Category Archives: Military

Britain, Government, Middle East, Military, Russia, Syria, United States

The military options the West has in smashing Assad’s arsenal…

MILITARY OPTIONS

UK and US military commanders are drawing up a list of targets for precision-guided bombs and missiles to strike at the heart of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. The options are examined:

… What targets would the coalition hit?

THE favoured option among military commanders is for limited Western action using ‘stand-off’ weapons from long distance to disrupt Assad’s ability to carry out chemical attacks and damage his military machinery.

Intelligence on targets would come from pilotless drones patrolling the skies above Syria and Special Forces on the ground.

Military analysts believe an attack could last between 24 and 48 hours and would target key regime installations in punitive strikes.

These would include Syria’s integrated air defence system, command and control bunkers, communications hubs, government buildings, missile sites and Assad’s air force.

The dictator’s use of air power has been a huge advantage for the regime, and eliminating or weakening it would tilt the odds toward the rebels.

Other military options are airstrikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks. Reports last week claimed the chemical weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armoured Division of the Syrian Army.

The division, which has a military base in a mountain range west of Damascus, is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.

… What bases would be used?

US-LED strikes would be launched from warships or submarines patrolling in the eastern Mediterranean or Persian Gulf, or from combat fighter aircraft that can fire missiles from hundreds of miles away.

A US Navy battlegroup including four destroyers is already in the eastern Mediterranean and has moved closer to Syria in preparation for action.

They are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of hitting a target from up to 1,200 miles away. Around 124 of the 18ft-long, £300,000 warheads were fired by US and British forces against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces during the Libyan war.

The US Air Force could also send B-2 stealth bombers to pound Assad’s military installations. Based in Missouri, they can cover the entire world with just one refuelling. The most expensive aircraft ever – at a cost of £600million each – they are almost invisible to radar and can carry 40,000lbs of bomb payload.

As well as having F-16 fighter jets and refuelling aircraft based at airfields in the Middle East, the US also has defensive Patriot missile batteries positioned in Jordon, which neighbours Syria.

… What firepower can Britain offer?

DESPITE multi-billion pound cuts to the defence budget that have seen military chiefs axe fast jets, warships, spy planes and 30,000 troops, the armed forces can still contribute to an assault on Syria.

The Royal Navy could fire Tomahawk missiles from its nuclear-powered Trafalgar-class submarines – one of which is constantly on patrol in the Middle East. The submarines are capable of carrying a giant payload of the super-accurate missiles.

Heavily-armed RAF Tornados could fly from RAF Marham in Norfolk to attack targets in Syria, a 4,200 mile round trip – or be deployed to Cyprus to launch bombing raids from there.

Carrying precision-guided Storm Shadow missiles, the air crews could devastate enemy defences including radar stations, anti-aircraft batteries and supply lines.

The Storm Shadows have a range of more than 150 miles, allowing the aircraft to attack targets deep inside enemy territory without getting too close to anti-air defences.

The 1,300kg missile, which technicians programme with the target details before the mission, then use hi-tech GPS systems and terrain-following equipment to fly low under radar to its destination point.

Despite being fired from as far away as 150 miles, the Storm Shadow is accurate to up to 6ft, reducing collateral damage.

… What are the dangers?

THERE are enormous risks associated with any military action in Syria.

Assad has built-up formidable air defences, supplied by Russia, which are capable of downing a US or UK fighter jet.

There are also the dangers of collateral damage from airstrikes, such as accidentally killing or injuring civilians and handing the regime a propaganda victory.

And if missiles targeted Syrian chemical plants, leaving them without protection, there is a risk of deadly nerve agents and other substances falling into the hands of terrorists – allowing them to launch a potentially catastrophic attack on the West.

… What would happen next?

MILITARY leaders are concerned that a series of ‘stand-off’ strikes will be the first step on a path that leads to full involvement in the Syrian conflict.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned this week that airstrikes ‘would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict’.

His words echoed those of General Sir David Richards, who last month stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff. General Richards said the UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by Assad and stop his chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda militants.

But his remarks fuelled concerns about ‘mission creep’, saying: ‘If you wanted to have the material impact in the Syrian regime’s calculations that some people seek… you have to be able, as we did successfully in Libya, to hit ground targets … You have to establish a ground control zone. You have to take out their air defences. You also have to make sure they can’t manoeuvre, which means you have to take out their tanks and armoured personnel carriers.’

… How will Russia and Iran react?

DESPITE the chemical attack violating one of Barack Obama’s ‘red lines’ he is not gung-ho for military action.

He and David Cameron are keenly aware of the danger of inflaming tensions in the Middle East, where Syria has two powerful allies in Russia and Iran.

Russia has urged Assad to co-operate with a probe by UN inspectors but claims there is growing evidence Syrian rebels were behind the attack.

The Kremlin, which has defiantly blocked any action against Syria by the UN Security Council, has also hit out at ‘unacceptable’ calls for the use of force against the regime in Damascus.

The West is also at pains to not become embroiled in a proxy Cold War over Syria: without a nod from Russia, whether in public or in private, it would be problematic to act against Syria.

Iran has already spoken strongly against any intervention in Syria.

Standard
Britain, Government, History, Intelligence, Military, United States

RAF Cold War missions over the former Soviet Union…

COVERT FLIGHTS

The RAF flew covert spying missions over the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

After decades of secrecy, CIA documents show British pilots were involved in the U-2 flights in 1959 and 1960.

