The Great Game - Part II

PART 2 The Great Game - Part II EXTRACTS | SUMMARY SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Lord Curzon Viceroy of India show of strength =  naval tour of the Persian Gulf coast 1903 Lord Lansdowne, then Foreign Secretary warned off Britain's adversaries: "... we should regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified post on the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to our interests and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal." President Jimmy Carter recently (1980)  made a remarkably similar pronouncement about the Persian Gulf Britain naval power base far from Asia where & how could bring strength to bear upon adversary that is moving from interior of the great Eurasian land mass (ie Russia) Need to bring political objectives in line with RESOURCES + STRATEGIES Post Napoleonic Wars = beginning of British & Russian rivalry = Britain & Russia - two remaining Great Powers in world, it appeared = different kinds of power = Britain: new kid on the block: greatest maritime & commercial power world has ever seen = Russia: giant empire of TRADITIONAL type - LAND ARMY overshadowed all other land armies in world Not clear how they could go to war Scale of strategic objectives of Britain did not match its power Had Russia been as militarily as effective as thought, no way for wealth + fleet to have stopped Russia in interior Eurasia BRITISH WEALTH - SUBSIDISES CONTINENTAL ALLIES Wealthy British subsidise continental allies to do much of their land fighting for them in the Napoleonic & other European wars but could not apply same slippery strategy in Asia: "rotting Islamic empires that were their allies in Asia lacked the fighting power to do the job" BRITISH UPSETTING ALLIES: "London to incite them into fighting losing campaigns from which Britain had no ground forces to extricate them would weaken rather than strengthen the British cause" [ Depends on how you look at it?  If your allies are battered fighting lost cause you have set them up to fight (while you remain unscathed on the sidelines), the allies might be upset ... but they're also surely weakened while you are strengthened?  ] Russo-Persian War of 1826-28 Britain failed to defend Persia PERSIA - BRITAIN DOES NOT DEFEND UNRELIABLE ALLY British inaction reportedly fully justified' = Persia had started war = 1814 mutual defence agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia ONLY against aggression Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally = in effect Persia went over to the Russian side BRITISH ECONOMIC STRENGTH - COMPETITORS Britain's economic strength was great *but competitors existed by second half 1800s France Italy Germany able in large part to supplant Britain in the financial & commercial life of Islamic world BRITISH STRENGTH WAS NETWORK OF SPIES ALL ACROSS ASIA Britain maintained a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia reportedly: "network was able to play a role in helping to deter or stop the Russian advance" CONSTANTINOPLE - MAX. PRESSURE POINT Constantinople was Britain’s strong point From Constantinople British warships could enter the Black Sea & with impunity bombard coast of the Crimea, as was done in Crimean War BUT: if the Russian forces then withdrew from the coast into the interior, there was little that Britain could do Britain: could land troops on shore as an invasion force = but small expeditionary force of this sort could not conquer vast land mass of Russia (Napoleon & his forces failed) CRIMEAN WAR - RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BLUNDER BRITISH & FRENCH ALLIED Russians failed to retreat when the Crimean War invasion took place. Bad move. allowed the allied powers, despite their own abysmal military performance, to inflict a shattering defeat on Russian Army Russia's strategic blundering that had made victory in the Crimean War possible Back to Asia: "unless against all odds such blunders were repeated, it would be difficult if not impossible to project Britain's power into the areas where Britain proposed to contain Russian expansionism" Salisbury = brilliant diplomacy success = averted Britsh (navy power) taking on Russia (land powewer) in Asia 1878 War fever Britons whipped up martial enthusiasm with Jingo song in their music halls Salisbury = won Britain's greatest victory at the Congress of Berlin by sheer force of intellect "Great Britain won a bloodless victory with a music-hall song, a navy of museum pieces, and no land forces at all ... without a reliable continental ally" BRITISH OVER-CONFIDENCE 1878 victory weakened the effectiveness of British policy in the long run. Led British public to believe that they could play a great role without: expense or exertion reform of navy creating an army finding an ally Early 1900s showed Britain, not possible to run sucessful foreign policy (ie agressive foreign policy?) on the cheap BOER WAR = exposed the weakness of Britain's military resources + lack of preparedness RUSSIA - RAILWAY NEARS INDIA Russian railroad construction in Asia = close enough to India so that threat of invasion finally plausible Sir Halford Mackinder = the prophet of geopolitics outlined implications of some of the changes that had occurred in the world 1. development of the railroad / other means of rapid land transportation = transformed the relationship between sea power and land power = formerly navy made a country's armed forces mobile = speed of railroads gave the advantage to land powers operating on interior lines, for they were able to concentrate their forces by sending them rapidly along the straight line which constitutes the shortest distance between two points = seagoing adversary must sail all around the circumference and arrive at the field of combat too late Mackinder noted: = Russia occupied pivot area controlling the Eurasian continent ("where most of mankind lives") = this pivot area was INACCESSIBLE to Britain's kind of power = Mackinder message: Britain had placed her bet on yesterday while Russia had placed hers on tomorrow. RUSSIAN-BRITISH BIPOLAR ORDER - CHALLENGED BY RISE JAPAN, GERMANY + UNITED STATES switch of direction from 1800s objectives for Britain: = Rise Japan, Germany & USA, transformed structure of world politics, making what had been a bipolar world into a multipolar one In this new world, Britain weakness exposed in: Boer War Russia Russo-Japanese War 1905 Revolution fear of Russia was an idea that belonged to "the pre-Germanic age. [ Walter Bagehot ] 1907 Britain & Russia TREATY = composed their differences in Asia = Tibet was neutralized = Afghanistan - Russia not interested (left control of its external policy to Britain) = Persia was divided into three zones Russia taking over the substance of Persia Britain taking over Persia sea-coast Historians mostly say, effect = "Game was over" [ So the key is: Iran / Afghanistan? ] 'Game over' not entirely true, according to David Fromkin / article: Brits claim: Russians went beyond what was allowed under the Persian terms of the treaty not reporting all violations, b/c fear of affect re Anglo-Russian alliance against Germany RUSSIAN WITHDRAWAL Following Russian Revolution, Russia disappeared from the areas in contention for about 4 decades [ ... so we're talking until late 1950s ] Russia willingness to abide by 1907 agreement, therefore not put to the test By time Soviets arrived on scene, Brits leaving = again, not put to the test USA has taken over British position re INFLUENCE + INTEREST in Middle East & South Asia Russian intentions unresolved HISTORIANS on Russia latter half of 1900s: = Russian policy in Asia essentially defensive = Russia put pressure on Britain re Afghanistan, the Pamirs and Tibet was to keep British from attacking the Russians once again in the Black Sea ***** BLACK SEA WAS (IS?) KEY ***** Asia - diversion strategy, also (according to Curzon - and agreed on by historians): keep Britain quiet in Europe = by keeping her employed in Asia British fear of Russia invasion of India was baseless >> occasional Russia distraction in region to prevent British attack on them in Europe Furthermore, Russia of the time, lacked tools for successful India invasion, ie: financial resources transportation facilities capabilities to develop supply routes maps (re hitherto uncharted sections of Central Asia) Even after Russians developed capabilites, India invasion by Russia rationale = unclear, except as "counterbalance a British move against Russia in some other part of the world British fears = irrational [Or just the usual propaganda and no fear, really?] Historian's take: "... lasting hostility between Britain and Russia was based on a quite unreal fear in each of the other's supposed aggressive intentions" USEFUL REMINDER ** how often Russian strength has been exaggerated and Russian intentions misunderstood ** how much of the time Russia acts out of mistaken fear of our intentions rather than out of aggressive intentions Russia may not have intended to engage in expansionism as against British interest but, author argues: " ... czarist empire engaged in expansionism as against the Islamic Asian regimes on the Russian frontier, and intended to do so" "By definition this is expansionism." " ... in the context of nineteenth century opinion this was not a policy for which the Russians necessarily had to apologize." BRITISH EXPANSIONISM "New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States were frequently cited as examples of successful expansionism that served the cause of civilization." [Served the cause of civilisation? Try: imperialist expansion. lol] Expansionist mindset  - Theodore Roosevelt "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drove the savage from the land has all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori-in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. . . . it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races." [Theodore Roosevelt |  The Winning of the West (1889–1896), Roosevelt's frontier thesis ] "For the United States to conquer or occupy everything in its way, until it had filled out a continent and created a commonwealth that stretched from one ocean to the other, was a national destiny that seemed manifest. There was no reason for the Russians to think that their destiny was any less clear." RUSSIA Russian Imperial Chancellor, Prince Gorchakov, 1864 " ... need for secure frontiers obliged the Russians to go on devouring the rotting regimes to their south. He pointed out that "the United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies-all have been drawn into a course where ambition plays a smaller role than imperious necessity, and the greatest difficulty is knowing where to stop." [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Still enjoying the article. Almost finished. Must break. Kitchen calls. lol ꕤ

EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY The Great Game in Asia Foreign Affairs - 1980 issue SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia Nineteenth century | 1800s Britain obsessed by the fear other European powers to take advantage of political decay of Islamic Asia *scramble for the easy pickings First: France Then: Russia (concern re southward march of Russian empire) Early 1800s - Constantinople of strategic concern to British Focus shifted to Persia, Afghanistan & Himalayas b/c Czarist armies overran Central Asia Last quarter 1800s assumption: great war / final showdown b/w Britain & Russia inevitable Alleged history of Russia attempt to move into Afghanistan, Iran & other neighbouring countries Alleged British agenda to stop Russia from doing so without war between the two the above claim likened to supposed US rationale to 'contest Russian expansion in much the same battlefield" The phrase "the Great Game" found in papers & quoted by a historian of First Afghan War Writers re 'Great Game' refer to either: activities of rival intelligence services; or in the broader sense, to describe: Anglo-Russian quarrel about the fate of Asia (as used in article) Great Game arose from a complex of disagreements b/w Britain & Russia 1791 British PM William Pitt opposed czarist annexation of Ochakov, a strategic port town (of Ottoman Empire) Rivalry forgotten: Napoleon Britain & Russia both fought 1815 aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, British 'fears' of Russia began to revive RUSSIA - LAND Then: Russia appeared to be the strongest land power in the world RUSSIA - SEA since the reign of Peter the Great Russia: planned to also be great maritime power Foreign observers: see Russia military strength through magnifying glass: exaggeration of Russian strength gave rise to exaggerated fears Most unrealistic: fear that Russians would march across Asia to attack the British position in India [  Playing on unrealistic fears & exaggeration of Russian strength also  = CIA tactic 1980s (I think it was  - Reagan era ) ...  and the current claims of Russian aggression etc ... same ploy  ] *Originally this had been Napoleon's idea *Napoleon noted: British power established in distant region = British vulnerability: *lines of communication *lines of transportation long & especially subject to disruption Napoleon persuaded Czar Paul of Russia to swoop on lines British communication & transportation to attack British in India *British in India Russian armies pulled back when Czar Paul died Road to India was not attacked. Russia unable to exploit Britain's vulnerability Previously Russia southward expansion into Asia = no relation / threat to British imperialist interests = grand dukes of Moscow campaigns of expansion into Asia CENTURIES before Britain arrived in India = late 1800s frontiers Russia marched upon, were very distant from Indian border British fear was Russian expansion would takeover of Constantinople & the Ottoman Empire / but no concern End of 1820s Russia 'abusing prerogatives' arising from military strength by annexing additional territories from Ottoman & Persian Empires British alarmed begin to see this as threat to British interests in India [ The 'abusing prerogatives'   angle sounds like another pretext for Western aggression, to me  |  See current claims of 'Russian aggression in eastern Europe for same rhetoric  ] 1800s propaganda campaign: Books appeared in England discussing the Russian threat to India. 