For the Greater Good

The Real McCain

2008-11-05T12:44:00.000-08:00

And thus it came to be that on November 4, 2008, Barack H. Obama defeated John S. McCain, III, to become the 44th president of the United States. Congratulations Senator. Your ability to inspire millions, both at home and around the world, while breaking down countless barriers speaks volumes to your unwavering strength of character and ability to lead. While I may not agree with you, I do admire you and all those who have worked tirelessly for you, and in the end, that may be what matters most. I wish you all the best.

But what of the defeated?

Last night, in the dark hours of defeat, an exhausted American hero walked on to a stage in Phoenix and gave one of the greatest speeches of his life. Full of grace, humility, and reverence, John McCain offered congratulations and pledged to do all in his power to bridge the divide that has plagued the country for so long. To long-time supporters of the Senator from Arizona, this came as no surprise, for this was the real McCain we had always known, the McCain that has always been there, quietly lurking beneath the surface of a conservative facade forced upon him by a political party of which he was never fully apart. This facade, though never comfortable, was the price of nomination but was also the price of defeat. Through cruel luck and a cancerous GOP legacy, America never saw the real McCain. For the real McCain was never the man conservatives wanted. He was there for a short time in 2000, only to be savagely destroyed by a governor from Texas. The real McCain is not the attack dog of combative politics nor the glamorous orator. He is not found at loud speeches or red-baiting rallies. He is neither Reagan nor Bush. And at times, neither Republican nor Democrat. He is the quiet soldier, the modest patriot, the tireless servant, working tirelessly to meet those with opposing views in order to discuss differences and compromise, and he is found in the quiet patriotism of all Americans. He is found in the reenlisting soldier, the selfless Peace Corp member, the idealistic public defender, the committed civic volunteer and the driven public school teacher. He is found in all those Americans who put country above self to quietly ensure a better America, and a better world, for all. This is where the real McCain has, and will always be. For McCain is not the stuff of political machinery or partisan politics, he is someone who has seen and experienced Hell and come out all the stronger. He is the tested veteran, the noble moderate, and in a very real sense, a true American hero. For conservatives that have slowly destroyed the party, he was the maverick, always bucking the party line and frustrating hardliners, but for moderates, he was familiar and he was ours. And he was my candidate for President of the United States.

Grace, it would seem, is a dying virtue in American politics. Losers hate their enemies and always believe apocalypse is nigh. They curse the opposition and threaten to leave the country in stormy protest, or at times they even sue for relief. Winners gloat and throw their victory in their enemies’ faces. But last night a man who has seen and lost much taught us all a very difficult lesson with grace in abundance. Losing is never easy in Presidential elections but in the City on the Hill we must all be reminded from time to time that we are bigger than issues and bigger than party. We are all apart of an idea. An idea that all individuals, no matter who they are, are free to pursue their dreams, and only together can we maintain that dream which is, and will always be, the last best hope of the earth.

Country first.

The Great Debate

2008-10-06T11:26:00.000-07:00

Wow. My lack of motivation seemingly knows no bounds. Couple that with horrendous allergies and you get a very bad blogger.

Not much going on foreign-policy-wise since Wall Street decided to play Russian Roulette with mortgage based securities underpinned by sub-prime loans. But there has been some debatin’ goin’ on, especially around this neck of the woods. I myself got the hell out of Oxford last Friday and missed all the celebs. However, my sister was interviewed by Katie Couric. Wild!

Anyway, last Friday I seemed to sense McCain was going to lay an egg and it would be over; I got the same feeling Thursday night before the VP debate. However, McCain did very well and, in my opinion, won the debate. Palin on the other hand certainly didn’t win but she did perform much better than expected. And so, the McCain Campaign continues to limp on, albeit on life-support.

Substantively, I was very disappointed in the foreign policy debate. McCain’s big plus in this area is his support for the surge. However, he really missed an opportunity to explain exactly why the surge was such a game-changer and how the situation would look if US forces had been withdrawn as Obama proposed. He also really failed to press home how much and how long he has disagreed with Bush over troop levels in Iraq.

Obama’s big blunder was Russia. He seriously seems to have no idea what to do, which is why he chose to talk about pursuing alternative energy instead of discussing containment methods or the status of NATO.

However my biggest complaint is that both campaigns are blowing the Iranian nuclear issue WAY out of proportion and neither camp seems to have a plan for Afghanistan.

Look, Iran may be enriching uranium and they might even make enough to explode a nuclear device, but the road between a nuclear device and a weapon is a long one. The device has to be ruggedized and miniaturized in order to be placed on some type of delivery vehicle. Realistically Iran simply does not have the technological capacity or infrastructure to complete that process without help. Furthermore, even if they do get the technology it’s still going to take a long-ass time to produce a weapon. So while McCain and Obama thunder about Iran, in reality it’s hard to see a nuclear Iran coming to fruition during the next eight years.

However Iran does come into play when it comes to dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan but neither candidate explains the difficulties. To be clear, Irans influence in Iraq is substantial. Prior to surging Iran attempted to curb Sunni influence in Iraq’s security forces in order to prevent a Sunni Iraqi government backed by Washington and thus creating another version of the Hussein regime that had waged war with Iran for years. The surge forced Tehran to reassess its strategy since, due to political agreements between Sunni nationalists and US forces, it became clear that a pro-Iranian government was evaporating. Therefore, Iran decided a coalition government was the best it could hope for and reigned in its Shiite militias. The result is an extremely fragile coalition government that is loyal to neither the US nor Iran but could easily fall apart if the latter decides to press for its pro-Iranian government, especially if US forces are withdrawn prematurely and Iran’s proxy militias are reconstituted. Secondly, Iran also has a huge stake in Afghanistan. Tehran is no friend of the Taliban, having nearly gone to war with them in 1998 after the regime killed several Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers when it attacked the city of Mazar.

So, the next president will need to deal with Iran but it will be quite the tight-rope walk. The US needs to gain a commitment to a neutral Iraq so US forces can be redeployed to Afghanistan, plus a larger commitment to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, all while discouraging Tehran from nuclear development and entering into an understanding with re-emerging Russia. In order to accomplish all this, a much more stable relationship with Iran will be absolutely critical.

Neither candidate explained how he would approach this situation.

As for Afghanistan, neither side seems to have a clue. Currently US and NATO forces number around 50,000 and both candidates favor increasing force strength. However, the Soviets deployed over 120,000 troops in the 80's and still failed to pacify the country. Currently US forces are essentially implementing a holding action. They are defending the Kabul regime, other major cities and are keeping roads open but they are not winning. Furthermore, Afghanistan has almost zero infrastructure and no major exports to speak of, which will make it difficult to cultivate growth and attract foreign investment.

Aside from economic concerns, the United States faces several significant problems that it must deal with in formulating a policy for Afghanistan. First, the Taliban is essentially the same force Americans faced in 2001. Rather than engage in massed warfare against American airpower, the Taliban simply chose to retreat and redeploy to the countryside in the face of the invasion and thus remains essentially the same force that defeated the Northern Alliance in 1996. This force is fueled by the same vast logistical network that enabled the mujahideen to defeat the Soviets in the 80's and is sheltered by local tribes. Thus in order to neutralize this support, US and NATO forces must break up the logistical network and form some sort of a relationship with local tribes in order to deny the Taliban shelter in some of the most rugged terrain on the planet. Both of these goals will be impossible without help from Pakistan, who remains extremely reluctant to engage due to domestic political considerations.

Realistically, the US might be forced into negotiations with the Taliban in order to form some type of viable coalition government that it can live with before US forces are withdrawn. While this may seem unthinkable, it really is our only option unless we can launch a major offensive against the Taliban that includes Pakistan because we simply don’t have the operational capacity to win on our own.

Of course, we could always just support alternative fuels and I’m sure that would clear everything up.

The Rising

2008-09-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

Can't see nothin in front of me
Can't see nothin coming up behind
I make my way through this darkness
I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me
Lost track of how far I've gone
How far I've gone, how high I've climbed
On my backs a sixty pound stone
On my shoulder a half mile of line

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Left the house this morning
Bells ringing filled the air
I's wearin the cross of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin down here

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

There's spirits above and behind me
Faces gone black, eyes burnin bright
May their precious blood bind me
Lord, as I stand before your fiery light

I see you Mary in the garden
In the garden of a thousand sighs
There's holy pictures of our children
Dancin in a sky filled with light
May I feel your arms around me
May I feel your blood mix with mine
A dream of life comes to me
Like a catfish dancin on the end of my line

Sky of blackness and sorrow (a dream of life)
Sky of love, sky of tears (a dream of life)
Sky of glory and sadness (a dream of life)
Sky of mercy, sky of fear (a dream of life)
Sky of memory and shadow (a dream of life)
Your burnin wind fills my arms tonight
Sky of longing and emptiness (a dream of life)
Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

--Bruce Springsteen

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

--John 15:13

SitRep

2008-08-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

Currently judging the Mississippi Law Journal Write-On Competition. Barring war with Iran, I'll return to weekly posts next week.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

2008-08-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I went to bed fully intending to write a blistering critique of Bush & Co. this morning since they seemed to be content to throw Georgia under the bus without lifting a fucking finger. However, I awoke to better news. The U.S. Navy has now been cleared for a humanitarian relief mission which reportedly will include USNS Comfort, and has pulled out of a naval exercise with Russian forces. Meanwhile, relief supplies are being flown in by the USAF (alone I might add. Hats off to the Frenchies for moving quickly here on the cease-fire but where are the troops?). These are smart moves. While the ability of U.S. personnel to deliver aid will certainly be limited, having U.S. boots on the ground will act as effective insurance against a full-blown resumption of hostilities by Russia. You start killing U.S. soldiers in an artillery barrage while they’re handing out water and you’re gonna have SERIOUS problems.

So now what?

Well, Russia is back baby and Secretary, I mean Comrade, I mean President, I mean, oh yeah Prime Minister Putin is clearly in charge. So what do we do? For starters we need to wait and let emotions cool before we make some stupid-ass move that will hurt us and Georgia long term. Now let’s be clear, Ivan did invade in its normal textbook style, it incited anti-government attacks by pro-Russian militias in South Ossentia designed to goad Georgia into attacking and greeted the Georgian crackdown with a well-planned offensive that brutally slaughtered soldiers and civilians alike in unabashed fashion while the Ruskies raped and pillaged as they advanced. Historically, these developments mirror Nazi Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland in order to protect pro-German Czechs in 1938 almost to the letter, all be it without the raping and pillaging. Meanwhile, the West looks like a bunch of weakass idiots who backed the wrong horse in Saakashvili and seriously underestimated Russia. Therefore, there are plenty of reasons to get pissed and get cowboyed-up. But we need to keep our eye on the ball.

Clearly, eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics (especially the Ukraine) need to be assured that we’re serious about stemming this sort of aggression. Bob Killebrew over at Small Wars argues for Ivan’s containment and offers some suggestions:

For military strategy, the U.S. should immediately revamp its foreign military assistance programs to those countries, including a post-invasion Georgia. The intent of U.S. aid now should not be aimed not only at preparing forces for low-intensity conflict -- because most of these states have their own problems with breakaway militias and extremist terrorism -- but also at deterring Russian high-intensity, combined-arms attacks. Advanced integrated air-defenses (the Georgians had none), antitank munitions, precision weapons all must be provided so that Russia can no longer plan a walkover like the one we have witnessed. Military assistance groups should be stationed in frontline states, and m military exercises conducted calibrated to bolster the defensive capabilities of local armies. The Russians will cry foul, but their military authorities will understand what they are seeing -- no more easy campaigns. Military aid must include methods and training in our best techniques for computer network defense, a move that -- given the global nature of computer networks -- will integrate our allies' defenses with ours.

These are sound hard power options that need to be implemented alongside soft power components, which can be accomplished by a successful deployment of Comfort. On the other hand, it is interesting to note the U.S. and Poland reached a deal yesterday on a missile defense shield that had some very unusual aspects. This is the kind of stuff we need to be careful about. Making big decisions in a crisis basically to piss Russia off because there really isn’t anything else we can do should be avoided. Let’s get real, when Moscow escalated they knew we would sign that deal. So again we’ve played into Putin’s hands and given him plenty of propaganda material. There certainly is a Big War crowd in the Pentagon that’s just going to be happy as pie about this sort of stuff. The bigger the perceived threat the more we get to spend on kick-ass high-dollar weapon systems but the less money there is to fight the war on terror. The big winner in all this might just be Osama.

So, I’d say we need to hold it for awhile and reassess our policy after tempers have cooled. We’ve still got major problems to deal with re: Iran and while violence in Iraq is down, it seems to be hunting season again in Afghanistan. Face it folks we can’t fight everyone. It’s gonna take Comfort at least a month to arrive on-station so lets work the soft power angle for a bit before we start handing out missiles.

In Memoriam

2008-08-05T09:22:00.000-07:00

A cruel wind blows in through left at Turner Field. On Saturday and Sunday afternoon the wind sounded of injury; a bullpen decimated, a starting rotation destroyed and a slugger’s spot left sadly, but yet again, vacant due to another hamstring pull. The Braves were 10 out and the season all but over. But suddenly on Sunday night, and without warning, all that was gone, as that sinister wind unleashed a far darker howl. Skip Caray, the voice of the Braves since 1976, was dead at 68.

I was away from fellow baseball fans when I received the news, it sent me reeling and no one seemed to understand. I have never met Skip Caray so people seemed to wonder why I cared so much. Well, simply put, I felt his loss like that of a friend because in the end that’s what he was. Night after night, for 27 years, through good times and bad, he was always there.

My father is not a baseball fan, we rarely played catch and he never taught me to keep score but he did tune in to TBS on summer nights and there was Skip, just waiting. Whether he was poking fun at notoriously slow-working pitcher Steve Trachsel stating “Trachsel will, because of the rules, inevitably have to throw one” or the infamously bad Dale Murphy 80s saying “The bases are loaded again and I wish I was” he was always there, in between wise cracks with Pete “the professor” Van Wieren in tow, teaching me the game.

