Posted tagged ‘Pentagon’

Pentagon Paid for Fake ‘Al Qaeda’ Videos

October 4, 2016

Pentagon Paid for Fake ‘Al Qaeda’ Videos

Source: Pentagon Paid for Fake ‘Al Qaeda’ Videos – The Daily Beast

A controversial foreign PR firm known for representing unsavory characters was paid millions by the Pentagon to create fake terrorist videos.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

10.01.16 7:00 PM ET

By Crofton Black & Abigail Fielding-Smith of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

The Pentagon gave a controversial U.K. PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda program in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

Bell Pottinger’s output included short TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos which could be used to track the people who watched them, according to a former employee.

The agency’s staff worked alongside high-ranking U.S. military officers in their Baghdad Camp Victory headquarters as the insurgency raged outside.

Bell Pottinger’s former chairman Lord Tim Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which has worked with the Bureau on this story, that his firm had worked on a “covert” military operation “covered by various secrecy documents.”

Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the National Security Council on its work in Iraq, he said.

Bell, one of Britain’s most successful public relations executives, is credited with honing Margaret Thatcher’s steely image and helping the Conservative party win three elections. The agency he co-founded has had a roster of clients including repressive regimes and Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian president.

In the first media interview any Bell Pottinger employee has given about the work for the U.S. military in Iraq, video editor Martin Wells told the Bureau his time in Camp Victory was “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing.”

The firm’s output was signed off by former General David Petraeus—then commander of the coalition forces in Iraq—and on occasion by the White House, he said.

General David Petraeus

Alamy

Bell Pottinger produced reams of material for the Pentagon, some of it going far beyond standard communications work.

The Bureau traced the firm’s Iraq work through U.S. army contracting censuses, reports by the Defense Department’s inspector general, and federal procurement transaction records, as well as Bell Pottinger’s corporate filings and specialist publications on military propaganda. We interviewed half a dozen former officials and contractors involved in information operations in Iraq.

There were three types of media operations commonly used in Iraq at the time, said a military contractor familiar with Bell Pottinger’s work there.

“White is attributed, it says who produced it on the label,” the contractor said. “Grey is unattributed, and black is falsely attributed. These types of black ops, used for tracking who is watching a certain thing, were a pretty standard part of the industry toolkit.”

Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was a huge media operation which cost over a hundred million dollars a year on average. A document unearthed by the Bureau shows the company was employing almost 300 British and Iraqi staff at one point.

The London-based PR agency was brought into Iraq soon after the U.S. invasion. In March 2004 it was tasked by the country’s temporary administration with the “promotion of democratic elections”—a “high-profile activity” which it trumpeted in its annual report.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.
Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t).
By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

The firm soon switched to less high-profile activities, however. The Bureau has identified transactions worth $540 million between the Pentagon and Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations on a series of contracts issued from May 2007 to December 2011. A similar contract at around the same annual rate—$120 million—was in force in 2006, we have been told.

The bulk of the money was for costs such as production and distribution, Lord Bell told the Sunday Times, but the firm would have made around £15m a year in fees.

Martin Wells, the ex-employee, told the Bureau he had no idea what he was getting into when he was interviewed for the Bell Pottinger job in May 2006.

He had been working as a freelance video editor and got a call from his agency suggesting he go to London for an interview for a potential new gig. “You’ll be doing new stuff that’ll be coming out of the Middle East,” he was told.

“I thought ‘That sounds interesting,’” Wells recalled. “So I go along and go into this building, get escorted up to the sixth floor in a lift, come out and there’s guards up there. I thought what on earth is going on here? And it turns out it was a Navy post, basically. So from what I could work out it was a media intelligence gathering unit.”

After a brief chat Wells asked when he would find out about the job, and was surprised by the response.

“You’ve already got it,” he was told. “We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

He would be flying out on Monday, Wells was told. It was Friday afternoon. He asked where he would be going and got a surprising answer: Baghdad.

U.S. Army soldiers, from the 1st. Cavalry Division, survey destruction to a civilian house, which was flattened by an explosion on Friday evening in the al-Mansur district in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, December 25, 2004.

Reuters

“So I literally had 48 hours to gather everything I needed to live in a desert,” Wells said.

Days later, Wells’s plane executed a corkscrew landing to avoid insurgent fire at Baghdad airport. He assumed he would be taken to somewhere in the Green Zone, from which coalition officials were administering Iraq. Instead he found himself in Camp Victory, a military base.

It turned out that the British PR firm which had hired him was working at the heart of a U.S. military intelligence operation.

A tide of violence was engulfing the Iraqi capital as Wells began his contract. The same month he arrived there were five suicide bomb attacks in the city, including one a suicide car bomb attack near Camp Victory which killed 14 people and wounded six others.

Describing his first impressions, Wells said he was struck by a working environment very unlike what he was used to. “It was a very secure building,” he recalled, with “signs outside saying ‘Do not come in, it’s a classified area, if you’re not cleared, you can’t come in.’”

Inside were two or three rooms with lots of desks in, said Wells, with one section for Bell Pottinger staff and the other for the U.S. military.

“I made the mistake of walking into one of the [U.S. military] areas, and having a very stern American military guy basically drag me out saying you are not allowed in here under any circumstances, this is highly classified, get out—whilst his hand was on his gun, which was a nice introduction,” said Wells.

It soon became apparent he would be doing much more than just editing news footage.

The work consisted of three types of products. The first was television commercials portraying al Qaeda in a negative light. The second was news items which were made to look as if they had been “created by Arabic TV,” Wells said. Bell Pottinger would send teams out to film low-definition video of al Qaeda bombings and then edit it like a piece of news footage. It would be voiced in Arabic and distributed to TV stations across the region, according to Wells.

The American origins of the news items were sometimes kept hidden. Revelations in 2005 that PR contractor the Lincoln Group had helped the Pentagon place articles in Iraqi newspapers, sometimes presented as unbiased news, led to a Department of Defense investigation.

The third and most sensitive program described by Wells was the production of fake al Qaeda propaganda films. He told the Bureau how the videos were made. He was given precise instructions: “We need to make this style of video and we’ve got to use al Qaeda’s footage,” he was told. “We need it to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in this file format, and we need to encode it in this manner.”

U.S. marines would take the CDs on patrol and drop them in the chaos when they raided targets. Wells said: “If they’re raiding a house and they’re going to make a mess of it looking for stuff anyway, they’d just drop an odd CD there.”

The CDs were set up to use Real Player, a popular media streaming application which connects to the internet to run. Wells explained how the team embedded a code into the CDs which linked to a Google Analytics account, giving a list of IP addresses where the CDs had been played.

The tracking account had a very restricted circulation list, according to Wells: The data went to him, a senior member of the Bell Pottinger management team, and one of the U.S. military commanders.

Wells explained their intelligence value. “If one is looked at in the middle of Baghdad… you know there’s a hit there,” he said. “If one, 48 hours or a week later shows up in another part of the world, then that’s the more interesting one, and that’s what they’re looking for more, because that gives you a trail.”

The CDs turned up in some interesting places, Wells recalled, including Iran, Syria, and even America.

“I would do a print-out for the day and, if anything interesting popped up, hand it over to the bosses and then it would be dealt with from there,” he said.

The Pentagon confirmed that Bell Pottinger did work for them as a contractor in Iraq under the Information Operations Task Force (IOTF), producing some material that was openly sourced to coalition forces, and some which was not. They insisted that all material put out by IOTF was “truthful.”

IOTF was not the only mission Bell Pottinger worked on however. Wells said some Bell Pottinger work was carried out under the Joint Psychological Operations Task Force (JPOTF), which a U.S. defense official confirmed.

The official said he could not comment in detail on JPOTF activities, adding “We do not discuss intelligence gathering methods for operations past and present.”

Lord Bell, who stood down as chairman of Bell Pottinger earlier this year, told the Sunday Times that the deployment of tracking devices described by Wells was “perfectly possible,” but he was personally unaware of it.

Bell Pottinger’s output was signed off by the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. Wells recalled: “We’d get the two colonels in to look at the things we’d done that day, they’d be fine with it, it would then go to General Petraeus.”

Some of the projects went even higher up the chain of command. “If [Petraeus] couldn’t sign off on it, it would go on up the line to the White House, and it was signed off up there, and the answer would come back down the line.”

Petraeus went on to become director of the CIA in 2011 before resigning in the wake of an affair with a journalist.

The awarding of such a large contract to a British company created resentment among the American communications firms jostling for Iraq work, according to a former employee of one of Bell Pottinger’s rivals.

“Nobody could work out how a British company could get hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. funding when there were equally capable U.S. companies who could have done it,” said Andrew Garfield, an ex-employee of the Lincoln Group who is now a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “The American companies were pissed.”

Ian Tunnicliffe, a former British soldier, was the head of a three person panel from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)—the transitional government in Iraq following the 2003 invasion—which awarded Bell Pottinger their 2004 contract to promote democratic elections.

According to Tunnicliffe, the contract, which totaled $5.8 million, was awarded after the CPA realized its own in-house efforts to make people aware of the transitional legal framework ahead of elections were not working.

“We held a relatively hasty but still competitive bid for communications companies to come in,” recalls Tunnicliffe.

Tunnicliffe said that Bell Pottinger’s consortium was one of three bidders for the contract, and simply put in a more convincing proposal than their rivals.

Iraq was a lucrative opportunity for many communications firms. The Bureau has discovered that between 2006 and 2008 more than 40 companies were being paid for services such as TV and radio placement, video production, billboards, advertising, and opinion polls. These included U.S. companies like Lincoln Group, Leonie Industries, and SOS International as well as Iraq-based firms such as Cradle of New Civilization Media, Babylon Media, and Iraqi Dream.

But the largest sums the Bureau was able to trace went to Bell Pottinger.

According to Glen Segell, who worked in an information operations task force in Iraq in 2006, contractors were used partly because the military didn’t have the in-house expertise, and partly because they were operating in a legal “grey area.”

In his 2011 article “Covert Intelligence Provision in Iraq,” Segell notes that U.S. law prevented the government from using propaganda on the domestic population of the U.S. In a globalized media environment, the Iraq operations could theoretically have been seen back home, therefore “it was prudent legally for the military not to undertake all the… activities,” Segell wrote.

Segell maintains that information operations programs did make a difference on the ground in Iraq. Some experts question this however.

A 2015 study by the Rand Corporation, a military think tank, concluded that “generating assessments of efforts to inform, influence, and persuade has proven to be challenging across the government and DoD.”

Bell Pottinger’s operations on behalf of the U.S. government stopped in 2011 as American troops withdrew from Iraq. 

Bell Pottinger changed ownership after a management buyout in 2012 and its current structure has no connections with the unit Wells worked for, which closed in 2011. It is understood the key principals who were involved in this unit deny any involvement with tracking software as described by Wells.

Wells left Iraq after less than two years, having had enough of the stress of working in a war zone and having to watch graphic videos of atrocities day after day.

Looking back at his time creating propaganda for the U.S. military, Wells is ambivalent. The aim of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was to highlight al Qaeda’s senseless violence, he said—publicity which at the time he thought must be doing some good. “But then, somewhere in my conscience I wondered whether this was the right thing to do,” he added.

Lord Bell told the Sunday Times he was “proud” of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq. “We did a lot to help resolve the situation,” he said. “Not enough. We did not stop the mess which emerged, but it was part of the American propaganda machinery.”

Whether the material achieved its goals, no one would ever really know, said Wells. “I mean if you look at the situation now, it wouldn’t appear to have worked. But at the time, who knows, if it saved one life it [was] a good thing to do.”

Thatcher’s PR guru ran Iraq propaganda for Pentagon

October 4, 2016

Thatcher’s PR guru ran Iraq propaganda for Pentagon

October 3 2016, 12:01am, 

Source: Thatcher’s PR guru ran Iraq propaganda for Pentagon | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

Bell Pottinger worked for the US between 2007 and 2011 producing propaganda and faked al-Qaeda videosJerome Delay/AP

Lord Bell, Margaret Thatcher’s PR guru, was hired by the United States to run a $540 million covert propaganda campaign after the invasion of Iraq.

Washington was reported to have paid his company Bell Pottinger’s conflict resolution division to produce fake al-Qaeda videos, which were dropped by US forces.

The films could be tracked by “web-based analytics” when they were played on computers, allowing the Americans to track potential terrorists, according to The Sunday Times.

Martin Wells, a video editor from Bath, was recruited by Bell Pottinger to work on a “psychological operations” campaign for the Pentagon in Iraq.

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

May 26, 2016

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

Source: GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks – Breitbart

AFP

The Pentagon is accelerating its program to recruit younger illegals and put them on a fast-track to citizenship, and the GOP leadership just blocked an amendment to stop the recruitment.

From October 2015 through April 2016, the military’s program inducted 136 enlistees covered by the president’s 2012 Oval Office amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Marine Lt. Col. Gabrielle Hermes.

That’s up from five DACA recruits in fiscal year 2015, she said.

The recruitment is growing even as U.S. Army is shrinking by roughly 10,000 troops each year from 2015 to 2018.

The so-called ‘Dreamers’ were inducted through the Pentagon’s Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, which was adapted to accept illegals covered by Obama’s DACA program, which provides illegal with two-year exemptions from possible repatriation, plus work-permits.

The MAVNI program was established to facilitate the military’s recruitment into critical job specialties, such as interpreters and medical professionals.

To block the recruitment of the illegals instead of young Americans, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Paul Gosar (R.-Ariz.) filed an recruitment-reform amendment to the House’s version of the Pentagon budget. Gosar called the recruitment program a “backdoor amnesty,” because it quickly grants citizenship to the illegals.

But the congressman is not a member of the House Armed Services Committee, so he had get to approval from the House Rules Committee to schedule a vote on his amendment. That committee is controlled by House Speaker Paul Ryan, and it blocked Gosar’s pro-American amendment from being debated.

The leading advocate for the illegals on the House Armed Services Committee is Rep. Ruben Gallego (D.-Ariz.). He said he was thrilled that his committee chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R.-Texas), and the Republican leadership sided with him against Gosar and his fellow Freedom Caucus co-sponsors.

“I am pleased that Congressman Gosar’s attempt to irresponsibly revise compromise language that could enable Dreamers to serve was rejected by cooler heads in the House GOP Leadership,” he said. “Dreamers” is the term used by Democrats to describe younger illegals.

“This shouldn’t be a controversial issue. The Secretary of Defense has the statutory authority to allow any immigrant to enlist if it’s in our national interest – including DACA recipients who want to fight for our country. It’s about defense and what is in the best interest of our nation and our military,” Gallego said.

In June 2012, when President Barack Obama announced his DACA program for illegal immigrants brought into the U.S. as children, he blamed Republicans for blocking the amnesty legislation in Congress. But rather than compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, he directed his deputies to cease enforcing immigration law against many classes of illegals, including younger illegals.

The point of the Gosar amendment was to assert congressional control over military policy.

Now that the National Defense Authorization Act passed the House and has been sent over to the Senate, the question is whether Republicans will go after the Pentagon’s backdoor amnesty themselves.

But the Senate Armed Services Chairman is Sen. John S. McCain (R.-Ariz.), a strong supporter of amnesty. Breitbart News asked for a comment, but his office said it would declined to comment on actions taken in the House.

Rosemary Jenks, who leads government affairs at the Washington-based NumbersUSA, said it has always been legal for permanent residents to enlist in the military on the same terms as citizens.

In a Sept. 25, 2014 memo, Jessica L. Wright, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, asserted that illegal immigrants awaiting legal action through the DACA program are eligible for MAVNI.

“Now, let’s be clear — this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix,” the president said in 2012. “This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.”

Four years later the DACA program is still in place.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law. As the military shrinks, illegals are being recruited in place of younger  American recruits, so “President Obama is forcing so many Americans out of the military only to replace them with illegal aliens,” she said. 

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

May 20, 2016

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

16.05.2016 | OPINION

Source: Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

The monstrous US military budget is a classic illustration of the proverb about not seeing the wood for the trees. It is such an overwhelming outgrowth, all too often it is misperceived.

In recent years, Washington’s military expenditure averages around $600 billion a year. That’s over half of the total discretionary spending by the US government, exceeding budgets for education, health and social security. It’s well over a third of the total world military annual spend of $1.7 trillion.

The incipient military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech in 1961 has indeed become a central, defining feature of American society and economy. To talk of «American free-market capitalism» is a staggering oxymoron when so much of the country’s economy is wholly dependent on government-funded militarism.

Or put it another way: if the US military budget were somehow drastically reduced in line with other nations, the all-powerful military-industrial complex and the American state as we know it would collapse. No doubt something better would evolve in time, but the impact on established power interests would be calamitous and therefore is trenchantly resisted.

This is the context for the escalation in Cold War tensions with Russia this week, with the deployment of the US missile system in Romania. The $800 million so-called missile shield is set to expand to Poland over the next two years and eventually will cover all of Europe from Greenland to southern Spain.

Washington and NATO officials maintain that the Aegis anti-missile network is not targeted at Russia. Unconvincingly, the US-led military alliance claims that the system is to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles or from other unspecified «rogue states». Given that Europe is well beyond the range of any Iranian ballistic capability and in light of the international nuclear accord signed last year between Tehran and the P5+1 powers, the rationale of «defense against Iranian rockets» beggars belief.

The Russian government is not buying American and NATO denials that the new missile system is not directed at Russia. The Kremlin reproached the latest deployment as a threat to its security, adding that it would be taking appropriate counter-measures to restore the strategic nuclear balance. That’s because the US Aegis system can be reasonably construed as giving NATO forces a «first-strike option» against Russia.

A couple of things need to be clarified before addressing the main point here. First, European states are chasing Iranian business investments and markets following the breakthrough P5+1 accord signed last July. Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Austria are among the Europeans who have been vying to tap Iran’s huge economic potential. The notion that Iran is harboring a military threat to such prospective partners is ludicrous, as Russian officials have pointed out.

Secondly, the US protestations of innocent intentions towards Russia are a contemptible insult to common sense. They contradict countless statements by Washington, including President Obama and his Pentagon top brass, which have nominated Russia as an aggressive threat to Europe. Washington is quadrupling its military spending in Europe, increasing its troops, tanks, fighter jets, warships and war exercises on Russia’s borders on the explicit basis of «deterring Russian aggression».

In other words, Russia is viewed as a top global enemy – an existential threat – according to Washington. So, the deployment of the US Aegis missile system this week in Eastern Europe is fully consistent with Washington’s bellicose policies towards Russia. It would thus be irrational and foolishly naive to somehow conclude otherwise, that the US and its NATO allies are not on an offensive march towards Russia.

The depiction of Russia as a global security threat is of course absurd. We can also include similar US claims against China, Iran and North Korea. All such US-designated «enemies» are wildly overblown.

Western claims – amplified relentlessly in the Western news media – of Russia «annexing» Crimea and «invading» eastern Ukraine can be easily contested with facts and indeed counterpoised more accurately as belying Washington’s covert regime change in Kiev.

Nevertheless, Western fear-mongering supported by unremitting media propaganda has to a degree succeeded in conflating these dubious claims into a bigger specter of Russia menacing all of Europe with hybrid warfare. It is, to be sure, a preposterous scare story of a Russian bogeyman which has racist undertones and antecedents in Nazi ideology of demonizing Slavic barbarians.

But this demonizing of Russia, as with other global enemies, is a necessary prop for the American military-industrial complex and its essential functioning for the US economy.

The $600 billion-a-year military spend by Washington is roughly tenfold what Russia spends. And yet, inverting reality, Russia is presented as the threat!

The US military budget is greater than the combined budgets of the world’s next nine big military spenders: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Arguably, the US economy as we know it – dominated by Pentagon, corporate, Wall Street and congressional interests – would cease to exist were it not for the gargantuan government-subsidized military budget.

Structurally, the US economy has ossified into a war economy and the only way for this to be maintained is for the US to be continually placed on a war footing, either in the form of a Cold or Hot conflict. Historians will note that out of its 240 years of existences as a modern state, the US has been in war or overseas conflict for more than 95 per cent of its history.

During the former Cold War with the Soviet Union, a recurring theme in Washington was the alleged «missile gap» which purported to portray the US as losing its military edge. This resulted in relentless military expenditure and an arms race that in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Washington’s self-ordained privilege to run up endless debt (currently nearly $20 trillion) because of its dollar dominance as the world’s reserve currency has permitted the US to escape a day of reckoning for its ruinous military profligacy.

This madcap situation continues to prevail. A quarter of a century after the official end of the old Cold War, US military spending continues at the same profligate, unsustainable pace.

What Washington needs in order to keep the fiasco going is to whip the rest of the world into a frenzy of fear and loathing. That’s why the Cold War with Russia and China has had to be rehabilitated in recent years. Swords cannot be turned into plowshares because the US power interests that command its economy have no use for plowshares.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions invited global cooperation on security matters, and with the US in particular. Moscow has also recently said that it does not want to embark on a new arms race. The latter wariness is understandable given the deleterious experience for the Soviet Union from runaway military spending.

However, that is precisely what the US wants and needs to induce: a global arms race which it can then invoke as justification for its own monstrous military.

According to SIPRI, both China and Russia have significantly increased their military budgets, by about 7.5 per cent each in 2015.

Russia may not want to engage in an arms race, mindful of the warping pressure that can inflict on its national resources and development.

But when the US installs a new missile system on Russia’s doorstep, the impetus for Russia to likewise scale up military commitments is onerous.

And that is what Washington is driving at. It is not that Russia is an objective security threat to Washington or its allies. The real threat to Washington is peaceful international relations which would make its military-industrial complex redundant.

It is a disturbing reality that world peace is antithetical to the very foundation of America’s corporate capitalist power.

Shamefully, the world is subjected to the risk of war and even annihilation all for the purpose of maintaining elite American power privileges. And among those who suffer this diabolical injustice are none other than the majority of American citizens, who have to endure poverty and misery while their corporate elite siphon off $600 billion a-year in military obscenity.

U.S. forces now on the ground supporting combat operations in Yemen, Pentagon says

May 7, 2016

U.S. forces now on the ground supporting combat operations in Yemen, Pentagon says

May 6 at 2:30 PM

Source: U.S. forces now on the ground supporting combat operations in Yemen, Pentagon says – The Washington Post

An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, assigned to the “Chargers” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 26, prepares to land on the flight deck of guided-missile destroyer USS Gonzalez (DDG 66). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Pasquale Sena)

The Pentagon has placed a small number of U.S. advisors on the ground in Yemen to support Arab forces battling al-Qaeda, military officials said on Friday, signaling a new American role in that country’s multi-sided civil war.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. personnel had been in the country for about two weeks, supporting Yemeni and Emirati forces that are fighting a pitched battle against militants near the southeastern port city of Mukalla.

“We view this as short-term,” Davis told reporters.

Officials said the U.S. military is also providing Emirati forces with medical, intelligence and maritime support, and is flying surveillance and aerial refueling missions. It has also staged a ships from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit off Yemen’s coast. The flotilla includes the USS Boxer, an amphibious assault ship with Marine infantry and aircraft, and two destroyers, the USS Gravely and the USS Gonzalez.

Col. Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said the United States was helping the Arab forces plan operations as part of its “limited” mission in and around Mukalla.

“We welcome operations undertaken by Yemeni Forces, with the support of Arab Coalition Forces, to liberate the Yemeni port city of Mukalla from control by al- Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP),” Ryder said in an email.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations, said that the U.S. presence, approved at the request of the United Arab Emirates, was “way small.”

Even a tiny military footprint marks a milestone for U.S. involvement in the Yemeni conflict, which brought an end a year and a half ago to a long-running U.S. mission there against AQAP.

After the internationally recognized Yemeni government, unable to contain Shiite Houthi rebels, collapsed at the end of 2014, the United States was forced to pull out Special Operations troops who had been training and advising their Yemeni peers.

[Yemen is turning into Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam]

The departure was a blow to U.S. efforts to battle AQAP, which has long been considered the most menacing al-Qaeda branch and which has seized on the chaos of the ongoing conflict to strengthen its military position.

Since then, the United States has confined its military activities mostly to supporting a Saudi-led coalition battling the Houthi rebels, which the Kingdom sees as an Iranian proxy force. The Pentagon has provided some intelligence and aerial support to the Saudi-led air war.

The new American advisory team will support the Emirati troops and Yemeni forces loyal to the old government as they seek to capi­tal­ize on recent headway against AQAP in Mukalla, which was seized by militants last year.

Ilan Goldenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the U.S. presence would reinforce an encouraging trend. “This is exactly the type of [situation] where a little bit of American support goes a long way,” he said.

President Obama’s preference for using small Special Operations teams to conduct targeted operations or advise partner forces has been a hallmark of his global security strategy.

American officials also considered the Mukalla offensive a success because it marked an unprecedented coalition action against AQAP. U.S. officials have long encouraged Saudi Arabia to broaden its focus in Yemen beyond the Houthis, and have also complained of high civilian casualties in a conflict that has killed at least 6,000 people.

The United Nations continues to seek a political solution in peace talks in Kuwait City.

Military officials declined to say what type of U.S. personnel were on the ground in Yemen or provide their exact location. “They are not in harm’s way,” the U.S. official said.

[U.S. targets al-Qaeda in Yemen airstrike that kills dozens, Pentagon says]

Even after the end of its training mission, the United States has tried to contain AQAP’s growth using periodic airstrikes of its own.

Davis said the United States has conducted four strikes against al-Qaeda militants since April 23, killing 10 militants and wounding one. In March the Pentagon announced it had killed more than 70 al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen in one of the largest U.S. strikes conducted in the country since the beginning of operations there.

According to a Long War Journal database, the United States has conducted roughly 140 airstrikes in Yemen since 2002.

Tanks for nothing! US-backed Syrian rebel division attacked & looted by Al-Qaeda affiliate

March 14, 2016

Tanks for nothing! US-backed Syrian rebel division attacked & looted by Al-Qaeda affiliate

Published time: 14 Mar, 2016 05:52

Source: Tanks for nothing! US-backed Syrian rebel division attacked & looted by Al-Qaeda affiliate — RT News

An Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra fighter © Hamid Khatib

 

In what could be one of the worst failures of the Pentagon’s program to arm Syrian rebels, several bases with American weapons, armored vehicles and US-trained fighters were captured by Al-Nusra Front. The jihadists and “moderate rebels” are blaming each other for the attack.

READ MORE: ‘Truce hasn’t changed anything, terrorists intensified attacks’ – Aleppo residents to RT

Division 13 of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which had received both US weapons and training, on Sunday said it was attacked by Al-Nusra Front militants – radical Islamist fighters affiliated with Al-Qaeda. The jihadists looted the FSA group’s depots in the town of Maarrat Al-Nuuman in Syria’s Idlib province.

Read more

Though it has widely been reported that weapons and dozens of Division 13 fighters have been captured, there are conflicting accounts of how much the jihadists could actually carry. Some media reports claimed that the haul included US-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles, firearms and ammunition, and unspecified armored vehicles, including a tank. The rebel group’s chief has denied they have lost anti-tank missiles, telling AFP that only “light weapons” have been taken.

Moreover, up to 40 Division 13 fighters have been taken hostage and four killed, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has said, though the remote “sources on the ground” routinely cited by the UK-based organization are often hard to verify.

Adding to the rebel group’s dismay, Al-Nusra was also the first to release an online statement – blaming Division 13 for provoking the attack. In turn, the rebels denied attacking Al-Nusra and accused them of an unexpected armed assault on a checkpoint, set up at the request of the local population.

The reason reportedly given by the US-backed group as to why they couldn’t have attacked the Islamists? Too weak for the job.

The feud between the militant factions, once close allies in fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, has been brewing for some time, according to AP. Al-Nusra has recently suppressed demonstrations and arrested protesters in the city of Idlib, and reportedly replaced the tricolor of the Syrian rebels with the black Al-Qaeda flag there.

On Friday, in Maaret al-Numan, motorcyclists waving the black flag of Al-Nusra threatened to fire on a protest, shouting “Allahu akbar” or “God is greatest.”

Read more

Members of Al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. © Ammar Abdullah

Interestingly, Al-Nusra has a history of looting US-backed opposition forces: last summer, jihadists kidnapped members of the US-trained Division 30, while in September a whole stock of US-supplied weapons and hardware was captured.

The Pentagon’s failed rebel-training program was canceled in October, after dozens of US-trained rebels abandoned Division 30 and handed the weapons they had been supplied to Al-Nusra upon crossing from Turkey into Syria.

However, the head of US Central Command, General Lloyd Austin, proposed to restart training for Syria’s so-called “moderate” rebels.

A month later, the US State Department admitted that some of the “moderates” had been successfully recruited by Al-Nusra in Syria.

READ MORE: ‘US created monster of al-Qaeda, yet believes Iran supported 9/11 terrorists’ (OP-ED)

Robert Gates criticizes Obama|

January 19, 2016

Gates: Obama Thinks He’s Smartest Guy in Room, Ineffective at Developing and Implementing Strategy

BY:
January 19, 2016 10:43 am

Source: Robert Gates criticizes Obama|White House Pentagon relations|Micromanagement of military|Robert Gates new book

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that President Obama thinks he is smarter than his advisers and that he surrounds himself with people who will not question his views. As a result, the White House has struggled to develop and implement effective strategy during the Obama administration, according to Gates.

“You know, the president is quoted as having said at one point to his staff, ‘I can do every one of your jobs better than you can,’” Gates said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“Oh my God, ” host Joe Scarborough said.

Gates’ statement was in response to Scarborough, who asked, “President Obama has actually been criticized for always thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room … Did Barack Obama always think he was the smartest guy in the room?”

The question came while Gates and the Morning Joe panel were discussing leadership skills presidents must possess to govern effectively. Gates appeared on the show to promote his new book, A Passion for Leadership: Lessons on Change and Reform from Fifty Years of Public Service, which examines how leaders at all levels in both the public and private sector can better manage organizations and bureaucracies to be more responsive.

Gates also said he thinks “one of the greatest weaknesses of the White House is implementation of strategy, is difficulty in developing strategy and then implementing that strategy.”

The former secretary of defense added that there are no “strong” people around the president who will challenge him on issues. Gates credited Obama for not shutting him down when he pushed back against the president while serving in the cabinet from 2009 to 2011, but he does not see people around Obama now who offer alternative views.

Critics have said the president is stubborn and does not listen to opposing viewpoints, even from his own staff. Politico published a story in October highlighting how this was the case with the administration’s Syria policy when the president’s advisors urged him to take more aggressive action, which Obama refused to do.

Another incident critics cite is when Obama was still a Senator from Illinois and traveled to Iraq in 2007. General David Petraeus, then commanding U.S. forces for the war effort, gave Obama his assessment of the fight against al Qaeda and how to prosecute it. Obama disagreed with the general’s analysis, arguing that Petraeus had it wrong.

Gates also was critical of Obama because “he has centralized power and operational activities of the government in the White House to a degree that I think is unparalleled. An NSC [National Security Council] staff of 450 people at this point.”

Senior military officials have expressed frustration with the White House under Obama for micromanaging the Pentagon and keeping national security decisions isolated within the president’s staff. Another former secretary of defense who served under Obama, Chuck Hagel, recently lambasted the president and his staff for “politically motivated micromanagement” and “debilitating meddling” of the military.

Gates himself has said on previous occasions that he was frustrated with how the White House dealt with the Pentagon.

“It was the operational micromanagement that drove me nuts, of White House and NSC staffers calling senior commanders out in the field … second-guessing commanders,” Gates told Fox News last fall.

“That’s the kind of thing that made me crazy … It was with the background of having served on the NSC under four presidents … When I was deputy national security advisor, if I would have tried to call a field commander, going around Dick Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense, or Colin Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I’d of had my head handed to me, probably personally, by the president.”

Gates has served under eight presidents in various high-level roles, including as secretary of defense for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq

October 13, 2015

Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq Pentagon dismisses Iranian ‘propaganda’

BY:
October 12, 2015 12:27 pm

Source: Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq

The Pentagon acknowledged on Monday that Iraqi forces could have discovered a cache of U.S. weapons and missiles seized by Islamic State (IS) militants operating in the country, according to U.S. officials and regional media reports.

Iraqi forces combatting IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) are said to have found a stockpile of U.S. weapons, including ammunition and anti-armor missiles, hidden at sites controlled by terrorist forces, according to foreign military sources who spoke to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency. This is said to include a “huge volume” of advanced TOW II anti-tank missiles.

When asked to address the reports on Monday, a Pentagon official acknowledged that U.S. weapons had gone missing last year, but denied that the United States was intentionally arming IS or its affiliates in the region.

“As you may recall, when ISIL overran Iraqi positions last year, we were aware of ISIL capturing some Iraqi weapons and equipment that had been supplied by the U.S. to Iraqi forces,” the official said. “However, the claims that U.S. and Coalition forces are directly supplying ISIL with any weapons, equipment, or ammunition are completely false.”

Fars claimed the U.S. weapons and ammunition were discovered over the weekend near the Iraqi city of Fallujah and that they had been “airdropped” into the area by American forces.

“The military hardware and weapons had been airdropped by the U.S.-led warplanes and choppers for the ISIL in the nearby areas of Beiji,” a military source was quoted as telling Fars.

The U.S. defense official rejected this claim, calling it “nothing more than propaganda intended to mislead readers about the true nature of the coalition’s efforts to support our Iraqi partners and defeat ISIL.”

Another Pentagon official noted that Iran often disseminates these types of reports and officials “regularly have to correct the record.”

Iraqi sources had claimed over the weekend that U.S. shipments had been spotted being sent to IS, though the claims could not be verified. Videos disseminated via Twitter appear to show Iraqis digging through U.S. supply crates.

The claims follow months of speculation among some Iraqis that the United States is wrongly arming terrorist forces in the country.

Such claims are a sign of a growing propaganda war on both sides of the fight, with the United States working to dampen conspiracies about its supposed support for IS.

Iranian officials and the country’s media outlets have attempted to perpetuate this narrative.

Fars quoted an Iraqi official earlier this year who claimed that U.S. aircraft were dropping food and weapons for forces believed to be affiliated with IS.

“The U.S. planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Jafar al-Jaberi, a coordinator for the Iraqi popular forces, was quoted as telling the outlet.

Meanwhile, U.S. coalition forces continue to strike IS positions.

The Pentagon announced on Sunday that it had conducted 17 airstrikes in Iraq and another seven in Syria.

“The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community,” the Pentagon said. “The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations.”

Islamic State threat prompts new security warnings across U.S. military

October 31, 2014

Islamic State threat prompts new security warnings across U.S. military, Military TimesAndrew deGrandpreLance M. BaconJeff Schogol, October 30, 2014

bildeMilitary commands and individual service members are tightening up on security amid the growing threat posed by the Islamic State. (Tech. Sgt. Sandra Niedzwiecki / Air Force)

Perhaps the most chilling statement came from the Pentagon, where late last week officials with the building’s internal security force sent employees a memo calling service members and law enforcement officers “legitimate targets.” Such attacks, according to the memo, could involve knives, guns or bombs — and most likely would be perpetrated without warning. The memo cites unspecified sources within the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

****************

Military facilities around the U.S. are on alert, urging troops and their families to take precautions amid continued threats of violence from the Islamic State group.

The responses to that threat are being driven not just by the need to ensure protective measures are taken, but also to address increasing concerns being voiced by troops and family members who are worried about safety for their loved ones and themselves. It marks a shifting mindset, from one of full confidence that the military community was safe on its home turf to an unsettling sense that that is where they are newly vulnerable.

The Defense Department refuses to discuss the protective measures it has taken on behalf of the country’s 2.1 million service members, and to date Washington has not issued universal guidance. But many senior leaders and installation commanders are taking matters into their own hands, issuing clear warnings of the potential for “lone-wolf” style attacks like those carried out in mid-October on military personnel in Canada.

On Wednesday, for instance, the Marine Corps distributed a servicewide announcement instructing personnel to report “even the most minor suspicious activity” and to watch what they share on social media. Doing so, the message says, will help reduce the likelihood of an attack.

At MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, officials with the 6th Air Mobility Wing took the Marine Corps’ warning a significant step further. Troops assigned to the base, home to the headquarters of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command, should downplay their military affiliation while in public. Uniforms, even military T-shirts and car bumper stickers, could put people at risk, it says.

‘Legitimate targets’

Perhaps the most chilling statement came from the Pentagon, where late last week officials with the building’s internal security force sent employees a memo calling service members and law enforcement officers “legitimate targets.” Such attacks, according to the memo, could involve knives, guns or bombs — and most likely would be perpetrated without warning. The memo cites unspecified sources within the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

“We disseminated this advisory, not because of a specific threat, but as a reminder for Pentagon employees to be vigilant at home, at work, during travel and in their communities, by using individual protective measures,” said Christopher Layman, a spokesman for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency.

At installations across the country, troops and their families are increasingly on edge, sources tell Military Times. “At least a third to half of my friends in the military spouse community have changed their last names on their Facebook profiles,” said Kristine, the wife of an active-duty Marine who, like other military spouses interviewed for this report, asked that her last name not be published.

“I have chosen to leave mine as it is, but I did change my profile picture to one which doesn’t show any military association,” she said.

Bonny, spouse of an Air Force crew chief, acknowledged feeling “scared to death” by recent communication from her husband’s command at Langley Air Force Base along the Virginia coast. They have since attended a commander’s call and a meeting with leaders in the Key Spouses program. Officials told the families gathered that they could not give details on the severity of the threat but recommended they shut down social media accounts.

While it was an initial consideration, “we came to the decision that we are not going to live our lives in fear over this,” Bonny said. She and her family opted instead to max out privacy settings, remove military and location references and teach their kids to be especially careful on social media, which the parents closely monitor.

A bigger problem for her is soothing the fears of other loved ones. “Our families and friends are worried more than us, probably because we are accustomed to threats, and extremely upset that they have to lose social media ties,” Bonny said. “For military families that’s huge because of distance.”

Distance of a different kind is an issue for Brandon, a sailor whose wife also serves on active duty.

“I am not scared for myself. I’ve got the man upstairs, along with 2,000 rounds and six weapons fighting on my side,” he said. “I am only scared for those times I am on duty and my wife and daughter are alone.”

Brandon said he takes seriously the threat posed by the Islamic State. He taught his wife how to shoot weapons and they both carry sidearms wherever they go. They deleted social media accounts, as well.

“It made me realize how ridiculously accessible we are through Facebook,” he said. “Little stuff like shutting that off gets you off the map. This terrorist group is organized and they are not dumb. I would not second-guess them at all.”

Ramping up precautions

Select Navy commands also issued warnings as airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, many carried out by Navy warplanes flying from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, ramped up in October. Officials in Jacksonville, Florida, and Norfolk, Virginia, have encouraged sailors and their families to guard against common operational security mistakes like posting personnel rosters or scheduled ship movements.

And while the response varies from base to base and service to service, online safety is a consistent theme. Spokespersons for three Army posts — Fort Hood, Texas, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia — each said their installations had adopted no additional security measures. Yet a recent directive published by the Army Threat Integration Center calls on troops to disable mobile apps that track their whereabouts and to avoid posting anything on social media that reveals where their kids attend school or would otherwise allow someone to know ahead of time where they’ll be.

Kristine, who runs a family support site called USMC Life, has a substantial digital presence. Her site’s Facebook community alone has more than 200,000 followers. In recent days she rechecked her privacy settings to ensure her personal profile is locked down, and she’s purged from her website the last names of her staff members.

Even so, Kristine downplayed the risk associated with one’s digital footprint, saying it would take considerable effort to target someone electronically. Military officials are using these threats as an opportunity to compel people to behave more responsibly online, she said.

“There’s a larger chance of the Islamic State targeting us through random acts of violence around local military installations, or by following people’s cars by tracking DoD stickers, or additional military decals on their vehicles,” she said. “For me, this is just one more reason to move to 100-percent ID scan at the gate and ditch the military decals on our cars.”

The growing sense of troops and family members as individual targets owes not just to domestic concerns but also to recent incidents overseas, such as a bold Islamic State kidnapping plot in Turkey that raised questions about safety for the thousands of troops and family members stationed in that country.

Earlier in October, U.S. military officials in Europe told local-level commanders they should consider instructing troops not nor wear their uniforms off base.

And inside a week in the same month, two Canadian soldiers were killed in separate attacks by individuals believed to be terrorist sympathizers.