1829 British PM, Wellington corresponded with President of the India Board about re invasion route Russians might follow (to attack India) if Russians move into Afghanistan From then, propaganda chorus: body of opinion in Britain that saw in every Russian move in Asia a threat to Britain's interest in India - no matter how far-fetched British Imperialism | India Indian Mutiny = British develop fear that mere threat of a Russian attack would encourage Indians to rise up & expel the British 1830 Lord Palmerston = bcm British Foreign Secretary = long career, shaper of British foreign policy = advice: Britain should have neither perpetual friends nor perpetual enemies Palmserston strategy = traditional British policy of upholding territorial integrity of Ottoman & other Islamic rulers in Asia against encroachment by any European powers *practice = from encroachment by Russia Islamic Asia = used by British as a vast buffer against 'Russian expansion' Purported rationale: fear if Asian regimes collapsed struggle b/w outside powers for valuable pieces to lead to general European war LAUGHABLE WESTERN PROPAGANDA 1832 Great Britain moved further in direction of democracy, by enactment of a Reform Bill that somewhat enlarged the franchise Russia - 1830s and 1840s brutal repression of popular revolts in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere "moved further in the direction of establishing herself as the world's chief enemy of freedom" PRETEXT for BRITISH AGGRESSION "ideological differences" between Russia & Britain = an increasing cause of friction [ One's 'superior' ideology or moral stance is always a good pretext for aggression.  lol ] RESULT OF 1800s propaganda: "Britons in ever greater numbers came to object to Russia not merely for what she did but for what she was." Russophobia soon outgrew particular political differences b/w two countries = cause in its own right of Britain's pretext | public agenda: "Britain's determination to stop Russian expansion in Asia" Undeniable factor determining British policy thru much of 1800s = "an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook" *economic factor assumed genuine significance LOL ... check out this propaganda: "British presence was established in Islamic Asia for strategic national security reasons" TRADE patterns of trade began to develop trade patterns gain significance over time Following: 1838 - Anglo-Turkish Trade Treat 1846 - repeal of the Corn Laws Ottoman Empire trade Ottoman Empire Turkish market = Britain’s 3rd best export in world Russia designs on Ottoman Empire threat to British ECONOMIC + POLITICAL interests Turkey an open market for British manufacturers Russia = high tariff barrier, excluding British goods = Russia 'enemy' on FREE-TRADE GROUNDS BRITISH TRADE - SEA POWER southern sea-coast of Asia configuration = narrow stretches of land & water = can choke off traffic to British @ number of points = Britain (as sea power) - vital to hold ENTIRE COASTLINE in FRIENDLY hands Russia effort to take Persia @ sea-coast threat to British commerce & powerful position Mid-1800s - x9 Claimed Reasons for British opposition to Russian Expansion into Asia 1. Upset of 'balance of power' - Russian European ascendency 2. Russian invasion of British India 3. Russian 'threat' = threat of India revolt against Britain 4. Russian expansion = to cause Islamic regimes to collapse 5. strengthen "chief enemies of popular political freedom" [ LMAO ... pure propaganda ] 6. strengthen a people whom Britons hated 7. threatened to disrupt big British trade with Asia & PROFITS 8. strengthen sort of protectionist, closed economic society ... "which free-trading Britain morally disapproved of" [LMAO ... more propaganda ... British want freedom to pillage | no question of morals in this | it is all about profit of powerful - profit for elites] 9. threaten the line of naval communications upon which Britain's commercial and political position [ie threat to British elite imperialism] Further reason (10) added toward end 1800s by: Lord Salisbury British Foreign Secretary & Prime Minister REPUTATION PRETEXT Lord Salisbury "observed that England would have to stop Russia from acquiring Constantinople because, having made such an issue of it for so long, England would lose her reputation as a formidable power if she finally yielded the point" FURTHER (11) reason - early 1900s: * discovered that there was OIL in the areas that Russia threatened oil possession = military and economic importance Britain vs Russia struggle raged from one end of Asia to other for almost 100 years Principal battlefields: Ottoman Empire Persian Empire khanates of Turkestan in Central Asia mountainous areas - eg Afghanistan (that stretch around the frontier of India) BRITISH IMPERIALISM SCREWED RUSSIA Crimean War (1853-56) Congress of Berlin (1878) Britain secured Constantinople and the Straits Britain undid results of Russian wartime successes against Turkey Britain - defending the Persian Empire PERSIAN GULF COAST * Russia did not exploit Persian hegemony to establish Persian Gulf coast position b/c fear of British reaction MORE PROPAGANDA "Britain salvaged at least her minimum security needs" First half 1800s - decades of fighting, Russia: = conquered Transcaucasus frontier = made final annexations of Georgia: Circassia and parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan By turn of century (ie 1900s ?): Russian hegemony in Persia was almost complete Last half 1800s - Russia conquest of Central Asia: khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Kokand in western Turkestan Turkoman tribal region (then called Transcaspia) *no British protest British violent reaction = any hint of Russian interference on 'areas of frontier' India BRITISH INVASION x2 - Afghanistan: pretext: presence of Russian agents (in area adjoining India) 1838-42 - First Afghan War 1878-80 - Second Afghan War of 1878-80 Russia encouraged Persia to move against Afghanistan result: 1838 - First Afghan War (above) 1856-57 - Anglo-Persian War 1885 - Penjdeh crisis = Russia border patrols reach Afghan frontier = Britain & Russia almost go to war Pamirs Pamirs: "roof of the world" mountain pass invasion of India vulnerability point Russians get there first turn back the British expedition 1895 to compromise Russians kept the line of the frontier but British were given the mountain passes [ I do not understand who got what ] HIMALAYAS - FOREIGN AID Tibet 'Russian intrigues' Dalai Lama sought to throw off last vestiges of Chinese authority reported contacts b/w Russians + Dalai Lama in 1900 and 1901 Russian aid and establishing Russian influence 1903-04 Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon dispatched a British mission = mission fought its way to Lhasa, Tibetan capital = Dalai Lama fled = British control established [ so a 'mission' must be armed forces ] "What was so especially frightening about the Russian expansion in Central Asia was its persistence and seeming inevitability." [lol ... more propaganda ... it is the British who are imperialists in region] ** "Russians were constantly fighting on their frontiers, against mountain and desert tribesmen if not against regular armies." KEYS WORD HERE: ON RUSSIAN FRONTIERS "to secure the frontier against attack" gradual encroachment over the course of many decades must have seemed to contemporaries to be a series of separate conquests Russians seemed constantly to be pushing outward 1840 a Russian campaign to conquer Khiva met with disaster because Khiva was too far away and the logistical support 1873, Khiva fell to Russians {improved strategy} RUSSIAN REGIONAL GAINS Russians brought in logistical support, built roads and railroads, and organized themselves in such a way as to facilitate their going on to conquer the next adjoining territory. NOTE: "this was not done in pursuance of some overall master plan for the conquest of Asia" BUT: "to the outside world it bore the aspect of the carrying out of such a program" [Probably due to anti Russia propaganda] 1830s - British PM Lord Melbourne brings out the map showing Russian expansion & urging alarm LETTER 1933 Jawaharlal Nehru, future PM of India {to daughter Indira, future PM also} re traditional rivalry between