These missions gathered vital intelligence which was regarded by the American intelligence services as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

Until now the Ministry of Defence has neither confirmed nor denied the participation of the RAF in the controversial missions, a position it will no longer be able to maintain.

The first U-2 flights over the Soviet Union started in July 1956, but despite the valuable information gathered, President Dwight Eisenhower was concerned about the ramifications of such a flagrant breach of Russian air space if they were discovered.

Unfortunately for the Americans, even though the high-tech U-2s flew at more than 70,000ft, the Russians were still able to track the planes.

The Soviets sent a strongly worded protest to Eisenhower, who developed second thoughts about the missions and suspended such flights in December 1956.

But the CIA was extremely keen for the spying missions to continue and looked for ways, in the words of one CIA document, ‘to increase the possibility of plausible denial’.

The solution was to use British pilots for the sensitive missions. During the spring of 1957, negotiations took place between the CIA and the chief of MI6, Sir Dick White, who saw the immediate benefits for Britain.

By the summer of 1958, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had given his authorisation, and four RAF officers, Squadron Leader Christopher Walker and Flight Lieutenants Michael Bradley, John MacArthur and David Dowling – all of whom were in their twenties and single – were sent to train on flying the U-2s in Texas.

Flying the U-2s, however, was not without risk, and on July 8, 1958, Walker was killed when his plane crashed. The cause was never definitively established, but it is believed the aircraft disintegrated at high altitude.

He was immediately replaced by Wing Commander Robert Robinson. By 1959 all four men had finished their operational conversion to the U-2 and were sent to a secret air base in Turkey. From there they launched their flights over the Soviet Union and the Middle East.

In order to emphasise American denials of the operation, the U-2 planes were formally transferred on paper to the British Government. Eisenhower wrote to Macmillan, stating: ‘British missions are carried out on your authority and are your responsibility.’

And the flights remained a secret in Britain, too. The pilots were no longer paid by the RAF, but by MI6, and the public was told the airmen were engaging in ‘high-altitude weather-sampling missions’.

The first mission was flown by Wing Commander Robinson on December 6, 1959, over the Kapustin Yar missile test range and a squadron of long-range bombers in the Ukraine.

The missions proved to be hugely successful and proved the Soviets did not have as many bombers as they claimed – a vital piece of intelligence at the height of the Cold War. The head of the CIA referred to photographs taken by Wing Commander Robinson as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

The second British U-2 mission over the Soviet Union was flow by Flight Lieutenant John MacArthur the following month. Although his brief was to look for missile sites around the Aral Sea, he ended up uncovering a new type of Soviet bomber called the Tupolev Tu-22 at Kazan.

The Americans later resumed their involvement in the U-2 missions, but this came to an abrupt end in the wake of the Soviets shooting down and imprisoning US pilot Gary Powers in May 1960. The British ordered the RAF officers to leave Turkey immediately.

The following year, all four British RAF pilots received the Air Force Cross, although their citations in the London Gazette did not mention exactly why. After more than half a century, the truth has now been revealed.

Standard
Government, Intelligence, Military, National Security, United States

Bradley Manning and the US court-martial verdict…

BRADLEY MANNING

The US military court ruling on finding the WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning guilty of espionage (but not of aiding the enemy) shows a proportionate sense of perspective after one of the most turbulent episodes in recent US judicial history.

In a highly emotive summing up by the prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, claimed that Manning was ‘a determined soldier with the ability, knowledge and desire to harm the United States.’ He was not a whistleblower, but a traitor… and Manning had, said Major Fein, ‘general evil intent.’

Nobody ever suggested that this young and disillusioned soldier had deliberately sent military secrets to Al-Qaeda, but the court-martial ruling has proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that his voluntary actions to disclose more than 700,000 documents would ‘lead to them being in the hands of the enemy.’

Manning was responsible for the largest leaking of classified information in US history. His actions sent shockwaves through America’s military and political establishments, but undoubtedly their response to his actions was part of the US mindset that materialised after 9/11 in policies such as extraordinary rendition, waterboarding and events that have transpired since at Guantanamo Bay.

The presiding judge over Bradley Manning’s court-martial, Judge Colonel Denise Lind, struck a very different note saying that the policies of the George W Bush presidency which were responsible have been reversed. Whilst that does hold some credence, the malign consequences linger on, including the compulsion in the United States to silence those, like Manning, who discovered that the exercise of American power on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan was significantly different from the way it was advertised back home.

In many ways a dichotomy has been exposed. American claims of fostering a culture of free information have often been inflated, and its media have certainly failed to take full advantage of those freedoms they did possess. But the high collision of President Bush’s ‘war on terror’ with the explosion of information released by the internet – which WikiLeaks came to symbolise – created in America a national mood of paranoia reminiscent of Stalinism. President Obama’s attempts to cool that feverish atmosphere is slowly being achieved with the winding down of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Washington’s refusal so far to countenance any large-scale involvement in Syria or Iran.

While both Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were guilty of recklessly flooding media outlets with secret and classified information with little concern for what has subsequently happened to the people who had been named, their underhand dealings enabled many to learn about atrocities committed by the US military which otherwise would have been covered up for ever.

Governments and their military establishments are known in wanting to keep their dirty secrets to themselves, but we should also know they must not be allowed to. Freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of democracy, and whistleblowers just happen to be a vital component to the functioning of societies that aspire to be free. Reconciling that to the authority of their rulers will always throw up issues perfectly witnessed in the court-martial of Bradley Manning.

Standard