And then came the 90s. I remember that cool Wednesday night on the 14th of October like it was yesterday. It was game seven of the NLCS and the Pittsburgh Pirates took a two-run lead into the bottom of the ninth. Doug Drabek was on the mound pitching a masterpiece but would face the heart of the Atlanta order. The Braves fought back to make it 2-1 with 2 out and the bases loaded. David Justice was 90 feet away with Sid Bream in scoring position and Damon Berryhill on first and Francisco Cabrera, the last position player on the Atlanta bench, strode the plate. “Francisco Cabrera? Who is he???” my mom yelled as my entire family huddled around our living room television. “We’re screwed.” my dad replied. We all dug in our heels. I was so nervous I was shaking. Skip had the call:

A lotta room in right-center, if he hits one there we can dance in the streets. The 2-1. Swung, line drive left field! One run is in! Here comes Bream! Here's the throw to the plate! He is...SAFE! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win!...Braves win! They may have to hospitalize Sid Bream; he's down at the bottom of a huge pile at the plate. They help him to his feet. Frank Cabrera got the game winner! The Atlanta Braves are National League champions again! This crowd is going berserk.

He was accused of being a “homer” by critics who never seemed to get that being a fan of the team you love is not a sin, it is a badge of honor that Skip wore with pride and rightly so. Skip was not Hollywood or New York. He was, in the truest sense, a fan; he loved the Braves and he made listeners love them too, the hallmark of a hometown voice and a man who truly loved his team. Passion, Skip would remind us, is a quality best lauded, not concealed.

He was, like his father before him, a unique voice in a gulf of bland objectivity.

And yet slowly and quietly, Skip was shown the door by a network that no longer cared. He hated reading “fluff” commercials and carried a special dislike for the “Aflac Duck” when it announced trivia questions. Coupled with his so-called “homerism” Skip and Pete were removed from TBS in 2003. But the fans, the real fans that Skip won throughout his life were by his side, boycotting TBS broadcasts and turning to radio so we could hear that high nasal voice that marked the time and always made us laugh. He was not Howard Cosell, Joe Buck, or Al Michaels, but for Braves fans he was ours, and in the end that’s probably all he ever wanted to be.

Skip was raw, Skip was dry, Skip was sarcastic, and Skip was cynical but, Skip, through it all, was always honest and always there. He was our eyes and our ears, he was the keeper of the moment, he was the unabashed fan, and with humor and grace he taught us the purity of the greatest game there is.

Godspeed Skip, and thank you for teaching me how to be a fan.

Iran Update

2008-07-28T13:12:00.000-07:00

Ahma . . . Ahma . . . Ahmadinejad (whew) let fly with another statement this weekend claiming Tehran has radically increased its nuclear enrichment program. Specifically, he stated the nuclear program now posses more than 5,000 centrifuges; an IAEA report in May estimated the number of running centrifuges to be around 3,500. He then celebrated the development and commended the program for beating back western calls to halt nuclear development.

Ahmadinejad certainly hopes these statements will anger Europe and the U.S. as they come only a week before the latest deadline for Iran to accept a package of incentives for freezing enrichment or face further U.N. sanctions. He is very fond of saying crap like this because he gets just what he wants: the West gets pissed and begins to talk about military options, which pushes the Iranian public away from the West into Ahmadinejad’s waiting arms and distracts them from the catastrophe that is the Iranian economy.

We’ll see if we get a reaction. Clearly the Bush administration has elected to go the diplomatic route since it has sent Undersecretary of State William J. Barnes to peace talks in Geneva and has expressed interest in opening a diplomatic post within Iran itself, both of which are major policy reversals that seemed to ease tensions. However, as I noted two weeks ago, the Israelis do not seem to be as willing to talk and this development seemingly flies in the face of the “freeze for freeze” agreement, which stated Iran would add no further centrifuges or expand its nuclear program and the West would refrain from pressing for another round of sanctions. Of course, the IAEA estimate could have been wrong about the 3,500 estimate or Ahmadinejad may have taken some, shall we say, dramatic license.

One of the actual issues here, if we can get away from the rhetoric, is the number. Iran has been shooting for 6,000 centrifuges, which would, according to what I’ve read, in theory give them the ability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb in six months. When the West signed on to “freeze for freeze” we thought the number of centrifuges was not as high but if Iran already has enough centrifuges to produce a bomb, the Israelis might be less inclined to cooperate. Another issue of course is whether they are running and whether they are running smoothly. I guess you can have 6,000 centrifuges and technically not “expand” your program if they’re not made operational during “freeze for freeze”. I don’t really know the specifics on this though.

We’ll see what these statements do to discussions because the clock is ticking.

Storm on the Iranian Front Grows

2008-07-16T13:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-09T09:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-07T15:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

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

Don't look now but

2008-05-31T07:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-28T17:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Happy Memorial Day

2008-05-26T07:15:00.000-07:00

"From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother..."

-Henry V
William Shakespeare

(Hat-tip to the War Historian)

Happy Memorial Day everyone.

Update

2008-05-25T20:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I lied. National security's not really dominating the news at this point but, as always, a Memorial Day post will be forthcoming...

FYI

2008-04-25T20:01:00.000-07:00

Rough semester. Currently in exam mode. Look for posts beginning around May 6

Fallon Out

2008-03-11T17:36:00.000-07:00

I’m floored. I have supported Bush through thick and thin. I always agreed that war with Iraq was a sound strategic move that went awry when the U.S. Army, led by ass-hat-of-the-decade Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, bungled the reconstruction and COIN ops. But today, Adm. William Fallon, head of CENTCOM and the Administration’s main military voice for restraint with Iran, resigned [or more accurately got canned by the Bush Administration] amid a storm of controversy over an article in Esquire Magazine written by one of my main go-to guys on strategic analysis, Thomas P.M. Barnett.

I can’t believe it. As others have stated, there doesn’t seem to be a single direct quote from Fallon in Barnett’s article that is critical of Bush or Administration policy. On the other hand, there is plenty from Barnett that portrays him as being the sole voice against war with Iran:

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy--as he likes to say--"nervous in the service." Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn't mastered that kind of subtlety. When Dick Cheney has rattled his saber, it has generally meant that he intends to use it. And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America's forces in Iraq, may say, "You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq," but Fox Fallon is Petraeus's boss, and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn't extend Petraeus's logic to mean war against Iran.

So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

I’ve read a lot of Barnett’s stuff. I’ve read both his books, seen several of his briefings, and visit his blog religiously. He’s a brilliant guy. But in all this brilliance he has acquired the sort of arrogance about which legends are made and I’m afraid it has finally bitten him in the ass and might just set off a war.

Is this fair to Dr. Barnett? Hell fucking no!!! The article is very sound on strategy, Dr. Barnett’s forte, he’s just doing his job as a journalist, and he has provided an important strategic argument that needs to be part of our overall debate concerning the region. However, he ventures down the dark road of politics in this article and because he’s so critical, and because the article is grounded so well strategically, he has made an argument that must be addressed, and in doing so has handed the administration an excuse to remove a significant barrier to war with Iran.

I never thought they’d actually do it until now.

Fallon’s replacement will almost certainly be Petraeus, an administration favorite who has called for strikes against Iran and is scheduled to rotate out this summer.

It’s all up to Gates and Rice to stop this madness. I pray to God they succeed.

Dubyah, I didn’t think you had it in you.

Man in the Arena

2008-03-10T14:36:00.000-07:00

Most recent McCain add is a MUST SEE:

Can I just say: WOW!!! Great add. The TR brand of Republican politics fits McCain like a glove.

State Gets a Kick in the Nuts

2008-02-27T19:30:00.000-08:00

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!"

2008-02-21T07:15:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

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"

2008-02-19T08:21:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-18T15:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-15T10:25:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-14T15:59:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-13T14:36:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-02-11T12:49:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-09T08:59:00.000-08:00

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!!!

2008-02-07T13:44:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-06T16:11:00.000-08:00

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.

Long Time Gone

2008-01-09T15:36:00.000-08:00

Well my friends, for those of you unwavering few that still haunt these pages, it has been too long. Much to get caught up on over the next couple of weeks. As we’re gearing up for election season, my blogging will almost certainly increase. So far I’ll just say we here at the Greater Good had a big night in New Hampshire and it’s great to see the energy that surrounds Obama. In the weeks to come look for analysis of the top contenders, which I’ll almost certainly limit to foreign policy, as that is more down my ally and is the major subject matter of this blog.

For now I’ll just include a few snippets on some things I’ve missed out on.

CIA WMD Report on Iran: Great for both countries; look for a Nixon-to-China type of visit from someone in the Bush Admin at the lower level and possibly SECSTATE after new Admin takes office. Nice move by spooks here.

New Maritime Strategy: Great that the strategy exists, that it’s a joint USN/USMC/USCG strategy and that it’s being shared with the public, bad that it’s overly vague and non-platform specific which will hurt the sea services during their appropriations fights.

Iraq: Security continues to improve as Anbar strategy is exported to other areas despite what Dems and Madam Speaker say. (McCain has always been right here) It will be interesting to see if this can be maintained as troop levels come down.

Putin as man of the year: Complete bullshit by Time as the mag took Putin over Petraeus. This is a liberal news mag who refuses to give the Admin or the military any credit for the surge’s success.

Assassination of Bhutto: scary stuff here. Pakistan is going to hell in a hand bag and now we’ve lost our horse in this race as Bush has distanced himself from Musharraf.

And on a lighter note:

My Ole Miss Rebels fire Ed Orgeron as head football coach, hire Houston Nutt and the basketball team is 13-0: Hell yes, damn right! Hotty toddy gosh almighty, who the hell are we? Flim Flam, Bim Bam, OLE MISS BY DAMN!!!

Naive Idealism Rules the Donkey's House

2007-10-19T12:20:00.000-07:00

Special thanks to Congress for this one.

Turkey Requests Authority to Attack
By Molly Moore
Washington Post

ISTANBUL, Oct. 15 -- The Turkish government asked parliament Monday for a one-year authorization to conduct military operations in northern Iraq to attack Kurdish separatist guerrillas, but senior government officials attempted to play down the prospects of an immediate attack.

"It is impossible to speak for certain on a possible cross-border operation if the parliament approves it," Gen. Ergin Saygun, deputy chief of the Turkish General Staff, told reporters, according to the Anatolian news agency. "We will look at the season and go over our needs before launching a military operation."

Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said that "our hope is that we will not have to use this motion." But he added: "The reality that everyone knows is that this terrorist organization, which has bases in the north of Iraq, is attacking the territorial integrity of Turkey and its citizens.

"The motion targets PKK alone and is designed to prevent further bloodshed," Cicek said after a Council of Ministers meeting Monday, using the Kurdish-language initials of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. "We have always respected the sovereignty of Iraq, which is a friendly and brotherly country to us."

The parliament is widely expected to approve the authorization later this week.

Oil prices soared to a new high of just over $86 a barrel on Monday, largely on fears that Turkish military action could disrupt supplies as winter nears, industry analysts said.

The Turkish government sought the legislative authorization following a spate of attacks that have killed 30 soldiers, police officers and civilians in the past two weeks. There is also growing frustration that the United States and Iraq have done little to curb separatist activities in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

PKK rebels seeking a Kurdish state have waged a guerrilla war against Turkey for the past 23 years. During the 1990s, Turkey conducted numerous incursions into northern Iraq, but since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has pressured Turkey not to cross the border.

U.S. authorities have urged Turkey to use restraint in military operations, fearful of igniting one of the few relatively stable regions in Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he has scheduled an emergency meeting Tuesday with top aides to discuss the border problems and is prepared to meet with Turkish officials to calm the crisis.

Support for such a measure in Turkey was almost certainly acquired after we spit in their face last week by holding a vote denouncing the Turks for genocide over nine decades ago! Well thank you very much MRS. SPEAKER; thanks to this naive idealism we're gonna have a helluva time with the Kurds in the one successful area of our Iraqi occupation. These are not the days of Wilsonian foreign policy. You can't just preach idealism anymore; shit like this has consequences. I mean, why are we doing this NOW? What will it do? Calling genocide "genocide" does nothing but embarrass. It serves no ones' interests except a few congressmen who feel the need to play history's moral judge. This is liberal idealism run amuck.

We're gonna need State to step up here in a major way to keep this thing under control or we're gonna lose the Turks and the Kurds; we simply don't have the force strength to play border-babysitter in the north. Not to mention what will happen to our strategic options in the Middle East if Turkey curbs our logistic weigh station and basing area rights. This isn't totally the fault of Congress but they certainly opened the door. Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.

Um Sanchez...are you serious?

2007-10-17T17:20:00.000-07:00

Well, Gen. Sanchez let fly last week with a scathing indictment of White House policy in Iraq, claiming its strategy was catastrophically flawed:

In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.

“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.

General Sanchez is the most senior in a string of retired generals to harshly criticize the administration’s conduct of the war. Asked following his remarks why he waited nearly a year after his retirement to outline his views, he responded that that it was not the place of active duty officers to challenge lawful orders from civilian authorities. General Sanchez, who is said to be considering a book, promised further public statements criticizing officials by name.

“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

The White House had no initial comment. . . .

“National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone,” he said. “Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”

Asked after his remarks what strategy he favored, General Sanchez ticked off a series of steps — from promoting reconciliation among Iraq’s warring sectarian factions to building effective Iraqi army and police units — that closely paralleled the list of tasks frequently cited by the Bush administration.

But he said that the administration had failed to craft a detailed strategy for achieving those steps that went beyond the use of military force.

“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,” General Sanchez said.

Is this guy serious!!! If there is one military commander who is responsible for letting Iraq fall apart it is Gen. Sanchez. Under Sanchez, the U.S. Army mounted a reckless policy designed to neutralize enemy force strength and gather intelligence, but in actuality fueled the insurgent ranks by rounding up thousands of Iraqis with the slightest hint of insurgency connections and throwing them in jail. Not only would these procedures destroy the military’s detainee system and lead to Abu Ghraib, but it also humiliated the thousands of innocents who were rounded up with the guilty. This policy of humiliation and eventual abuse was exacerbated by the heavy-handed tactics of the 4th Infantry Division who rounded up thousands of Iraqis and dumped them on the steps of Abu Ghraib, almost 90% of which, had absolutely zero intelligence value.