Russia vs Britain in Asia Nehru wrote that " ... the possession of India especially brought the British right up to the Russian frontier, and they were continually having nightmares as to what Tsarist Russia might do to India." AMERICANS ARE REPEATING THIS 'TO RUSSIAN FRONTIER' GAME in UKRAINE (in particular) 1800s - Britain rounded out her position in India by the conquest of = Sindh and other frontier areas = "forward policy" of conquering Afghanistan = maintenance of a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia THUS British India-related activities as taking place on, in Nehru's words, "the Russian frontier" = Russians bound to see them as a dangerous series of acts of aggression. British did not see them that way [or did not acknowledge ... lol] ------- "What the British government did see-and the British public did not-was how Britain, in its struggle against Russia, could support the independence and territorial integrity of regimes such as the Ottoman and Persian Empires, which were cruel and unjust, denying their subjects even the most elementary of human rights. It was natural to wonder why Britain would risk war to keep in power rulers of whom all civilized persons must disapprove." ------ Palmerston PRETEXT * reform the regimes that Britain supported More traditional attitude: Tory Party & Foreign Office = consider the question of which foreign governments to support in the light of British INTERESTS rather than in the light of moral principles choice b/w deplorable allies and a deplorable adversary choice b/w evils, between a sultan who committed atrocities against Armenians & a czar who committed atrocities against Jews "Moral considerations were inapplicable in such a situation, and to introduce them into the discussion of foreign policy therefore was to mislead." Reportedly, many in Britain at time (as in USA today) = not happy supporting a foreign policy not grounded in moral principle = introduction of moral considerations into foreign policy issues worked against Great Britain 1907 - British Yield Inhabited Persia to Russia = Britain settled her differences in the area = Persians attacked Britain but not Russia, for "tyranny was accepted from the Russians as natural to them, whereas Great Britain was expected to behave in accordance with her liberal traditions." [lol ... or, the Persians simply had a relationship with the Russians ... . because they have regional (and long-standing other associations)  with Russians -   their neighbours.  Thus there is a pre-existing  RELATIONSHIP, which is missing from the British incursions in what is a DISTANT and entirely unrelated region] Russia =  introduction of the moral issue into foreign policy was a source of strength =  rhetoric of liberation to justify her incursions  [hey, that's exactly like the West today ... lol] BRITAIN’S ISSUE real issue = whether Britain could afford to preserve the Islamic regimes of Asia = not in the moral sense but in the political and economic sense REAL PURPOSE = Britain to create buffer zone of these decaying empires = ideal buffer zone because they were too feeble to threaten or to hurt the Great Powers BUT = also too feeble to defend themselves against Russian encroachments = Britain the usurper, becomes Britain the regional the enforcer = drained British resources rather than adding to them By last half 1800s Ottoman and Persian Empire internal challenges govt not viable financial administration fell apart British cabinets failed to supply solution " " failed to persuade Ottoman & Persion govts to take action * British propping up exploited by Ottomans ie know the region key to British - therefore Ottoman exploit for financial gain avoided making reforms resisted demands of foreign creditors & foreign powers felt Britain would be obliged to defend them against enforcement attempt = Britain blackmailed by weak client state = US has same problem in 20th Century (1900s) [and I would say, presently ... lol] BRITISH ARE PISSED that Persia (at Russian instigation) >> moved against British interests in exploiting Afghanistan 'Britain thus was obliged to take military action against Persia' ... 'while at the same time trying to preserve the strength and integrity of Persia as against the Russians' PARADOX - USA above paradox not unfamiliar to USA today as it attempts to decide how to deal with an Iran (ie Persia) ( see: Iran held Americans as hostages )    [ hostages is just a pretext  | |  nations that do not intend war, do not go to war over a few hostages  | USA - look to: rivalry of countries Britain undertook to 'protect' against Russia = how USA should deal with: Greek-Turkish and Arab-Israeli conflicts, while simultaneously shielding against 'Soviet Union' = similar to Britain vs Persia against Afghanistan (both of whom it wanted to 'protect' from Russia) "Attempts by Palmerston and other British leaders to persuade Persia that Russia was her real enemy fell on deaf ears. " [LMAO ... I think I like the Persians] Asian regimes too weak to form a banding against Russia response, says the article. Also a problem of mentality? Or a consequence of weakness? = "In their world the weaker bowed to, instead of combining against, the stronger" Other issue of strengthening client states or would-be client states: = country was willing to stand up for its independence against Russia, it also was likely to stand up against Britain = Afghanistan is such an example ( First Afghan War ) Young Disraeli after the First Afghan War = pointed out that Afghanistan could provide the finest possible barrier against Russian invasion ... if only Britain would stop interfering in its affairs. TIP for imperialist empires: " ... best to leave to a local power the responsibility for defending both its interests and one's own." Defect in this policy = President Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1969-73 regional surrogates policy = power strong enough to act in such a capacity is likely to have ambitions of its own [  not sure I understand this  ... So, the down side is anyone powerful enough to act on one's behalf in a region, is also likely to wish to act in their own interests?   ] 1902 - Anglo-Japanese alliance = British alliance "finally contracted in order to defeat Russia in Asia" = freed the Japanese to fight the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 = short run success for Britain = Japan destroyed Russian power in the Pacific BUT = decades later, Japan went on to destroy British power & presence in Pacific Lord Salisbury  | British Foreign Policy Independence Strategy = most reliable policy for Britain / one that she could carry out INDEPENDENTLY without having to rely on others *requires strategic facts in place Britain had those available already & worked towards manifesting remainder of strategic goals to enable independent foreign policy: 1798 = Nelson control of Eastern Mediterranean for British navy = first of series of agreements b/w Britain & local rulers along PERSIAN GULF coast (assumed importance 1800s) Persian Gulf Coat = virtual British protectorate of the entire coastal route to India SUEZ CANAL - EGYPT partly accident / partly design = British occupying Egypt and the Suez Canal = Salisbury also obtained Cyprus from Turkey sold as: it being in TURKEY's interest that British forces should have the use of a location of such strategic importance BUT - Salisbury hopes dashed: = proved impossible to have British officials take charge of the administration AND obtain protectorate over the Ottoman Empire 1880 elections = Gladstone back in power = Salisbury program destroyed = Gladstone - on record as believing that Turks antihuman / washed his hands of the Ottoman involvement = Turks, unable to stand on their own, turned to the new power of Bismarck's Germany as their protector 1885 Salisbury resumed tenure of the Foreign Office = lamented that change (re Turkey) could not be undone = Gladstone's government had given away British influence at Constantinople = Gladstone "They have just thrown it away into the sea ... without getting anything whatever in exchange." while British interests still required that Russian expansion be stopped on the Ottoman and Persian frontiers, London unable to guide Ottoman and Persian rulers, in the interests of Britain BRITISH EMPIRE IN DECLINE By the end of the 1800s = Britain had lost control of elements upon which her destiny as a power in Asia depended eg. were Russia to (then) descend from the interior of Asia upon Persian coast, unclear how Britain (with only her fleet) could counterattack LORD CURZON - VICEROY INDIA [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Extracts / Summary to help me understand article. Article is written from the Anglo-US perspective. Very interesting. Get a feeling that if you understand history, you can understand the present. Pretty much the same kind of stuff goes on today, as it did at the turn of the 1900s and even earlier than that. It's the same game, same aims, same tricks etc.  lol Article seems to go on forever. I can only take in so much in one hit, because I'm not too bright.  lol Need a break from it. Excuse any typos.  In a rush.  Need to switch task. ꕤ

Afghanistan | Not the Success US Claims

EXTRACTS  |  SUMMARY Afghanistan 2015, Jan. - US military handover efffected REMAINING abt 12,000-13,500 foreign troops incl 9,800 U.S. soldiers throughout Afghanistan under post-2014 NATO-led mission 'Operation Resolute Support' NATO new role activities defined: Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) / military cooperation treaty sovereignty and independence constitute little more than a facade Afghanistan remains a country under occupation [political analyst, Yemen] "Afghanistan is no closer to controlling its institutions than Washington is to defeating terror." "inherited a disbanded mercenary army which the state cannot possibly maintain on its own." "NATO has locked Kabul into a financial trap to better assert control and defend its interests in the region." Afghanistan = pawn in The Great Game see (other): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33619/david-fromkin/the-great-game-in-asia "war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners" former Pres Karzai Afghan: strong resentment toward Western powers Afghans ... have come to understand USA as yet another imperialistic power [prior powers: British & Russian] civilian casualties in targeted attacks justified by US as: collateral damage USA footprint of neo-imperial power operates unchallenged March 2012 - US Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales found guilty of killing 16 Afghan civilians rampage No US handover to Afghan authorities “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. Washington plays Big Brother to impoverished Afghanistan Afghanistan has hand in own demise by developing codependency Afghanistan severely diminished — empty shell no institutional substance very limited economic resources abject poverty plagued by hunger home to billions of dollars  untapped natural resources >> energy + precious minerals economy continues to rely heavily on foreign aid "United States and its allies have instead thrown billions of dollars at the military, prioritizing the development of a mercenary army via private U.S. contractors rather than bank on Afghans to rebuild their state" Afghanistan cannot pay troops’ salaries without help does not own its army foreign powers pay the bills security has deteriorated Afghanistan cannot even feed itself hunger is rampant / yet it is expected to provide for upkeep of mercenary army Despite military handover vulnerable to outside control due to financial destitution corruption, nepotism and political wrangling = issues vicious circle of political dependency belief that solutions lie outside of own borders Afghanistan toss up: Taliban or neo-colonial servitude Afghanistan must revive economy / provide sustainable source of income SOURCE The War Is Over, But Afghanistan Remains Shackled By Neo-Imperialism http://www.mintpressnews.com/war-afghanistan-remains-shackled-neo-imperialism/200553/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Mercenaries and other US federal contractors always come out on top.   I'm assuming they're US mercenaries.  *** Greenwald arguing against the US refusal to hand over the soldier (that probably lost the plot), isn't something I'd support.  I wouldn't hand over anybody, for even worse treatment than they'd get in the US.  Imagine the barbaric treatment he'd be subjected to if the Americans handed him over. That was a good article. Resources is probably why the West is there ... that, and whatever the strategic rewards of 'The Great Game' offers ... (I've forgotten ... might have to brush up again on that). *** Checking again they're talking 'inherited' and 'disbanded mercenary army,' that's Afghan militants / mercenaries; but they're also talking:"development of a mercenary army via private US contractors" So they're paying US contractors to train and supervise a mercenary army? US mercenaries win/win. ꕤ

Middle East - Brief Overview | Obama 7 Years, 7 Countries Bombed

Barack Obama: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who Bombed Seven Countries U.S. jets are bombing Syria again this month, part of an overall pattern of military expansion during the Obama administration that’s seen military involvement in dozens of conflicts. As the United States renews a bombing campaign against ISIS forces in Syria, it seems like America’s penchant for waging war knows no bounds. During the first seven years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the U.S. bombed seven countries while supporting other destabilizing military actions throughout the Middle East. Here’s a look at these seven countries and the effects of bombing: Afghanistan — Despite the announced “end” of the Afghanistan War, significant U.S. military presence in Afghanistan remains. Drones are a frequent presence in Afghan skies. One strike earlier this month killed 12 people, according to Iran’s PressTV. Iraq — The Obama administration has conducted over 5,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in just the past year, David Lerman reported for Bloomberg Business. Despite ongoing U.S. military involvement ,terrorism continues to be a deadly presence in Iraq’s cities. Libya — While the European Union and its allies carried out many of the airstrikes during Libya’s civil war, the U.S. was instrumental in destabilizing that country through both military aid and direct support, especially during the lead up to Gen. Moammar Gadhafi’s overthrow in 2011. Now ISIS is also gaining a stronghold here and the country has been described as a failed state. Pakistan — Drone strikes are also frequent in Pakistan, where the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that only 4 percent of the victims could be identified as al-Qaida members. Although drone strikes on Pakistan began under George W. Bush, their frequency has dramatically increased under Obama, RT reported last year.  Somalia — Over 100 U.S. troops have been stationed in Somalia since 2007, Reuters reported last year. In September, the U.S. again carried out airstrikes there, apparently killing Ahmed Abdi Godane, leader of the extremist group Al-Shabaab, which the U.S. claimed was allying with al-Qaida.  Syria — The U.S. renewed its bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria earlier this month, with U.S. war planes taking off from bases in Turkey. Airstrikes were also used in a failed attempt to defend “Division 30,” the failed American attempt to train so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels.  Yemen — U.S. cables revealed by WikiLeaks show that Yemeni officials have allowed airstrikes, which began under George W. Bush, to continue under the Obama administration. RT reported last year: “US bombing raids in Yemen are almost solely carried out by drones and they have been increasing in intensity in recent years. … A report by Human Rights Watch in 2013 analyzed six airstrikes in Yemen carried out since 2009. The organization found that out of the 82 people who died in the airstrikes, 57 were civilians. In all, the U.S. has bombed 14 predominantly Muslim countries since 1980. The death toll from all modern wars in the Middle East may be as high as 4 million dead Muslims and Arabs. Repeated military campaigns have destabilized the Middle East, giving rise to terror groups like ISIS, allowing for sectarianism to blossom, and necessitating further bombing, in what Ron Fullwood, writing for MyMPN, called a “perpetual protection racket.” 2015-08-19 Source http://www.mintpressnews.com/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-whos-bombed-7-countries/208748/ VIA http://www.global-politics.eu/democraticus/2015/08/25/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-who-bombed-seven-countries/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Thought this was a good quickie overview of military action in the Middle East. I've not read the linked articles.  Might have to skim some of the articles, as I'm not at all familiar with what's going on. Sounds like drone strikes kill more civilians than they do terrorist targets. A hundred troops in Somalia doesn't seem like much. Syria's down for a regime change.  The West, Israel, and the US don't like Assad for some reason.  He's probably Iran and Russia friendly. The US and the West have already demolished Libya (in much the same way they're probably planning to demolish Syria), and the result is more extremists - which is supposed to help destabilise and weaken Syria, I think. Pakistan is 'terrorist central' (well, that's my impression).  Pakistan receives an ENORMOUS amount of military and other aid from the US, and the aid must come with US strings attacked - drones is probably part of the package.  There's a massive amount of resistance in Afghanistan - something's getting blown up all the time.  Five thousand airstrikes in Iraq, in a year, is huge.

Transcript - Assange - Title: Counter-terrorism strategies targeting Muslims will affect the wider population | VIDEO Feb 2014 | Cage

TRANSCRIPT [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Julian Assange: Counter-terrorism strategies targeting Muslims will affect the wider population VIDEO [14:33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfncWOhXw8&feature=youtu.be Published on 10 Feb 2014 Good afternoon. My name is Julian Assange. I am the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks. Today, I am proud to help Cage launch their Prevent report. It has been often said to me by my Muslim friends (and some of you,  I'm sure, have heard it), that there exists one law for Muslims and one law for everyone else, here in the UK, in the United States, in Australian, New Zealand, and in some of continental Europe.  That used to be true. Unfortunately, for everyone else, it is no longer true:  and the experiences that I and my staff (and other journalists) have gone through, in relation to the Edward Snowden affair; our big publications in relation to the US military intelligence sector; the activities taken against Associated Press, in United States, [and] Fox News; show that, in fact, it is no longer true. That what happens to the Muslim community, sure enough, sooner or later, happens to everyone else as well. In fact, we can go back and look at the origins of the famous mass spying efforts in the United States that affect the domestic population. EDIT - INSERT While mass spying of fibre optic cables, as they go from one country to another, has been something that the United States, the United Kingdom, [and] GCHQ, have been involved in for many years, the ramp-up in the amount of funding available to them, and to the invasiveness of that spying (and to it taking place at a domestic level), is something that occurred shortly after 9/11; although the programs were attempted to be put in place shortly before. That was meant to monitor only a few people connected to suspicious terroristic activities and, yet, within a few years, secret interpretations of that legislation had led to it being enacted for every single person in the United States. There is not a single person in the United States who has made a telephone call in that country, who has not had that call swept up into that mass surveillance system and stored. In fact, the entire community structure of the United States — from the most powerful politician or industrialist to someone in a payphone in the gutters of San Antonio calling their uncle for help — has [now] been incorporated into that system. And what does that mean? Well, if you understand who calls who, how frequently, and when, you can map the degree of social relationship between any two people; and when you do it for all people, you have the social relationship structure of the entire nation; and when you engage in worldwide spying and monitoring, you have it for most of the world. And what does it mean if you have the entire community structure of a nation? Well, it means that you end up in a similar situation to the Muslim community here in London, right now, which is:  understanding the relationships between people, allows you to affect the relationships between people; it allows you to push society in one way or another, and predict people's behaviour across a wide range of areas; in fact, in almost any way that people's behaviour is predictable. And the Prevent Strategy enacted by the United Kingdom is most often associated, or linked, to the policies of McCarthy. In fact, this room behind me is from 1943. It is J Edgar Hoover's room.  It is the FBI records office. If you were to construct a similar room using similar technology (where we didn't have computers, but we have people going from file to file), that room, for the United Kingdom, would be nearly the size of London. In fact, nearly all of us would be physically inside that room, because of the amount of information that's being collected. Now, what has happened with that Prevent Strategy: it's not just the electronic monitoring. To a degree, this room reflects an earlier stage, which is somewhat like what Prevent is doing. It is penetrating the social structure of people: their relationships with their GP; with their lecturers; with other people in their community (even schools). So there is no escape. Prevent means that the social structure of people is susceptible to whatever concern the major power factions of the day have in the united Kingdom. The precedents are all set there — enacted for the Muslim community - just like the precedents were set in the United States for mass domestic spying, by using the Muslim community as an excuse. So we're all in this together. Injustices which affect the Muslim community, soon enough, expand out to the rest of the community at large. They do that by creating policies, laws, institutions and industrial lobbies that seek always to expand their ambit to as many people as possible, to expand their domestic and international power, and lobby hard to prevent their powers being contained. We can see that, for example, with Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, which, surely most people thought, here in the UK, would only apply to those people genuinely suspected of terrorism and, if not, perhaps just Muslims. The reality is, Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, as we have seen in the David Miranda case, affects journalism. It is used to try and stop revelations of the abuses being conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ, here in the UK. It is the reason why our journalist, a British subject, Sarah Harrison, is in self-exile (on the advice of her lawyers), in Germany, and not here in the United Kingdom: because for her to return, she would subject herself to an interrogation under Section 7, without any ability to say that, no, she doesn't want to answer the question in relation to her journalistic work. Prevent is a human intelligence gathering system, and I think we need to see it in terms of:  it is a modern form of making people into informants, a modern regulated system of 'ratting' each other out. It is a system which turns doctor against patient, teacher against student, and neighbour against neighbour. Those people you should be able to trust the inner core of your life to ([eg] your doctor, to seek advice from), are now swept up in a system of inducements and coercion that means that they can't be trusted, debilitating the basic social fabric of society, which is that we all trust one another. What happens when Prevent expands out, as it must do, from is abuses on the Muslim community to those people involved in holding power to account? Cage itself is an institution — a very important institution — here in the UK — which is holding power to account for the abuses it conducts on the Muslim community, and yet Cage — Cage's Board and bank accounts — have been subject to interference by UK authorities. The Prevent system is almost done entirely outside of any court process and any meaningful ability to have an insight into how those people who are affected by this system may seek redress. That is the construction of a human intelligence system. What I have spoken about before and what has been reported with the Snowden revelations is the construction of an Orwellian, mass, global, surveillance system — an electronic system. So, we have here a pincer attack on basic human liberty. On the one hand, an electronic system that prevents us communicating privately with those people who are close to us; from engaging in private economic transactions; from preventing us enjoying, securely, the fruits of globalisation — the fruits of globalised interaction, the fruits of non-localised interaction, even within a country.  And, on the other hand, with Prevent, we have the construction of the remaining area of — a surveillance system for the remaining area of life that is free from mass electronic surveillance: our basic human interaction with our doctor, teacher and so on. And these two things are coming together. So, what does that mean? Does that mean all hope is lost when we have a titanic, global surveillance system and a local human intelligence system that turns one person against another? No. The existence of Cage, as an organisation that has been subject to unjust scrutiny; the existence of WikiLeaks, as an organisation which has fought a long battle against this sort of thing; demonstrates that it somehow possible — despite this excess — to succeed and grow. How was it that WikiLeaks was able to stand up to the Pentagon and the State Department, despite a very public, aggressive, engagement: the largest investigation against a publisher ever? How was it that we were able to spirit Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong to a place of safety, in the greatest manhunt the world has ever seen? How could we do that? It is not because of some extraordinary sophistication and power of WikiLeaks as an organisation. It is the result of extraordinary dedication; not extraordinary wealth. How is it that dedication is able to win against a much superior force? Well, let's remember what this game is about: mass surveillance — systems like Prevent — are all about diverting money from the tax base. It is about securitisation. What do I mean by securitisation? I mean: when the Muslim community, or WikiLeaks — or activists — are used to create fear amongst people in the establishment who have the ability to determine what money goes where. So we are used as an excuse to divert money to Booz Allen Hamilton (a contractor for the National Security Agency); G4S (which was responsible for maintaining an electronic bracelet around ankle when I was under house arrest); Serco (a similar multinational contractor, who maintained the electronic bracelet around my ankle in another house arrest location). These organisations are lobby groups, who lobby to get the maximum amount of wealth transfer from the bulk of the population, into their pockets. It's a way of transferring income, predominantly from the middle class, to these wealthy security organisations. And Prevent is no different. The people running these organisations, they're not actually concerned about preventing anything. They're not actually really concerned about stopping WikiLeaks, and that's why they're unable, so far, to stop us. What they're concerned about is engaging in a process of wealth transfer from the tax base, and gaining political support for their activities, and they can do that with smoke and mirrors. In the security industry, we call this 'security theatre': looking like you're doing something, without doing it too much. And that's why, through the assistance of organisations like Cage, actually the Muslim community in the United Kingdom — and the rest of us — stand a chance. So, I encourage you very strongly to not be frightened of what is going on. It is a concern.  But, remember: these people are deeply incompetent;  they don't have a passion for their work;  the people at Cage have a passion for their work — they are from the community; and you should support them and organisations like them. Thank you. ------- end audio | 14:32 ------- EDIT - red text insert (above).  Must have inadvertently deleted paragraph when formatting. (Lucky discovery nitpicking over a word here or there.  lol) USEFUL LINKS Prevent Strategy Presented to UK Parliament | June 2011 PDF https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf  CAGE, formerly Cageprisoners Ltd, is a London-based advocacy organization with an Islamic focus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAGE_%28organisation%29 McCarthyism Joseph R. McCarthy http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/joseph-mccarthy David Miranda UK Court: David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law Miranda’s attorneys argued that the stop was unlawful and a violation of Miranda’s right to freedom of expression. And they said his detention marked the first time the terrorism act had been implemented to seize journalistic materials. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uk-court-david-miranda-detention-legal-terrorism-law/ On the UK's Equating of Journalism With Terrorism he UK Government expressly argued that the release of the Snowden documents (which the free world calls “award–winning journalism“) is actually tantamount to “terrorism”, the same theory now being used by the Egyptian military regime to prosecute Al Jazeera journalists as terrorists. Congratulations to the UK government on the illustrious company it is once again keeping. British officials have also repeatedly threatened criminal prosecution of everyone involved in this reporting, including Guardian journalists and editors. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uks-equating-journalism-terrorism-designed-conceal-gchq/ Sarah Harrison Britain is treating journalists as terrorists – believe me, I know http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/britain-journalists-terrorists-edward-snowden-nsa Booz Allen Hamilton HQ Tysons Corner, Fairfax County, Virginia core busines: provision of management, technology & security services to civilian government agencies / a security & defence contractor to defense & intelligence agencies civil & commercial entities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton G4S plc (formerly Group 4 Securicor) British multinational security services company HQ Crawley, West Sussex world's largest security company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S Serco Group plc British outsourcing company HQ Hook, Hampshire operates public and private transport and traffic control, aviation, military weapons, detention centres, prisons and schools on behalf of its customers. "There has been a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco The Prevent Strategy: a cradle to grave police-state http://www.cageuk.org/publication/prevent-strategy-cradle-grave-police-state Apologists for terror or defenders of human rights? The Cage controversy in context Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 ... government has drawn the entire public sector into its controversial counter-extremist agenda, meaning that public servants once responsible for the welfare of citizens – including children – must now monitor their behaviour, appearance and political views, feeding into the most unaccountable and repressive elements of the state. Increasingly marginalised by a media smear campaign, Cage has now achieved the status of public pariah once reserved for critics of government policy on Northern Ireland before the peace process. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tom-mills-narzanin-massoumi-david-miller/apologists-for-terror-or-defenders-of-human-righ CAGE to sue David Cameron for calling it 'extremist' ISIS and Jihadi John supporting group ... seeking legal advice on whether Mr Cameron is "guilty of defamation". As well as potentially launching legal action against the Prime Minister, CAGE also announced today it has applied for a judicial review against UK charity watchdog, the Charity Commission. CAGE says the commission "exceeded its role as government regulator" by pressuring donors to stop funding it and claims the Charity Commission "spread false information based on misleading reports in certain sections of the media". It said the commission "demonised" CAGE because Jihadi John approached it for advice before he left to fight for ISIS in Syria. The organisation is not stopping there on the warpath against the establishment — it has also complained to the United Nations (UN) about "sustained attacks on its ability to do its advocacy work", which it says involves campaigning for the rights "of those adversely affected by the war on terror" http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/592855/CAGE-sue-David-Cameron-called-extremist-ISIS-Jihadi-John-supporting-group Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/contents/enacted ꕤ

Intelligence Trivia - USA

Intelligence Trivia World War II close cooperation b/w USA & British intelligence began / Allen Dulles selected by Dwight Eisenhower to run CIA Allen Dulles, CIA later managed ops in Switzerland, a neutral operating ground for agents of the Allies & Nazis USA 1967 amid civil rights & anti-Vietnam War protests US Army Gen. William P. Yarborough, initiated Army intel + CIA + NSA domestic surveillance 1970s USA Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho curtailed extensive USA domestic surveillance program http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865635176/Arthur-Cyr-Intelligence-involves-art-along-with-science.html?pg=all Arthur I. Cyr Professor Carthage College author of four books on international relations and British politics prior:  vice president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations & other 1966 UCLA Ph.D. with distinction in political science from Harvard University in 1971. ꕤ

Sudan - New Min Defence - Gen Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf - ex Military Intelligence

Bashir appoints U.S. sanctioned general as new defense minister August 23, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir issued a decree today in which he named a new defense minister to replace Mustafa Obeid who served in this role temporarily following the cabinet reshuffle of last June. The incoming top military chief General Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf was the former head of military intelligence and also chairman of the joint chief of staff before he was relieved in June 2010. Following his military tenure, Ibn Auf was chosen to be Sudan’s ambassador in Oman. He is also on a list of individuals sanctioned by the United States in May 2007 for his alleged role in the Darfur conflict along with other figures. A US State department Wikileaks cable from 2008 says that Ibn Auf “has acted as liaison between the Sudanese government and the Government-supported Janjaweed militias, which have attacked and brutalized innocent civilians in the Darfur region”. “He has also provided logistical support for the Janjaweed and directed attacks,” the cable reads. The appointment comes days after Bashir offered a two month ceasefire to rebels in order to attend the national dialogue process initiated by him in early 2014. On Sunday, Bashir paid visits to military areas of Khartoum in which he pledged to improve living conditions of army members in terms of pay, housing, health coverage and social services. The Sudanese leader also reiterated that 2016 will witness the end of the insurgency. Bashir’s decision to bring a retired general into this position rather than an active service member may suggest his desire to mitigate the risk of a military coup. He has waited almost three months after the new post-elections cabinet formation in early June to pick a new minister. Since 2000, Bashir has picked only his closest confidants for this position including his current 1st VP Bakri Hassan Saleh and current governor of Khartoum Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Hussein who held the defense portfolio since 2005 until last June. http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article56160  ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Keeping the army happy by improving their conditions is probably a good move, if this guy is currently doing some fancy footwork to avoid a military coup. Don't understand how appointing an non-active / retired military guy is a coup-blocker. I don't often look at this region, so it doesn't mean a lot to me. ꕤ