{"id":10482,"date":"2013-11-01T14:30:51","date_gmt":"2013-11-01T03:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=10482"},"modified":"2013-11-04T10:45:17","modified_gmt":"2013-11-03T23:45:17","slug":"aspi-suggests-36-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/aspi-suggests-36-2\/","title":{"rendered":"ASPI suggests"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>Further revelations of US intelligence activity<\/strong>, including tapping of friendly world leaders phones<\/a>, has put Washington\u2019s intelligence community on the defensive. The Economist<\/i> writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n On October 29th, realising that the political mood in Washington was, in the words of one security official, ‘turning ugly’, the NSA\u2019s boss, General Keith Alexander, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, came out slugging. Giving evidence to a congressional committee, both men vigorously denied that the agency had ‘gone rogue’.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Meanwhile the situation in the East China Sea<\/strong> continues to deteriorate<\/a>:<\/p>\n The rhetoric between Asia’s two superpowers is becoming more belligerent with China warning that if Japan carries out a threat to shoot down foreign drones, it would be an act of war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The New York Times Magazine<\/em> had a fascinating interactive piece<\/a> on another of China\u2019s territorial standoffs\u2014<\/strong>in this case, with the Philippines in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n Malaysia<\/strong> is planning to establish a Marine corps and naval base<\/a> close to waters claimed by China, reports defence writer Dzirhan Mahadzir. This is an interesting development in light of Geoff Wade\u2019s Strategist<\/i> post on potential Chinese military bases in Malaysia<\/a>\u00a0(an idea Greg Lopez plays down<\/a>).<\/p>\n Not irrelevant for this theatre, the US Navy<\/strong> is apparently worrying<\/a> about its numbers of fast-attack and guided-missile submarines.<\/p>\n Also on the US, Tony Abbott<\/strong> gave a full length interview<\/a> to the Washington Post<\/i>. He has been criticised<\/a> here at home for taking too partisan an approach for an international platform.<\/p>\n The Abbott government has also abandoned<\/a> the previous government’s Asian Century<\/strong> plans, read ASPI’s Peter Jenning’s take here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Former infantry officer and author Emile Simpson reviews<\/a> David H. Ucko and Robert Egnell\u2019s new book Counterinsurgency<\/strong> in Crisis: Britain and the challenges of modern warfare<\/i> on Foreign Policy<\/i>. Here\u2019s a snippet:<\/p>\n The book’s conclusion does not advance either the retention or jettisoning of counterinsurgency, as other works in this area have done. Rather, a nuanced position is established: There may well be operations possibly involving British forces in the near future that require an understanding of counterinsurgency, but COIN should be properly understood as a pool of operational practice that needs to be applied to the particular context, and accompanied by a political strategy, which COIN is not in itself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n