Tag Archives: troops

German Bundeswehr to help German countries after US withdrawal News | DW | Instant News


Germany must do more for its own security, Defense Minister Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer said as The US plan to drastically cut off the presence of its troops in a European country.

“We consider the interests of the European Union and Germany,” Kramp-Karrenbauer said on Friday. “It is also true that the good life in Germany and Europe increasingly depends on how we ensure our own security.”

Earlier this week, the US sketched a plan to approach 11,900 troops, or nearly a third of its total contingent in Germany, abroad. That step done on the orders of President Donald Trump, which on Wednesday said the US withdrew because Germany “did not pay their bills” for defense, alluded to Berlin’s failure to meet NATO guidelines on military spending.

While NATO asked its members to invest 2% of their GDP into defense, German military spending was around 1.38% of GDP last year. Trump described Germany as a “delinquent”.

NATO statistics show that in 2019 out of 28 members of the alliance, only the US, Greece, Estonia, Britain, Romania, Poland and Lativa spending more than 2% of GDP on defense spending.

Read more: SIPRI: Germany significantly increases military spending

German officials criticize the cuts in US forces and Trump’s tone. In addition to security concerns, the withdrawal is expected to hit the economies of the cities where troops are located, because many Germans work as civilian staff and contractors for US forces and rely on American soldiers as customers for their business.

Bundeswehr to save?

On Friday, Defense Minister Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer said he would hold talks after the summer holidays with leaders of the affected German states to discuss “how the Bundeswehr can support the affected areas.” He described the US withdrawal as “regrettable.” It was not immediately clear how the German military would try to fill the gap left by the US departure.

German lawmaker and senior defense official Thomas Silberhorn told DW that US forces had “extraordinary work in Germany and Europe” in the previous decades.

Read more: Germany urges continued US dialogue after withdrawal

Germany is concerned “not only about withdrawing troops, but about the reasons,” Silberhorn told DW Washington correspondent Ines Pohl.

Silberhorn said, “We understand his argument, Europeans and especially Germans, must do more for security in Europe. But we have done many things.”

Berlin must “continue the trustful dialogue at a higher level” with Washington, he added.

dj / sms (dpa, AFP, Reuters)

.



image source

Germany urges resumption of US dialogue after troop withdrawals News | DW | Instant News


The German government has urged to continue an “eye” dialogue with Washington announced the withdrawal of US troops from the country.

“We must continue the trustful dialogue at a higher level,” Thomas Silberhorn, a senior member of the German Defense Ministry, told DW.

“For decades, US forces have done extraordinary work in Germany and Europe,” Silberhorn said, adding that now it is “important to get a clear strategic approach to the question of readjusting US forces not only in Germany but throughout Europe.”

Read more: The US Military in Germany: What you need to know

The US announced plans this week to attract 11,900 military personnel from Germany – dropped to 24,000 from 36,000. A number of troops were arranged to go to Italy. And, in a big step, the headquarters of the US European Command and the European Special Operations Command will be moved from Stuttgart, Germany to Belgium. Some soldiers may also be moved to Poland and the Baltic countries.

This is one of the largest rearrangements of troops in Germany since the Cold War.

Call for clarification

Silberhorn said Germany was concerned “not only about withdrawing troops, but about the reasons.”

US President Donald Trump announced a decline last month amid long-term strife with Germany over its defense spending, which fell below the NATO target of 2% of gross domestic product.

Silberhorn said that “we understand his argument, Europeans and especially Germans, must do more for security in Europe. But we have done many things.”

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper also said the move, which would cost billions of dollars, was part of Washington’s new military strategy against Russia. “We are following the eastern boundary, where our latest allies are,” Esper said.

Read more: Withdrawal of troops from Germany ‘gifts to the Kremlin’

Criticism of decisions has said that moving troops from Germany will be welcomed by Moscow. However, Silberhorn doubted the US decision would play in the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“This is a shift towards the south and east sides of NATO. Until 1990, it made sense to keep US forces close to the eastern border of Germany,” he said. “Now, NATO has been enlarged, boundaries are shifting eastward.”

Thomas Silberhorn, German Politician, State Secretary of the German Ministry of Defense in Washington, was speaking with DW Ines Pohl.

.



image source

Former US commander: Withdrawal of troops from Germany ′ gifts to the Kremlin ′ | Germany | News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and surroundings | DW | Instant News


On Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced plans to withdraw around 11,800 American military personnel from bases in Germany. Around 5,400 troops will be sent to other European countries, while more than 6,000 will return.

