Storm on the Iranian Front Grows

Interesting and very concerning developments over the past few weeks regarding a possible strike on Iran. Last month, the Israeli air force conducted a major air power exercise involving roughly 100 advanced F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighters. The aircraft took off from their bases in Israel, traveled west over the Med as far as Greece and returned, covering a span of almost 1200 miles roundtrip, roughly the same distance between Israel and Iran’s Nataz nuclear-enrichment facilities near Esfahan. The exercise focused on mid-air refueling and search and rescue for downed aviators; it was a resounding success. Last week, in response to an Iranian statement that maritime assets would be destroyed in the Persian Gulf and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz (25% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through these waters) if Iranian “interests are jeopardized”, the US Navy stated it would not allow Iran to close the waterway and announced a major naval exercise designed to ensure readiness and refine tactics within the 5th Fleet. These exercises were greeted by several missile tests near the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.

On the diplomatic front, statements of concern have been issued by Beijing and Tokyo, a huge development considering China and Japan are Iran’s largest oil importers and neither country had commented on the crisis.

Furthermore, in a post that is both brilliant and terrifying, Galrahn notes the domestic political developments:

I can't say I'm excited about [the FISA] bill, but I can live with it, perhaps literally. Following an attack on Iran by Israel, Iran is not going to find much success trying to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in the Indian Ocean, but they might have a great deal of success killing you and me here in America. We don't believe for one second that Iran is going to abide by the Geneva Conventions and not intentionally support the killing of American civilians in North America. If war happens, they are as likely if not more likely to attack here than in the Gulf. Whether you like it or not, there was absolutely no way the Democrats, including Barack Obama, were going to leave the possibility open that Israel attacks Iran, and the US gets hit by terrorist attacks inside the US while the FISA bill wasn't passed.

This is a key point. The Democratic Party in mass shifted from a core position. This doesn't happen without keen awareness to some strategic condition. Clearly some outside force has produced conditions which are far outside the scope of national politics, because nothing short of insight and real concern for political survival would Democrats find inspiration for such a massive policy shift with virtually no explanation to its core constituency. This is a major reason, and to Democrats scratching still (sic) their heads, an obvious sign we believe that Israel has demanded a time table.

So there you have it: the conditions seem to indicate that something big is going to happen in the next few months and we could very well be dragged into a fight by our only real ally in the Middle East.

The wild card in all of this seems to be Turkey. In order for the Israelis to mount a strike from their home turf, they would need to travel through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. The latter would require at least a silent nod from Washington because the United States controls Iraqi skies. However, since Secretary Gates has been an outspoken opponent of Iranian strikes and has garnered a large measure of respect from the military and the American people for turning DOD around, it is difficult to see how this would happen without causing a huge rift in both the administration and the military. On the other hand, Turkey could offer either airspace or basing rights to Israel, which would allow the Israelis to do an end run around the Americans and strike from the north. Striking from Turkey would also be much safer because search-and-rescue helos and tankers could base and operate within friendly airspace. Ingress from Turkey would also make Iran think twice about retaliation against the Turks, as Tehran would have to consider the severe consequences that would certainly arise if it attacked a member of NATO with the largest standing army in Europe.

Dr. Barnett has a pretty good take on the political situation. He essentially argues the political lives of Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Israel’s Olmert, both of whom are viewed by their respective countries as failures, would be well-served by war because it would give them an opportunity to maintain a grip on power. Olmert, for example, is under serious criticism for failing to enlist more international support to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue while Ahmadinejad’s reign has been a disaster as the Iranian economy is in a nose-dive spurred by run-away inflation. Students, who make no attempt to hide their love for America, are calling for his head on a platter. Nothing better to feed the masses than a healthy dose of blood-soaked nationalism. Additionally, Israel is extremely skeptical of a possible Obama administration, so better to strike while you’ve got friends in the White House. Not to mention the fact that an Israeli strike, according to Barnett, would help McCain’s prospects.

I’m skeptical about a McCain benefit. If Americans believe the White House is even remotely involved in some kind of strike, (i.e. silent nod on Iraqi airspace) Obama will almost certainly get a bump because I’m pretty sure most Americans (like 80+%) are against another war, especially involving one and possibly two nuclear powers. However, if Israel strikes unilaterally from Turkey and Iran retaliates against the Turks, which would require a response from NATO, McCain could possibly benefit since the retaliation could be spun as an attack. So again, it comes down to Turkey.

In a major departure from prior policy, Bush will send a senior envoy to international talks in Geneva this weekend with a “one-time deal” designed to talk the Persians down. Several members of the six-party talks have insisted upon a hard six-week “freeze for freeze”negotiations period, under which no further sanctions will be enacted and Iran will not add to its nuclear program. This period insures that war would not break out until after the Olympics thereby insuring heads of state will be in attendance at Beijing. However, the period is also a countdown.

Meanwhile naval activity is on the rise in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, as Europe, America, and their allies are putting a large number of ships to sea for some of the largest combined exercises in history. These combined fleets will be at an extraordinary state of readiness by the beginning of August, which will last into mid September when the US Navy is scheduled to rotate forces.

Dates to watch over the next few months: August 30, September 29, October 28, November 27, and December 27. These are days with new moons.

Whose Policy is it Anyway?

Galrahn, over at Information Dissemination, has a very interesting post concerning the prospective foreign policies offered by McCain and Obama. He essentially argues both campaigns lack any real strategic change and tend to just quote the military when either camp discusses foreign policy because Americans trust the military more than politicians:

To a greater degree, the [foreign policy] talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents.

I think Galrahn makes a great point here. However, the argument seems to work better with Obama. While most of the American Left’s arguments concerning a McCain administration being a continuation of Bush are hogwash, they are essentially right when it comes to foreign policy. Thus McCain is going to sound a lot like the SECDEF and will try to keep most of the Gates team intact if he’s elected because he agrees with their vision and believes it’s working. Obama, on the other hand, does seem to quote military leader because he, as well as every other Dem in Congress, has yet to articulate a plausible strategic vision that would serve Liberal goals (diplomacy, getting out of Iraq?) and American interests alike. For example, how would a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq contribute to a stable Middle East? Obama’s recent statements concerning Iraq and free trade, though encouraging strategic statements in my opinion, flew in the face of his entire primary campaign message and now he’s backtracking on those statements, so it’s difficult to really know where he stands. So it seems to me Obama’s policy is continuation of the party line: complain and point out problems without offering solutions. Therefore when JCS or DOD complain, Obama immediately seizes those statements as a foreign policy platform. The problem with this kind of politics is platforms can’t just point out problems, they must offer solutions to solve them.

GTMO: Habeas 'Aint the Only Reason

Ever since the Boumediene decision was handed down a couple of weeks ago, there’s been a lot of talk on the editorial pages calling on the Administration to close Camp Delta (the detainee facility) at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). While most of these arguments essentially argue that since the legal justifications for holding enemy combatants off shore no longer exist, the facility should be closed. However, while I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s position regarding habeas rights for detainees, the argument for closing GTMO seems to ignore many of the practical justifications for holding enemy combatants in Cuba. To be sure, the legal factors were probably the overriding reason the Bush Administration chose GTMO but they were not the only reasons.

Think about this from a security perspective. Following the September 11th attacks and America’s subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. forces started to take thousands of prisoners during its combat operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At first, these prisoners were treated the same way the military has always treated prisoners and the captured fighters were kept in makeshift prisons throughout Afghanistan. However, as operations continued, it became apparent that the facilities would not suffice, especially for the more hardened fighters who, instead of laying down their arms and being content with being away from the font lines as most POWs were in World War II, would stop at nothing to effect escape and kill their captors . In late November 2001, for example, a group of recently captured Taliban fighters concealed weapons in a makeshift U.S. detention facility and killed a CIA agent and several other Americans and took over the facility for over a week until they could be subdued in one of the most brutal battles in the Afghanistan campaign. Furthermore, this is not an old phenomenon. Just last month, to cite another example, Taliban forces attacked a Canadian-guarded facility in Kandahar and freed over 800 prisoners in one of the largest jailbreaks in modern history. Thus we need a facility that will get these guys the hell away from the battlefield and is easily defendable.

As a former administration official points out, when Bush & Co. decided on GTMO it considered these things. Not only is the base well defended against a terrorist attack, being nearly surrounded by water, but it’s also situated within an area where U.S. civilians are not exposed or endangered by the enemy combatants’ presence. Any facility that houses detainees will almost certainly be a target for attack. Currently, the only other maximum security prison maintained by DOD is Fort Leavenworth; which boasts an extremely large concentration of personnel, a relatively high civilian population and is located just outside Leavenworth, Kansas. Thus transferring the detainees to Leavenworth could frighten and possibly endanger a large number of US civilians as well as threaten the base, which could prove catastrophic since the fort is considered the intellectual center of the Army. Moreover, Camp Delta has been specifically designed and built from the ground-up to house and care for these individuals at, no doubt, great expense to the American taxpayer. Moving the detainees to another facility would require DOD to either build another prison or institute major renovations to Leavenworth or other detention facilities. Do we really need to build ANOTHER facility? The editorial pages would do well to remember that the law is not the only thing that should be considered before trashing GTMO. Change the policy not the place.

Nough said

Couple of guys thought they'd re-up in Baghdad today:
Happy 4th.

Don't look now but

The CIA is declaring al-Qaeda defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Why the success? As Galrahn at Information Dissemination points out, the "surge" was certainly a major factor. However, when this type of ideological victory is achieved, the Iraqis and Saudis themselves are responsible for victory. They made the choice. Now, the surge in security forces allowed them to make that choice by providing a security overlay in Baghdad but most of the security in places that archived such stunning success, like Anbar province, was done at the tribal level where military officials created a loose alliance with tribal militias who, in many cases, were supplied by the United States but were also part of the insurgency. These local leaders had to decide to cast there lot with the United States, which required trust. Tactical revisions by the Petraeus squad put troops into the communities where they were able to attain that trust by winning hearts and minds but without those local leaders making the choice, we'd be dead in the water. General Petraeus always understood this, others, sadly, did not.

On a political note, it will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this assessment. Could Obama declare victory in Iraq? It would certainly provide a reason, albeit a misguided one, for pulling US forces out.

Comfort not Carriers

I didn't think much of the New Cooperative Maritime Strategy when it was issued last fall. In my opinion, the sea services really failed to make a case for a modern fleet to the American public because it was unnecessarily vague regarding platform acquisition, roles, and missions. The one glimmer of hope in the entire thing was the strategy's emphasis on soft power; in other words increasing deployments of the U.S.N.S. Hope and Comfort to disaster areas instead of making a "show of force" by deploying a battle-group centered around a carrier. The following article in The Baltimore Sun does a very good job discussing what I'm talking about:

Embracing new role: The nation should support the U.S. military as it takes the lead in global disaster response
By Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann

Quietly, and perhaps without fully realizing it, the U.S. military has begun embracing a new, wide-ranging international role that will compel it to intervene in many countries throughout the world. Yet this is a role that virtually every country would support and one that should be widely embraced here as well: the role of global first responder.

The Myanmar military government's shocking and disastrous refusal of international assistance in the wake of the recent devastating cyclone has masked one broader positive development - the surprising speed at which aid, especially on the part of the U.S., was offered. In contrast to the initially hesitant U.S. response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (characterized as "stingy" by U.N. Undersecretary-General Jan England), this time, first lady Laura Bush set a decisive tone, saying that the U.S. was prepared to send massive assistance immediately. This willingness reflects not just a good-natured desire to help but also a realization that dealing with international disasters has become a national security priority.

In some ways, this is an odd development. Responding to natural disasters has never been a core mission of the U.S. military. It rarely drives procurement decisions or strategic thinking, and responses to disaster situations have tended to be ad hoc. Yet this is changing. As the Center for Naval Analysis concluded, "Climate change threatens to add new hostile and stressing factors." As large-scale disasters grow more common, so too will U.S. military involvement in these types of missions.

The eventual U.S. response to the Indian Ocean tsunami was a pivotal event. After the tsunami, 15,000 troops, a carrier task force and a Marine expeditionary force deployed to the region, with the U.S. Navy effectively setting up a "sea base" off the coast of Indonesia. This flotilla of ships enabled supplies to be transported to the coastline, where ports and roads were all but washed away. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, commented, "We literally built a city at sea for no other purpose than to serve the needs of other people." Only the U.S. military had the ability to conduct such an operation.

While Indonesia still is a long way from completely recovering, the American response made a tremendous difference. And our assistance did not go unnoticed. A Pew Survey found that 80 percent of the citizens of the world's largest Muslim-majority country had a more favorable opinion of the United States after our response.

What worked abroad was also employed at home: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Navy set up a base at sea in which to assist New Orleans. That same year, in the wake of a major earthquake in Pakistan, U.S. assistance was quickly sent, and Pakistani television showed American helicopters ferrying aid to remote mountainous villages and American medics helping the injured.

And in November, the man in charge of the military's response to Hurricane Katrina, Adm. Timothy Keating, now the head of U.S. Pacific Command, sent a Marine Expeditionary Unit to assist Bangladesh in its recovery from a devastating cyclone. Admiral Keating noted that he worked with the Bangladeshi government before the storm had even hit. The Navy is so pleased with its performance in these missions that it introduced new recruiting commercials highlighting its role in disaster recovery.

Some may see the mantle of global first responder as a distraction from "hard" security concerns. But engaging in these operations promotes U.S. interests.

First, such missions act to maintain precious stability. After the 2004 tsunami, there was a real danger that chaos, even unrest, would spread beyond the disaster zones. Our response not only saved lives but also helped stabilize the area.

Second, it improves the image of the U.S. Responding to disasters demonstrates to the world the goodwill of the American people and can serve to improve our standing in world opinion, as it has in Indonesia. As Admiral Mullen explained, the tsunami intervention showed another side of "American power that wasn't perceived as frightening, monolithic or arrogant."

Third, such missions help cast our global military posture in a better light. Countries will be more accepting of a U.S. military presence in their neighborhood if they know that our military will be there to help if disaster strikes. Adopting this role also enables the U.S. to build closer relationships with countries, as in Bangladesh, where joint preparations helped avert an even worse disaster and improved our relations.

Finally, responding to natural disasters is the price of being the world's largest superpower. As the guarantor of global security, the U.S. is looked to not just for its ability to deter threats but also for its ability to help when countries are in need.

Responding to disasters should therefore not be seen as a burden on the U.S. military, but should be embraced as an opportunity.

Win hearts and minds and you get allies instead of terrorists pure and simple.

A Real Exit Strategy

Great piece from The Christian Science Monitor on the need for jobs and a cultural rebirth:

What Would Really Rebuild Iraq
By Walter Rodgers and Yasmeen Alamiri

Oakton, Va. - "Iraqi mothers want the same thing for their children American mothers want for theirs," President Bush has said. "A place for their child to grow up and get a good education and be able to realize dreams."

The president is correct. The two institutions Iraqis prize most are family and education. But the US military occupation and the insurgency have produced a total disruption of both. Can Iraqis return to social normalcy so long as US troops – and their enemies – are engaged there?

One has to look no further than the Palestinian territories to discover the long-term effects of children not going to school. Israel's occupation and perennial lockdown of Palestinians created a new uneducated generation seeking salvation through the radical Islam of Hamas.

In Iraq, disruption of education and family life seems to be having a similar effect. A UN report suggests that "non-state armed groups" are ratcheting up their recruitment of Iraqi children. Witness the recently released Al Qaeda-in-Iraq videos showing preteen boys in paramilitary training. Iraqi Interior Minister Fawzi al-Hariri has acknowledged this problem. He hopes a $5 billion job creation program will offer an alternative to militia or gang activity.

The lesson should be obvious: Foreign military occupations of Muslim lands from the Crusades to the present are disruptive of indigenous cultures, destructive, and sooner or later, hated.

We've got increasing security thanks to "the Surge" so the rebirth needs to take advantage.