Now this guy claims he is a victim of bad policy??? Well boo fucking hoo General! Last time I checked you were the military commander in charge of our Iraqi fiasco. So instead of blasting the civilian leadership who were thousands of miles away, why don't you act like a professional and pick up the pieces of your shattered career by doing something positive.

"Cold Worriers" Take Heed

2007-10-08T16:52:00.000-07:00

Great piece from Tom Barnett on resurgent Russia.

Putin positions himself as Russia's Lee Kuan Yew
By: Thomas P.M. Barnett

One hears much about the death of democracy in Russia these days, especially as current president Vladimir Putin muses openly about slipping into the office of prime minister to sidestep constitutional term limits. As a former Sovietologist with a degree in Russian literature, I find this storyline all too familiar. But, rest assured, I likewise see America's Cold War victory remaining secure.

Russia enjoyed no real democracy in the 1990s, instead suffering an economic chaos that left society prey to all manner of gangsters. Not surprisingly, average Russians craved a return to order, which finally arrived in the political ascendancy of Putin's "siloviki," or "power guys," who spent their formative years working for the KGB.

During its final years, the dysfunctional Soviet system muddled along, thanks primarily to those who operated "on the left" (na levo), or in the black markets, and those who operated "on the right" (na pravo) or in the security services. The former kept the decrepit economy from collapsing; the latter kept the decrepit regime from collapsing. . . .

Befitting his Soviet roots, Russia's newest czar follows Vladimir Lenin's dictum that all politics can be summed up with one question: "Kto kovo?" or "Who dominates whom?" So we shouldn't expect Putin to leave Russia's political scene anytime soon, no matter which position he next assumes.

Coming out of the seven-decade coma that was the Soviet Union, Russia rejoins the world having substantially - and painfully - reinvented itself. Whatever economic statistics say, most Russians have adopted a middle-class mindset that places a premium on state-enabled stability and income growth. In this regard, it makes less sense to compare Putin to former Russian leaders and more sense to compare him to Singapore's founding father and long-time leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who after overtly ruling for many years, still covertly steers the country as "minister mentor" to his son the prime minister.

Putin's ruling cohort were all hand-picked by him, with the key common denominator being longtime service at his side going all the way back to his days running St. Petersburg. These are highly educated bureaucrats who, according to a recent, close-hold report by a U.S. Defense think tank, have been assembled by Putin to focus on a narrow agenda: economic growth, energy exports, national projects that improve the life of the Russian people, internal security and the regime's long-term political continuity.

Full article.

Barnett has cooled off lately due to some bad analysis on do-no-wrong China and Iraq, claiming everything would be hunky dory with partition without lending credence to the fact that partition could be a disaster for the Sunni due to a lack of resources without revenue sharing. Plus, I didn't think much of his second book; 20% analysis and 80% look how great I am. However, he gets back to his roots here. On Iran, North Korea, and Russia he remains solid.

On Surging

2007-09-29T17:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry it took so long, but here’s my take on Petraeus and “the surge:” ANY good news is good news but Bush might be overstating the surge’s “success.” To begin, let’s look at the operational rationalizations and goals for the surge’s implementation. First, the surge was designed to be Baghdad-centric. Forces were added to Anbar but combat strength was focused on Baghdad. The Euphrates River was to act as a barrier to insurgent held neighborhoods while increased U.S. combat teams, operating and living among Iraqis, cleared these areas. Second, relieving violence in these chosen areas would increase security, thus giving the Iraqi government breathing room to govern and foment reconciliation.

Now let’s look at what’s happened. Success in Baghdad has been limited. Some areas have been cleared, yet even these neighborhoods are not totally successes of American combat strength. Many of these areas have simply been “cleansed” through Sunni-Shi’a bloodletting and forced or elected migration. While much of the “cleansing” has been bloodless after the surge, thanks to the addition of troop-strength to end militia violence, Iraqis have cast their lot with their own ethnic groups instead of US forces and a centralized Iraqi government. Although violence may be curtailed, American forces have yet to gain the people’s confidence, the overriding counter-insurgency goal.

Alternatively, success in Anbar, which includes Fallujah, Ramadi, and Haditha, has bordered on the extraordinary. The Sunni have rejected al Qaeda operatives and the radical agenda they have sought to imposed and for the present time, have agreed to a TEMPORARY alliance with American forces to drive terrorist out of Anbar. This effort has been highly successful and brought peace and security to an area that has given American forces MAJOR problems ever since the invasion began. Here too, however, success has not been acquired by American operations but by a conscious choice by tribal leaders to reject Al Qaeda. Like Baghdad, the Sunni in Anbar still remain loyal to their tribes, sheiks, and local militias instead of the centralized Iraqi government.

Therefore, while violence overall is down, these successes are not successes that belong to the surge in troop strength. Rather, they are the result of a shift in strategic and operational creativity among Iraqi and American leader, which is a more than welcome development.

Now, what does this mean? Well, at the superficial level of Beltway politics, I think this report serves White House policy quite well. Any good news from Iraq will encourage Republican fence-sitters to stay with the president, at least for now, which should loosen congressional purse-strings. As far as developments in Iraq though, I think recent events suggest we are definitely on our way to some sort of Sunni-Shi’a-Kurdish partition. Whether this is a complete partition with three separate nations or a loose confederation held together by a central national government will depend on American successes and, increasingly, on the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, whose success could instill national pride and increase confidence in a national government. A complete partition could be dangerous as a weak Kurdistan could encourage aggression from Turkey and an independent Sunni nation could still remain disconnected from the global economy, due to a lack of oil reservoirs in western Iraq, and therefore could still be vulnerable to terrorist infiltration. On the other hand, however, the Sunni in Anbar, which would probably make up most of a the possible independent state, have already rejected Al Qaeda so these fears, along with the broader fear that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists if US forces withdraw, could be overblown.

Time will tell but Petraeus is still the best chance we have.

Day 2: Senate pulls off the gloves

2007-09-11T20:27:00.000-07:00

Well, I have to admit we got some fire works from the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. Foreign Relations was a bit of a drag, and in my opinion, run extremely unfairly by king-of-the-long-winded-bull-shiters: Joe Biden (DE-D). Petraeus is basically called a liar and isn’t even allowed to defend himself because Biden has to waist time preaching his partition plan with nary a question?

As for Armed Services, I thought Levin was critical but respectful, many of his collegues and MoveOn could certainly take a lesson. It was good to see McCain away from the campaign trail; he knows his stuff. Dodd seemed to wear his “I-just-visited-Walter-Reed” label just a little too proudly but posed some interesting questions. However, the shockers of the day were John Warner (VA-R) and Lindsey Graham (SC-R). WOW! Graham really raddled Petraeus when he pressed him about the possibility of his son’s deployment to Iraq. All want to know how long Petraeus thinks we’ll be in Iraq but he ain’t bitin’.

I’ll try to include a little more analysis tomorrow but I’ll just say the Dems gained a little more traction but still no real smoking guns. I don’t know why we thought these hearing would magically provide us with a go-no-go answer; maybe we were just hoping for too much.

Day 1

2007-09-10T20:25:00.001-07:00

Considering the inappropriate behavior from members of Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and other radical anti-war protesters, I thought Petraeus responded remarkably well to several tough and pointed questions from the left side of aisle. Except for the small number of proposed force-level reductions, however, there really wasn’t much new. Petraeus seems to be attempting to slow down the draw down and makes valid points for doing so. As for Congress, same old, same old. We’ve seen this 1,000 times; one side presses for blood with no central theme and come off disjointed, while the other side praises and lobs softballs. This process yields nothing new and enables the administration to control the debate. So the real winner today was probably the White House. We'll see if the Senate does any better; they're more knowledgeable for the most part but half of them are also running for president, so I suspect not.

As for the Code Pink and MoveOn crowd, you people never cease to amaze. The anti-war message can carry a lot of weight but is has to be done RESPECTFULLY!!! Calling one of the most decorated officers in the military a traitor in a New York Times full page add pulls your legitimate criticism of the situation on the ground off point and makes you sound like a bunch of crazies. Respectful dissent wins more converts than denigration.

Hats off though, to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) for maintaining control and running a respectful hearing. I've always thought a lot of him and continue to do so. I wish there were more like him.

Petraeus Preview

2007-09-10T08:15:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, Gen. Petraeus published a letter to all Multi-National Forces Iraq (MNFI) that provides a preview of the congressional testimony he’ll give later this week. Overall, it seems to be what’s been expected: a very measured and honest assessment that touts security successes but recognizes shortcomings. Regarding security he states the following:

Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven. Additionally, as you all appreciate very well, innumerable tasks remain and much hard work lies ahead. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.

Like many others, however, Petraeus seems less confident in the Iraqi government:

Many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress at the national level as well. One of the justifications for the surge, after all, was that it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle the tough questions and agree on key pieces of "national reconciliation" legislation. It has not worked out as we had hoped. All participants, Iraqi and coalition alike, are dissatisfied by the halting progress on major legislative initiatives such as the oil framework law, revenue sharing, and de-ba'athification reform. At the same time, however, our appreciation of what this legislation represents for Iraqi leaders has grown. These laws are truly fundamental in nature and will help determine how Iraqis will share power and resources in the new Iraq. While much work remains to be done before these critical issues are resolved, the seriousness with which Iraqi leaders came together at their summit in late August has given hope that they are up to the task before them, even if it is clearly taking more time than we initially expected.

Interesting stuff. Hearings begin in about an hour on C-SPAN, I believe, and will be rebroadcast tonight.

Stay tuned . . .

An OIF Fiasco? Let me count the ways.

2007-09-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

Wow it’s been WAY too long. The second half of my Summer was pretty rough, but I’m back now and hopefully my second year of law school will provide a little more time to blog. It certainly can’t get any worse.

Lots to talk about as we gear up for Gen. Patraeus’s report in September. First as promised, however, is my review of Fiasco.

Let me begin by stating that, much to my shock, this book is not a Bush/Rumsfeld diatribe. Ricks mounts a mature and honest assessment of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and has more than enough criticism to hand out without falling into the convenient trap of blaming W and Rummy for every OIF mistake, which in my opinion is overly convenient and unfair. In fact, contrary to the NY Times book review, criticism of the CIC and SECDEF is extremely limited. While Ricks does write that Bush and Rumsfeld are ultimately responsible for OIF failures, and blasts them for putting a rosy face on the rise of Iraqi violence, he chooses to focus his analysis on strategic and operational decision makers, or the individuals who actually controlled political and military policy and strategy on the ground in Iraq.

Ricks’ most bitter criticism is reserved for Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Commander of Coalition Ground Forces in Iraq from June 2003-June 2004. The revelations concerning Bremer are simply dumbfounding. According to Ricks, major policy decisions such as de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army were made by Bremer completely on his own, contrary to direction from Washington and against the advice of just about every general in the U.S. military. These revelations, which Bremer fails to successfully defend in his memoirs, indicate the remarkable danger of placing unschooled arrogance in positions of power. De-Baathification and scraping the Iraqi Army were two of the worst decisions made by the United States probably since Vietnam’s Rolling Thunder, and if there are any decisions that are responsible for destroying our efforts, it’s these. De-Baathification destroyed reconstruction. It dismissed almost every Iraqi who knew how to run Iraq’s maze of infrastructure and effectively prevented the CPA from tapping a ready-made channel of advice on how to reconstruct essential civil services.

Likewise, according to several interviews with key reconstruction personnel including Gen. Jay Garner USA (Ret.), head of reconstruction prior to Bremer, the Iraqi army was originally slated to play a large role in providing security during reconstruction and according to Garner, this plan was discussed and approved by Rumsfeld prior to Garner’s departure. Knowing that a large security force would bee needed due to Rumsfeld’s reduction of US force levels for the invasion, such approval makes perfect sense. Again however, seemingly without the approval of the White House and against stringent military, intelligence, and civilian advice, Bremer issued his CPA Order Number 2, which dissolved the Iraqi army, police, and internal and presidential security forces and in a single swoop of the pen, Bremer put almost 700,000 men, many of whom were highly trained in the application of violence, out of work. Not only would this decision seriously weaken the already tenuous security situation but it also drove hundreds of thousands of men underground who now had no way to support their family, were already highly politicized and now, are highly pissed at the US for firing them. BOOM: there’s your insurgency.

While Bremer’s opening bungles certainly charted a course for disaster, the US military, according to Ricks, only made matters worse. Chief culprits: Gen. Sanchez, the 4th Infantry Division, and destructive COIN operations.

As Ricks reminds us, classic COIN doctrine focuses on enemy motivation, or in the popular vernacular "hearts and minds." Take away an enemy’s will to fight by convincing him that your not the enemy, that he has a stake in society, and that it’s better to go to work than plant an IED then you’ve neutralized an insurgent. Attaining these goals requires soldiers to sacrifice force for restraint and place a great measure of emphasis on maintaining an enemy’s dignity.

Unfortunately, Sanchez either ignored these principals or failed to effectively train his subordinates in them. Under Sanchez, the U.S. Army mounted a reckless policy designed to neutralize enemy force strength and gather intelligence, but in actuality fueled the insurgent ranks by rounding up thousands of Iraqis with the slightest hint of insurgency connections and throwing them in jail. Not only would these procedures destroy the military’s detainee system and lead to Abu Ghraib, but it also humiliated the thousands of innocents who were rounded up with the guilty. This policy of humiliation and eventual abuse was exacerbated by the heavy-handed tactics of the 4th Infantry Division who rounded up thousands of Iraqis and dumped them on the steps of Abu Ghraib, almost 90% of which, had absolutely zero intelligence value.

The overall feeling that this book left me with was deep and bitter disappointment. Simply put, as an avid supporter of invasion this book infuriated me. I couldn’t care less for the WMD intel debacle. Change was, and still is, desperately needed in the Middle East and Iraq was a logical place to begin. Saddam’s atrocities, the weakened state of the Iraqi military, and the absence of theocratic history made Iraq the perfect candidate for planting the seeds of political and economic change that could have ushered in regional change, and we fucked it up. Shoddy planning for reconstruction, asinine policy leadership, arrogance, and an ineffective military that only made our problems worse by instituting ineffective COIN policies and tactics that led to widespread abuse of the people we were trying to help, destroyed Iraqi confidence in our efforts, which, according to Ricks, remained extraordinarily high throughout the months following the capture of Baghdad. You lose the people and you lose the war. Had Patraeus, whose COIN and reconstruction policies leading the 101st Airborne were quite effective, been more senior in 2003, perhaps things could have been different. Now we’ve lost over 3700 of our bravest, and while "the surge" is showing limited signs of progress, the Iraqi Parliament is deadlocked, Iran is gaining strength and influence, effective and meaningful Republican congressional support is eroding and Americans are fed up with fight. Patraeus doesn’t stand a chance.

Game Over.

Fiasco?

Ricks, you’re GODDAMN RIGHT!

July 4

2007-07-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

A. Lincoln

East Front, U.S. Capitol, January 20, 1961.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. . . .

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

J. Kennedy

Joint Session, U.S. Congress, September 20, 2001

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight.

We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.

My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong.

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.

Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country.

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend.

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. . . .

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Thank you.

G.W. Bush

We have gone astray from these words and it's time to right our ship. Much is asked and much is expected but there is far more to gain in unity than division.

Why Liberals Need Military History

2007-07-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

As my "current reading" space hopefully now indicates, I’m delving into Thomas Ricks’ Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Once I’ve finished, I intend to write a double review on both Fiasco and Not a Good Day to Die, which I actually completed several months ago but never got around to reviewing. Both works are very well done and go a long way toward explaining how and why vital mistakes were made in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I’m getting a head of myself.

Yesterday my Fiasco reading focused on the run-up to war where Ricks really lets Congress, and particularly the Dems, have it for not exercising more oversight over the decision to go to war and failing to challenge the strategic arguments and rationales upon which Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was based. Ricks argues fairly persuasively that this occurred because most of the Congressmen who had led the Democratic party on defense issues during the Cold War had moved on and hadn’t been replaced. Lacking an informed voice on military affairs, the left side of the aisle failed to make a credible argument and got steamrolled as a result.

These facts illustrate why Democrats need to be better educated in military history and national security affairs.

Liberals do not like to talk or think about military issues. Blame it on New Left-post-Vietnam discontent or any number of things, but let's face it, many of the Dems just don’t think military force can serve a valuable purpose and most believe the defense budget should be radically trimmed. Throughout their presidential debates for example, the Democratic candidates castigate defense spending as an unnecessary Goliath and claim the money could be better spent on education and health-care. Well, this is all well and good but it is an incomplete answer. Such an answer may be red meat for the far left but it’s not going to convince moderates. The defense budget may need trimming but in order to convince me that you’re right, you’ve got to ground your argument in a strategic or operational context. For example, don’t just tell me we should cut the budget in order to hire more teachers, explain the other side of the coin and tell me how DOD wastes billions on amphibious assault vehicles for the Marine Corps, which have not been used since Inchon during the Korean War, and probably will never be used in the current operational environment. Don’t just tell me we should pull out of Iraq, explain how the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that an effective counterinsurgency campaign cannot be mounted because it is impossible to win back the confidence of the Iraqi people, the key to a successful counterinsurgency campaign.

Simply put, in order to effectively challenge Republicans on these security issues, you’ve got to be educated in those issues to mount a credible response. Simply stating that war is bad is not enough. That makes me think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and I’ll turn you off faster than a news report on Paris Hilton. However, if you explain yourself and tell me that military conflicts tend to create more problems than they fix and cite some examples from history to support this assertion, I’m not going to be as dismissive and am more willing to engage in debate. You start quoting Clausewitz instead of Michael Moore and liberals stand to achieve much more success in a national security debate but, you’ve got to know Clausewitz before you can quote him.

The Dems would do well to educate themselves.

Surging against the wind

2007-06-27T15:49:00.000-07:00

At Intel Dump, Philip Carter points out a post written by Dave Kilcullen, an anthropologist and adviser to Gen Petraeus in Baghdad, on the Small Wars Journal Blog explaining the theory behind the current operational strategy in Iraq. It’s a must read:

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they’re secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.

This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts . . .

This is REALLY great stuff. Kilcullen’s post displays a welcome similarity to John Nagel’s Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, one of the best works on counterinsurgency (COIN) available. It’s clear that the Petraeus crew, with its emphasis on community contact, Sunni alliance and police operations, is finally implementing an actual COIN strategy. The only problems here, again, are numbers, and more importantly, time.

Petraeus has to report on the operational effectiveness of "the surge" in September and unless significant "improvement" can be shown, in my humble opinion, Congress will cut funding and we’ll begin a significant drawdown in troop levels with possible redeployments to Kurdistan and a shift from active combat operations to passive advisory teams. Therefore, Petraeus has just under three months to acquire some modicum of "success" in order to convince the Congress to continue funding.

The problem is, that defining success in congressional terms will almost certainly be inconsistent with the COIN definition. A successful COIN strategy is measured in years. Operators must first create the necessary environment for a change in the Iraqi mindset and then convince the local population that THIS TIME it will be different by insuring security and fostering economic growth over the long-term. Economic growth, a factor that is vitally important for COIN operations, is, however, not something that can be measured in two months, it can take years before "success" is evident for the nearest politician or pundit to "measure."

Congress, rightly or wrongly in the typical Beltway fashion, will be defining success, if they are in actuality looking for it, through a micro mindset; they need tangible proof that the increase in boots is actually making a difference and that "the surge" is accomplishing something radically different from the previous ill-fated "clear and hold" operations. Therefore, even if these operations are being waged perfectly and are causing phenomenal successes, I don’t think these successes will be evident in the manner in which a Congress, gearing up for the presidential election, will require in order to continue funding a war the majority of Americans have turned against.

Hopefully, forces can be focused to exploit success in the recent offensives in Baquba and the "Baghdad Belts" and COIN operations can concentrate on these areas which can then be treated as microcosms for what American forces could possibly accomplish if given more time. Simply put, our only hope and America’s last best chance for success, lies with a man named Petraeus, the academics who surround him, and the military men and women commanded by him.

Godspeed boys and good hunting.

Our most hallowed ground

2007-06-23T07:08:00.000-07:00

Great piece on All Things Considered yesterday concerning Arlington:

Arlington Visitors Should Dress for Hallowed Ground
by Bob Greene

You seldom see a necktie inside Arlington National Cemetery.

For that matter, you don't often see a dress.

I suppose that shouldn't seem so surprising. We live in a casual age; formality often seems not just endangered, but extinct.

And Arlington National Cemetery, especially in summer, can be very hot.

But somehow — as you spend time among the more than 300,000 souls who are buried in the cemetery near the Potomac River — you can't help feeling that we who visit can do a little better. If anyone has earned our decorum, it's those 300,000.

What do you see when you're there?

In Arlington National Cemetery you see women in cut-off blue jeans. You see young people walking past the headstones with their mouths moving to the songs being pumped into their ears by their iPods.

You see men in T-shirts with gag messages. One of the T-shirts I saw said: "The only reason I'm nodding is I hope you'll go away." Another — worn by a fellow in a cowboy hat — showed a picture of a handgun, accompanied by the words: "I don't call 9-1-1." A tough guy, apparently — amid the graves of some men who were truly tough.

There are cell phones everywhere. Next to the headstones of soldiers whose names you've never heard, next to the eternal flame of John F. Kennedy. People calling their offices, chatting with friends.

The odd thing is, they seem genuinely not to know they're being disrespectful. This is just another tourmobile stop — or so they seem to believe.

I mentioned that you seldom see neckties, seldom see dresses. There are times, though, when you do. They are worn by families who come to this place not as tourists — but to bury their own soldiers. Soldiers who have come home from our current war.

There are signs at the entrance. They say:

"Welcome to Arlington National Cemetery ... Our Nation's Most Sacred Shrine. Please Conduct Yourself with Dignity and Respect at All Times. Please Remember These Are Hallowed Grounds."

You wouldn't think we'd need reminding.

USAF REALLY wants gays in the military

2007-06-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

Bit of a disturbance in the blogosphere this week concerning the Sunshine Project's discovery of an Air Force proposal to fund a chemical weapon designed to turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals. And the Pentegon has confirmed it!

This is just too good. According to a CBS affiliate:

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994."The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

"The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons,and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Putting all the WTF arguments aside for a second, Jason Sigger, a chemical weapons expert at Armchair Generalist points out that the "gay bomb" was not endorsed by DOD:

Yes, the DoD has, on occassion, desired to develop non-lethal chemical weapons
for special military applications (and in fact, the Air Force War College had a 2006 paper on it). But it's important to note that the proposal came out of the Air Force lab at Wright-Patt AFB - probably from a cash-starved and stupid government scientist, desperate for a grant to make it through the year. And let's just say that AF scientists have a history of proposing ridiculous ideas, because there's a lot of research money out there to be spent and it's better to spend money on dumb ideas than to risk getting less money the following year.

Well, I'm glad to know this was never officially considered by the Pentagon but I'm just wondering who the people were who were sitting around and decided to actually write this plan down on a sheet of paper and then what other asshat read the damn thing and decided "Wow, now THIS is an idea that needs to be funded."

WHAT . . . THE . . . FUCK?!!

Pace gets the boot, Navy to command

2007-06-09T07:28:00.000-07:00

As of yesterday Secretary Gates has announced that he will not renominate General Pete Pace for a second term as JCS Chairman. According to DOD:

To avoid a contentious reconfirmation process, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will recommend that President Bush nominate Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen to replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a Pentagon news conference today, Gates said he also will recommend Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright for the position of vice chairman. Cartwright is the commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Navy Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., the current vice chairman, announced his decision to retire last week.

“I have become well acquainted with Admiral Mullen over the last six months and believe he has the strategic insight, experience and integrity to lead America’s armed forces,” Gates said.

Gates said he intended to re-nominate Pace and Giambastiani but after consulting with senators of both parties came to the conclusions “that because General Pace has served as chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the last six years, the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future.”

He said the confirmation process would have the possibility of being quite contentious. “I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them,” Gates said. “However, I have decided at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and General Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Pace will continue to serve as chairman until his term ends Sept. 30. He is the first Marine to hold the position.

This decision definitely comes as a shock. Pace has only served one term as chairman so this basically amounts to Pace being fired before serving a customary second term.

Several ways to look at this. First, change is good. Pace has served on the JCS as Chairman and Vice Chairman since 2001, which means he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan from their inception. Dems definitely paint him as a Rummy yes-man which would have hurt his confirmation hearing under Sen. Levin and his fellow boys in blue with Hillary hurling as many lightning bolts as possible. So this is probably a good political move by Gates to avoid severe criticism of policy decisions until Petraeus reports in September. Furthermore, Adm. Mullen is well-liked due to his current emphasis in naval circles on a 1000-ship navy which argues for intense international naval cooperation and, like Gates himself, will be a welcome change from the Rumsfeld crew.

Another perspective, as David Brooks pointed out last night on The NewsHour, is that Gates is dumping a trusted advisor by shying away from a winnable political fight. If Pace still has SECDEF's confidence then Gates should fight for him so-to-speak.
Failing to do so further illustrates the Administration's lack of political clout.

I usually agree with Brooks but I think he's missed the boat here. Gates is not concerned with loyalty and "winning" political battles in a normal partisan Washington sense as his predecessor was. This is Gates making a move that will better serve the country even if it means sacrificing Pace in the process. Again, well done Mr. Secretary.

...Upon the alter of freedom

2007-05-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

Regardless of the historical baggage that comes with this document, I can think of no finer words to express the sentimentality of such an important holiday:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,--

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln

Happy Memorial Day and thank you, for standing on a wall.

So costly a sacrifice...

2007-05-20T07:54:00.000-07:00

Great post by Bob Bateman at War Historian. Costly sacrifice is more than a body-count.

Cheers on Corridor Three
by LTC Bob Bateman

10:30 hours (local EST), Friday, 11 May 2007: Third Corridor, Second Floor, The Pentagon:

It is 110 yards from the “E” ring to the “A” ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here. This hallway, more than any other, is the “Army” hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew. Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.

10:36 hours (local EST):

The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is an applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway. A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating.

By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class. Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events on Altercation, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden … yet. Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier’s chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel. Behind him, and stretching the length from E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

10:50 hours (local EST):

Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. “My hands hurt.” Christ. Shut up and clap.

For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway — 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts. They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals.

Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly. There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband’s wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son’s behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past. These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home.

This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

General Quarters, General Quarters!!!

2007-04-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

Exams looming, I shall return in mid May with a more consistent posting schedule as law school will no longer be sucking away my soul.

Update from Baghdad

2007-03-10T06:39:00.000-08:00

It's cautious optimism from Gen. Petraeus at his first press conference on the operational effectiveness of "the surge."

According to his opening remarks:

While too early to discern significant trends, there have been a few encouraging signs. Sectarian killings, for example, have been lower in Baghdad over the past several weeks than in the previous month. There also appears to have been less sectarian displacement in the past month; in fact, some families have returned to the neighborhoods from which they were displaced, although in small numbers so far. Iraqi and coalition forces have uncovered stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators in Diyala province and in Baghdad, with 96 weapons caches found in the Multinational Division Baghdad area alone in the past two weeks. Additionally, two major car bomb factories have been destroyed on the outskirts of Baghdad. Hundreds of extremists have been captured or killed, including some mid-level members of al Qaeda Iraq and other extremist groups. And we have destroyed several trucks equipped with heavy machine guns used for engaging our aircraft.

Beyond Baghdad, moreover, a number of tribes in Anbar province have in recent months finally said, "enough," and begun to link arms against extremist operatives who have killed their sheikhs and sought to poison their young people's minds.

Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders have moved forward on some important pieces of legislation, most notably the draft national hydrocarbon law, which treats Iraq's petroleum revenues as a national asset to be shared equitably among Iraq's provinces and regions. The government of Iraq has made several budgetary advances in recent weeks as well, to include earmarking $7.3 billion for security-related expenses and over $10 billion for capital investment in vital infrastructure, pushing 2.4 billion reconstruction dollars directly to the provincial governments, and conducting the conference yesterday led by the deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, on spending that money appropriately for the Iraqi people.

At the same time, tragically, there have been violent, sensational attacks. Schools, health clinics and marketplaces have all been attacked. Car bombs have targeted hundreds of innocent Iraqis, including dozens of Sunni Arabs leaving a mosque in Al Anbar province. Suicide vest bombers killed over three dozen students at Mustansiriyah University in Baghdad. Fourteen Iraqi policemen were killed execution-style while bound and blindfolded last week. The Iraqi vice president was wounded by an assassination attempt, though thankfully and impressively, he remains undaunted and is already back on the job. And in recent days, Shi'a pilgrims were killed in a barbaric manner by thugs with no soul, but the pilgrims continue to march.

Full Transcript.

The Passing of a Legend

2007-02-23T16:32:00.000-08:00

It’s a sad day for the Ole Miss family. Dr. Jordan’s work of course speaks for itself but personally, he was one of the kindest souls I have ever had the opportunity to meet. Heaven will only be bettered by his presence.

UM Mourns Death of Renowned Historian Winthrop Jordan

OXFORD, Miss. Winthrop Jordan, 75, professor emeritus of history and African-American studies at the University of Mississippi, died at his home Friday (Feb. 23) after a long illness. He was a Quaker and a member of the Oxford Friends meeting.

Jordan won four national prizes in 1968-69 for his book "White Over Black: American Attitudes Towards the Negro, 1550-1812," including the Society of American Historians' Parkman Prize, Columbia University's Bancroft Prize, Phi Beta Kappa's Ralph Waldo Emerson Award and the National Book Award for History and Biography.

As part of its 50th anniversary, American Heritage magazine ranked "White Over Black" as the second-best book of all time in African American history, second only to W.E.B. DuBois' "Souls of the Black Folk."

"This book helped lead a revolution in the understanding of how slavery became an accepted part of early American life," said Robert Haws, who chaired the university's history department from 1986 to 2007. "It forever changed our understanding of the roots of racism in the United States."

Jordan received several awards, including another Bancroft Prize, for his "Tumult and Silence at Second Creek: An Inquiry Into a Civil War Slave Conspiracy" (1993). He was slated to receive the B.L.C. Wailes Award from the Mississippi Historical Society March 3 in Jackson. "Through the years, no faculty person has achieved greater distinction at Ole Miss than Winthrop Jordan," said Chancellor Robert Khayat. "Historians across the world are aware of his work, his colleagues respected him without reservation and he was much admired by his students. Although we have lost him, his legacy lives on."

Born in 1931 in Worcester, Mass., Jordan received his bachelor's degree in social relations from Harvard College in 1953, master's degree in history from Clark University in 1957 and doctoral degree in history from Brown University in 1960.

Jordan began teaching in 1955 as a history instructor at Phillips Exeter Academy before joining the faculty at the University of California-Berkeley, where he served from 1963 to 1982. He also served as associate dean for minority group affairs in the UC-Berkeley graduate school.

Jordan joined the UM faculty in 1982. He became the first holder of the William F. Winter Professorship of History in 1993 and retired in 2003. Haws called Jordan "the most distinguished faculty member ever" in the university's history department. "Before he had turned 40, his scholarship had defined the entire field of general race relations and set the scholarly agenda for the study of race in American history for two generations of scholars," Haws said

Jordan's numerous awards include fellowships from the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Guggenheim Foundation, Social Science Research Council and the Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences. He also received a Distinguished Alumnus Citation from Brown University.

Jordan is survived by his wife, Cora; three sons, Joshua Jordan of Davis, Calif., Mott Jordan of Santa Cruz, Calif., and Eliot Jordan of Berkeley, Calif.; three step-children; his former wife, Phyllis Jordan of Berkeley, Calif.; five grandchildren and five step-grandchildren.
Hodges Funeral Home in Oxford is handling arrangements. A campus memorial is being
planned.

Russian Rhetoric and Reality

2007-02-10T08:48:00.000-08:00

Talk about a good old-fashioned Cold War bitch-slap. This is a must read for all you Cold Warriors and Worriers:

Putin Blasts U.S. on Iraq, Defends Russia's Iran Ties
By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

MUNICH, Feb. 10 --Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States today for acting in a unilateral, militaristic fashion that he said "overstepped" its role and made the world a more dangerous place than during the Cold War.

"Nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can take safety behind the stone wall of international law," he told an international security conference here attended by dozens of foreign and defense ministers and other officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a congressional delegation.

He said Russia would pursue an independent foreign policy, and defended his country's arms sales to Iran as a way of reaching out to that Middle Eastern power, which is under pressure from the U.S. and Europe to curtail its nuclear program. Russia has supplied some air defense weapons to Tehran, he said, because "we don't want Iran to feel cornered," he said.

He also told the West to back off on pushing Russia to be more democratic and more respectful of human rights. "Russia is constantly being taught democracy, and the people who try to teach it don't want to learn it themselves."

The Russian leader criticized the expansion of NATO, saying the alliance is placing military forces on Russia's borders, "reducing the level of mutual trust."

Putin ended his critique of the post-Cold War world by attacking the West's view of international relations. Stability and economic justice, he said, should be "not only for the chosen ones, but for everybody."

After his 32-minute speech, Putin fielded questions from the audience, elaborating on several of his points but backing down from none. Explaining his view that the world is now more dangerous than it was during the Cold War, he said that back then, "It was a fragile peace, a scary peace, but it was fairly reliable, as it turns out. Today it is less reliable."

His one peace offering was to describe President Bush as "my friend." He added, "He is a decent man, and one can do business with him."

The response of the U.S. delegation to the annual security conference was sharply negative. During the speech, several frowned, and Gates, a professional Sovietologist, stared at the notes he was writing. Asked for comment afterward, Gates smiled and shook his head.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he found much of the address to have been "Cold War rhetoric," and Putin's comments about Iran "outrageous."

"If you're waiting for Russia to be constructive on Iraq, forget it," commented Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). He added that he didn't think the speech was a smart move.

"He did more in a single speech to unite Europe and America than anything we could have done in a decade," Graham said, referring to tensions between the U.S. and several European nations arising from disagreements primarily over the war in Iraq.

Most of this is the traditional Russian rhetoric, condemning the West while failing to look into the mirror. What about that invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's there Vladimir? Forget about that one?

Re Iran, Russia and China will need greater and greater access to Mideastern oil in the coming decades thanks to their slowly-emerging middle classes. Therefore, a stable Middle East is very much in Russia's interest as it gears up to compete with the Chinese. Moscow has just backed a different horse and isn't going to abandon their boy because Europe and the US want them to. Plus throwing muck at the United States is just plain fun, everybody's doin' it.

Great comments from Graham on this re Europe and it's good to know Gates, being a Russian specialist, can know Vladi's full of shit without having to say so.

Keep counting up your complaints Putin as you further alienate yourself and your country from the rest of the world while you rig a few more elections and strip some more voting rights.

AFRICOM Formalized

2007-02-08T06:36:00.000-08:00

Great move by Gates on this one. The creation of an Africa Command will hopefully signal an increased security presence for this God-forsaken continent and with increased security, hopefully foreign investment.

Africa Command Geared Toward Stability
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007 – The main goal of the new U.S. command in Africa will be to develop a stable environment on the continent to promote civil society and improved quality of life for the people there, a top Defense Department official said here today.
Africa, which represents 35 percent of the world’s land mass and 25 percent of the population, is growing in significance, and it is time for the U.S. to recognize its importance and consolidate efforts there, Ryan Henry, principal undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a Pentagon news conference.

“This command will focus on some efforts to reduce conflict, to improve the security environment, to defeat or preclude the development of terrorists or terrorist networks, and support in crisis response,” Henry said.

President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the establishment of a new unified command in Africa yesterday.

AFRICOM will integrate DoD efforts in Africa, which now are split among three combatant commands, and enable more cooperation with other U.S. government agencies, such as the State Department, Henry said.

“It is a continent and a group of nations who think of themselves from a continental perspective; they think of themselves as Africa,” he said. “One of the major reasons that it’s time to stand up Africa Command is for us to view the people, the nations and the continent of Africa from the same perspective that they view themselves.”

Many of the missions AFRICOM will perform will be non-kinetic, such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, Army Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, director of the Joint Staff, said at the news conference. AFRICOM will have a strong emphasis on building the capacity of African nations through training and equipping African militaries, conducting training and medical missions on the continent, and supporting regional organizations like the African Union, he said.

Full article.

USMC's Billion Dollar Blunder

2007-02-07T14:29:00.000-08:00

This is simply pathetic. More evidence that DOD is willing to go to great lengths to flush money into a weapon with no operational value or effectiveness. We can thank the China haters for this one. Last time I checked, our asymmetric enemies didn’t put up much of a beachhead defense and Iran is approachable, God-forbid, from the East and West. Now who does that leave...?

We can't afford to throw away this kind of money on a weapon system with absolutely ZERO utility. The Corps should be ashamed.

Problems Stall Pentagon's New Fighting Vehicle
Costly Amphibious System Not Meeting Expectations

Renae Merle
The Washington Post

After 10 years and $1.7 billion, this is what the Marines Corps got for its investment in a new amphibious vehicle: A craft that breaks down about an average of once every 4 1/2 hours, leaks and sometimes veers off course.

And for that, the contractor, General Dynamics of Falls Church, received $80 million in bonuses.

The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is one of the Pentagon's largest weapons programs and exemplifies the agency's struggle to afford a cadre of new mega-systems that are larger and more complex, but also more trouble, than their predecessors.

Despite reforms meant to rein in costs, it is not unusual for weapons programs to go 20 to 50 percent over budget, the Government Accountability Office recently found. Among the offenders is the Army's sprawling modernization program, which aims to update everything from tanks to drones and is now expected to cost $160 billion, up from $90 billion, and a Lockheed Martin missile-warning satellite program, which is projected to cost more than $10 billion, up from $4 billion.

The Marines' troubled program is on a collision course with critics who are wary of its growing price tag and who wonder about the utility of an amphibious vehicle meant to storm beaches in a way the military hasn't done for decades, at a time when soldiers are consumed with urban warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Full article.

The Bitterness of Defeat

2007-01-22T17:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday on January 21, 2007 our beloved Saints fell victim to a juggernaut of circumstance from which they were unable to recover; and while numerous factors beyond their control conspired against our valiant team, fault must ultimately belong to those who fought so diligently to win but were unable to overthrow the yoke of circumstance under which they toiled on a frozen plain in Chicago.

It was not our time.

However, fear not my brethren, for a time WILL come, a new day WILL dawn, and a new team WILL rise from the disheartened ashes of cruel defeat with the ever-present spirit of determination, optimism, and battle-hardened courage that runs, like the waters of our mighty river, so potently throughout our glorious Gulf Coast. A time will come when Hollywood returns, when the secondary is stronger, when the game is officiated fairly, and when battle is joined on a true field of sport where steps ring true rather than a mud-infested lake that deprives us of our strongest weapons. A new day will dawn when our men will don their black and gold AT HOME amidst the thunderous roar of the New Orleans faithful and teach the nation what it truly means to fear as our Saints lay waist to all that oppose them and crucify the Chicago Bears on a cross of redemption amidst the strident chant of that piercing question: Who Dat Rex Grossman, Who Dat Cedrick Benson, let me just ask you WHO DAT SAY DE’ GONNA BEAT DEM SAINTS!!!

On Rumsfeld

2007-01-16T06:19:00.000-08:00

Well, I know it’s been three months since his resignation but I just have to say something about Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense (SECDEF). I certainly have my gripes with Bush’s first SECDEF. The accusations of his arrogance, inability to take criticism or advice, and the countless mistakes that he allegedly made in Afghanistan and Iraq have all been well voiced by media, pundits, experts, and political enemies alike and therefore, do not need to be rehashed here. These arguments have definitely found their mark for the present time and most Americans seem to harbor an intense hatred for Donald Rumsfeld and were glad to see him go.

Many of these arguments are certainly valid. As I noted last April during Rumsfeld’s brush with the “Revolt of the Generals,” Rumsfeld’s tenure seems to have been burdened by an inability to listen, debate, and compromise effectively. He seemingly displayed a my-way-or-the-highway type management of the Pentagon which, if this is accurate, is not a healthy environment to formulate effective policy decisions. As John Nagel argues in Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, successful and effective military policy must be created within an environment that is conducive to learning. Commanders must feel that their opinions are being heard by the civilian leadership, and civilians must be open to good ideas as well as criticisms in order to formulate effective policy decisions.

However, in all this criticism and bellyaching over decisions it seems to me that something has been lost and that something is the unimaginable difficulty under which the Secretary of Defense toils on a daily basis. As I’ve stated many times, there is no other position in the United States government that is more difficult, next to the President, than the Secretary of Defense. When the modern-day position was created in 1949 after the National Security Act was revised, it was originally thought that the SECDEF position would be a gateway office that could propel the officeholder into the presidency. Louis Johnson, the second Secretary of Defense from 1949-1950, took the office precisely because of this belief. Time, however, has proved otherwise. Of the 21 men who have presided over the Pentagon in the 59 year existence of the SECDEF office only three men have lasted longer than five years: Casper Weinberger, Robert McNamara, and, combining his years of service under the Ford and Bush administrations, Donald Rumsfeld. These three individuals, however, are extreme exceptions to the rule as most defense secretaries have not lasted longer than two or three years and some crap out after several months. The strain of the office, due to the unrelenting attacks in the press and the sheer number of hours that are required of the Secretary of Defense is simply too great. Weinberger was routinely criticized and fell victim to the Iran-Contra affair, McNamara’s life was nearly destroyed, and James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense, was eventually driven to suicide because he was unable, in his opinion, to function the Pentagon effectively. Six years in office at the head of the Pentagon is a staggering accomplishment for anyone.

This normally short tenure, in my humble opinion, is also due to the fact that the Secretary of Defense is in charge of one of the largest and most important organizations in American government: the military. This responsibility places the Secretary of Defense in an extremely difficult position because the military is about as change-averse as any organization can possibly be. Consequently, it is difficult for a civilian official to force significant force transformation reforms down the military’s throat without causing some significant objections.

During the Cold War, strategic and force structure planning were relatively easy. We knew the Soviets were the enemy. Consequently strategic planning was simply a matter of tailoring our military to deter aggression and, if the Cold War turned hot, counter Soviet forces in a conventional military conflict. Different presidents as well as the respective services may have disagreed over how best to carry this strategy out but the grand strategy designed to accomplish this desired end was essentially the same: the United States needed a powerful military in order to deter Soviet aggression. Such a strategy was well liked by the Pentagon because it gave them a lion’s share of the yearly appropriations as well as the defense industry which made billions on the yearly arms race. However, when the Cold War ended and the “Red Menace” disappeared, the military’s justification for large conventional forces, which advocated a large Air Force and Navy, did as well. Why, for example, did the United States need to pay for and maintain a “400 ship Navy” when no other hostile fleet existed?

Yet instead of thinking creatively about the new operational environment in which it now existed and tailoring forces to meet existential threats, a large part of the military brass basically held on to the same strategy that existed during the Cold War. They justified these arguments by claiming that the world had descended into “chaos” in the wake of the Soviet collapse and the United States needed to maintain its current conventional force structure to maintain order in a chaotic world. Such an argument encouraged this sector of officers and defense industrialists to search for and identify a hostile enemy, preferably with a large military, so their conventional force arguments could be justified and the military coffers would remain filled. This is why so much emphasis has been placed on a possible conflict with China over the Taiwan Straits; we would need a large fleet with significant ASW assets to counter any invasion the People’s Liberation Army might mount. Throughout the ‘90s no one wanted to hear that America needed a lighter, more agile force to deal with the asymmetric threats that became more and more prevalent as time passed and the Pentagon was allowed to operate with no clear direction or guidance from its civilian leadership. Instead, Les Aspin, William Perry, and William Cohen, chose to focus a majority of their efforts on the combat role of women and the presence of homosexuals in the military and the Pentagon became accustomed to a sort of hands-off civilian approach to grand strategy and force structure planning.

Consequently, when Rumsfeld, a heavy-handed secretary, showed up with a determined belief that the current force structure needed to be transformed into a lighter, faster, more agile force, it was only natural for sectors of the military to view this strong direction with suspicion. Rumsfeld has been severely criticized in the press for this heavy-handed approach but it is exactly this type of leadership that is required to enforce substantive changes on an organization that is rife with disagreement and competing services rivalries, all striving for a larger share of the appropriations pie. Reigning in these respective factions and forcing them down the same primrose path is a monumental task of unimaginable difficulty that is only compounded when major military operations are underway and requires strong leadership and clear direction if reform is to be effective. Rumsfeld provided such leadership at a difficult time for the United States, and for all his mistakes and shortcomings, he was exactly what the Department of Defense needed.

Godspeed Mr. Secretary and thank you for your service.

Return and Revision: Initial Thoughts on Bush and Iraq

2007-01-10T20:10:00.000-08:00

Ok, I know I’ve been out of the loop for like three months but I needed to take a break during Law School crunch time and then unwind a little for the holidays before the grind started again. Now I’m back and there’s lots to discuss, we’ve gotten a new SECDEF, DNI, and supposedly as of tonight a new Counter-Insurgency (COIN) strategy for Iraq.

I plan to address Rumsfeld this weekend in a longer entry. The SECDEF position is one that is near and dear to me. I’ve had the distinct privilege to do some significant research in this area in the past so I’m looking forward to revisiting my old stomping ground, albeit in a fairly informal manner. However, tonight it’s Bush and Iraq.

My initial thoughts on the presidential address are, like everyone else I’m sure, those of scepticism. Yet, I was glad the president chose to speak to us from the White House Library, a civilian setting, rather than surrounding himself with military personnel which smacks of militarism. Bush was also much more mature, balanced and honest in his delivery of one of the better speeches of his presidency.

The “big news,” as we’ve been hearing for weeks, is a surge of 21,500 troops. What I was naively hoping for tonight was some sort of indication on the length of their deployment and the operational strategy that they will attempt to implement, which we didn’t get. A small surge of this magnitude in my humble opinion is just too little too late and too focused on Baghdad. We need AT LEAST 30,000 for an extended period with a significant deployment to Anbar to make any substantive change to the security situation on the ground. Security must be restored for an extended period by a conventional force, be it American or Iraqi, in order for reconstruction to go forward and discourage scores of unemployed Iraqis from turning to ethnic militias and terror groups; this will require an overwhelming force for an extended period. Yet with the Dems in power and in charge of the military purse-strings and a skeptical public I doubt we’ll see the extended deployment that we need.

I’m also a bit skeptical that this was the number recommended by the JCS. The JCS has continually denied the need for an increase in troop numbers under the rationalization that a troop surge will discourage the Iraqis from taking control of COIN operations because they will become over-reliant on US forces. This, in my opinion, is complete bullshit. How can Iraqi forces hope to grow into an effective combat force in a bloody insurgency/civil war without SIGNIFICANT US support and guidance? Americans need to realize that advice from the JCS is not always gospel. I would be much more interested in the number of troops a group of colonels and lt. colonels with on-the-ground-experience would recommend. That would give us a more accurate picture of the numbers required but colonels are never asked to make recommendations to senior civilian officials, a sad reality of careerism in today’s military.

Strategically we didn’t get much either. Nearly everything that was said concerns military operations but for COIN strategy political change is just as, if not more important than military operations. Currently the daily life of the average Iraqi, at least in Baghdad is miserable. They have no power, no security, no jobs, in some cases no sewage disposal, and live in constant fear of being blown to hell. We didn’t really hear anything about how the daily life of the average Iraqi will improve due to the increased troop numbers. NOTHING. And why didn’t we hear anything? Because the security situation has become so bad that reconstruction projects are unable to go forward effectively. Therefore MAJOR revision in the security situation are required before any substantive change can be made in the political realm and with an increase of numbers that is this small, little I am afraid will change.

A Bid for Insurgency, Military History-Style

2006-10-09T18:44:00.000-07:00

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War

There’s been a lot of discussion on War Historian over the past couple of weeks concerning an article on National Review On-Line written by John J. Miller entitled “Sounding Taps.” The article basically “investigates” the “status” of military history as an academic discipline and predicts its demise due to the perceived bias of “tenured radicals” who are suspicious of all things military.

Dr. Mark Grimsley of The Ohio State History Department, AKA the “War Historian,” took serious issue with the article on a number of methodological points, but his main argument castigated Miller for doing more harm to the field of military history by predicting its failure than the material that pointed out the disciplines hardships did good.

I ran across the debate the other day and read “Sounding Taps” and it seemed, to me, to be a sort of deja vu version of the opening half of John Lynn’s classic article “The Embattled Future of Academic Military History.” Yet now, instead of being hidden within a nearly 10-year-old journal somewhere in some library or cloaked within the shady confines of J-STOR, the subject material was out in the open, on-line at the National Review, where presumably the material would be viewed by hundreds of the thousands. I was glad that the news was getting out.

Enter Grimsley.

In the interest to full disclosure I should acknowledge that even though I’ve never met him personally, I think the world of Dr. Grimsley. Absent a military history specialists here at Ole Miss his postings and online essays at War Historian and Blog Them Out Of the Stone Age have taught me more about military history as an academic discipline than any professor I’ve ever come in contact with. Yet his response to the Miller article infuriated me. Who was this professor, locked within the ivory tower of one of the finest military history programs in the country, to complain about an article that argued there was a bias against military history. He’s located at GHQ comfortably crafting strategy in a sympathetic environment while there are graduate students out there who are cutting their teeth on the front lines of the battle for military history, who aren’t serving on the OSU general staff and run into the academic bias daily.

The bias, it seems to me, is not necessarily one of openness making it difficult for the casual observer to perceive. For example, in my days as a graduate student I never ran into a professor who refused to let me work on a military history topic. However, I couldn’t even begin to count how many conversations I’ve overheard sitting quietly in my cubicle (which just so happened to be located directly across from the faculty lounge) where faculty members, believing I wasn’t around, voiced their true feelings about military history. Most simply stated that they refused to teach on military subjects, even if the class dealt exclusively with a major war, while others went so far as to indict the discipline for everything from the election of George W. Bush to the war in Iraq. Exposed to such academic obtuseness, I was glad to read something that brought these biases to light and here was Grimsley telling me to quit complaining.

However, I’ve had time to cool down over the past few weeks and it now seems that Grimsley does have a point, it does military history no good to simply complain unless action is being taken to carry the fight to the enemy. Much, I believe, is being done on the operational front thanks to the brilliant leadership of Lynn, Grimsley, and others but it’s the forces behind the front lines, where there are no military history specialists, who desperately need a handout. If biased faculty members refuse to give us courses in military history, then it's time to create them on our own. So, taking a page from the al- Qaeda handbook, a little of Mao, and a healthy dose of my own operational history, I propose a recipe for insurgency– a strategy for reaching out to graduate students, like myself, who possess the desire and the will to learn but are currently without sound direction from an academic specialists.

Connectivity should be utilized extensively to connect isolated students. This will require specialist to lend a helping hand. Such sacrifice may prove a bit burdensome but I think such a strategy could become fruitfull by exposing graduate students in countless departments to military history through association and classroom contact with grad students interested in the subject. Such students could, after gaining experience, take over teaching duties for NROTC-ROTC history classes which are, in my experience, simply pathetic.

Here's a short list of suggestions.

First and foremost, a new list of relevant academic military history texts needs to be completed and posted prominently on the Society of Military History’s Web Page. Such a list is the silver bullet for educating graduate students who have no direction. The current list, from the Duke-UNC program, is embarrassingly out of date. The new list should reflect new approaches to the discipline including military history from a world perspective, gender, culture, and memory methodologies, as well as more traditional titles examining strategy and operational history. No list is too small; this should be a reading list of comprehensive exam length NOT a preliminary list intended to introduce the discipline.

A collection of old syllabi, complete with reading lists and assignments, should also be posted in a centralized location. Suggested paper topics of an academic nature would prove invaluable for students looking for relevant research topics. Nonspecialists are willing to work with students in these areas but they either hide their ignorance of the subject matter or, more likely, are unfamiliar with current research and are afraid to ask for help.

The SMH conference keynote address and as many of the subsequent panel discussions as possible should be recorded and placed on-line. Students who are unable to travel or are simply uncomfortable traveling to an academic conference where they don’t know a living soul, would reap just rewards if they were exposed to this material.

Bloggers are invaluable! Personally, as I’ve previously stated, I learned more about academic military history reading “Blog Them Out of the Stone Age” than I did from any other source. Topics should include methodological and historiographical debates as well as more traditional topics. This allows for valuable discussion and contact with historians who would otherwise be unavailable to individuals both inside and outside the Academy.

Isolated graduate students should not feel like they’re alone in the fight. The facts is that military history has become isolated into far-flung programs throughout the country. Due to their isolation and small number, it can be extremely difficult for interested or even qualified students to enter the ranks of prestigious programs. However if such an insurgency is executed locally, isolated students can receive a strong education in military history through independent coursework and informal global interaction on the Internet. If this education can be coupled to more “in vogue” course materials taught by local faculty, a student can receive the best of both worlds. He doesn’t fall victim to the “just knowing military history” critique nor does he possess a perverted, irrelevant, or inaccurate view of academic military history. Such a strategy should be adopted; times demand it, students long for it, and the front-line fight requires it. Vive la resistance!

Damn right Mr. Broder, damn right.

2006-09-21T06:42:00.000-07:00

Independence Days
By David S. Broder

American politics reached a critical turn last week. The revolt of several Republican senators against President Bush's insistence on a free hand in treating terrorist detainees signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government.

This movement is not new, but the moral scale of the issue -- torture -- and the implications for both constitutional and international law give it an epic dimension, even if it is ultimately settled by compromise.

The senators involved -- John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner -- were also instrumental in forming the "Gang of 14," the bipartisan bloc that seized control of the Senate last year and wrote the compromise that prevented a drastic change in the filibuster rule that otherwise would have triggered a bitter partisan divide.

These are not ordinary men. McCain, from Arizona, is probably the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. Graham, from South Carolina, is the star among the younger Republican senators. Warner, from Virginia, embodies the essence of traditional Reagan conservatism: patriotism, support for the military, civility.

They were joined in their opposition to Bush's call for extraordinary interrogation techniques by Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is still, despite the controversies over his role in Iraq policy, one of the most admired Americans.

That these Republicans -- and others -- were ready to join the Democrats in rejecting Bush's plan caused the White House to scramble for alternatives and House Republican leaders to postpone a scheduled vote. The revolt goes well beyond three men.

What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party. Its unifying theme can be found in the Declaration of Independence's language when Jefferson invoked "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

When Powell wrote that Bush's demand would compound the world's "doubt [about] the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was appealing to Jefferson's standard.

It is a standard this administration has flagrantly rejected. Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself. The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat. Instead, swayed by some inner impulse or the influence of Dick Cheney, he has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution.

Now, however, you can see the independence party forming -- on both sides of the aisle. They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society -- the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.

The center is beginning to fight back. Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, is holding a fundraiser for Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat running as an independent against the bloggers' favorite, Ned Lamont.

His election is important, as is Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee's in Rhode Island, because both would signal that independence is a virtue to be rewarded.

Similarly important, though less publicized, is Republican Sen. Mike DeWine's race in Ohio. DeWine is an ally of McCain & Co. in forming a center for the Senate; his opponent, Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, is a loud advocate of protectionist policies that offer a false hope of solving our trade and job problems.

A "decent respect" begins at home, with an acknowledgment of public opinion. Americans are saying no to excess greenhouse gases and no to open borders; yes to embryonic stem cell research, yes to a path to earned citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and yes to a living wage. Six more states are likely to approve increases in the minimum wage through ballot initiatives in November.

A congressional election with lots of new faces and a scare for many returning veterans is important as a signal to next year's likely leaders such as Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell and Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi that they can't design their strategies simply to satisfy the most rabid of their party's extremes; they have to govern down the center and work across party lines.

And that in turn would set the stage for a 2008 election in which the two branches of the independence movement -- Republican and Democratic -- could compete in a campaign that would, for a change, show a "decent respect" for the intelligence of the American people.

GWOT, Five Years In: A Novice Assessment (Part I)

2006-09-16T09:18:00.000-07:00

First I want to make on thing clear, I’m no expert in security affairs. I read widely on the subject but if your looking for expert analysis this post is not for you. I need to write this mainly for myself because I don't even know where I stand on some of these issues anymore and I’m hoping I’ll know after I finish this draft. I write this as a hopefully nonpartisan assessment of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Disillusioned with all the ideological bitterness of an election year, I’m trying to avoid the rhetoric because whether we like it or not, we’re all in this together. So without further ado here’s my GWOT assessment, five years in.

The Run-up to September

There’s been a lot in the news lately thanks to partisan hype over The Path to 9/11 on pre-war fault so it seems logical to start here. First of all I should make it clear that I hold no single administration responsible for the September events. To assign blame here is simply ridiculous, 9/11 was a paradigmatic shift in the security environment after which we were all forced to reassess our priorities. It was no ones fault, we just didn’t foresee the shift. If you blame Bush II you've got to blame Clinton and if you blame Clinton you've got to blame Bush I, Reagan, Carter... ect. Individual blame is an argument for partisan politics that gets us no where strategically and only serves to further divide the electorate in our struggle. However it is helpful to identify several factors, which ran rampant through the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations, that I believe contributed to al-Qaeda’s decision to attack the United States.

Throughout the 1980's and early 90's the United States, chiefly concerned with combating the Soviets, created a security paradigm of indifference toward terrorism. Faced with a very real nation-state threat in the Soviet Union, US strategic thinking was almost exclusively concerned with combating Soviet power and communist “aggression” in the Cold War world. The Middle East, like other third world theaters, was treated as a backwater. Large casualties in this area couldn’t be tolerated. It simply wasn’t worth getting tied down in the Arab world, the theory went, because it weakened your strategic position overall, just as the Soviets realized in Afghanistan during the 80's. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the threat disappeared and the previous security system paradigm changed. The problem was that the paradigm didn’t shift immediately, we entered a vacuum of strategic uncertainty. Who was the new threat? China? A reemerging Soviet Union? Third world autocrats? Or more intangible threats like genocide or social injustice? No one really knew so we made a half-ass attempt to play globo-cop and confront them all. We were successful, for the most part, in many of these areas like the Balkans and failed in others such as Somalia. Unfortunately, however, the Cold War security paradigm of indifference toward terrorism continued as asymmetric terrorist threats were ignored in favor of nation-state problems. Empty threats were made about “bringing these killers to justice” but no real action ever materialized, we were busy with other things. Events such as the Battle of Mogadishu (of Blackhawk Down fame) and Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon after the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, however, convinced al-Qaeda leaders that Americans were simply averse to mass casualties. A weakness they sought to exploit in September.

If enough death and destruction could be caused, the theory went, American power would withdraw from the Middle East enabling a fundamentalist revolution of sorts that could return the Islamist world to the dark ages. Bin Laden’s strategic thinking and his final decision to move forward with the September attacks, however, represented an extreme miscalculation of American resolve and overplayed his hand dramatically. With a massive “sneak attack” inflicted upon the American homeland, the paradigm shift was now complete. “The sleeping giant” was once again awoken from its slumber of indifference with a new-found determination to reassert its power on the world stage and take the fight to the new enemy. Simply because, as I remember an interviewed woman state on 9/11, “No one does that to us!”

Well 'allo mates!!!

2006-09-13T06:04:00.000-07:00

Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.

Italy

75%

British and the Commonwealth

75%

Finland

56%

Poland

56%

United States

56%

France, Free French and the Resistance

50%

Germany

31%

Soviet Union

31%

Japan

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
created with QuizFarm.com

We're not the only ones reflecting

2006-09-13T05:45:00.000-07:00

What 9/11 means to Iraqis

The Times
Ali Hamdani

FOR Iraqis, 9/11 led us to our current life of death and destruction.

A sad moment for Americans was the reason for a sad life for us. With 3,000 civilians killed every four weeks, my country suffers its own 9/11 on a monthly basis.

A few months before 9/11 my sister bought some American medical books because she was planning to study in the States.

I called her after I saw the towers burning on TV and said: "Forget it - you are not going to make it there any more."

How would it affect our life? Or how my people would come to suffer for Saudis attacking American buildings? I didn’t bother finding answers for all these questions that day. The only thing I said to my sister before ending the conversation: "We will be in big trouble soon."

Last week thugs tortured and killed my friend Mahmoud, a 51 year old father of three children, just for being an unlucky Shia who by accident drove by a Sunni neighborhood.

To me those thugs are no different from the American soldiers who killed the family of a 10-year-old girl named Iman in Haditha last November.

I think about Iman watching her parents die. Then I remember seeing the body of my friend Mahmoud last week at the morgue, with burns and bruises covering every part of his body.

Terror is terror, no matter how it is dressed up, or who performs the act.

Terrorists don’t need to wear balaclavas or grow beards. They sometimes come in proper uniforms, and call themselves Marines, like the 10-year old- girl’s family killers.

Whether it was the collapse of the Twin Towers or the missile from an F-16 plane hitting a wedding party in Anbar in the west of Iraq more than a year ago, innocent people have lost their lives.

The other night, I was watching a documentary on the Al-Jazeera satellite news channel about the September 11 attack. Listening to the stories told by the survivors was terrifying for me. The scene of that airplane hitting the tower was as horrible as the scene of the wreckage of a red old Passat car that I saw after it was run over by an American tank in west Baghdad in 2004, crushing the mother, father and their young child.

Those people who died under the rubble of the Twin Towers looked similar to those Iraqis who died under the American barrage. We all lost loved ones - but here we continue to lose them.

Who knows why President Bush, Saddam Hussein and even Bin Laden did what they did? But Americans need to understand that 9/11 is not only theirs anymore, after they chose to make the suffering sharable.

At least in their case they still have the chance every year to hold a memorial for the sad event and to pray for the victims. For us the event is still going on - and it’s not clear yet who should be praying for whom, as any of us is a victim waiting for his 9/11 to come.

Life in Iraq wasn’t great under Saddam but there was only one way to suffer, decided by the dictator. With the American freedom that was offered to my nation, people got the choice of how to suffer, but to suffer is a must.

Freedom can not be offered to a dead nation. Unfortuanately, what America was looking for has never been in my country.

Now I sit in Baghdad and listen to American commentators debating about whether their nation is now safer. It probably is, but they have messed up our lives, as if they exported their troubles to us.

Hat tip to War Historian.

Capitalism: Our GWOT Trump Card?

2006-09-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

Can globalization and capitalism assure our ultimate victory in the Global War on Terrorism despite numerous strategic setbacks? So sayeth Thomas Barnett:

Barnett: Five years in, remembering why we'll win

By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT

Five years into this Long War against radical extremists, we measure our progress and naturally feel depressed: enemies proliferating, friends disappearing, the front seemingly limitless.

So stipulated - regarding the war.

And yet, this war's worldwide impact pales in comparison to ongoing changes triggered by globalization. We need to remember that larger context if we're ever going to recognize this struggle's successful conclusion.

Remember, the Cold War didn't end with World War III but with 3 billion new capitalists joining the global economy. We were never ahead in that war either, but clearly we triumphed in everything else.

Let me give you some examples of that everything else today.

First, as globalization expands, it naturally invades those regions most disconnected from its influences to date. In effect, this struggle marches backward in time as we quell civil strife and battle radical extremists in increasingly primitive locations.

So don't expect less violence as globalization permeates the Middle East and Africa. Entrenched elites and cultural fundamentalists will resist its democratizing effects, especially when it comes to women.

Globalization brings networks. Networks are gender neutral. Provide such connectivity to traditional society, and you'll turn it upside down by empowering women disproportionally to men.

Put most crudely, this Long War will see us liberating females through economic connectivity while killing off self-righteous young men standing in the way.

Why do fundamentalists deny real education to young girls? Because that's where all this "trouble" starts.

No modern economy has ever developed without liberating its women first with expanded economic opportunity, then social change (often related to birth control) and finally political participation.

Full article.

Things that piss me off

2006-09-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

This week for the "Things that piss me off" series we turn to:

Mid Term Elections

I'm sorry I know this post is a bit mainstream but at this point I really don't give a shit, I need to vent. If you didn't know I hate the House of Representatives. I mean I don't just dislike them, no sir, this is a DEEP hate. It's the kind of hate I personally reserve for stuff like local used-car commercials and personal injury lawyer ads, the kind that piss you off so much you just want to enter some kind of demonic plot to bring the sons-of-bitches down or perhaps just put a chair through your television just to shut the bastards up. God, I'm starting to lose it just thinking about it.

Seriously though, that's the kind of regard I hold the House of Representatives in, they're the used car salesmen and ambulance chasers of the U.S. government. They'll lie to you in a heartbeat and smile at you while they're doing it. Plus we have to listen to their idiotic rhetoric every other year because the "Framers," in what can only be classified as one of their biggest mistakes, decided to hold House elections every two years in order to keep representatives...wait for it...that's right...CLOSER to the people. That my friends is bullshit. As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein argue in The Broken Branch after they're elected most Reps simply tow the party line for a few DAYS--literally days, when they're in session they work like three days a week--until its time to go campaigning again. Moderates, who are in fact closest to the people ideologically, are routinely ignored by party leaders making it difficult for them to hold office.

It wouldn't be so bad if we only had to listen to the idiotic rhetoric in the House but we don't. In an election year idiocy knows no bounds and unfortunately replaces creative thinking on all levels. Take Iraq and GWOT for instance.

Rice, a one-time provost at Stanford University compares Iraq and Civil War critiques, which is total bullshit. 620,000 Americans died in a war that threatened to destroy the country, Condi I think the stakes were a little higher. Meanwhile Bush and Rummy drone on about Islamofacists, Nazis, and the same tired references to Munich which have been used to justify just about everything under the sun in modern foreign relations. Strong plan. Let's scare the living shit out of Americans until they forget about the endless list of mistakes that are destroying a once-worthy goal of a democratic Iraq. The Dem's solution: GIVE US RUMSFELD! Oooo shear genius. I swear to God they're running around like its The Lord of the Flies, or maybe their just taking tea with the Queen of Hearts in Alice and Wonderland. Will you please tell me what that will solve? Not a damn thing. Oh yeah they also criticize the Bush Administration for not having a plan. Okay I'm with you, what's your plan? Uuuuuuummmmmm well uuuuuuuuugh...OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!! Hey have you read the latest Senate Intelligence Report? Turns out there were no connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Bush mislead the American people...and by the way the intelligence that led us to war was also misleading.

Are you serious?? I've never heard that before. Give me a fucking break, I wonder how many tax dollars and time they wasted on that report. I'm so apathetic I could almost give money to the Green Party. Whenever you boys grow a pair and can have a serious debate without throwing loaded rhetoric in my face let me know. Until then you can all go to hell. God I hate mid-terms.

Lehman makes a bid for SECDEF?

2006-08-31T18:16:00.000-07:00

Interesting article in the Washington Post via US Naval Institute Proceedings from John Lehman, a former SECNAV under Reagan and member of the 9/11 Commission. A little over the top on the naval analysis regarding China and the PLA Navy. China's making a bid for a green-water navy based along an access denial posture, they are NOT acquiring a blue-water fleet for power projection. For the most part though, a nice piece.

Washington Post

We're Not Winning This War: Despite Some Notable Achievements, New Thinking Is Needed on the Home Front and Abroad

John Lehman

Are we winning the war? The first question to ask is, what war? The Bush administration continues to muddle a national understanding of the conflict we are in by calling it the "war on terror." This political correctness presumably seeks to avoid hurting the feelings of the Saudis and other Muslims, but it comes at high cost. This not a war against terror any more than World War II was a war against kamikazes.

We are at war with jihadists motivated by a violent ideology based on an extremist interpretation of the Islamic faith. This enemy is decentralized and geographically dispersed around the world. Its organizations range from a fully functioning state such as Iran to small groups of individuals in American cities.

We are fighting this war on three distinct fronts: the home front, the operational front and the strategic-political front. Let us look first at the home front. The Bush administration deserves much credit for the fact that, despite determined efforts to carry them out, there have been no successful Islamist attacks within the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. This is a significant achievement, but there are growing dangers and continuing vulnerabilities.

One of the most deep-seated of these problems is the U.S. government's tendency to treat this war as a law enforcement issue. Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, Congress sought to remedy this problem by creating a national security service within the FBI to focus on preventive intelligence rather than forensic evidence. This has proved to be a complete failure. As late as June of this year, Mark Mershon of the FBI testified that the bureau will not monitor or surveil any Islamist unless there is a "criminal predicate." Thus the large Islamist support infrastructure that the commission identified here in the United States is free to operate until its members actually commit a crime.

Our attempt to reform the FBI has failed. What is needed now is a separate domestic intelligence service without police powers, like the British MI-5.

