• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди94
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы306
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации34
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Рэймонд Одиерно
Рэймонд Одиерно
Рэймонд Т. Одиерно (англ. Raymond T. Odierno ) — генерал-полковник армии США, Начальник штаба сухопутных войск США, являлся командующим Международными коалиционными силами в Ираке с 16 сентября 2008 года, сменив на этом посту генерала Петрэуса. С 7 сентября 2011 года - Начальник штаб ...

Рэймонд Т. Одиерно (англ. Raymond T. Odierno ) — генерал-полковник армии США, Начальник штаба сухопутных войск США, являлся командующим Международными коалиционными силами в Ираке с 16 сентября 2008 года, сменив на этом посту генерала Петрэуса. С 7 сентября 2011 года - Начальник штаба сухопутных войск США.

Одиерно окончил военную академию в Вест-Пойнте в 1976 году.
В 2001 году возглавил 4-ю пехотную дивизию США.
Ветеран войны в Ираке. Вики.

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
02 декабря 2016, 17:47

The Case for David Petraeus as Secretary of State

Michael O'Hanlon Politics, Americas He’s more than qualified, and has atoned for his past mistakes. This week, President-elect Donald Trump met with retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus. They reportedly discussed the possibility of General Petraeus joining the Trump administration. General Petraeus would, in my judgment, be an outstanding candidate for a high-level position in the Trump administration. Full disclosure: I am a big David Petraeus fan and a close, long-standing friend. But I believe the substance of the case for him is objectively rock solid. Battlefield Qualifications and Beyond Let’s begin with his military career. There have been several excellent military leaders in the modern era, including standouts such as Gen. Stanley McChrystal and my Brookings colleague Gen. John Allen. But I believe that what Petraeus did with the surge in Iraq reflected a brilliance rarely seen in American military history. This is relevant to the current question of whether Petraeus might be secretary of state, because the challenge of that Iraq job was largely political and diplomatic—working with a military coalition, in close partnership with an Iraqi government and military of uneven quality and dependability, with many ups and downs along the way, in a multidimensional effort that involved economics and diplomacy as much as fighting. General Petraeus, working with another American hero, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, navigated the shoals of Iraqi politics adroitly and patiently (and self-effacingly). Over the course of the 2007–08 period, when Iraqis of various sectarian backgrounds were persuaded to work together in an operation that reduced violence in Iraq by more than 90 percent, Petraeus and Crocker gradually convinced Iraqi leaders to do the right thing—and then let them take the credit for the decisions, so they would feel ownership of them. Meanwhile, working closely with his second-in-command (first Gen. Raymond Odierno, then Gen. Lloyd Austin)—but also with division commanders and brigade commanders, and even the countless captains, majors and lieutenant colonels with whom Petraeus tirelessly communicated with on a daily basis—Petraeus honed not just the overall strategy, but the local tactics and politics of the battlefield fights. This effort took incredible sophistication, tact and energy. Read full article

13 мая 2016, 19:11

The Pentagon's Readiness Vortex

Thomas Donnelly Defense, United States “We have a lot of ‘not availables’ in the force right now." For the past several years, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been painting a bleak portrait of the state of the armed services. Testifying to the senate Armed Services Committee in January 2015, recently retired Army chief Gen. Ray Odierno admitted that Army readiness “has been degraded to its lowest level in 20 years.” This year, Odierno’s successor, Gen. Mark Milley, went farther: the Army is not well prepared to engage a major power. “If we got into a conflict with Russia then I think it would place our soldiers’ lives at risk,” he said. Other service leaders have made similar statements regarding other potential adversaries, including China, Iran, and North Korea. “We have a lot of ‘not availables’ in the force right now,” continued Milley, underscoring that force readiness is a multiple of sufficient personnel, serviceable equipment, adequate training funds and time, and a host of other factors. The Navy, for its part, has a constantly growing backlog of deferred ship maintenance. A recent television report profiled a Marine F/A-18 Hornet squadron that had to wait 18 months to receive spare parts and was constantly “cannibalizing” parts from one plane to another. Only half of Air Force fighter pilots—including those who fly the top-of-the-line F-22 Raptor—are receiving the full spectrum of training required. It is small wonder, then, that the chairman of the JCS, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, agreed with the conclusion drawn by Rep. Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, “that we have a significant readiness problem across the services, especially for the wide variety of contingencies that we’ve got to face.” How can this happen? How is it that a military that should be recovering, now that the wars of the post-9/11 era have “ended,” should be in such poor condition? In fact, the U.S. military has been caught in the vortex of a storm that has been brewing for decades. While the tempest has reached hurricane force during the Obama years, the underlying weather patterns go back to the mid-1980s. Read full article

05 мая 2016, 13:27

Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена

Известный американский политик и публицист Патрик Бьюкенен поясняет свое мнение относительно причин гнева и возмущения России простым вопросом к соотечественникам: «Если бы мы однажды проснулись и узнали, что Мексика, Канада, Куба и большая часть Южной Америки вступили во враждебный нам военный альянс и разместили на своей территории российские военные базы, неужели мы восприняли бы это как «руку дружбы и партнерства»?The post Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена appeared first on MixedNews.

05 мая 2016, 13:27

Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена

Известный американский политик и публицист Патрик Бьюкенен поясняет свое мнение относительно причин гнева и возмущения России простым вопросом к соотечественникам: «Если бы мы однажды проснулись и узнали, что Мексика, Канада, Куба и большая часть Южной Америки вступили во враждебный нам военный альянс и разместили на своей территории российские военные базы, неужели мы восприняли бы это как «руку дружбы и партнерства»?The post Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена appeared first on MixedNews.

05 мая 2016, 13:27

Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена

Известный американский политик и публицист Патрик Бьюкенен поясняет свое мнение относительно причин гнева и возмущения России простым вопросом к соотечественникам: «Если бы мы однажды проснулись и узнали, что Мексика, Канада, Куба и большая часть Южной Америки вступили во враждебный нам военный альянс и разместили на своей территории российские военные базы, неужели мы восприняли бы это как «руку дружбы и партнерства»?The post Патрик Бьюкенен: почему Россия нами возмущена appeared first on MixedNews.

15 апреля 2016, 20:01

Пентагон готовится к своей войне "Судного дня»

Российские танки, пушки и снаряды испугали армейских генералов США

23 марта 2016, 00:50

The Myth That Partition Will Save the Middle East

Adam R. Alexander Global Governance, Middle East Dividing countries won't solve the deeper conflicts. One day after the last U.S. soldier departed from Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the arrest of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi—the most senior Sunni in the Iraqi government. His arrest was the first of many to come for Iraqi Sunnis. In the months to follow, Sunnis were systematically removed from positions of power. When Sunnis took to the streets to protest the dismissals, they were brutally suppressed. The United States had been gone for a single day, but already Iraq was slipping back into a sectarian war thousands of U.S. soldiers had given their lives to stop. Can the deep hatreds that divide Iraq, Syria and so many other developing countries ever be overcome? Is it true that these people have never really gotten along with each other—that they were forced together into artificial boundaries drawn by ill-informed colonial powers? Wouldn’t they all be better off if they went their separate ways forming their own, more homogenous and therefore more peaceful countries? Many current and former policymakers seem to think so. Last year, former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno told the press that a partition of Iraq along ethnic lines “might be the only solution” and that in the future “Iraq might not look like it did in the past.” In February, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that a partition of Syria is a possible ‘Plan B’ if the ceasefire fails. James Stavridis supported the idea recently in Foreign Policy, stating “Syria as a nation is increasingly a fiction. . . . Like Humpty Dumpty in the children’s nursery rhyme, the odds of putting Syria back together again into a functioning entity appear very low. It is time to consider a partition.” It’s easy to see the appeal of partition proposals—if the kids can’t play nice, we’ll just send them each to their room. But upon closer examination it’s clear that partitioning countries tends to create as many new conflicts as it resolves and the “ancient hatreds” so often cited as requiring separate states, dissolve away under closer inspection. Read full article

22 марта 2016, 02:29

The Future of Securing Global Cities

Raymond Odierno, Michael O'Hanlon Security, Making cities resilient against man-made crises and natural disasters is the key to the twenty-first century. The task of securing global cities is becoming a crucial challenge of our day. Already, half the world’s population lives in urban areas; by 2050, the UN predicts over two-thirds of the world’s population will do so. These cities face threats not only from Al Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban and like groups, but international drug cartels, human trafficking networks, arms traffickers and street gangs. Scale is a major contributor to this complexity. As cities grow, their vulnerabilities grow—often in nonlinear ways. A megalopolis of 20 million does not simply face ten times the challenges of a city of 2 million. Whole new patterns often emerge, largely because size creates opportunities for criminals and extremists through anonymity in the large and often weakly governed spaces that emerge in these massive places. Another factor is resource scarcity. As populations (and population density) increase, resources for emergency services don’t always keep up. In 2013, for example, Nairobi had a population of 4 million—and a single working fire truck. Water is increasingly scarce, partly due to climate change effects as well, in large swaths of the Middle East and Africa. In many places, urban migration is marked by the poorest and most vulnerable in society moving into huge slums, not well-heeled neighborhoods. At the same time, urbanization means that cities are a key engine of global economic growth. Trade, foreign direct investment and globalization enhance prosperity. But the same movements of people, goods and ideas also create vulnerabilities and make it imperative that metro areas collaborate on security. That’s why, together with colleagues at Brookings and JPMorgan Chase, we have launched Securing Global Cities, a project of the Global Cities Initiative, a joint effort by Brookings and JPMorgan Chase. Our year-long project is just beginning, but a few principles are already emerging. Read full article

07 марта 2016, 22:57

Iraq Invasion Through The Eyes of An Arab Woman

I was 18 years old when the war on Iraq started in March 2003. I vividly remember till today the shock and fear after the United States declared to the world its intent to invade Iraq. At the beginning I couldn't believe that it will really happen, and that leaders of the world will somehow prevent it, but then it did happen. Along with my family and neighbors I felt that we are not safe and that the US could just invade any country it wanted. When September 2001 attacks happened our hearts were with America and we could understand why the US had to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban. But we could not understand what Iraq had to do with the September events and the real reason behind the American invasion especially that no relation could be found between Saddam Hussien and Al Qaeda, nor weapons of mass destruction were found upon the claim of US officials at the time. The narrative changed by time, and the reason for the invasion became "liberating people of Iraq". But then we saw the horrible pictures of tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison and the human rights abuses by coalition forces in Iraq. People in the Middle East were convinced that the US invaded Iraq for oil and oil only. The anti American sentiment was - understandably - on the rise. 13 years have passed, Iraq is now a failed state. I can't argue that Saddam was a tyrant and that people of Iraq deserved a better leader, but this change could never be brought by an invasion from a foreign country. No single country should be able to make decisions about the future of another country unilaterally or else why there should be an entity called the United Nations? America wanted to remove Saddam and it did, but it did not have a plan for what should happen next which resulted into a political vacuum, moreover the implementation of the de-Ba'athification process negatively impacted thousands of Iraqis. There is an Egyptian proverb that says: "If you can't handle the demons, don't wake them up". The invasion awaken the civil war that no one till today is able to handle. On daily basis we get to hear the bad news on what is happening in Iraq. My heart ache for the Iraqi people who were victims of this invasion, yet I feel the same for the young American soldiers who were brought to die on foreign lands for a purpose that did not really serve their own nation. "I heard (US) soldiers speak with contempt about the Iraq people for living in "mud huts", wearing "man dresses" and giving "man kisses"; about how being in Iraq felt like being on Planet of the Apes or the bar scene in Star Wars". "The soldiers viewed themselves as liberators and were angry that Iraqis were not more grateful for their liberation. When I arrived, one of the questions put to me was "What do we need to do to be loved?" I told them that people who invaded other people's countries, and killed people who were no threat to them, would never be loved". Those two excerpts are from a book titled "The Unraveling" by Emma Sky. Sky was the representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Kirkuk in 20023 and then the political advisor to the US General Odierno from 2007-2010. I believe the two quotes perfectly explains lots of things about the American involvement in Iraq. Americans often ask: "Why do they hate us?". It is not that people in the Middle East hate you as Americans, they just hate your foreign policy. Nowadays, the United States is determined to fight terrorists of Daesh "ISIS" in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS is not the enemy of America alone, it is the enemy of the Middle East and the whole world and so it becomes imperative that we all should go into this fight together, yet I do not see us fully united. When we watch the news and we see that many Americans support the racist rhetoric of Donald Trump or that a teen was stabbed because he spoke Arabic in the street this means something is very wrong. Painting all Muslims with the same brush will alienate an important ally in the fight against terrorism and again the US will find itself carrying on a mission that should never be done unilaterally. You cannot win a war when you are unable to identify your real enemy, can you?   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

15 января 2016, 02:16

Security fears beat the economy in GOP polls

BALTIMORE — National security — not the economy — is now the top concern of the nation's voters, according to internal House Republican polling, signaling a major shift in the electoral climate ahead of the 2016 election.The polls vary, but after attacks in Paris, California and Philadelphia, security of the homeland has jumped from a low-single digit issue to the top concern of nearly 20 percent of voters, according to multiple senior Republican lawmakers and aides. The number has "quadrupled," according to one Republican pollster who does work for House Republicans.National security is traditionally an issue that favors Republicans over Democrats, and could even help some endangered incumbents. Republicans are convinced they can tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama's national security policies, which the GOP believes are deeply flawed. “People don’t agree with the president, and they feel this is a real threat,” said Rep. Greg Walden, the Oregon Republican in charge of the party’s campaign arm. “The notion that the president didn’t even mention the attack in San Bernardino nor the officer in Philadelphia and was dismissive that ISIS is a problem, or he’s got it? People say, ‘Didn’t something happen out there? Didn’t they arrest somebody?’ They don’t feel secure, and yet he’s saying ‘This is overblown, I got it, it’s not a big threat.’ I don’t think people feel that way.”With the election just 10 months away, House and Senate Republicans are gathered here at the Marriott Baltimore Waterfront to discuss strategy and their electoral prospects. They heard from pollsters, and in a nod to the environment, retired Gen. Ray Odierno, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and the former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Gen. Michael Hayden — the former head of the CIA and NSA — also briefed Republican lawmakers and top aides on “Protecting the Homeland: Keeping Americans Safe from Radicalized Terrorism.”Concerns about terrorism first started to surface in polls in the summer of 2014. After a spate of beheadings by ISIS, the “electorate shifted,” Walden said. After attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, polls showed a sustained shift.“This isn’t just a question of how we use our military,” said David Winston, a top Republican pollster who briefed Republicans here this week. “This is about safety and security of people here in the United States. That creates a very different discussion.”And House Republicans think the shift could be fortuitous for their few endangered candidates. Rep. Mike Coffman, an Army and Marine veteran who represents a swing district outside Denver, has already benefited from Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. In the Senate, the diverse slate of Republicans running for reelection are unified against the president’s nuclear deal with Iran, which they view as dangerous and misguided.“This isn’t just about Republicans,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana. “There are Democrats and independents who are very concerned about the direction of the country and don’t like what Barack Obama has done both economically and especially on natl security, where this president refuses even to acknowledge the fact that not only do our friends not trust us, but our enemies don’t fear us.”Of course, the idea isn’t monolithic throughout the party. Winston said his polling still shows the economy edging out national security in some respects — but not by much. And Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said “a chance to get ahead in a really, really anemic economy is that other overarching issue.”“So the whole security thing: which includes, terrorism, which includes the military, which includes the border, is one,” Wicker said in an interview here. “And the other is that there’s just a whole bunch of people including folks who have been working for 35 years and people that just got out of college with a really fancy degree that just don’t feel like the economy is really giving them an opportunity. We’ve got a solution to that that the Democrats will never embrace, it’s our poise to articulate that pretty well this year.”Republicans here said that voters this fall will reward Republicans for their brawny national security posture. It’s not just polling, but recent terrorist attacks precipitate a season of fear among the electorate.“It’s going to be the No. 1 issue,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said. “It’s what the intelligence shows because the threat level is so high. you continue to see these attacks, nearly every day: Istanbul, and then there was another one last night in Jakarta. and these are going to continue to get worse.”It wasn’t long ago that a significant swath of the GOP was flirting with a libertarian orthodoxy that shied away from foreign intervention, best exemplified by the rise of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a band out of outspoken House members like Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. But after a rolling wave of terrorist attacks across the globe, the party has soured on those entreaties from GOP’s libertarian wing. Paul no longer qualifies for the president debates’ main stage, and the newest class of congressional Republicans is more focused on tweaking national security policy around the edges rather than a wholesale rethink of the party’s positioning. “I’ve always been a national security guy. I felt like we were kind of losing our place on that. We had an isolation feeling creeping in. And it’s gone,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an Air Force veteran. “It benefits us to talk about it politically, but it benefits the country because it’s the right thing to do.”

14 января 2016, 20:18

Ryan implores Republicans to pick smarter fights

BALTIMORE — Speaker Paul Ryan told a private meeting of congressional Republicans that they need to be a better “proposition party” by picking smarter fights on Capitol Hill and laying out a positive vision for the country.The remarks — described by multiple sources who attended a Wednesday evening meeting — came at the front end of a three-day GOP legislative retreat at the Marriott Baltimore Waterfront. Just days after President Barack Obama's final State of the Union, casually dressed Republicans are gathered here to discuss plans for the year ahead.With Republicans controlling majorities in the House and Senate, the mood is decidedly upbeat. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that the parties have very different goals. While Ryan boasted of laying out a new agenda, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told the room of GOP lawmakers Wednesday evening that his main aim is simply to pass a budget and 12 spending bills.The "Congress of Tomorrow" retreat, which is mostly closed to reporters and the public, includes hours of private sessions with authors, thinkers and other political figures. Larry Kudlow led an economic discussion. Pulitzer Prize winning author Jon Meacham talked about his new book about George H.W. Bush. Conservative pundit George Will said told lawmakers at a closed breakfast Thursday that Congress is ceding too much constitutional authority to the White House, according to sources in the meeting. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired General Ray Odierno are also slated to speak.