tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29295187960941203302024-03-07T20:23:58.959-08:00Warrior-CentricMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-18082938289804564272013-09-09T20:07:00.000-07:002013-09-09T20:07:15.770-07:00A Short History of the Long War: Volume III am suspending work on Warrior-Centric because I have begun work on another blog at http://ashorthistoryofthelongwar.blogspot.com/ . The new blog will serve as a note pad for preliminary research and writing for the second installment of A Short History of the Long War.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-85049618190781089852013-08-09T14:01:00.001-07:002013-08-09T14:01:47.363-07:00Review of Mark Bowden's "The Finish: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden"Mr. Bowden has enjoyed a fine reputation in literary circles for his previous books, "Blackhawk Down" and "Guests of the Ayatollah." This is why I was unprepared to be disappointed by his latest book about the killing of Bin Laden. He remains a gripping writer who sprinkles important details through his narrative, but he seems to have seized upon the Obama administration's version of events. Most importantly he tries to make the case that not only had the trail gone cold, but the trail had been abandoned by a Bush administration that was preoccupied with other things.<br />
<br />
On the one hand Mr. Bowden mentions that a 2007 raid (likely the Army's Delta Force) in Western Iraq near the Syrian border found information that would prove to be a turning point in the hunt for Bin Laden. On the other hand however, he pushes the chain of events ahead five years to the eve of the SEAL Team Six raid into Pakistan without giving fair treatment to the ongoing efforts of military and intelligence professionals over a decade and across the Bush and Obama administrations.<br />
<br />
Essentially Mr. Bowden repeats the Obama administration's line that it was largely the president's personal prodding and pestering of the CIA and SOC that directly led to finally getting the most wanted man in history. It makes for a compelling story, but I recommend you skip this book and rent "Zero Dark-Thirty." Not a perfect film, but as I wrote on this site, it gives a fairly comprehensive and balanced picture of the complex series of events that culminated in Bin Laden's death.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-56734391782564389022013-07-22T10:20:00.000-07:002013-07-22T10:20:16.995-07:00Pivoting to the Pacific: Part IFor more than a decade United States has been preoccupied with fighting al-Qaeda and the rest of the global Jihadist movement I refer to as militant Islamism. But as we have been reminded recently with the Snowden Affair, the U.S. government wields vast resources and has been dealing with many national security issues all along. One of these issues is: how precisely should the U.S. relationship with China be evaluated? As President Bush put it more than ten years ago, China is a "strategic competitor." This was a good formulation because although it acknowledges that the U.S. and China have many divergent interests, it leaves room for the important trade relationship the two countries enjoy. So the U.S. and China are not enemies even though there is a lot of spying going on and increasingly, a ratcheting up of cyber attacks. Much of the Chinese hacking is the industrial and military espionage, but the Pentagon is concerned that the motives could turn more sinister in the future. For example, an attack on the Pacific Fleet or a move against Taiwan would likely start with a coordinated cyber attack before the first missile is fired. A nexus of economic and national security interests ensures that China will figure more and more prominently in the Pentagon's strategy in the coming decades. This shift of focus and resources has begun and will be addressed in part II.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-8267074862375959602013-06-24T07:38:00.000-07:002013-06-24T07:38:12.798-07:00Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of VictoryFive years into the bloody war in Iraq the Bush administration launched its belated, but crucial troop surge and counterinsurgency campaign in 2007. Led by General Petraeus, this plan, rather than concealing a precipitous withdrawal from the country, finally subdued Iraq's enemies, foreign and domestic. For the next couple of years Iraq was relatively quiet as the Obama administration ramped up efforts in Afghanistan. <br />
<br />
The first real indication, for those who hoped or feared President Obama's foreign policy would be like a Bush third term, was his simultaneous announcement of a troop surge and a withdrawal plan. Unlike Bush with Iraq, Obama refused to commit himself to pursuing victory in Afghanistan. His surge was a delaying tactic in comparison, a way to extricate his administration from the responsibility for the war while trying to avoid blame for the eventual defeat.<br />
<br />
However, President Obama's Afghanistan policy looks positively Churchillian when compared to the complete and utter debacle he has made of Iraq. More than 4,000 Americans and many more Iraqis were killed toppling Hussein's regime and battling the ferocious assortment of former regime elements, al-Qaeda cells, Sadarist militias and other Iranian backed militants. It is fair to say that America, as the President likes to say, had some skin in the game.<br />
<br />
With a semblance of stability finally to show for all the blood and treasure liberals so loudly denounced, what does President Obama do? He commits the most terrible U.S. foreign policy blunder of the last hundred years. The administration apparently viewed it merely as a political hot potato it wanted to rid itself of, a vestige of the Bush administration. However, history did not begin in January, 2009 and it will surely not end in January, 2016. Iraq is a fragile and weak ally at best, but a problematic ally in that particular spot is infinitely better than a failing state falling into the orbit of one of our most dangerous enemies - Iran.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-56064544514100909262013-06-05T10:44:00.000-07:002013-06-05T10:44:09.549-07:00The Amazon is a River in South AmericaThe Obama administration recently ordered the Pentagon to change its rules regarding women in direct combat roles such as infantry and armor. This unprecedented change will supposedly open special operations units to women as well. I know the president and his civilian "experts" did not bother to ask themselves common sense questions like, "will this make the military more or less effective?" and "How will testing standards and more importantly operational practices need to be changed to accommodate women?" I know they did not bother because I know their motivation was not to improve combat effectiveness, but to improve the chances of more women being promoted. <br />
<br />
The military has this quaint notion that combat troops should often be promoted over support troops who have no direct combat experience. Alas, this diminished the chances for many women to be promoted as far or as fast as many men. The solution is obvious: ignore the truth that the average woman is far less physically capable than the average man to perform strenuous activities. The president and his ilk prefer to deny this truth and they must force the Pentagon to participate in the denial by arbitrarily reconstructing the physical ability tests. that men have These tests are tough for physically capable men to pass so they will have to be altered significantly so some women can pass them. or perhaps they can forget the whole thing and drop the tests as a requirement for combat jobs. Does this sound like this administration has the best interests of the military or America's national security as priorities?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-18780919895081829682013-05-21T05:00:00.000-07:002013-05-21T05:00:24.473-07:00Death From AboveYears of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown how destructive Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) can be as a large percentage of U.S. casualties have been the result of these roadside bombs. The pentagon has worked hard to defeat them, but they are inexpensive and effective so they will likely be a staple of future conflicts. One way to avoid roadside bombs is to stay off the roads as much as possible. Long convoys of trucks, tanks, artillery and support vehicles make easy targets so by shifting more resources from the ground to the air, combat units can avoid some of the roadside and become an even more lethal fighting machine. Flying has its own risks of course, but shooting down an Apache or an Osprey with an RPG is much harder than blowing up a HMMV in the street.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The model for this lighter, faster and deadlier Army would be the venerable 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and the Rangers. Both units were formed, trained and equipped around the idea that speed, surprise and aggressiveness could help make up for their lack of heavy weapons like tanks and heavy artillery. Airborne and air assault operations are considerably more expensive than more conventional ground-based operations. The cost and the institutional memory of the difficulties of the airborne drops over Normandy in 1944 have contributed to limited use of these operations. However, with technological advancements in aircraft, weapons and communications it is time to exploit the force multiplying effect of airborne/air assault.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(In a future post I will discuss issues such as cost, weapons and equipment and organizational changes that need to be addressed for the shift to an airborne/air assault based Army and Marine Corps.)</div>
Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-80384196817120547552013-05-04T10:08:00.001-07:002013-05-04T10:08:54.910-07:00Blowing up the AlphabetOne of the realizations to come out of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack is that more than ten years after 9/11 the multitude of federal agencies still do not always communicate effectively with one another. In this case it contributed to four deaths and hundreds of grievous injuries. "Stove piping" was a big issue after 9/11 and the alphabet of agencies pledged to play nice and share their information more readily. While this improved, it will never be good enough simply because their are too many letters. <br />
<br />
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), although widely derided, was at least a first step toward consolidating the alphabet soup. In 2002 numerous existing agencies were folded into this new entity including the, TSA, ATF, Immigration and Customs, Border Patrol, DEA, Coast Guard and Secret Service. Unfortunately the FBI was allowed to remain part of the Justice (DoJ) Department and the Central Intelligence Agency was allowed to remain in existence. The Department of Defense (DoD) has a number of agencies for gathering intelligence including the National Security Agency, (NSA) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the intelligence branches of the services. <br />
<br />
The CIA has always been filled with patriotic and hard working people doing their best, but it has also always been too much of a political animal entrenched in the Washington bureaucracy. Why should a civilian agency provide intelligence to the military? It added a layer of bureaucracy that did not exist prior to the 1947 act that created the agency. Instead of disbanding it however, a new layer was created in 2007 with a position called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which theoretically supercedes the Director of the CIA. If there is no CIA director then you certainly do not need a DNI who supercedes him. When will government officials learn that added layers of bureaucracy and overlapping agencies do not enhance efficiency and effectiveness? Why is more government the answer to lackluster government performance?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-26678977089774108532013-04-22T08:13:00.003-07:002013-04-22T08:13:29.841-07:00Review: Zero Dark Thirty, "One of the Disappeared Ones"I and many other people were a little surprised when the news broke on a Sunday evening in May 2011 that al-qaeda founder and terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. forces. Ten years had passed between the 9/11 attacks and his reckoning, but Kathryn Bigelow's film "Zero Dark Thirty" helps explain the delay. The first two hours of the film is much more intelligence procedural than thriller and the methodical pacing may turn off less interested viewers. But just when you have had enough of angry looks and internal CIA politics the viewer is rewarded with the payoff. <br />
<br />
After more than seven years of tracking down one dead end after another a relentless CIA analyst is finally able to put the pieces together. She is 95-100% sure her prey is living in a nondescript, but fortified house in a quiet Pakistani town. After months of handwringing the Obama administration orders a raid on the compound and as the cliche goes - the rest is history. Zero Dark Thirty is too long and deliberate to work as a thriller, but it does provide useful insights into controversial CIA tactics like enhanced interrogation techniques. I came away with a renewed appreciation of the anonymous intelligence and military personnel who have and continue to work so hard to keep the rest of us safe.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-80945267832375008022013-04-19T10:57:00.000-07:002013-04-19T10:57:46.230-07:00Long Live the RevolutionThere seems to be a cadre of national security and military affairs analysts who believe the movement started in the 1990's known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is dead and good riddance. This incorrect notion is at partially fueled, I suspect by their disdain for Secretary Rumsfeld, perhaps its most high profile proponent. Anyone who has been paying attention for the last ten years should know that even if the label RMA has fallen out of favor, the tenets of the philosophy continue to be implemented including increased reliance on air power, smart munitions, networked command and control capabilities and smaller, lighter ground forces. <br />
<br />
Its true that Secretary Rumsfeld made a lot of enemies at the Pentagon, but many of them parted ways with him years before 9/11 or OIF. For example, there were a number of high-ranking officers in the Army who pushed very hard for the canceled self-propelled cannon known as the Crusader. Soldiers understandably want heavy fire power to support their operations, but the secretary and other argued that big, heavy cannons were becoming less necessary in light of the advances in attack helicopters, attack planes and smart munitions.<br />
<br />
If the detractors lost faith in RMA because it did not turn out to be a sliver bullet or a panacea then shame on them for not having more realistic expectations. There is no magic, just hard decisions and hard work that will hopefully result in the most effective military possible.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-12654592023651959312013-04-12T08:39:00.000-07:002013-04-12T08:39:07.572-07:00U.S. Army: 2043What will the U.S. Army be like in the year 2043? It might seem like a long way off to some, but Pentagon planners are hard at work figuring out what shape its ground forces need to take to stay preeminent in the coming decades. There are two main challenges that have to be addressed: the first is the pressure of shrinking budgets for the foreseeable future and the second is China's increasing defense expenditures to create a military capable of projecting power into the South China Sea.<br />
<br />
Asking the Army to do less with more is a bit cliched, but it is unfortunately true. It appears that one of the ways the Pentagon will deal with this is to shrink the forces while moving ahead with replacing and updating equipment and systems. This can work up to the point where the Army finds itself without enough infantry and armor brigades to carry out relatively large-scale and sustained operations against for example, Iran and terrorist groups in the Horn of Africa. No one really knows what the exact numbers are, but recent experience with OEF and OIF suggest the point has already been reached.<br />
<br />
The Pentagon will have to come to terms with the economics of men versus machines - how many combat brigades it can trade for new helicopters and tanks.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-70603695849745539202013-03-24T06:51:00.001-07:002013-03-24T06:51:31.817-07:00Operation Iraqi Freedom: Mission Accomplished This week marked the ten year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. Gideon Rose wrote an article for Foreign Affairs arguing that OIF is, "..the most egregious American foreign policy failure since Vietnam." People opposed to the invasion invoked Vietnam even before the first coalition troops crossed into Iraq, and the WMD were not found. The comparisons became almost a cliche as the days of the invasion gave way to the years of reconstruction, IED attacks and street fighting. <br />
<br />
Mr. Rose could not be more wrong about Iraq because even though it was frustrating, brutal and expensive in both treasure and precious blood it succeeded in wrecking Saddam's regime and in helping an elected, sovereign government be born. Mr. Gideon should review his history if he believes this shares any similarities with the decision to leave South Vietnam to be conquered by the Communist North.<br />
<br />
In 2007 President Bush ignore the cries to pullout of Iraq as we did in Vietnam and instead ordered the surge of forces and counter insurgency strategy led by General Petraeus. This final push, along with the improving Iraqi forces and the Sunni Awakening were enough to break al-Qaeda and the other enemy forces. Ironically, Mr. Rose would have had his Vietnam in Iraq if President Bush had listened to the experts who counseled precipitous withdrawal and defeat. It is time the naysayers accepted yes for an answer: yes, mission accomplished. The Obama administration and future administrations have the responsibility to see that it stays that way.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-42343977295876470822013-03-18T03:46:00.002-07:002013-03-18T03:46:51.323-07:00Benghazi: Shame on the PresidentIt has been more than six months since the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, but it seems there are still as many questions as answers. The reason for this is that President Obama has successfully deflected questions and convinced many reporters in the months before the 2012 Presidential election that there was no there - there. However, at least 2 questions remain: Why did the White House immediately blame the attack on protests that escalated into an attack. Also, why did the White House send U.N. Ambassador Rice on numerous Sunday talk shows to repeat the claim even after intelligence officials had told the White House information pointed to a coordinated terrorist attack?<br />
<br />
The latest revelation is that as many as 33 survivors of the attack that killed the ambassador and 3 others are being pressured not to talk to Congress and the media. Republican senator Lindsey Graham has stated he managed to speak to several survivors and that they wanted to talk, but were seeking assurances they would be protected from repercussions. The House of Representatives should immediately call for public hearings and a renewed investigation along the lines of the work that was done that produced the 9/11 Commission Report. Shame on the President for dishonoring the dead and the survivors by trying to let the issue die away without his administration taking responsibility.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-71973503990942414592012-11-24T08:38:00.002-08:002012-11-24T08:38:41.929-08:00Camouflaging Common SenseWhen I was in elementary school in the 1980's and decided i wanted to be a Green Beret the four services were preparing to fight the massive Soviet military machine known as the Red Army. Somehow however, the four services were able to function using one primary camouflage pattern for their uniforms. it was a woodland pattern suited for Europe, parts of Asia and the Americas. When Desert Storm hit the pentagon pulled the now somewhat infamous "chocolate chip" desert pattern fatigues.<br />
<br />
While new patterns were tested and a new desert pattern emerged around the time of OEF, the explosion of new camouflage patterns would soon begin. The Marine Corps kicked it off with a nod to the Canadians who had developed a digital camouflage pattern. After OIF the Marines began issuing two digital patterns: a green and brown woodland pattern and a brownish desert pattern. Soon after the Army jumped in with its Universal Camouflage Pattern that was designed to be suitable for many different environments, but remained unpopular. The Army began issuing a different pattern called Multicam in 2010 that has proven to be popular.<br />
<br />
This near fetish continued continued in the midst of the GWOT as the Navy introduced 3 new digital patterns: a strange sci-fi blue/green pattern as well as 2 patterns similar to the Marine Corps patterns. The Air Force got into the game with a retro tiger stripe pattern updated with the digital format. <br />
<br />
A September 2012 Government Accountability Office report described this debacle as a fragmented approach as putting troops at risk and wasting millions of dollars on what are essentially fashion decisions. No matter how much more effective research and testing can make camouflage patterns, they are still limited in how much any camouflage clothing can conceal the troops on the battlefield. Going forward, all the services should be compelled to accept the Multicam pattern so everyone can get on the same page and then get back to focusing on more important issues like trying to make do with serious budget cuts. Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-4076098736596107022012-05-18T18:11:00.001-07:002012-05-18T18:11:50.585-07:00What Would Ethan Allen Do?The proud history of the Army Rangers goes back to before the Revolutionary War with Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys of Vermont. Reaching legendary status with its exploits during World War II the Rangers continue to be one of the Army's most elite combat units. The Obama administration's drive to transform the military by pushing females closer to combat jobs may be a boon to their careers, but is it a boon for combat effectiveness? (What does this change say about the effectiveness/rigor of Ranger school?)<br />
<br />
General Odierno believes failing to allow women to enroll in Ranger school and earn their tabs would hinder their infantry careers. Was there a time when this kind of politically correct drivel would have gotten you retired? What infantry careers?Just because they are being assigned to units below Brigade level does not mean they are infantrymen, excuse me infantrypeople. Women will be allowed to serve in support capacities such as personnel, logistics chaplaincy and intelligence.<br />
<br />
The Pentagon needs to check itself before it lets itself get carried away by an administration that seems to have more invested in gender politics than it does in the long-term effectiveness of the military and American national security. If women are just as qualified to go to Ranger School, serve as Marine Corps infantry officers are become Navy SEALs than they can be put in all female units just as there have always been all male units. Where would this fall in the politically correct triangulation the administration is so busy calculating?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-19204302048915704312012-04-21T10:17:00.001-07:002012-04-21T10:17:33.012-07:00Penny Wise, Pound FoolishMuch has been made of the Obama administration's stepped up drone strikes in the wild regions of Pakistan. There is no doubt that killing al-Qaeda, Taliban and other enemy forces where ever they are found is a good thing. Similarly the spectacular death of Osama Bin Laden was, well - spectacular, but his death nor the small scale bombing program carried out by drones represent strategic moves. Over the long term they are effective on the tactical level only. A strategic breakthrough will not come through commando raids or at discussions in Kabul and Islamabad. Ground zero has always been the wild tribal regions where the enemy is allowed to hide, train and rearm before crossing the border back into Afghanistan. Everyone tends to focus on COINs idea about protecting the population while forgetting another one - eliminate the enemy's safe havens.<br />
<br />
The case of Iraq is more disturbing because President Obama may have made a tactical calculation that it was better for his reelection chances to not negotiate a new SOFA with Iragi leaders when the original one expired at the end of 2011. The administration cannot argue it was a smart strategic move to pull U.S. forces out of an unstable country that we hope to have as a stable ally, but is coveted by our greatest enemy, Iran. The hard, expensive and bloody work was accomplished under the Bush administration and all that was required of the Obama administration was to maintain the successes - in other words to not let the nearly trillion dollars and more than 4,000 American lives be in vain.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-1180290123814627932012-04-10T06:19:00.000-07:002012-04-10T06:19:35.404-07:00No Massacre at Gun Ri?I have written a number of articles on military history and military affairs for Listosaur.com, but none of them caused the kind of reaction my last one did. I wrote about 5 massacres perpetrated by American troops stretching from the Spanish American War/Filipino Insurrection to the Vietnam War. "Massacre" is a very loaded word and I resisted the use of the word for some of the incidents in conversations with my editor, but he gets the final word. <br />
<br />
Many people have hear of the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War or the Massacre at wounded Knee at the end of the Indian Wars. While the My Lai case is a pretty clear-cut case of atrocities, the others are a lot less clear. A little research shows there are several versions of events with different sets of facts and motives. The No Gun Ri incident during the Korean War is one example: A number of South Korean civilians were killed in the midst of some heavy fighting in July 1950, but it gets complicated after that. <br />
<br />
One reader contacted me to say I was basically white-washing the cold=blooded murder of innocent civilians by U.S. troops. He did not provide any good evidence, but he was passionate that Americans were at fault. He seemed to completely discount the idea that the troops accidently killed civilians in the chaos and confusion of war and as the Communists were infiltrating the ranks of the civilian refugees to advance the American lines. The deaths of civilians in war is always a tragedy, but a massacre?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-79415373594726119242012-03-11T20:09:00.000-07:002012-03-11T20:09:42.871-07:00What Time is it in Washington?After writing several installments of "What Time is it in Kandahar and Afghanistan?" recent events in Afghanistan seem to be bringing matters to a real crisis point. Unfortunately in D.C. it is time for another Presidential election. But this has been a problem several years in the making. Ever since President Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan in the same speech that he set a timetable for withdrawal Operation Enduring Freedom began to unravel.<br />
<br />
I am under no illusions that Afghanistan was not a near impossible proposition on a good day, but that is the point. The mission was tough enough before Obama, despite arguing during the 2008 campaign that OEF was the good war and would get his full attention. His change of course, no matter how it was sold by the administration, was the beginning of a withdrawal and it was recognized as such by U.S. allies and enemies alike.<br />
<br />
The Obama administration like to tout the fact that it killed Bin Laden and has made generous use of drone strikes in Pakistan and I give it credit for these. However, the administration very likely has sacrificed strategic victory in Iraq and Afghanistan for a string of tactical successes. Leaving is not winning, but the Obama administration has not wanted to confront the true nature of the Global War on Terror. In an election year, it will be too tempting to declare victory and try to wash their hands of it.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-51928260352708954292012-02-14T09:59:00.000-08:002012-02-14T09:59:34.497-08:00"That's a Hell of a price to Pay for Being Stylish"Clint Eastwood's hardened cop Dirty Harry pointed out a universal truth when he expressed grave doubts about promoting less than qualified female police officers because of political correctness. The Pentagon's recent decision is along these lines because some women in the military as well as activist groups have been pressuring it to get on board with the politically correct notion of promoting women even though they lack a common requirement: combat experience. Now two things seem to be happening; one is a broadening of the definition of combat experience and allowing women to serve below the battalion level so they will be closer to "the front."<br />
<br />
Women have been combat pilots since the Clinton administration, but for now common sense among the service chiefs continues to keep women from serving in combat units such as infantry, armor and Special Forces. There may be a change coming to artillery branch, but more research is needed. Millions of women have served with distinction in a number of critical roles, including roles that brought them directly into harm's way, but this is not really a reason to up end what remains of our most effective units. I understand that women feel they have been short-changed sometimes with promotions, but like every other person in the military, they have to understand that the good of the service comes before personal considerations.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-83859775804337878012012-01-31T10:07:00.000-08:002012-01-31T10:07:27.081-08:00Can You Hear the Thunder?Another round of budget cuts is being pushed forward by the Obama administration and there is a new push to drop the venerable A-10 Thunderbolt. The Air Force has being trying to get rid of the ugly, slow ground attack plane. However, up to now it has survived the fire partly because it is beloved by the Army and Marines who are the actual beneficiaries of the A-10s' effectiveness. it is not glamorous and sleek like the F-22 or B-2, but does anyone want to argue that those planes have played a more important role over the last ten years or are likely to in the next ten years? <br />
<br />
It should not be a matter of choosing one over the other; the truth is we need F-22s, A-10s, B-2s, C-17s and C-130s as well as a host of helicopters and UAVs. The Air Force's historical and institutional prejudice toward strategic bombers and strike aircraft is both understandable and unacceptable giving the evidence of the last 50 years that the Air Force has been needed much more as a surveillance, cargo and ground attack component of the military than as either as a bomber force or in air to air combat. <br />
<br />
All of the talk of jointness notwithstanding, too much separation been allowed between the Army and Air Force which probably started even before the two were formally separated in 1947. Politicians can pretend the GWOT is going away and that the horrific budget deficit can be balanced on the back of the Pentagon, but even a glance at the Federal budget should be enough to convince one that wiping out the Pentagon would not put much of a bite in the leviathan of debt medicare and the other unsustainable entitlements represent.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-48281470885549643852012-01-14T08:01:00.000-08:002012-01-14T08:01:01.263-08:00Rumsfeld Rules! Part IIWhen Mr. Rumsfeld took over at the Pentagon in 2001 he had a mandate from President Bush to begin to transform the military from the Cold War force it had remained even as it had shrunk by about half during the 1990's. Officials in the Obama administration have tried to characterize the recent plans for massive budget cuts to military spending as somehow a continuation of the Bush/Rumsfeld transformation. However, this clearly wrong since one of the first things Mr. Rumsfeld did was request a sizable increase in funding. In the spring and summer of 2001 most congressmen were not eager to act on this, but of course that changed after 9/11. <br />
<br />
Significant increases were approved by congress; there was enough money to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and offer assistance in the Philippines and the Horn of Africa, but there was no big defense buildup as was seen under President Reagan in the 1980s. Equipment and personnel were replaced but there was not significant beefing up of forces. For example, Rumsfeld's successor Secretary Gates cut back production on the F-22 and Secretary Panetta has recently slowed production of the the F-35. Everyone complained about not having enough troops to fight the GWOT, but the Bush administration never made a big push to increase the ranks and the Obama administration wants to actually reduce the Army and Marine Corps. <br />
<br />
The Obama policy might be cynically summarized as an attempt to weaken the military to the point that it is no longer a question of should we engage an enemy like Iran?, but can we? A smaller military with aging equipment will be seen as less and less capable of mounting effective offensive operations. The administration insists the force will not be hollowed out but what will we have in five or ten years when we have not begun to make serious spending commitments for new weapons like next generation tanks, attack helicopters and long range bombers? What about a replacement for the M4/M16 that offers more firepower? Is all of this going to be left in limbo until drones are deployed to replace most of the manned systems? Rumsfeld's Pentagon unveiled an ambitious program of next generation upgrades and weapons procurements, but these were mostly canceled by the Obama administration. The legacy of Defense Secretary Panetta remains to be seen but it does but it does not appear to be one of a resurgent and reinvigorated military, it feels like it will be more like the apathy of the 1970s.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-53222153295195690282011-12-29T07:53:00.000-08:002011-12-29T07:53:12.634-08:00Rumsfeld Rules! Part IMr. Rumsfeld's memoir "Known and Unknown" is a fascinating book stretching from his childhood during the dark days of World War Two through his time as Secretary of Defense during the Global War on Terror. Many people may know him through his time as something of a media darling during the early months of Operation Enduring Freedom when he gave entertaining performances at Pentagon press conferences. Of course what the media gives it takes away and with the incidents surrounding the Iraqi prison at Abu Graib he became the embodiment of everything that was supposedly wrong with the Bush administration in general and the prosecution of the war in particular.<br />
<br />
Mr. Rumsfeld had made enemies at the Pentagon however, long before he made enemies in the press. His straight forward, probing manner could be abrasive to some, but the real problem many in the senior military had with him is that he tried to end business as usual. The relative calm of the 1990's had resulted in a peace time, increasingly politically correct military content to ride the post Cold War wave into the 21st century without seriously reconsidering its own state of affairs. When President Bush directed Secretary Rumsfeld to conduct reviews in anticipation of his policy of transformation the brass began to resist.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-7740781084421112232011-12-12T09:53:00.000-08:002011-12-12T09:53:28.149-08:00Six Kinds of Camouflage: Why the Pentagon Needs to be Fixed/Synopsis<!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">The Pentagon has been at the epicenter of the war against militant Islamism since the morning of September 11, 2001.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also finds itself in the middle of an ongoing and evolving “transformation.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opened the Office of Force Transformation at the Pentagon in October 2001.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, as the first term of the Bush administration began to take shape in early 2001 the Pentagon thought it would have years of relative peace and quiet to implement its long-term plans for transforming the U.S. military.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and smaller operations around the world have both interrupted and instigated various aspects of the ongoing program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">The program can be broken down into three major divisions: bureaucratic reform, technological improvements and evolutions in doctrine, strategy and tactics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The biggest obstacle that stands in the way of a truly transformed military is not the war on terror or funding shortfalls but the mindset of many of the Pentagon’s leaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can call this bureaucratic, institutionalized and sometimes narrow way of thinking “Pentagonism.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just one small example of this is the infighting between the Army and Air Force over allocation and operational control of the limited number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The competition for these platforms underscores another problem within the Pentagon culture that has trickled down to some extent at least into the officer corps and enlisted ranks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">Technology is widely seen as a, if not <i>the</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> indispensable factor that separates us from our enemies and ensures victory over their less sophisticated ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You see this mentality in the constant requests for more UAVs, more close air support of ground units, more stand off munitions and more networked computer systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The UAVs are a wonderful piece of technology that have saved many American lives and ended many enemy lives, but the constant clamor for more and better ones could serve to undermine the overall tactical savvy of combat units on the ground.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An over reliance on them could evoke a mindset and then a doctrine that says we need UAV support to conduct our mission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This position would be self-limiting and ultimately self-defeating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>American soldiers in World War Two were well aware that their Sherman tanks were grossly inferior to the German Panzers, but superior numbers of Sherman’s and old-fashioned perseverance carried the day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The U.S. military should not put itself in the position of relying on superior technology in inferior numbers as the Nazi’s did. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">In the end technology or more generally raw military power is ultimately not the way the U.S. military will defeat militant Islamism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will have to be done by brave, tough and well-trained warriors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Americans have not successfully confronted this issue since it was the overwhelming underdog in the Revolutionary War more than 230 years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since its war with British Empire it has tended to rely on overwhelming firepower to win, but as the Vietnam War demonstrated, this was not always a successful doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is one of the founding principles of the Army Special Forces that people are more valuable than technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span><!--EndFragment-->Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-10305820193632144312011-11-26T10:50:00.000-08:002011-11-27T19:14:02.156-08:00Small Arms: Big PainThe U.S. military has been engaged in Afghanistan for ten years and for eight years in Iraq. It seems to be a little late in the game for the Army and Marine Corps to still be working through issues with their rifles and other small arms. I do not want to hear any excuses about lack of money - both services field multi-million dollar weapons systems from UAVs to tanks, helicopters and planes. But Somehow the infantry's small arms, in this case grenade launchers, continue to get short shrift.<br />
<br />
The Army is field testing the XM25, a dedicated grenade launcher the fires a programmable 25mm airburst round. The Marines say it is too expensive for them to replace their 40mm rifle-slung grenade launchers with. Why isn't the XM25 a joint program with Army and Marines? Why is the XM25 using 25mm rounds when Marines and others believe the 40mm round would be better? An infantry weapons officer with the Marines said,"if you have an air-burst capability on a multi-shot grenade launcher, you would be wrecking people." Shouldn't every infantry platoon, Army and Marines, have at least one such weapon by now?<br />
<br />
Perhaps if the Corps finally admitted its traditionally amphibious assault role is behind them, they could free up their budget for things like a multi-shot grenade launcher with airburst rounds. Amphibious assault vehicles, hovercrafts and assault ships that carry them are expensive to build and field. The Marines of the 21st century launch assaults via troop transport helicopter and tilt rotors. These could be launched from modified carriers instead of separate ships. Storming the beaches died with the proliferation of cruise missiles and tactical rocket batteries. It is time Marine Corps doctrine, organization, training and procurement should reflect this.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-77439679989462485672011-11-07T11:10:00.000-08:002011-11-07T11:10:15.856-08:00Obama's VietnamPresident Obama did not initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 invasion that toppled the Baathist regime and led to Saddam Hussein's capture. However, when Obama became commander in chief he inherited OEF and the serious national security issues that go along with that. Iraq has made considerable progress from the days when it was ruled as a brutal police state. Like Japan, Germany and South Korea, where the United States has maintained large numbers of troops for decades to promote regional stability, Iraq is in need of a continued U.S. presence to help prevent Shiite and Sunni factions from dragging the country into civil war and discourage Iran from spreading its influence even further.<br />
<br />
To put it bluntly, U.S. national security interests are more important than Obama's campaign promises or his desire for a second term. More than 4,400 American lives were lost, many thousands more seriously wounded and about a trillion dollars was spent to ensure victory. Too much has been sacrificed in the Global War on Terror (overseas contingency operations) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the sake of one man's political fortunes.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2929518796094120330.post-53109567821956912472011-10-24T06:55:00.000-07:002011-10-24T06:55:15.413-07:00Giving Away the StoreHas America's involvement in Iraq been called on account of the 2012 presidential election? With the status of force agreement with Iraq expiring, the Obama administration failed to negotiate a deal to allow at least several thousand combat troops in the country beyond the end of this year. A cynical person might argue the administration allowed the negotiations to fail because it wanted out so it could report a full pull-out to its base. Reelection politics cannot drive national security policy in general and strategic decisions regarding the War on Terror in particular.<br />
<br />
The left has consistently complained that Operation Iraqi Freedom was another Vietnam, but ironically it is a leftist president who risks turning a hard fought, bloody victory into a defeat. if a weak Iraq is torn apart or manipulated and exploited by an ascendent Iran for its own purposes than President Obama will have abandoned the thousands of troops killed and wounded to secure victory and delivered another Vietnam.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485476043540368823noreply@blogger.com0