Lieutenant General Ben Hodges is a retired US Army officer who led the European United States Army from November 2014 to December 2017. After leaving the military, he became Chair of Pershing in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis, based in Washington, DC.

He spoke with the Washington DW Bureau Chief, Ines Pohl, about the damage done by troop withdrawals to US-German relations and US military readiness in Europe.

DW: What does withdrawal mean for the safety of the United States?

Hodges: It hurts us because it further damages relationships with our most important allies. And it’s more in the way that this is done according to specifications. The timeline for things like this will usually take years.

It takes a long time for those things to really happen – if they do at all. But the damage to the relationship was done. And for me that is the most unfortunate part.

Lieutenant General Ben Hodges said damage had occurred to US-German relations, even if the withdrawal of troops was not continued

Germany is our most important ally in Europe. This gives us a platform to implement our own national security strategies in Africa, in Europe and in Eurasia. That is the ally that we need most to work together. The administration is doing this in a way that damages trust.

From a military point of view, is it necessary to have so many troops in Germany?

We have very few troops in Germany. 35,000 is not even half the size of the stadium where Bayern Munich plays soccer. Most of them are people who work in headquarters or logistics or air defense or communication. It’s just not many people.

So troops are not needed from a military point of view?

Withdrawal removes capabilities that exist in Germany and helps the United States. The troops were not there to guard the Germans, they were stationed there for us. Germany is a platform that allows us to carry out rapid strengthening in Eastern Europe, for example, as well as other places.

That’s why relations with Germany are very important. And if you start distancing capabilities from Germany, where we have good infrastructure, it will be difficult to maintain the same level of readiness. If you are moving troops to Italy, for example, the infrastructure is not there. They have to spend billions of dollars expanding barracks.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney and others call this a gift to Russia. Do you agree with that?

This is a complete gift for the Kremlin. A 30% reduction in US capability in Germany, further disruption and damage to our most important relations and Russia has not produced this.

I mean, they are as aggressive as in the Black Sea, they continue to occupy Crimea, they kill Ukraine every week. They did nothing to get a reduction in US capability in Europe.

So why did President Trump do this?

I can only speculate. I always believe that this is a political decision that is not based on any strategic analysis.

He confirmed this step by Germany not paying enough into the NATO budget.

I believe that this is the principle motivation. Of course, almost everyone agrees that Germany must spend more on its own defense. Every president has it.

But the president’s decision to reduce what we have in Germany is almost a third based on his frustration that he does not spend 2% of GDP on defense.

Ironically, Italy and Belgium are also well below 2%, and they are now in line to receive troops. So there is no consistency in this decision.

Less than 100 days until election day. How much can President Trump really do until then?

Now, from what we hear today, some movements will begin in a few weeks. There is no really substantial part that can be moved for months.

President Trump has just announced that he wants to send retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor as US ambassador to Germany. How does this fit into the picture?

He was entirely in the same camp as former Ambassador Richard Grenell and the White House in terms of reducing military capabilities in Germany. Clearly, the White House will not choose someone who will not run the same policy.

It is unfortunate that for our most important ally, we did not elect a well-known and well-known ambassador, as Germany did. [former State Secretary] Emily Haber to Washington. We must look for one of our most prominent and best diplomats to ensure relations with our most important allies.

.



image source

The US brought 6,400 troops home from Germany | Instant News


Encouraged by President Donald Trump’s request to pull troops out of Germany, the US will bring about 6,400 troops home and move around 5,400 to other countries in Europe, US defense officials said Wednesday, detailing Pentagon plans that would cost billions of dollars and took years to complete. The decision fulfilled Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from Germany, at least in part because of his failure to spend enough money on defense. US officials say that steps will begin in a few months and will likely send air and ground forces to countries that already have American troops. The plan is to leave around 25,000 troops in Germany. This announcement is closely related to plans to increase the presence of US troops in Poland, a change that Warsaw and the Polish President Andrzej Duda have long desired. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that had not yet been announced, said the move would cost “billions” and required construction at bases in the US to accommodate additional troops. Officials say that in the future other troops will spin in and out of Europe. Members of Trump’s own political party criticized the force as a gift to Russia and a threat to US national security. Twenty-two Republicans on the Armed Forces Committee Council responded with a letter to Trump that said the reduced US commitment to European defense would encourage Russian aggression and opportunism. It is also unclear whether the plan will survive if Trump is not reelected in November. a hub for US operations in the Middle East and Africa. The decision to retain nearly half the troops in Europe is a clear step by the Pentagon to defuse allies by avoiding a total withdrawal of 10,000 troops from the region. And by spreading power to the East, he sent a message to Russia that the US did not reduce its commitment to the region and remained prepared to protect Eastern Europe from all Moscow aggression. Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has voiced support for the plan and also acknowledged that it would take “months to plan and years to be executed.” He was told about the problem last week, and he issued a statement saying “the concept of realigning US military posture in Europe” is sound. Trump announced last month that he wanted to cut the number of active duty US troops in Germany from around 36,000 to a little over 25,000. Shifting troops abroad has long been rumored and in line with the Pentagon’s efforts to place more troops in the Indo-Pacific. But Trump’s comments indicate that the move is more directly related to his anger over Germany’s failure to meet NATO’s defense spending goals. Trump called Germany “naughty” because it failed to meet NATO goals set in 2014 for members to stop budget cuts and move toward spending at least 2% of gross national product for defense by 2024. And he stressed that Germany had long embarrassed the United States in trade and defense, stating that “until they pay” more for their own defense, he will reduce US troops. Last month’s Rose Garden event with Widower, Trump said that some troops from Germany would go to Poland and some would go to “other places.” Under an agreement announced last year, the US has said it sent around 1,000 more troops to Poland, and progress is being made, officials said, to lay the groundwork for the movement. Under the agreement, the US will add division headquarters, combat training centers, unmanned aircraft squadrons and structures to support Army brigades that can rotate in and out of the country. In all, the US has around 47,000 troops and civilian personnel in Germany, spread over a number of smaller bases, bases and installations. Most of the 35,000 who are actively serving are in several larger Army and Air Force bases including the Ramstein Air Base, a hub in the region. There are also 2,600 National Guard and Reserve troops in Germany and nearly 12,000 civilians working for the service or the Department of Defense. After Trump’s meeting with Widuda, Defense Minister Mark Esper in early July traveled rarely to NATO overseas for a brief visit, seeking to reassure allies that Washington was still committed to the region and that he would consult with them about troop movements. Because of the threat of the corona virus, international travel has been very limited. Some NATO defense ministers have expressed concern about the decision to pull thousands of troops out of Germany, especially because Trump has repeatedly talked about bringing troops home and expelling the US from “running out”. war. ”

Encouraged by President Donald Trump’s request to pull troops out of Germany, the US will bring about 6,400 troops home and move around 5,400 to other countries in Europe, US defense officials said Wednesday, detailing Pentagon plans that would cost billions of dollars and take a year to complete.

The decision fulfilled Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from Germany, at least in part because of his failure to spend enough money on defense. US officials say that steps will begin in a few months and will likely send air and ground forces to countries that already have American troops. The plan is to leave around 25,000 troops in Germany.

This announcement is closely related to the plan to increase the presence of US troops in Poland, a change that was long desired by Warsaw and Polish President Andrzej Duda. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that had not yet been announced, said the move would cost “billions” and required construction at bases in the US to accommodate additional troops. Officials say that in the future other troops will enter and exit Europe.

Members of Trump’s own political party criticized the force as a gift to Russia and a threat to US national security. Twenty-two Republicans at the House House Armed Forces Committee responded with a letter to Trump saying the reduced US commitment to European defense would encourage Russian aggression and opportunism.

It is also unclear whether the plan will survive if Trump is not reelected in November.

Germany is the center of US operations in the Middle East and Africa. The decision to retain nearly half the troops in Europe is a clear step by the Pentagon to defuse allies by avoiding a total withdrawal of 10,000 troops from the region. And by spreading power to the East, he sent a message to Russia that the US did not reduce its commitment to the region and remained prepared to protect Eastern Europe from Moscow aggression.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has voiced support for the plan and also acknowledged that it would take “months to plan and years to be executed.” He was briefed on the matter last week, and he issued a statement saying “the concept of aligning US military posture in Europe” is reasonable.

Trump announced last month that he wanted to cut the number of active US troop duty in Germany from around 36,000 to a little more than 25,000. Shifting troops abroad has long been rumored and in line with the Pentagon’s efforts to place more troops in the Indo-Pacific. But Trump’s comments indicate that the move is more directly related to his anger over Germany’s failure to meet NATO’s defense spending goals.

Trump has branded Germany “naughty” as it failed to meet NATO goals set in 2014 for members to stop budget cuts and move toward spending at least 2% of gross national product on defense by 2024. And he stressed that Germany had long underestimated America The union on trade and defense, states that “until they pay” more for their own defense, it will reduce US troops.

At the Rose Garden event last month with Widower, Trump said that some troops from Germany would go to Poland and some would go “somewhere else.”

Under an agreement announced last year, the US had said it would send about 1,000 more troops to Poland, and progress was being made, officials said, to lay the groundwork for the measures. Under the agreement, the US will add division headquarters, combat training centers, drone squadrons and structures to support Army brigades that can spin in and out of the country.

In all, the US has about 47,000 troops and civilian personnel in Germany, spread over a number of smaller bases, headquarters and installations. Most of the 35,000 who are actively serving are in several larger Army and Air Force bases including the Ramstein Air Base, a hub in the region. There are also 2,600 National Guard and Reserve troops in Germany and nearly 12,000 civilians working for the service or the Department of Defense.

After Trump’s meeting with Widuda, Defense Minister Mark Esper in early July traveled rarely to NATO overseas for a brief visit, trying to convince the allies that Washington was still committed to the region and that he would consult with them about troop movements. Because of the threat of coronavirus, international travel is very limited.

Several NATO defense ministers have expressed concern about the decision to pull thousands of troops out of Germany, especially because Trump has repeatedly talked about bringing troops home and bringing the United States out of “an endless war.”

.



image source

The US will bring 6,400 troops home from Germany, transfering another 5,600 | Instant News


WASHINGTON (AP) – Encouraged by President Donald Trump’s request to pull troops out of GermanyThe United States will bring about 6,400 troops home and shift around 5,600 to other countries in Europe, US defense leaders said Wednesday, detailing Pentagon plans that would cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.

The decision fulfilled Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from Germany, largely because of his failure to spend enough money on defense. A number of troops will go to Italy, and a major step will shift the headquarters of the US European Command and European Special Operations Command from Stuttgart, Germany, to Belgium.

The future of the plan is uncertain, at least, because it depends on support and funding from Congress, and a number of members have voiced opposition. And that probably won’t last at all if Trump isn’t re-elected.

MPs have condemned cutting troops as a gift to Russia driven by Trump’s grudge in Germany. But Defense Secretary Mark Esper defended the plan on Wednesday, saying that while the decision was “accelerated” by Trump’s orders, the move also promoted greater strategic objectives to prevent Russia, reassure European allies and shift troops further east to the Sea Black and the Baltic region.

“We are moving troops from central Europe, Germany, where they have been since the Cold War,” Esper said, adding that it would shift US forces eastward, closer to Russia, “where our latest allies are.”

Trump, however, reiterated his very narrow reasons on Wednesday, telling reporters, “We reduced strength because they did not pay their bills. This is very simple. They are delinquents. “He added that he might rethink the decision to pull troops out of Germany” if they start paying their bills. “

Trump has repeatedly accused Germany of failing to pay bills, which is a misstatement of the problem. NATO countries have pledged to dedicate 2% of their gross domestic product to defense spending by 2024, and Germany still lacks that goal, around 1.4%.

Esper said the military move would cost “one digit” billions of dollars, although bringing troops home could reap some savings in future placements. Smaller units can move in a few months, and the plan is to leave around 24,000 troops in Germany.

Twenty-two Republicans at the House Armed Forces Committee sent a letter to Trump saying the reduced US commitment to European defense would encourage Russian aggression. And Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, on Wednesday called the plan a “big mistake,” saying it was a slap in the face of Germany that would endanger American interests.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, meanwhile, welcomed the US move and said Washington had consulted with allies on this issue recently. Trump’s announcement of a withdrawal in June blinded the alliance.

The German Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the move, saying the plan needed to be discussed internally first. Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended German defense spending, saying that it has improved and that the country will continue to work towards a 2% benchmark.

Under the plan, the Air Force’s 52nd Civil Engineering Squadron could be the first to move, going from Germany to Italy, said General Tod Wolters, head of the U … S. European Command. The F-16 Air Force Squadron and several other small units are also scheduled to go to Italy,

Following the announcement, a lawmaker with the opposition Left Party, which is rooted in the former East German communist party and has long urged the withdrawal of American troops, said the plan was “still far from enough.”

