Thursday, September 12, 2013

Putin Cautions the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12 September 2013
Putin Cautions USA
Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Defense Spies on Syria Chemical Attack and Budget

3 September 2013
Defense Spies on Syria Chemical Attack and Budget

A sends an email thread between Eugene Furst, a civilian at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and A J MacDonald, a former "Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA". One message mentions the Syrian chemical weapons attack:
"By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.
Other messages discuss Congressional budget justification for military intelligence.

From: "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" <>
To: "AJMacDonald" <>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: Follow-up, 20130820 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good luck for you, see you soon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AJMacDonald [] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM
> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820

> As you see I'm far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
> I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.

> Sincerely,
> Jamie 

> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
> <> wrote:

>> You're exactly right.  We have to work with both theater on the requirement
>> and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don't have too few
>> or too many contractors.

>> CITP - Rock Island Contract
>> CIAT - DIA Contract

>> By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.

>> Regards,
>> -Gene

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: AJMacDonald [] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:00 PM
>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820

>> Gene; CIAT and CITP contracts are MIP funded.  I recall the issue that often
>> surfaced was how the drawdown affected demand necessitating our assessment
>> of where we had folks, the quantity of analysts, and costs associate with
>> their employment.  My recollection of this is correct is it not?  Please
>> advise.  Thank you.  Jamie On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV
>> (US)" <> wrote:

>>> Jamie,
>>> Next time you come in, I'll grab Katrina in DAMI-RI to help out if needed.
>>> Your comment below is correct.  It's just important to remember that 
>>> the POM captures our "request".  It isn't approved until Congress puts 
>>> its stamp of approval on it.  Pretty sure you understood that, we're 
>>> just at the point where we're covering minor nuances...
>>> Regards,
>>> -Gene
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: AJMacDonald []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:13 PM
>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
>>> Thanks, Gene; ROGER all on the OCO piece - at DIA and with the ISR TF 
>>> OCO was always stated; the fun was in determining what color OCO we 
>>> would be allocated.  End use always mattered in these cases.  POM lock 
>>> precedes the
>>> CJB: In that case the CJB captures how we were allocating MIP dollars 
>>> to support activities within the confines of the approved POM.  We 
>>> might need a coffee!  Jamie
>>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Jamie,
>>>> One quick caveat... within the MIP and the NIP there is base and OCO.  
>>>> Most, if not all JUONS coming out of theater were addressed using OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Some of this OCO was MIP and some was NIP.  Within DA G-2 almost all 
>>>> of our OCO throughout the years was MIP.  Not sure how much MIP/NIP 
>>>> OCO DIA utilized.  Just bringing this up based on your comment "
>>>> albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the color of MIP".
>>>> You're correct regarding not having the linguist contract presented 
>>>> during Congressional MIP/NIP Day... this was funded using non-MIP 
>>>> Army OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Stable Shadow was actually part of MIP/NIP Day... it was just never 
>>>> an issue.
>>>> Following MIP/NIP day, DAMI-RI would begin to build the Army's MIP 
>>>> section of the CJB.  The funding and manpower data within the CJB was 
>>>> based upon data provided by the dollars requested/approved within the 
>>>> POM (once we had a "POM lock", DAMI-RI was able to plug the numbers 
>>>> into
>>> the CJB).
>>>> Everything else is spot-on.
>>>> I can also run this past Katrina in DAMI-RI for review... I'm pretty 
>>>> familiar with the processes, but I'm certainly no expert.
>>>> Please don't hesitate if there's anything else.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Gene
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: AJMacDonald []
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:43 PM
>>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Follow-up, 20130820
>>>> Gene:
>>>> Thank you for making time to see me last week; I enjoyed catching-up 
>>>> with you.  Additionally, I learned a great deal and you enabled me to 
>>>> put a few things back into perspective.
>>>> When I was the Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA I was appointed to 
>>>> lead the Agency's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) 
>>>> Task Force Tiger Team.  The purpose of this Tiger Team was to merge 
>>>> the ongoing and competing efforts of the agency's five disparate 
>>>> directorates to garner funding from the ISR Task Force to resource 
>>>> their stove piped support requirements to the fights in Iraq and 
>>>> Afghanistan.  They were doing this under the auspices of the JUONS 
>>>> process.  We got our act together and tightened up things within the 
>>>> agency.  I always believed that although we were working through the 
>>>> ISR Task Force we were actually leveraging available MIP and NIP 
>>>> dollars - albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the 
>>>> color of MIP.  The NIP piece was always something LTG Zahner, and 
>>>> later LTG Kozial, would work out with the DNI.  Do you believe I have
>> this right?
>>>> The NIP MIP day is clear now as well.  Essentially OP served as the 
>>>> intelligence operations authority and advocate for Army intelligence 
>>>> equities (e.g., Prophet, Guardrail, DCGS-A, ARL, EMRS, PTDS and PGSS) 
>>>> during the annual meetings with the Congressional Professional Staff
>>> Members (PSM).
>>>> Our endstate was to ensure that all Military Intelligence Program "
>>>> intelligence capability areas" entered into the Congressional 
>>>> Justification Book (CJB), specifically any changes in resource 
>>>> allocation, were understood by the PSMs prior to final submission of 
>>>> the requirements to Congress for approval.  I am not certain we had 
>>>> our linguist contract or Stable Shadow $s included in this mix.
>>>> However, before all of this kicked off we had to meet with the SMEs 
>>>> and action officers to review the submissions and provide counsel or 
>>>> guidance on the completion of the individual submissions to ensure we 
>>>> "dotted all of the i's" and "crossed all of the t's".  Once this was 
>>>> complete we would review the proposed submissions with the G-2 for 
>>>> approval, guidance and or course changes.  We'd conduct another 
>>>> internal review before providing read-aheads to the PSMs.  Once in 
>>>> the book and good to go this would be aligned with the POM - right?
>>>> Please let me know if I have this right or missed something.
>>>> Again, thank you for your time and patience.
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Jamie

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE