State Gets a Kick in the Nuts

Upon his departure Manuel Miranda, a diplomat with the Office of Legislative Statecraft in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has a blistering assessment of State Dept. policy in Iraq . According to Miranda:

I support a long-term American military presence in Iraqi bases, welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a democratically-elected government, as a means of bringing peace and stability to the region, as we did in Europe and the Far East. History may recognize this end as singularly worthy of the sacrifice that America's sons and daughters have made. I believe, however, that the potential for this peace requires the progress of Iraqi society and the confidence of the Iraqi people in their government.

That civilian progress, and the Pax Americana, will not be achieved with the Foreign Service and the State Department's bureaucracy at the helm of America's number one policy consideration. You are simply not up to the task, and many of you will readily and honestly admit it. I believe that a better job can be done. It is simply that we have brought to Iraq the worst of America -- our bureaucrats -- and failed to apply, as President Roosevelt once did, the high-caliber leadership class and intellectual talent, whose rallying has defined all of America's finest hours. . . .

The purpose of the Surge, now one year old, was to pacify Iraq to allow the GOI to stand up. The State Department has not done its part coincident with the Commanding General's effort. This is not the fault of intelligent and hard working individuals skilled at the functions of the "normal embassy." The problem is institutional. The State Department bureaucracy is not equipped to handle the urgency of America's Iraq investment in blood and taxpayer funds. You lack the "fierce urgency of now."

Foreign Service officers, with ludicrously little management experience by any standard other than your own, are not equipped to manage programs, hundreds of millions in funds, and expert human capital assets needed to assist the Government of Iraq to stand up. It is apparent that, other than diplomacy, your only expertise is your own bureaucracy, which inherently makes State Department personnel unable to think outside the box or beyond the paths they have previously taken.

So, State fiddles while Baghdad burns; nothing really surprising here. This is our you're-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mentality that’s poisoning our diplomatic efforts, which is really biting us in the ass. State is a mess and has been for a VERY long time. The military is learning from its mistakes, which are certainly numerous, but the State Department has failed to reform at all and it’s difficult to figure out what sort of conditions would have to occur to get Foggy Bottom to do so. I mean if the reconstruction catastrophe in Iraq didn’t do it, what can?

"Great Shot Kid, That Was One In a Million!"

SUCCESS!!!

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2008 – A network of land-, air-, sea- and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere, defense officials announced in a press release.
At approximately 10:26 p.m. EST today, a U.S. Navy AEGIS warship, the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), fired a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) hitting the satellite approximately 153 miles (133 nautical miles) over the Pacific Ocean as it traveled in space at more than 17,000 mph. USS Decatur (DDG-73) and USS Russell (DDG-59) were also part of the task force.

The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000 pounds (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into earth's atmosphere. Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours.

According to the NYT:

Just hours after a Navy missile interceptor struck a dying spy satellite orbiting 130 miles over the Pacific Ocean, a senior military officer expressed high confidence early Thursday that a tank filled with toxic rocket fuel had been breached.

Video of the unusual operation showed the missile leaving a bright trail as it streaked toward the satellite, and then a flash, a fireball, a plume and a cloud as the interceptor, at a minimum, appeared to have found its target, a satellite that went dead shortly after being launched in 2006.

“We’re very confident that we hit the satellite,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright of the Marines, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We also have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank.”

General Cartwright cautioned that despite visual and spectral evidence that the hydrazine rocket fuel had been dispersed, it could take 24 to 48 hours before the Pentagon could announce with full confidence that the mission was a success. Even so, he said the military had 80 to 90 percent confidence the fuel tank was breached.

The fuel tank aboard the satellite was believed strong enough to survive the fiery re-entry through the atmosphere, and officials expressed concerns that the toxic fuel could pose a hazard to populated areas.

General Cartwright said debris from the strike, with individual pieces no larger than a football, already had begun to re-enter the atmosphere. Most, he said, was predicted to fall into the ocean.

Unfortunately, everyone's not happy:

Moscow and Beijing complained that the missile strike smacked of hypocrisy as the US had rejected a joint attempt by the two countries from banning weapons in outer space only a month ago. . . .

A Chinese state newspaper, the People's Daily, criticised Washington for hypocrisy for rejecting a treaty to ban weapons in space proposed by Russia and China and then firing a missile at the spy satellite. Washington claims it had rejected the proposed treaty as unworkable, and said it instead favoured confidence-building efforts.

"The United States will not easily abandon its military advantage based on space technology, and it is striving to expand and fully exploit this advantage," said the newspaper commentary said.

Speaking at a press conference this morning, Liu Bianca, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said, tersely: "The Chinese side is continuing to closely follow the US action which may influence the security of outer space and may harm other countries."

His words were believed to have been carefully modulated to echo criticisms levelled at Beijing by the Bush Administration when China fired its own ground-based missile into an obsolete weather satellite in January 2007.

US defence officials say their case is different because Washington, unlike Beijing, informed the public and world leaders before firing their missile. They also have insisted the only concern driving the US decision to shoot down the satellite was that the 1,000-pound fuel tank could survive largely intact and release toxic gas.

The Pentagon also denied suggestions they wanted to destroy the satellite to prevent part of the classified spacecraft from falling into the hands of rival powers.

Houston...We Have a Problem

Looks like we’ve got heavy seas in the launch area. With the space shuttle Atlantis arriving today, the window has officially opened for the satellite shoot-down. Unfortunately, high seas in the launch area will probably delay the shoot-down, which was expected to be tonight, until tomorrow. We do have some more specifics though.

The shoot-down will be conducted by a three-ship task group, including the Aegis missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and the destroyers USS Decatur and USS Russell. Lake Erie, commanded by Capt. Randall Hendrickson, is expected to take the shot. Hendrickson is the most experienced Aegis missile defense (AEGIS BMD) Captain in the US Navy, having commanded four AEGIS BMD tests.

For the uninitiated, Aegis is a highly expensive and extremely advanced radar/fire-control system that was originally developed by the Navy as an anti-ship missile defense system to protect the Fleet against Soviet cruise missiles. Recently, the Navy has been developing a ballistic missile intercept capability aboard several of its Aegis cruisers and destroyers, which has been successfully tested. So, in some military circles, this is seen as another AEGIS BMD test, albeit with a somewhat wider audience.

Others believe this event has more significance. According to this school, there is something valuable on this satellite that DOD doesn’t want to fall into the wrong hands, otherwise, why make sure that it falls into the water? Whether it’s a classified power source or secret radar system that could survive re-entry is anybody’s guess. Either way, get your popcorn ready, cause I sure as hell will be watching.

El Jefe "Resigns"

According to the NYT:

MEXICO CITY — Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness. The announcement was made in a letter to the nation written by Mr. Castro and published early Tuesday morning on the Web site of Granma, the official publication of the Cuban Communist Party.

The resignation ends one of the longest tenures as one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world.

In late July 2006, Mr. Castro, who is 81, handed over power temporarily to his brother, Raúl Castro, 76, and a few younger cabinet ministers, after an acute infection in his colon forced him to undergo emergency surgery. Despite numerous operations, he has never fully recovered but has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.

Now, just days before the national assembly is to meet to select a new head of state, Mr. Castro resigned permanently, and signaled his willingness to let a younger generation assume power. He said his failing health made it impossible to return as president.

The resignation was immediately greeted by thankful realism from the McCain and Obama camps. Both candidates welcomed the end of the communist dictator's reign but pointed out the island nation has a long way to go.

Both camps are largely correct here. Even with Castro's resignation it's hard to see much change on the horizon for Cuba as long as Castro remains alive. But the clock is ticking and this will definitely be a foreign policy challenge for the next president. Then again, Castro is one tough son-of-a-bitch so you never know.

Kosovo Fans East-West Tensions

Yesterday, Kosovo, amid a flourish of Albanian and American flags declared its independence from Serbia, which was immediately recognized by the United States, France and Britain. Germany and Italy are also expected to recognize Europe’s newest nation, and with their western EU partners, will authorize a small security team to help transition the nation to statehood.

Other EU members are expected to be less enthusiastic. Spain, fearing an identical ethnic uprising from the Basque area in northern Spain, has voiced disapproval; while Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus also have concerns that recognition would embolden their own Orthodox-heritage secessionists.

The big dog on the block though, is of course Russia. According to a London Times’ editorial:

Moscow has long sided with Serbian nationalists, though the recent re-election of Serbia's pro-West President may limit its influence in Belgrade. But last week President Putin warned the West that Moscow was far from resigned to Kosovan independence and would be “forced to act”. Without UN approval, he said, independence would set a precedent for other “frozen” conflicts, such as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and the Trans-Dniester area of Moldova. Moscow may recognize their independence, provoking new tensions. It is likely also to prove an even more prickly partner in the Security Council.

There are good and bad elements to all of this. The good news is that Kosovo’s declaration was met with words of condemnation from Serbia and the Russian Bear instead of actual tanks; Slovenia was not as lucky in 1991. Kosovo also represents another former-member of the Warsaw Pact that has cut its ties to Moscow and desires safety and security under EU and NATO auspices, which is also good.

On the other hand, this represents another chapter in the downward spiral of Russian relations with the West. This has been, sadly, a missed opportunity. Blame Clinton for looking inward and ignoring the struggling Russian economy or blame Bush for alienating his soul-brother through intimidation or blame Russia for pushing us away through baited rhetoric, no one can deny that our relations are slipping. Whether we will slip all the way to our Cold War days remains to be seen. I doubt we will; the Russians are still a shadow of their former-Soviet selves militarily, confining intervention to their own borders, and still remain committed to joining the global economy through energy exports but it’s pretty much certain that, for the foreseeable future, we will look east and find an adversary rather than a friend.

And that’s sad.

However, it is good to see foreigners waiving American flags again.

USN To Defend Planet Earth

Well, I knew AEGIS was pretty cool but this is just awesome:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2008 – The Navy will shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite sometime after Feb. 20, government officials said during a Pentagon news conference today.

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, assistant to the President and deputy national security advisor, said President Bush decided to bring down the satellite because of the likelihood that the satellite could release hydrazine, a toxic chemical used as a maneuvering fuel.

“The likelihood of the satellite falling in a populated area is small, and the extent and duration of toxic hydrazine in the atmosphere would be limited,” Jeffrey said. “Nevertheless, if the satellite did fall in a populated area, there was the possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space debris.”

The window for shooting down the satellite opens in the next three or four days and remains open for as many as seven or eight days, said Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the study group looked carefully at increased risks to the shuttle and International Space Station and decided they are negligible. “We are very comfortable that this is a decision made carefully, objectively and safely,” Griffin said.

Still, the Navy will not fire until after the shuttle Atlantis mission ends Feb. 20.

The headlines for this event have so much potential it makes me drool. Get out your Star Wars quotes boys, cause this captain (whoever he/she is) will be the first American CO to actually shoot down a space craft!

Man your ships, and may the Force be with you...

DO NOT F THIS UP!

Good News For Iraq. Bad News For Dems?

Nice editorial in the Wall Street Journal today on the future of Iraq policy and the dilemma that the Dems may face if success continues:

On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi was asked on CNN whether she feared squandering the success of President Bush's "surge" in Iraq with a hasty withdrawal. "There haven't been gains, Wolf," the House Speaker told anchor Wolf Blitzer. "The gains have not produced the desired effect which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

Yesterday, the Iraqi Parliament passed a budget, approved an amnesty for thousands of detainees and enacted a crucial law on provincial powers. Sunni lawmaker Adnan al-Dulaimi called it "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."

We'll assume Ms. Pelosi isn't actually disappointed by the latest good Iraq news. Yet the political calendar in Washington, with its noisome demands for benchmarks and timetables, is increasingly out of step with the strategic calendar in Baghdad. Getting them into line will be the great challenge of the Bush Administration's final months in office.

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a step in that direction by announcing that there would be a pause in troop reductions in Iraq once the five additional "surge" brigades were withdrawn this summer. "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," said Mr. Gates on a visit to Baghdad, endorsing the recommendation of General David Petraeus.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, will also soon begin negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government to establish the parameters for a long-term security relationship. In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that the U.S. has no fewer than 115 such agreements with other nations, covering everything from rules of engagement to how troops will get their mail.

"Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions," they wrote. "Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments."

Such an agreement shouldn't be controversial, especially given that the government of Nouri al-Maliki doesn't plan to extend the U.N. resolutions that authorize the coalition's presence in Iraq beyond the end of this year. The next President will need an accord whatever he (or she) intends to do in Iraq. Yet both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to make a campaign issue of this, demanding that any agreement be authorized by Congress. The Democratic rivals also seized on Mr. Gates's comments about a pause in U.S. troop reductions, with Mr. Obama warning of "war without end."

At this point in the Democratic primary season, even a declaration of surrender by al Qaeda in Iraq would probably be treated as further evidence of Bush Administration incompetence. Speaking of which, this week the Times of London published remarkable excerpts from letters by two al Qaeda chieftains in Iraq that were seized late last year in a U.S. military raid.

Continue reading.

It’ll be interesting to see if Obama or Hillary’s rhetoric on Iraq changes, or at least softens, once the general election begins. I’d say Hillary's probably would; she’s a bit more hawkish than Obama. However, the Senator from Illinois seems pretty gung-ho for getting out no matter what happens, which might hurt him if the security situation continues to improve and we get more political progress from the Iraqi parliament.

Gates Will Not Stay On

In an excellent profile piece on Defense Secretary Bob Gates written earlier this week, Fred Kaplan discusses the possibility of Gates remaining at the Pentagon:

When the next president takes the oath on Jan. 20, 2009, Gates will be just 65 years old, but he insists he will retire from public life, this time for good. A friend recently gave him an electronic key chain, inscribed “The Gates Countdown,” with a small screen reading out how many days remain till the end of the term. He carries it everywhere, in part as a joke but not entirely. Told that those screens can be reset, he replied, “Not this one.” When I mentioned that some lawmakers would like him to stay on in the next administration, he replied, “I am very wary of saying, ‘Never,’ ” but added, “The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me.”

Arrayed around his office are photos of his remote lakeside house in the Pacific Northwest — as far away from Washington, D.C., as almost any spot in the continental United States. On one wall is a painting of nearby Mount Rainier. He said that he tells visitors, “Those pictures are there to remind you I don’t have to be doing this.” Gates’s press secretary, Geoff Morrell, tried to brighten the mood: “I don’t want you to leave the impression — you’re still having fun in this job, though, aren’t you? I mean, you enjoy what you’re doing, no?” Gates stared at him, for about 10 seconds. Finally, he turned back to me and said: “I consider that, like our soldiers, I’m doing my duty. There are a lot of other things I’d rather be doing. But this is important.”

This is sad news. Gates has done well in the Pentagon during a VERY challenging time and seems to have been the perfect prescription for the post-Rummy DOD. As the article points out, Gates, a hardened cold warrior who came up at CIA, has been conscious of the need for bi-partisan support for foreign policy goals in a manner that Rummy was not and he seems to court advice from the troops concerning policy and replacement commanders where it was my-way-or- the-highway with Rumsfeld. At the same time however, he’s still willing to stick it to allies and the Congress when he needs to. I had hoped he could’ve stayed on in a McCain Administration, both men seem to have similar views on the need for bi-partisan support and possess a cautiousness that Bush(Cheney)-Rumsfeld certainly lacked but it looks like that isn’t going to happen. Oh well, Dr. Gates has certainly earned his retirement.

U.S. v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et. al.

Well after six years of infighting between the military, DOJ, DOD, White House, D.C Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. has finally brought charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Mohamed al Kahtani. All counts are related to the 9/11 attacks upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. According to DOD:

Each of the defendants is charged with conspiracy and the separate, substantive offenses of: murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism.

The first four defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali are also charged with the substantive offense of hijacking or hazarding a vessel.

All of the charges are alleged to have been in support of the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Now that sworn charges have been received, the convening authority will review the charges and supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to refer the case for trial by military commission. The chief prosecutor has requested that charges to be tried jointly and be referred as capital for each defendant. If the convening authority, Susan Crawford, in her sole discretion, decides to refer the cases as capital, the defendants will face the possibility of being sentenced to death.

The charge sheet details 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants in furtherance of the Sept. 11 events.

The charges allege that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Usama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash is alleged to have administered an al Qaeda training camp in Logar, Afghanistan where two of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. He is also alleged to have traveled to Malaysia in 1999 to observe airport security by U. S. air carriers to assist in formulating the hijacking plan.

Ramzi Binalshibh is alleged to have lived with the Hamburg, Germany, al Qaeda cell where three of the Sept. 11 hijackers resided. It is alleged that Binalshibh was originally selected by Usama bin Laden to be one of the Sept. 11 hijackers and that he made a “martyr video” in preparation for the operation. He was unable to obtain a US visa and, therefore, could not enter the United States as the other hijackers did. In light of this, it is alleged that Binalshibh assisted in finding flight schools for the hijackers in the United States, and continued to assist the conspiracy by engaging in numerous financial transactions in support of the Sept. 11 operation.

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali’s role is alleged to have included sending approximately $120,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training, and facilitating travel to the United States for nine of the hijackers.

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi is alleged to have assisted and prepared the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have facilitated the transfer of thousands of dollars between the accounts of alleged Sept. 11 hijackers and himself on Sept. 11, 2001.

Mohamed al Kahtani is alleged to have attempted to enter the United States on August 4, 2001, through Orlando International Airport where he was denied entry. It is also alleged that al Kahtani carried $2,800 in cash and had an itinerary listing a phone number associated with Hawsawi.

This marks the end of a very tough fight between Executive and Judicial power that attempted to blaze a trail into unfamiliar legal territory. Despite missteps, the lengthy process has finally culminated in a Nuremberg-like war crimes tribunal where, according to an interview with the chief prosecutor in the Wall Street Journal, the scope of the al Qaeda conspiracy will finally be revealed.

This will be VERY interesting to follow. A taste of where the salty proceedings will take place is available in a photographic essay here from the Wall Street Journal. Pretty sophisticated stuff compared to some of the courtrooms in Mississippi, so quit your bitch'n.

For news and commentary on this subject I highly recommend the Wall Street Journal (for those with a subscription) and Intel Dump, which is maintained by US Army reservist Phillip Carter, an associate attorney with McKenna Long & Aldridge.

Ivan Flexes Nuclear Muscles

Starting last summer, the Russian military began a slow but steady increase in their strategic bomber "patrol" flights throughout the northern sectors of the Atlantic and Pacific. Yesterday, this increase got a little sticky. According to the New York Times:

TOKYO (AP) — A Russian Air Force bomber briefly violated Japanese airspace on Saturday over an uninhabited island south of Tokyo, prompting Japan to scramble 22 fighter jets and issue a protest with Moscow, the Foreign Ministry here said. The Russian Air Force denied the intrusion.

The Russian Tupolev 95 left Japanese airspace within three minutes of warnings by Japanese Air Force jets over Sofugan in the Izu island chain, 400 miles south of Tokyo, a Foreign Ministry official said.

The Ruskies officially deny the incident, of course, claiming the bombers were escorted by by Japanese and American fighters but I'm a little suspicious. A Tupolev 95 (officially designated "Bear" by NATO) is a turboprop-driven bomber that's been in service since the 1950s; it's slow and should be relatively easy to spot by early warning aircraft and ground radar. Plus, why would Japan make it up? F/A-18's were also scrambled from the USS Nimitz, which is operating in the northern Pacific within 7th Fleet's area of responsibility.

Russia seems to be flexing its muscles as the Times goes on to explain:

The situation occurred after Japan held an annual rally on Thursday to demand the return of a disputed island chain, called the Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan, that Russia seized in the last days of World War II.

A Tupolev 95 is capable of carrying air to surface nuclear missiles.

The Face of the Enemy

Not real sure if this is the face of the enemy or the face of desperation but it sure does violate a host of international laws. Oh yeah, and according to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, which makes it illegal to conscript, enlist, or use children in hostilities, it's a war crime. See art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi)U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9* (1998). Not that these guys care, but anyway...

According to DOD:

Al Qaeda is recruiting and training boys -- some younger than 11 -- to kidnap and kill, a senior U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said today.

Five training tapes recovered in a December raid show as many as 20 boys, most thought to be younger than 11 years old, carrying automatic weapons and grenades, storming homes in mock kidnappings and assassinations, and sitting in a circle chanting their allegiance to al Qaeda. Portions of the tapes were aired for journalists at a news conference in Iraq today.

“Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to poison the next generation of Iraqis and hopes to continue the cycle of violence they have brought upon Iraq,” Multinational Force Iraq spokesman Navy Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith said.

In the videos, with what appears to be a July 13, 2007, date stamp, the boys carry weapons, including pistols, machine guns and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers. Pictures show a small boy in a checkered head scarf, carrying a pistol. Another boy with his face covered brandishes an automatic weapon.

As the children carry out training sessions, adults can sometimes be seen providing instructions from the background. In one scene, seven children with their heads and faces covered stop and capture an adult twice their size riding a bike. Another shows the children, again with their faces covered, scaling a courtyard wall, attacking a house and taking its occupants prisoner. Later, in what appears to be the same house, seven boys sit in a half-circle on the floor chanting and singing their allegiance to al Qaeda.

Smith said that this not the first such recovery of videos and photos showing al Qaeda training children, but that the “the volume and content was the most significant and disturbing we’ve found to date.”

Smith said the videos most likely were produced as training and recruiting films.

Forces also recovered in December a proposal to produce a film showing terrorists training children, Smith said. The script was to include children interrogating and executing victims, planting bombs and conducting sniper attacks, he said.

Al Qaeda often refers to children as the “new generation of the Mujahidin,” or warriors engaged in a jihad, he said. There are also reports of al Qaeda entering schools and distributing its propaganda. Thousands of al Qaeda-sponsored Web sites target children, Smith said.

Full article.

Mustang, this is Voodoo 3, Remaining MIGs are Buggin' Out!!!

Well sports fans, it’s game, set, match: MCCAIN!!! After consulting with his campaign advisors after the ass-whipping he received by Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee on Super Tuesday, it turns out ol’ Mitt really does have some business sense as he finally bowed to the inevitable and dropped his bid for the presidency. We here at For the Greater good could not be more ecstatic about McCain’s run. Two months ago, we supported McCain to the upmost but were, in actuality, content to go down with McCain’s ship. For us, it was more important to support a man who stayed true to his deepest convictions, exemplified during the immigration battle, even if it doomed his candidacy because he knew it was the right thing to do.

There was something very noble about that.

And yet, down he went. Out of money and deep-sixed by the hardcore conservatives for his bi-partisan immigration plan, Sen. McCain found himself left out in the cold and we were forced to look with sincere disdain upon the Frankensteinian monster who seemed to be the GOP frontrunner.

But then, on a cold night in early January, something dramatic happened: a warm and jolly governor from Arkansas whipped ol’ Mitt in Iowa and several days later the GOP moderates, muzzled for so long by a conservative establishment that refused to listen while it destroyed the party name, finally found their voice. Mac was back!

And now, after so long, we finally have our champion.

My friends, and by friends I mean the majority of Americans in the middle who are sick of the Karl Rove and Howard Dean politics that have ripped this country apart, this is our day.

Petraeus to Stay in Iraq

General David Petraeus, Commanding General of Multi-National Force - Iraq, has decided to remain in command, at least until the fall. The Pentagon had asked Petraeus to consider moving to Europe as head of NATO but it appears he has decided to stay. Nadia Schadlow discusses this development in The Wall Street Journal. According to Schadlow:

What's depressing is that top political and military leaders in Washington asked him to consider the move in the first place. The proposal to shift Gen. Petraeus out of Iraq reflects the unwillingness of the military as a whole to make the larger cultural changes required to succeed in tough counterinsurgency missions.

Gen. Petraeus has repeatedly pointed out that a key reason behind the improvements in Iraq revolved around the fact that Americans were walking the streets, living alongside Iraqis, forging close relationships with Iraqi soldiers and police, and demonstrating to the population a commitment to achieving enduring security. Indeed, a key requirement for success in war is consistency of effort over time. Only experience on the ground permits the acquisition of enough knowledge of the political landscape and personalities necessary to shape events and achieve political stability.

In short, removing such a successful leader from a mission in progress is senseless. It is also inconsistent with much of the America's wartime history.

George Washington served as commander of the American revolutionary forces for eight years, from 1775-1783. Without his resolute leadership and political instincts, it is likely that the Continental Army would have disintegrated.

In the Mexican War, Gen. Winfield Scott led the largest amphibious landing in the history of the U.S., near Vera Cruz. He was then able to achieve operational victory and strategic success by staying on as the military governor in Mexico City.

During World War II, Gens. Dwight D. Eisenhower and George C. Marshall served extended tenures in their respective positions. It would be hard to imagine the military changing these crucial commanders during the war.

Gen. Lucius Clay, initially Gen. Eisenhower's deputy, served for four years in Germany and was instrumental in initiating its reconstruction. With patience and determination, Clay established the foundation for Germany's postwar recovery.

In Korea, Gen. John Hodge served as the commander of U.S. occupying forces in the south from September 1945 to August 1948. While his record was mixed, he spent these years immersed in political infighting, mediating between Korean political factions and sustaining support for the mission in Washington. He helped to create institutions of government strong enough to withstand the invasion from the North, and three years of war.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur oversaw the occupation of Japan for six years from 1945 to 1951. He is credited with transforming the nation into a functioning democracy.

In Vietnam, the pacification policy begun in 1968 by Gen. Creighton Abrams might have achieved success had it begun earlier in the war. Abrams served for four years, integrating civil-military efforts to pacify and reconstruct the country.

Each of these wars represented distinct challenges and the outcomes were varied. Yet the effectiveness of the efforts depended in large measure on the detailed knowledge accrued by commanders, and on their ability to achieve unity of effort within their own teams and between the U.S. command and indigenous leaders. . . .

Indeed, the military's own counterinsurgency (COIN) manual emphasizes the need to cultivate effective leaders in the host country. Younger officers deploying to and from Iraq have reinforced these themes, writing consistently about the importance of maintaining a stable presence and getting to know the political, social and cultural terrain.

This is definitely good news. Petraeus could certainly be valuable in the NATO post because the alliance seems to be falling apart over COIN operations in Afghanistan and NATO command experience would certainly position the general to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. However, as Schadlow's piece points out, stable leadership (and especially effective leadership) is essential to effective COIN ops. Gen. Casey commanded Iraq for nearly three years so I don't see a strategic rationality for making Petraeus move.

CENTCOM would be a much better fit for the general anyway; such a post would still allow Petraeus to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan and would be a hefty reward for a job well done. However, CENTCOM is currently occupied by ADM. William Fallon, who has been fairly effective and, seemingly, has no plans of retiring. Therefore, the most effective command rotation should leave Petraeus in Iraq until CENTCOM opens up. Any other course seems to drip with political tomfoolery.

Hospitality State Will Join the Silent Service

Well all I can say is it's about freaking time! Last week Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that one of the next Virginia-class fast attack submarines will bear the name USS Mississippi. We have not had a ship (or boat) within the fleet designated Mississippi since 1917, which in my opinion has been a slap in the face. A state with such a strong connection to building our nation’s fleets should have been honored long ago. According to the US Navy:

The selection of Mississippi, designated SSN 782, is dedicated to the state's long standing tradition of shipbuilding in support of our nation's defense. It also honors the indomitable spirit of the people of Mississippi who have made great strides in recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This fighting spirit will be an inspiration to all sailors who embark aboard Mississippi.

There have been four previous ships named Mississippi. The first Mississippi, a side wheeler, served as Commodore Matthew Perry's flagship for his historic voyage to Japan and fought with Admiral Farragut's forces on the Mississippi River during the Civil War.

These next-generation attack submarines will provide the Navy with the capabilities it requires to maintain the nation's undersea supremacy well into the 21st century. They will have improved stealth, sophisticated surveillance capabilities and special warfare enhancements that will enable it to meet the Navy's multi-mission requirements.

Well done SECNAV. Now all Winter has to do is quit bungling Navy platform acquisitions while cleaning-up the ship building industry. We here at For the Greater Good, however, are not holding our breath.