“The war was waged throughout the world through the US base in Germany, including drone strikes that violated international law,” said Tobias Pflueger, deputy party leader with Kiri.

The Pentagon announcement is closely related to plans to increase the presence of US troops in Poland, a change that Warsaw and the Polish President Andrzej Duda have long desired.

Officials said the troop move would require construction at bases in the US, specifically to accommodate the Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Vilseck, Germany and will now return to an undetermined location.

Germany is the center of US operations in the Middle East and Africa. The decision to retain nearly half of the troops in Europe is a clear step by the Pentagon to defuse allies by avoiding a total withdrawal of 12,000 troops from the region. And by spreading power to the east, he sent a message to Russia that the US did not reduce its commitment to the region and remained prepared to protect Eastern Europe from Moscow aggression.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has voiced support for the plan and also acknowledged that it would take “months to plan and years to be executed.”

Trump announced last month that he wanted to cut the number of active duty US troops in Germany from around 36,000 to less than 25,000. Shifting troops abroad has long been rumored and in line with the Pentagon’s efforts to place more troops in the Indo-Pacific.

But Trump has tempered his anger over the issue of NATO spending, calling Germany “naughty” for failing to fulfill NATO objectives and stating that Germany has long debased the US in trade and defense.

At the Rose Garden event last month with Widower, Trump said some troops from Germany would go to Poland. On Wednesday, officials suggested that Poland might get some additional rotation troops that would enter and exit Europe.

Under an agreement announced last year, the US said it would send about 1,000 more troops to Poland, and progress was being made to prepare for the steps.

In all, the US has around 47,000 troops and civilian personnel in Germany. Most of the 36,000 active duty are in several larger Army and Air Force bases including the Ramstein Air Base, a regional hub. There are also 2,600 National Guard and Reserve troops and nearly 12,000 civilians there.

____

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller in Washington, DC, David Rising in Berlin and Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.

Copyright 2020 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

.



image source

The US brought 6,400 troops home from Germany, moving 5,400 more | Instant News


WASHINGTON (AP) – Encouraged by President Donald Trump’s request to pull troops out of GermanyThe United States will bring about 6,400 troops home and shift around 5,600 to other countries in Europe, US defense leaders said Wednesday, detailing Pentagon plans that would cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.

The decision fulfilled Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from Germany, largely because of his failure to spend enough money on defense. A number of troops will go to Italy, and a major step will shift the headquarters of the US European Command and European Special Operations Command from Stuttgart, Germany, to Belgium.

Defense Minister Mark Esper said that steps would begin in a few months and would leave around 24,000 troops in Germany. He said that while the decision was “accelerated” by Trump’s orders, the move also promoted greater strategic objectives to prevent Russia, reassure European allies and shift troops further east into the Black Sea and the Baltic region.

Trump, however, reiterated his very narrow reason on Wednesday morning, telling reporters, “we reduced strength because they did not pay their bills. This is very simple. They are delinquents. “He added that he might rethink the decision to pull troops out of Germany” if they start paying their bills. “

Trump has repeatedly accused Germany of failing to pay bills, which is a misstatement of the problem. NATO countries have pledged to dedicate 2% of their gross domestic product to defense spending by 2024, and Germany still lacks that goal, around 1.4%.

Esper said the military move would cost “one digit” billions of dollars. Most of that will require congressional approval to increase or reallocate funds, something that might be difficult because many MPs have expressed opposition to some measures. And it is also unclear whether the plan will survive if Trump is not reelected in November.

Members of Trump’s own political party criticized the force as a gift to Russia and a threat to US national security. Twenty-two Republicans at the House House Armed Forces Committee responded with a letter to Trump saying the reduced US commitment to European defense would encourage Russian aggression and opportunism.

The German Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the move, saying the plan needed to be discussed internally first. Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended German defense spending, saying that it has increased and that the country will continue to work towards a 2% NATO defense spending benchmark.

Following the announcement, a lawmaker with the opposition Left Party, which is rooted in the former East German communist party and has long urged the withdrawal of American troops, said the plan was “still far from enough.”

“The war was waged throughout the world through the US base in Germany, including drone strikes that violated international law,” said Tobias Pflueger, deputy party leader with Kiri.

The Pentagon announcement is closely related to a plan to increase the presence of US forces in Poland, a shift that was long desired by Warsaw and Polish President Andrzej Duda. Officials said the move would require construction at bases in the US to accommodate additional troops. They say that in the future other troops will enter and exit Europe.

Germany is the center of US operations in the Middle East and Africa. The decision to retain nearly half of the troops in Europe is a clear step by the Pentagon to defuse allies by avoiding a total withdrawal of 12,000 troops from the region. And by spreading power to the east, he sent a message to Russia that the US did not reduce its commitment to the region and remained prepared to protect Eastern Europe from Moscow aggression.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has voiced support for the plan and also acknowledged that it would take “months to plan and years to be executed.”

Trump announced last month that he wanted to cut the number of active duty US troops in Germany from around 36,000 to less than 25,000. Shifting troops abroad has long been rumored and in line with the Pentagon’s efforts to place more troops in the Indo-Pacific. But Trump’s comments indicate that the move is more directly related to his anger over Germany’s failure to meet NATO defense expenditure target.

Trump has branded Germany “naughty” as it failed to meet NATO goals set in 2014. And he stressed that Germany had long demeaned the United States to trade and defense.

At the Rose Garden event last month with Widower, Trump said that some troops from Germany would go to Poland and some would go “somewhere else.” On Wednesday, officials suggested that Poland might get some additional rotational power that would enter and exit Europe.

Based on the agreement announced last year, the US has said that send about 1,000 more troops to Poland, and progress is being made, officials say, to lay the groundwork for the movement. Under the agreement, the US will add division headquarters, combat training centers, drone squadrons and structures to support Army brigades that can spin in and out of the country.

In all, the US has around 47,000 troops and civilian personnel in Germany. Most of the 36,000 active duty are in several larger Army and Air Force bases including the Ramstein Air Base, a center in the region. There are also 2,600 National Guard and Reserve troops in Germany and nearly 12,000 civilians working for the service or the Department of Defense.

After Trump’s meeting with Duda, Esper in early July traveled abroad rarely to NATO for a brief visit, trying to convince the allies that Washington was still committed to the region and that he would consult with them about troop movements. Because coronavirus threat, international travel is very limited.

____

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller in Washington, DC, and David Rising in Berlin contributed to this report.

Copyright 2020 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

.



image source

Beauden Barrett was ‘horrified’ when New Zealand rugby fans mocked opposition Rugby Union News | Instant News


Watch Blues vs Chiefs live on Sky Sports Action & Main Event on Sundays starting at 4am; repeated at 10 am on Sky Sports Action

By Reuters

Last Updated: 7/25/20 8:16 a.m.










3:20

Will Greenwood and James Gemmell discuss the form of Beauden Barrett and whether he made the All Blacks start XV

Will Greenwood and James Gemmell discuss the form of Beauden Barrett and whether he made the All Blacks start XV

Beauden Barrett was unhappy with the remarks he received from Hurricanes fans last weekend and hoped that the New Zealanders would stop scoffing at opposition teams.

Barrett made his first appearance in Wellington last weekend since his move north to the Blues after nine seasons with Hurricanes.

The 29-year-old, a fan favorite in Wellington who helped Hurricanes for their Super Rugby title in 2016, was ridiculed every time he touched the ball at a loss of 29-27.

“That makes you wonder, right? How much can you do for the franchise and then be accepted as such,” Barrett said Newstalk ZB.

“I gave them the benefit of the doubt, it could have been scoffed with a smile on their faces at the same time; but I saw it as scorn.”

Barrett added that although he was disappointed with the reaction of Hurricanes fans, he was generally uncomfortable with all the scorn in the rugby match.

6:25
Barrett was derided when he returned to Wellington when the Blues suffered a late defeat to the Storm

Barrett was derided when he returned to Wellington when the Blues suffered a late defeat to the Storm

New Zealand rugby fans are famous for their stoic support for the national team, but the crowds are very outspoken in deriding foreign parties, especially from trans-Tasman neighbors, Australia.

“I don’t think it’s fair to be fair, I’ve never liked it,” Barrett said, who started with fly-half for the Blues against Chiefs on Sunday, life goes on Sky Sports Action.

“When we have an Australian team playing in New Zealand lately, every time that happens I just cringe.

“There is no place for that in rugby in New Zealand.”

.



image source

This is how Pakistan can deliver on its promises to Afghanistan | Instant News


Earlier this month, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, the Pakistani army, the chief of the General staff, visited Kabul to meet with President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the Supreme Council of national reconciliation and point out that Afghan government employees on the intra-Afghan talks with the Taliban. Inter-services intelligence (ISI) Director General Lieutenant General Hamid Faiz and Pakistan, the special envoy to Afghanistan Muhammad Sadiq accompanied by Bajwa. According to the statement, the Afghan President, Ghani and Bajwa agreed “the soil of any country should not be used against others.”

This attitude is laudable, but traditionally there is a gap between what Pakistani leaders promised to make peace and that they actually did.

First and foremost, if Bajwa seriously Pakistan you should not allow its soil to be used as safe havens for Taliban leaders. After September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the late Mullah Omar, the founder of the Taliban movement, lived in Quetta and headed the so-called The Quetta Shura. In Peshawar Shura long supported The Haqqani Networkthat supports Of Taliban operations in Northern and Eastern Afghanistan. The Haqqani Network dominates in Miran Shah Shura, with headquarters in the Northern Pakistani district of Waziristan. Pakistani authorities often counter that they, too, victims of Islamic terrorismit’s true, but this does not excuse Pakistan these groups who sponsor similar the bloodshed in Afghanistan. Not the strengthening of the Taliban any legitimacy when leaders live longer in Pakistan than in any other place. There’s no getting around the fact that allows the leaders of the movement “Taliban” live and the story of terrorism from safe havens in the promises of Quetta, Peshawar and Miran Shah makes Bajwa empty. The failure of the special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to address Pakistan’s Taliban safe havens can be United States – the Taliban, the Internet is the most fatal flaw.

Pakistani authorities often say that they deserve more respect than they get in Western capitals because they has hosted millions of Afghan refugees for many decades. During the bilateral meeting, Pakistani officials often require Afghanistan to do more to encourage the return of refugees. However, the refugees are not back missing protection, but Pakistan appears to be responsible for the creation of “catch-22”. Once again, until Pakistan will not stop support for the Taliban, he will never achieve progress on the issue of refugee return.

Taliban terrorism has killed thousands of innocent Afghans. In the vast majority explosives used by the Taliban in car bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs) using chemical precursors that come two plants on production of fertilizers in Pakistan. Although Afghanistan has long banned the import of ammonium nitrate, the Pakistani border police regularly allow delivery come without any real verification. U.S. officials have long sought to control these supplies, but Drawdown trump administration forces adversely affected the ability of the Pentagon and the intelligence community, and the problem continues. It’s not enough to just close the shelter on its territory. If Pakistan wants peace in Afghanistan and if diplomacy Khalilzad needs to be more substantial than symbolic, then Pakistan needs to stop exporting the Taliban the means to build a bomb.

Not all problems military. If Afghanistan was stable, its economy must be exempted from international aid. However, the protectionism of Pakistan, undermining the capacity of Afghanistan’s agricultural and manufacturing sectors to grow. Pakistan today allows only fifty trucks daily in Afghanistan across its border. It’s pennies for Pakistan, the country more than two hundred million people, and this undermines the ability of Afghan farmers to make an honest living, without resorting to drugs or terrorism, both of which Pakistani authorities say that they are afraid of bleeding across the border. Again, if Bajwa was serious and not just lying at a diplomatic audience, opening up the Pakistani market for Afghan goods, will contribute to strengthening good-neighbourly and peaceful relations.

The ball is now in Islamabad’s court. It is time for Pakistan’s civilian government and the military and intelligence leadership who have the greatest influence on his policies, admit that there was one in Afghanistan and several in the international community to take its diplomatic promises seriously, what the road map is clear as to comply with them, but Pakistan still refuses to even start moving in the right direction.

Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American enterprise Institute, where he explores Arab politics, cooperation Council of Gulf countries, Iran, Iraq, Kurds, terrorism, Turkey. At the same time he teaches classes on combating terrorism and the FBI on security, politics, religion and the history of the United States and of NATO military forces.

Image: Reuters

.



image source

The US, Italy will co-host a virtual meeting of the anti-IS coalition | Instant News


May 27, 2020

State Secretary Mike Pompeo and his Italian counterpart, Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, will co-host a virtual meeting for members of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (IS) on June 4, the State Department announced today.

“The ministers will discuss ways to continue to press [IS] remnants in Iraq and Syria and strengthen our collective approach to defeat [IS’] global ambition, while managing the challenges facing the coalition due to the COVID-19 pandemic, “the State Department said in a statement.

Why it matters: The meeting took place before Washington and Baghdad convened for a separate strategic dialogue late next month, where the two sides will complete the presence of US forces in Iraq in the future. Iraq’s parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for the expulsion of US forces after President Donald Trump ordered a January air strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and top leader of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Unit, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, at Baghdad Airport. Corona virus pandemic and threat Iran’s proxy attack also encourage the United States to attract hundreds troops from several Iraqi bases. After Baghdad stopped the training program, various coalition countries withdrew or moved the troops they had in Iraq.

What’s next: The United States said it anticipated inviting coalition partners to return to Iraq to resume training within two months, the Pentagon Correspondent Jared Szuba reports.

Know more: Elizabeth Hagedorn reports IS a prison riot in a detention facility managed by the Syrian Democratic Forces supported by Kurds.

.



image source

Opinion: Canada must divide up its military resources according to foreign and domestic channels | Instant News


Christian Leuprecht is professor of Leadership in Class 1965 at the Royal Military College, director of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University, and a senior colleague at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. His latest book is Public Security in Federal Polities.

The deployment of 1,700 regular troops and military reserve members Duty in long-term nursing homes in Ontario and Quebec have been applauded by Canadians. At the same time, we seemed ambivalent about the decision to scale back or suspend some of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) international commitments. As far as the public is concerned, military away games are discretionary – a disruption used to keep busy when troops are not needed at home.

The problem is that the country’s stability, prosperity and harmony have long relied on expeditionary military power. The CAF emphasized the country’s geo-strategic interests by strengthening allies and promoting stability abroad. With the globalization of the transnational threat, many Canadian allies have adopted the same posture of the expedition, and our allies are as difficult to sell the need for this action to their domestic constituencies as Canada.

The story continues under the ad

But other countries’ civil-military relations differ from Canada in important ways: under their social contracts, there is broad consensus to keep the military out of domestic operations. The sentiment they hold is that just because the military can do work at home doesn’t mean it should.

These countries want their military to defend their interests; thus, in response to emergencies that are not security related, their civil society must largely deal with it on their own. The functional logic has told Canadian allies and partners in creating organizations that jointly handle civil defense and disaster preparedness. Examples include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States, the State Emergency Service (SES) in Australia, Technisches Hilfswerk (THW) in Germany, the Sécurité Civile in France and the Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) in Sweden. These organizations provide surge capacity in a broad spectrum of expertise, as well as volunteers and trained equipment to help with disaster response.

Canada has no equivalent. Provincial emergency action organizations do not have operational capacity that can be used. So, the CAF finally stopped the emergency response. That is a consequence of a typical Canadian anachronism.

Under paragraph 91 (7) Constitution, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to “militias, military and naval service, and defense.” While provinces and municipalities are prohibited from forming their own military, American states maintain their own national guards. The state militias provided a catalyst to accelerate the U.S. civil war. In negotiating the Confederacy during the 1860s, Canada, which was politically divided and deadlocked, intended not to repeat American mistakes.

At that time, only the federal government had the police forces needed to ensure peace and order. Under the terms “assistance for civilian forces” in Militia Law in 1868, a local official (eg, mayor, prison chief or judge) could ask the local militia and military commanders to oblige. At that time, it guaranteed that there would always be sufficient resources available to ensure justice administration in the Canadian province. At present, this is a moral hazard: knowing that they can call on the CAF, the provinces that lack investment in critical infrastructure.

Over time, mechanisms for assistance to civil authorities have developed without much political oversight, debate or public awareness. Canadian Defense in 2017 White paper “Strong, Safe, Engaged” (SSE) explicitly provides reserves to take on new roles and capabilities. Civil response is a mandate that reserves should have. But many members are placed below LENTUS Operation – CAF’s standing mission for domestic operations – belonging to regular troops.

Reserves should focus on home matches, so that regular troops are not interrupted from away matches.

The story continues under the ad

Such division of labor will require a fundamental restructuring of the CAF. Army reserves are based on an outdated model of mobilizing militias for war: a shadow infantry and artillery waiting to be filled if we mobilize our troops for battle.

Canada can learn from its allies: home and away don’t have to be a zero-sum game, especially when a country spends as little on its troops as it does Canada. In addition to the Pandemic, because climate change brings more frequent and greater floods, snow storms, and forest fires, CAF should consider alternative models to fulfill its civil response mandate. The current approach is clearly inefficient and unsustainable.

Canada will not pay for a larger military. So Canada will need a more organized military that is actually structured to optimize taxpayer investment returns.

Keep your opinion sharp and informed. Get the Opinion bulletin. Register today.

.



image source