings in Kabul last fall, it also became apparent that the United States would not be able to manage negotiations at arm's length using Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his advisers as the primary channel.

The Pakistanis and the Taliban also had to face certain realities. The Taliban had claimed that the United States and its allies in Afghanistan had lost. This underpinned their demand for an immediate U.S. withdrawal; their offer to permit this without harassment was made under the assumption that the United States had a defeated military force at risk.

The reality was that, while the United States had not won the war in Afghanistan and in all likelihood could not defeat the Taliban militarily, it was far from defeated. The United States remained, and remains, able to conduct operations in Afghanistan as and where it wishes. The Taliban have not reached the point where they can operationally defeat the forces arrayed against them. Where large Western forces exist, the Taliban must decline combat and disengage or be annihilated. As important, there is no overwhelming pressure from the American public to withdraw -- something not true of some U.S. allies. However, in this election, Obama is likely to be challenged by candidates supporting his position in Afghanistan or wanting a more aggressive stance. Mitt Romney, for example, not only rejected the idea of releasing Taliban fighters, but also said in response to a question that his strategy in Afghanistan was to "beat them." 

The United States could hypothetically remain in Afghanistan indefinitely given the current cost and force structure. But we would argue that defeating a guerrilla force with sanctuary and support across the border in Pakistan, an excellent intelligence capability and units able to operate independently is unlikely. But neither, for that matter, can the Taliban defeat the coalition forces.

Stalemate in Afghanistan

This makes for a stalemate, one the Americans hope to solve by creating an Afghan state under Karzai and a security and military force able and willing to engage the Taliban. As I have argued in the past, the core problem with this plan is the same problem that existed during the Vietnamization phase of the Vietnam War. The Afghan military must recruit troops, and some of the most eager volunteers will be Taliban operatives. These operatives will be indistinguishable from anti-Taliban soldiers, and their presence will have two consequences. First, the intelligence they will provide the Taliban will cause the Afghan army offensive to fail. Second, shrewd use of these operatives will undermine the cohesion and morale of the Afghan forces. Surprise is crucial in locating, engaging and destroying a guerrilla force. Afghan security forces will face the same problem the South Vietnamese army did; namely, they will lack the element of surprise and at least some of their units will be unreliable.

Accordingly, the U.S. strategy of using the stalemate to construct a capable military force accordingly looks unlikely to succeed even leaving aside the issue of the fragmentation of the Afghan nation and the Karzai government's internal problems. The Taliban are intimately familiar with the U.S. dilemma and are positioned to choose from two strategies. One is to increase their tempo of operations and so increase American casualties prior to the November elections. But this strategy would see Taliban casualties increase even more dramatically, and its impact on the elections would be unclear to say the least. The Taliban are more likely to pursue the second strategy, which involves accepting the stalemate and permitting the United States to try to build an Afghan military.

Like the Taliban, the United States is aware of the difficulty of building an Afghan army. It also understands that deploying troops in Afghanistan is unlikely to lead anywhere. It does not have to flee defeat in Afghanistan, but there are strategic reasons for leaving, beginning with the fact that the military situation is about as satisfactory as it likely ever will be. Improving the situation would incur costs without yielding anything like victory. With the United States reducing its military budget, serious issues emerging in Iran and throughout the Arab World, and a new emphasis by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force on the Pacific, the world is moving on. A violent yet frozen conflict in Afghanistan simply does not benefit the United States.

This, of course, leaves a crucial question: Will Afghanistan become a base for al Qaeda or follow-on transnational jihadist groups in the event of a U.S. withdrawal? It is true that these groups can form anywhere, but the fact is that they did form in Afghanistan while Mullah Omar was in charge. The negotiators undoubtedly have promised that, in exchange for withdrawal, they will take responsibility for suppressing jihadist elements. But trusting the Taliban, or trusting those in Pakistan who took violent offense at the killing of Osama bin Laden, poses obvious risks for the United States. In truth, it does not increase the risk much: Afghanistan is not necessary for the jihadists, but it is naturally fragmented and the threat of its re-emergence as a sanctuary is always there. Even so, the issue will remain a sticking point in the negotiations. The United States will want a residual force to deal with the jihadist threat, something the Taliban and Pakistan will oppose.

The Pakistani Role

In this sense, the negotiations really come down to Pakistan and the burden it is willing to undertake in the event of a U.S. withdrawal.

The United States does not trust the Taliban or many of those Pakistani officials speaking to and for the Taliban. But the United States also knows two things. First, that the future of Afghanistan is of fundamental interest to Pakistan. Instability or Indian or Iranian influence in Pakistan is not in Pakistan's interest. Therefore, the Pakistanis will play a leading role in Afghanistan as they did after the end of the Soviet occupation. Second, the United States knows that India remains Pakistan's major adversary. The Pakistanis have tried to play the China card to make the United States nervous about Pakistan. But the fact is that the Chinese People's Liberation Army does not have the training and logistics to support Pakistan against India, and the last thing Pakistan wants is a large Chinese military deployment in Pakistan. Indeed, that is the last thing China wants.

The issue over time will boil down to this: The United States will want a coalition government in which Taliban elements take Cabinet positions in the current structure of the Karzai regime. The Taliban will want an entirely new government in which elements of the existing power structure (Karzai has promised not to seek a third term when his current one ends in 2014) might have a position but that would be an altogether new regime. In either case, the Taliban assume, as the North Vietnamese assumed a generation ago, that a political settlement followed by a U.S. withdrawal would, after a "decent interval," result in a Taliban-dominated regime.

Ultimately, the United States could remain in Afghanistan indefinitely and there is nothing the Taliban could do about it. But the United States cannot defeat the Taliban. The Taliban have nowhere to go and no desire to leave. The United States has other issues to attend to and no overriding strategic interest in Afghanistan. From the American point of view, its presence in Afghanistan does not reduce Islamist threats to the homeland but it does absorb military resources.

What the United States is engaged in now, as it was in 1971, is the complex process of crafting a political path from the current situation to the inevitable end. This isn't easy, since the manner in which the United States withdraws will influence its position in the region as much as its indefinite presence would. This is why the administration is so eager to pursue the current initiative and prepared to release prisoners as a gesture. It is also why the Taliban will accept a coalition government for a while, and why Pakistan will make and likely honor guarantees.

However this war is brought to an end will be a complex and time-consuming process, during which the fighting will continue. But then the how is never trivial in ending a war.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By George Friedman - Stratfor
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - WHITE HOUSE NEWS: Obama Receives Baseball Jersey Honoring 2011 World Series Champions - The St. Louis Cardinals At White House

Asia News Report: DTN News - WHITE HOUSE NEWS: Obama Receives Baseball Jersey Honoring 2011 World Series Champions - The St. Louis Cardinals At White House
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Pictures of The Days
 (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - January 18, 2012: U.S. President Barack Obama (C) holds up a uniform given to him by the 2011 Major League Baseball World Series champions St. Louis Cardinals while posing for photographs with the team and first lady Michelle Obama at the White House January 17, 2012 in Washington, DC. Noticably absent from the congratulatory event are the team's former 1st baseman Albert Pujols and former manager Tony La Russa. 

The Cardinal's visit to Washington will include a stop at Walter Reed Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, to visit with patients and their families.


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Pictures of The Days
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - WHITE HOUSE / PENTAGON NEWS: President Barack Obama Praises Gates, Nominates New Security Team‏

Asia News Report: DTN News - WHITE HOUSE / PENTAGON NEWS: President Barack Obama Praises Gates, Nominates New Security Team‏

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service

(NSI News Source Info)

WASHINGTON, - April 28, 2011: - President Barack Obama today thanked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for his service as he officially announced his intention to nominate CIA Director Leon E. Panetta to lead the Pentagon after Gates retires June 30.

Obama said Gates will go down in history as one of the finest defense secretaries in U.S. history.

The president also nominated Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to succeed Panetta at the CIA and Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John R. Allen to succeed Petraeus as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Obama also is nominating Ryan C. Crocker to return from retirement and serve as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. The nominations are subject to Senate confirmation.

"Given the pivotal period that we're entering, I felt that it was absolutely critical that we had this team in place so that we can stay focused on our missions, maintain our momentum and keep our nation secure," Obama said in the White House East Room.

Gates will step down after serving more than four and a half years in office. President George W. Bush nominated Gates for the job at a time when prospects in Iraq looked bleak. The surge of U.S. forces into Iraq was hitting its stride, and hundreds of attacks occurred each day on coalition forces in the country.

"Today, every American must know that because he helped to responsibly wind down the war in Iraq, we're in a better position to support our troops and manage the transition in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Because he challenged conventional thinking, our troops have the lifesaving equipment they need, and our military is better prepared for today's wars.

"And because he courageously cut unnecessary spending," the president continued, "we'll save hundreds of billions of dollars that can be invested in the 21st-century military that our troops deserve."

The United States military has fought in two wars every day of Gates' tenure. Service members have also stood watch elsewhere around the globe. "It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve and to lead our men and women in uniform and our defense civilians," he said. "They are the best America has to offer.

"My highest priority from my first day in office," he added, "has been to do everything I could for our uniformed men and women in harm's way to help them accomplish their mission, to come home safely, and if wounded, to get them the best possible care from battlefield to homefront. I've done my best to care for them as though they were my own sons and daughters, and I will miss them deeply."

The president said Panetta has the right skills to trake over for Gates. "The patriotism and extraordinary management skills that have defined Leon's four decades of service is exactly what we need in our next secretary of defense," Obama said. "As a former congressman and White House chief of staff, Leon knows how to lead, which is why he is held in such high esteem not only in this city, but around the world."

Panetta has served as CIA director for more than two years. The president said he has played a decisive role in the fight against violent extremism.

"He understands that even as we begin the transition in Afghanistan, we must remain unwavering in our fight against al-Qaida," Obama said. "And as a former [Office of Management and Budget] director, he will ensure that even as we make tough budget decisions, we will maintain our military superiority and keep our military the very best in the world."

Panetta thanked the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency for their superb, but unheralded work.

"I spent 40 years in public service, and it began when I served in the Army as an intelligence officer in the 1960s," he said. "I was proud to wear the uniform of our country, and my respect and admiration for our nation's armed forces has only grown in the decades since."

Obama stressed continuity, noting that Petraeus will carry on Panetta's work at the CIA. After 35 years in uniform, the general will retire from the Army to become the next CIA director, effective early September, pending Senate confirmation.

"As a lifelong consumer of intelligence, he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate and acted upon quickly," Obama said. "He understands that staying a step ahead of nimble adversaries requires sharing and coordinating information, including with my director of national intelligence, Jim Clapper."

Obama said he values Petraeus' flexibility and adaptability. "Just as General Petraeus changed the way that our military fights and wins wars in the 21st century, I have no doubt that Director Petraeus will guide our intelligence professionals as they continue to adapt and innovate in an ever-changing world," the president said.

And Allen is the right man for the job in Afghanistan, the president said.

"As a battle-tested combat leader, in Iraq he helped turn the tide in Anbar province," he said. "As deputy commander of Central Command, he's respected in the region and has been deeply involved in planning and executing our strategy in Afghanistan."

Biographies:
Robert M. Gates
Leon E. Panetta
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus
Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John R. Allen

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News

*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

Contact:

dtnnews@ymail.com

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS