Barack Obama 2013

[Milneman]

*deleted because...no sense in aggravating the cause*

[Kimberley]

This report is from November 14th...It just came to my attention...thought you would be interested...only 11 minutes. ( searched to see if it had been posted and did not find it)

TPP - Wikileaks has released another bombshell

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bPIsjH25GHo

***********************
This was front page news today in the Boston Globe...and other news sources...has me wondering why? US arms 1/3 of the world with arms...

"Since 2009, when President Obama took office, the United States has led a surge in global arms deals, accounting for nearly a third of the roughly $30 billion in weapons transfers completed last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute."

That's $10 billion - $10,000,000,000 - sales in military weapons in just one year, with more to come.

Obama, Kerry push for over seas sales of US weapons


Secretary of State John F. Kerry has been active in efforts to help US defense contractors sell more military supplies to allies overseas as a way to bolster their role in international security.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is making an aggressive push to help US
weapons manufacturers sell more arms overseas, including lobbying foreign leaders to
purchase warships, aircraft, and missiles, and relaxing some controls on the transfer of
military components, according to administration and industry officials.

Since 2009, when President Obama took office, the United States has led a surge in
global arms deals, accounting for nearly a third of the roughly $30 billion in weapons
transfers completed last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute.

Its share was up from a little more than a quarter of the global market four years ago,
according to the Swedish group, which has tallied arms sales worldwide since 1966.
US arms transfers went from $6.9 billion in 2009 to $8.7 billion last year, according to
the institute’s database, a 25 percent increase. The statistics for this year are not yet
available, but specialists say they expect to see the steady upward trend continue.
Top administration officials credit a coordinated effort by the White House and active
participation by Secretary of State John F. Kerry with helping American companies ink
more weapons contracts. Officials also are lowering regulatory barriers to companies
looking to export arms.

The policy is driven, the administration says,
by a key US foreign policy goal: helping the
country’s allies shoulder more of the burden of
international security. It is not about trying to
boost company profits and protect jobs in the
United States, they insist, though they
acknowledge economic benefits are a
byproduct of the policy.

“We are very keen to have allies and partners step up to the plate,” said Gregory M.
Kausner, deputy assistant secretary of state for regional security and arms transfers,
and a former Navy fighter pilot. He described arms sales as a “fundamental tool of
foreign policy.”

Yet a number of human rights and international security experts are raising alarms
that the more aggressive approach, which has received scant attention in Congress,
could fuel tensions with Iran and China, and make it easier for potential adversaries to gain access to sensitive US military technologies.
They also worry that not enough consideration is
being given to the possibility that some allies
who are buying record amounts of high-tech
arms, especially in the unstable Middle East,
could end up using American weapons to stifle
dissent or commit other human-rights abuses.
They cite Egypt as a recent example.

“The floodgates are going to open and it is going
to be a happy new year for the defense industry,
which is going to make a lot of money,” said
Richard Grimmett, who recently retired after
more than 30 years as the leading international
security analyst for the Congressional Research
Service, a nonpartisan legislative branch agency. “But you didn’t have oversight
hearings explaining, ‘Here is why it is a good idea, here is why it is a bad idea.’ ”
One of the biggest beneficiaries has been Waltham-based Raytheon Co., the largest
employer in Massachusetts and the world’s fifth-largest defense contractor. It reported
earlier this month that as much as 30 percent of its annual business will come from
foreign sales — the highest it has reported. The company expects in coming weeks to
complete deals in the Middle East worth $5 billion.

Raytheon can thank, in part, Kerry, who has final authority over international arms
sales by US companies and in recent months has taken on a significant role as booster.
For example, earlier this year Kerry personally advocated for a $2 billion proposal
from Raytheon to outfit the Persian Gulf emirate of Oman, which is adjacent to Iran,
with a new air defense system. Kerry’s advocacy in effect continued the lobbying
campaign he began several years earlier as a Massachusetts senator.

“I wanted to come here to be able to thank you and to celebrate with you the Raytheon
initiative,” Kerry remarked in May as he met Oman’s defense minister.
Kerry declined to be interviewed for this story. A senior US official directly involved in
the review process said the increase in arm sales to the Middle East and Asia is a
reflection of the government’s new approach.

“In the past, there wasn’t a very coherent strategy to do advocacy,” said the official,
who was not authorized to speak publicly. “Slowly over the years there’s been a
recognition that there has to be a greater governmentwide thought process. This
administration has focused on it.’’

The official explained that US defense company proposals are now a consideration in
virtually all diplomatic dealings with foreign officials. For example, top government
officials traveling to particular countries are now regularly prepared to advocate for US
firms who are seeking to sell arms there.

“Who, at what level, is going where and when?” the official described the approach,
saying the advocacy effort is aimed at “how to get the biggest bang for the buck.”
US defense companies have two primary avenues to sell weapons internationally.
There are foreign military sales, which are government-to-government deals and
managed by the Pentagon, and direct commercial sales to foreign governments. Those
are overseen by the Department of State, which grants export licenses.

Administration officials insist that security, not economics, is what drives the push to
sell more US arms. Providing key allies with American hardware, they say, will ensure
the United States has partners in containing Iran and North Korea, as well as deterring
China from taking a more aggressive posture toward US allies Japan and South Korea.
“We don’t make these decisions as a jobs program,” said the State Department’s
Kausner.

In a sign of the growing global competition, China’s volume of arms exports climbed a
whopping 162 percent in 2008 to 2012, compared with 2003 to 2007, according to the
Stockholm Peace Research Institute tally. For the first time China placed in the top
five of global arms providers, behind the United States, Russia, Germany, and France,
and displacing the United Kingdom.

But numerous experts see financial considerations — not security strategy — as the key
factor in the surging US arms trade. They point out that the Pentagon’s buying power
is shrinking substantially with budget cuts.

“The most important thing is the US down trend,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice
president for analysis at the Teal Group, a defense and aerospace consulting firm in
Fairfax, Va. “To keep production lines alive, you have to focus on the international
market.”

For instance, he noted that a number of key weapons systems that are being purchased
in fewer numbers by the US military are now major offerings overseas, including F-15
and F/A-18 fighter jets and C-17 military transport planes.

Another factor is that the US military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan is
drawing to a close, said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm
Institute.

“Business was up during the wars, which gave US companies quite a lot of possibilities
to sell equipment and services and spare parts,” he said. “That, of course, will be
gone.”

The Obama administration also is shifting approval power for the sale of some military
components from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which requires
less oversight.

The new arrangement will streamline the export of thousands of components that
officials say would not provide a significant military edge, such as aircraft parts and
satellite technologies that are available on the commercial market. The list also will include “military vehicles, vessels, submarines, and auxiliary military equipment,’’ the
White House announced this fall.

Leading industry advocates say the Obama administration could go even further to
coordinate overseas sales.

“We just want to start a process where it is done even more, and make it as much of a
machine as possible,” Remy Nathan, vice president for international affairs at the
Aerospace Industries Association, a defense trade group, said of industry-government
coordination.

Among the critics of this trend is the American Bar Association’s Center for Human
Rights, which has raised concerns that the United States will be introducing a flood of
small arms and ammunition into areas ripe for conflict.

“I have not seen any meaningful analysis of the human rights component,” said
Brittany Benowitz, the center’s chief counsel, who noted worries about “people who
obtain arms from the US and then go out and do horrible things with them.”
Even some of the architects of the Obama administration’s approach acknowledge
there are potential consequences.

“There are downside risks,” said Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of
defense for policy in the president’s first term. “You can have governments change, or
governments misuse US weaponry.”

She also said that by transferring some military components to the Commerce
Department’s export licensing process, there will be less tracking of where those parts
go and how they are ultimately used.

“There is certainly less reporting after the fact,” Flournoy said, though she maintains
the benefits outweigh the risks for US foreign policy.

A few members of Congress are calling for restoration of stronger export controls.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican and member of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, said she believes more oversight is needed “to ensure that
our military equipment and technology are not transferred to a third party without our
knowledge, and that they cannot be used to threaten our interests.”

Longtime observers said they are surprised by how little attention has been paid to the
arms sales bonanza.


“There have been times when there has been a surge in US arms sales and the issue
has been debated,” said William Hartung, a researcher at the Center for International
Policy, a Washington think tank. “This time it doesn’t seem to be the case.’’

Grimmett, who has watched the process for nearly four decades, said few seem to care
about the potential risks.

“There is no opposition anymore,” he said.

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com

here is the link however to get the full article you need to be a BG subscriber...and I am that is why I posted the full article...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...id=Top+Stories

[chancy]

hello everyone:

I had a thought as I read this article. What if the usa is selling off military equipment that has hardware made in China in it? There have been threads here on avalon regarding backdoors in the hardware and software of military products manufactured in China. This would be an excellent way to get rid of all the problematic hardware and software without ever raising any concerns or flags with the people purchasing it.
Just a thought.....
What do all of you think?

chancy

[Kimberley]

Posted by chancy (here)
hello everyone:

I had a thought as I read this article. What if the usa is selling off military equipment that has hardware made in China in it? There have been threads here on avalon regarding backdoors in the hardware and software of military products manufactured in China. This would be an excellent way to get rid of all the problematic hardware and software without ever raising any concerns or flags with the people purchasing it.
Just a thought.....
What do all of you think?

chancy

Chancy. I agree with you...sucks doesn't it? It reminds me that the world powers are in collaboration with each other... and confirms for me that we the people of the world need to band together globally and get our freedoms back! We are doing it one day at a time... thank you to all that are claiming and demanding freedom and peace for ALL!!!

[Kryztian]

Here is Bill Moyer's take on the same story - it is the end of Democracy.

http://vimeo.com/78323093

[Anchor]

Posted by chancy (here)
hello everyone:

I had a thought as I read this article. What if the usa is selling off military equipment that has hardware made in China in it? There have been threads here on avalon regarding backdoors in the hardware and software of military products manufactured in China. This would be an excellent way to get rid of all the problematic hardware and software without ever raising any concerns or flags with the people purchasing it.
Just a thought.....
What do all of you think?

chancy

When you buy Military hardware, you do due diligence. You get the designs that go down to the smallest component parts, all the electronics and software, and you go over it with a fine toothed comb. You do not allow compromised hardware into your arsenal. This is NOT new, this has been going on for a long time and military people know all the tricks and do a lot of due diligence.

Source: I spoke to a guy on a plane who was coming back from just one such due diligence op, he had been tearing down and reassembling helicoptors that they were thinking of buying.

[Kimberley]

this is important