The Sept. 11 commission catalogued in detail how our intelligence establishment simply does not function. We made priority recommendations to rebuild the 15 bloated and failed intelligence bureaucracies by creating a strong national intelligence director to smash bureaucratic layers, to tear down the walls preventing intelligence-sharing among agencies, and to rewrite personnel policy with the goal of bringing in new blood not just from the career bureaucracy but from the private sector as well. This approach was completely rejected by the Bush administration, which decided instead to leave this sprawling mess untouched and to create yet another bureaucracy of more than 1,000 people in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It was the exact opposite of what we had recommended.

The greatest terrorist threat on the home front is, of course, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Islamists. Here the president has moved to establish a national counter-proliferation center to share and act on intelligence, and he has recently initiated a cooperation agreement with Russia and our allies to work together in preventing nuclear materials from getting into the hands of the Islamists and to undertake joint crisis management if such an attack takes place. These are real accomplishments.

Full Article.

Lehmen's makin' a bid for SECDEF. Rummy's days are numbered.

Background on the Revolt Part II

2006-08-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

WHEW...damn these briefs are taking their toll. Just finished for the night but my vehicle is out of commision so instead of going to the "back to school social" thought I'd drink a few beers and finish the background.

Results from the hearings were mixed and historical interpretation of the events of 1949 have mainly broken along partisan lines. The primary investigators and subsequent students of these events have typically been military officers and most have found it difficult to approach the subject objectively. Air Force accounts, written by active officers or sympathetic civilians, normally acquit the Air Force of any serious wrongdoing and laud the leadership of Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington. These studies accuse the Navy of obstructionism and refer to its admirals as “unreconstructed” crybabies “dragged kicking and screaming into the National Security Act of 1947” because they refused to accept the authority of a “strong” Secretary of Defense. Conversely, naval officers praise the “admirals” aggressiveness and are exceptionally critical of Johnson and Symington. Jeffrey Barlow’s latest attempt to examine the revolt, an exhaustive opus of research, yielded the same results. As a historian at the Naval Historical Center he faulted absolutely no one in the Navy for allowing the public’s perception of the service to decay and even dedicated his efforts to the naval aviators, all innocent victims, he argued, of a vindictive Air Force. Consequently, in order to understand the revolt of the admirals effectively, a moderate approach that utilizes methodologies typically absent from a purely military perspective is called for.

Military history typically breaks into three separate types: popular military history, a top-down approach which normally focuses on battles, heroic leaders, and grand campaigns; academic military history or the often styled “new military history,” which examines broader aspects of war such as combat motivation, the lived experiences of “common” soldiers, and more recently other social, cultural, and gender issues; and finally military history for the security/defense professional, who are typically interested in the subject for a “lessons learned” context. Sadly, historians, be they academic or “amateur,” have rarely combined these methodological approaches and the “Revolt of the Admirals” has been no exception. This failure has occurred in academic circles due to a number of circumstances.

Unfortunately for the everyday consumer of history, in the present academic climate, popular history is slowly dying because historians have retreated from the public realm and the art of the narrative has been abandoned. Popular history remains an anathema to academics. Most choose to write history purely for their own auspices and engage with “outsiders” only on rare occasions. Ivory tower culture, consumed with careerism, demands this practice. Academic historians, the reasoning goes, should write for the academy; a “good” historical work should influence historiography, be grounded in methodological theory, reflect en-vouge paradigms, and should always be published by an academic press. To violate these principles, unless soundly tenured, is to risk one’s career. Yet adhering to this strict intellectual outline often stifles the slowly-dying art of the historical narrative because accepted structures and methodologies are allowed to eclipse the story of individual actors caught up in seminal events.

Academic military historians have traditionally been an exception to this rule. Often confining themselves to the study of combat, military historians have relied heavily on the narrative in order to tell the story of war. However, in attempt to answer New Left and postmodern criticism, many historians have attempted to broaden the field of military history by turning to culture and gender analysis. Yet many of these “war and society” historians often overemphasize these methodologies to such an extent that they become the subject of analysis rather than another tool utilized to understand a separate aspect of the narrative story. Historians write books on War and Gender rather than studying why masculine or feminine constructs influence individual decision-making in a given situation. Therefore, the narrative is also disappearing from the academic military history vernacular.

The narrative’s disappearance from academic circles has meant a deprofessionalization of the historical field by outsourcing readable historical literature to writers outside the Academy. Often bored and/or confused by the disjointed prose and indiscernible jargon employed by academic historians, the average reader has become skeptical of the “new military history” because it fails to employ a sound narrative that still tells a “good story.” Conversely military officers and defense professionals, interested in strategy, civil-military relations, and other aspects of war for career development, shy away from “war and society” studies because they proclaim little interest for bottom-up history and believe New Left methodologies to be academic exercises unimportant to their profession.

The revolt of the admirals, however, presents the historian with a unique opportunity to engage academics, military professionals, and popular audiences alike. The events make an enticing story, as Jeffrey Barlow so aptly states: “It contained many of the elements of human passion that make a good story: secret (and perhaps sinister) dealings by individuals and organizations; anonymous charges of malfeasance and financial corruption in connection with an important defense contract; and an openly aired rivalry between two powerful military services, the Navy and the Air Force.” For the academic audience and especially the “new” military historian, the events of 1949 present ample opportunity to broaden the field of military history. The Air Force as well as the Navy went to great lengths to impress their opposing views upon American society. Both parties actively sought to tailor public perception by working aggressively with newspaper editors, movie producers, and other makers of popular culture to create a public image of their service that would yield popular support during the intense competition of the acquisitions process.

The revolt also provides important teachings for the defense community. Despite teaching valuable lessons in civil-military relations, the revolt also indicates that military officials should rethink their ideas about the irrelevance of culture. Most military officers and defense professionals are convinced that the cultural overlays of the “new military history” have no place in the defense profession. They frown upon “war and society” studies because most believe these methodologies provide no concrete lessons for modern security studies. Yet the revolt of the admirals seems to indicate the contrary, a lesson the United States Navy learned in 1949 with bitter tears. Public perception of the military establishment, normally determined through popular cultural, matters greatly to the military profession, especially in a democracy. Combat operations in Korea, Vietnam and present-day Iraq have all shown that the most powerful military force in the world can easily be subdued if public support turns sour. In the case of the “revolt of the admirals” this same public support became vital for the appropriations process. If American society smiled upon a particular branch of the armed forces, then imposing that services strategic views upon American policy and acquiring funds from Congress, the governmental embodiment of the people, became all the more easier. The United States Air Force understood this fact in 1949, the Navy did not. Secrecy became a Navy watchword while the Air Force operated much more openly.

In March 1947 Admiral Forrest Sherman unveiled a new naval strategy for combating the Soviet Union. Grounded in traditional Mahanian principles, Sherman argued that the Soviet submarine threat, the greatest threat to American control of the seas, could not be controlled by traditional methods of antisubmarine warfare (ASW). Escort vessels and aircraft, the traditional weapons of defense against submarines in World War II, could not detect the new Soviet boats and in order to neutralize the threat Sherman advocated hitting Soviet naval bases with carrier based aviation, attacking the submarines at their source. Yet while this new strategy provided a sound rationale for spending a large amount of money on carrier aviation, the Navy failed to share Sherman’s strategy with the public and kept it locked away fearing it would be discovered by the Soviet Union. Therefore, without proper schooling in the strategy’s merits, neither Congress nor the American public understood the Navy’s rationale for building a large carrier program.

Passage of the National Security Act placed the naval service on the defensive as it fought the Army and Air Force for their preferred organizational concepts. With these animosities created, the armed services, now forced to share an ever-decreasing defense budget, were thrown into an intense competition for funding. The strategic concepts of each particular service became dependent on receiving a large share of the defense budget in order to acquire a force structure capable of carrying out these particular strategies. In this culture of competition a bitter debate over proper roles and missions ensued. In order to convince the American people that their views were best, the services needed every avenue of public approach.

Following the National Security Act, the Air Force implemented a brilliant public relations campaign. The air service worked closely with newspaper reporters, magazine editors, and even Hollywood to convince Americans that strategic bombing, the Air Force’s preferred operational concept, could assure an American victory in a war with the Soviet Union. Yet the Navy ignored the public and chose to argue its case through less-public channels. During the tenure of Defense Secretary Forrestal, a pro-Navy man, the sea service could get away with these techniques. Its weak public relations campaign was largely irrelevant because Forrestal essentially emphasized the same strategic concepts as the Navy and listened carefully to the ideas of each service. Yet after his dismissal, the Navy’s poor PR work became blindingly apparent. Louis Johnson cared little for Forrestal’s compromising style and took it upon himself to start “banging heads together” at the Pentagon. After the pro-Air Force Johnson decided to cancel the USS United States, the Navy received little sympathy from the public. The resignation of Navy Secretary John Sullivan compounded these difficulties and deprived naval officers of a sympathetic civilian voice in the Truman administration. Faced with an Air Force-minded public and a civilian leadership united against them, all products of a brilliant public relations campaign conducted by the Air Force, a congressional hearing became the Navy’s only recourse and the revolt of the admirals ensued.

Background on the Revolt Part I

2006-08-19T07:23:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when I write I make the mistake of assuming that my readers know too much. A professor once told me that an "intelligent" peer should be able to pick up an academic paper and understand it. Therefore, difficult terms and foreign concepts should be defined and explained. However, I am not a very good judge of what an "intelligent" person is supposed to know.

I say all this as a disclaimer because it occurred to me that I needed to introduce my thesis topic if I'm going to be posting on it extensively and I'm not sure how accessible it will be to the average reader. Most of what I'll be writing will come directly from my thesis. If something doesn't make sense let me know because it probably needs correcting in my final draft. Also, my apoligees to the citation police. I've got no idea how to footnote in blogger but most of what I'll be writing about is original. In sections that draw heavily on sources I'll try to include some kind of citation. With that said, let's begin our education on the "Revolt of the Admirals."

On the week of October 17, 1949 readers of Time magazine found news on a civil-military relations feud in an article titled the “Revolt of the Admirals.” As the periodical’s opening act, the story spoke, in a somewhat sensationalist tone, of a U.S. Navy “outburst” before the House Armed Services Committee that finally brought the Navy’s “rebellion” into the public eye “with all the impressive might of a carrier strike.” The article’s release marked the culmination of an endless story that played itself out on the front pages of American newspapers, morning by morning, for over two weeks until “the revolt” finally came to a climax in the press on the opening pages of Time.

Yet, the events normally attributed to “the revolt of the admirals” began earlier that spring. By March 23, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, a pro-Navy compromiser and former Secretary of the Navy, had been removed from office. The fiscal-minded Louis Johnson, a Truman political stooge rumored to have close ties with the newly created United States Air Force took his place. After only a month in office, Johnson canceled construction on the USS United States, a flush-deck aircraft carrier designed to operate aircraft capable of atomic delivery, without so much as a nod to the Secretary of the Navy, who was conveniently out-of-town, or the Chief of Naval Operations. John Sullivan, the Navy Secretary, immediately resigned in furious protest and fired off an angry letter castigating the Secretary of Defense for actions he deemed recklessly tragic. As a replacement for Sullivan Truman nominated Francis Matthews, a Johnson yes-man with absolutely no experience in naval affairs or Washington politics.

In early May an anonymous letter surfaced in the offices of several pro- Navy congressman. The document alleged serious improprieties had taken place in the Air Force’s procurement of the B-36, an intercontinental bomber about which many pilots had serious reservations, and accused Secretary Johnson and Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington of benefitting financially from its acquisition. Two sets of hearings were subsequently called by Congressman Carl “swamp fox” Vinson, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in order to substantiate the document’s claims and allow Navy officers to voice their opinions, which had long been simmering, on defense unification and national strategy.

The first set of hearings were a disaster for the Navy. The accusations made in the anonymous document quickly proved to have no basis in fact while Cedric Worth, a special assistant to Undersecretary of the Navy Dan Kimball, was exposed as the author of the letter, a serious public relations setback. Yet, under the leadership of the redoubtable Arthur Radford, the Navy soldiered on and, with their careers on the line, testified that Johnson’s defense policies were destroying naval aviation. Too much emphasis was being placed in war planning against the Soviet Union on the Air Force’s atomic blitz, they argued, an immoral method of warfare that could not assure victory. If these policies were allowed to continue, they warned, national security would be seriously jeopardized and the Navy would be torn apart.

The Greater Good Reconnect

2006-08-16T15:52:00.000-07:00

Finally submitted my thesis tentatively titled "The Influence of Rebellion upon Sea Power: The Revolt of the Admirals and the Fight for Navy Air" yesterday. It's weird being finished. Although I'm of the opinion that a project of this scope is never "finished." I wish I had another two months. Subconsciously I think I'm hanging on to this paper because I know that stopping will end my graduate education, at least for now and it's very VERY hard to admit that I have to stop. However, no matter how hard it is, I need to shift my priorities because I started orientation for law school today. It's time to stop.

But thankfully, I still have my blog, to maintain the connection.

Over the next few weeks I plan on settling into what will hopefully be a consistent blogging schedule as I prepare my arguments for the thesis defense. Barring any significant changes in my reading schedule for law school, I'm going to try and post at least once a week. These posts will probably be composed on Saturday or Sunday mornings, depending on how I decide to spend the previous night (Sunday morning posts following an Ole Miss home game will NEVER occur). Weekday posts will be rare and will probably be of limited analysis as briefing cases will probably take up the majority of my free time during the week.

Once more into the breach dear friends! Until the weekend shall we say?

This is just too good...

2006-07-26T19:51:00.000-07:00

I'll probably comment on this later being a prime recipient and all but until then just thought I'd share.

Hat tip to Armchair Generalist.

The Greater Good Disconnect

2006-07-20T18:59:00.000-07:00

I'm gonna have to unplug for awhile. I'm knee-deep into the revision process on my thesis and I've got to put this sucker away before I seriously lose my mind. I'll be posting on my arguments when everything calms down and I'm not writing 24 hrs a day. Until then, peace.

The human side

2006-07-15T14:07:00.000-07:00

Great personal account of the current living experience in Beirut from Steve Hyland, a PhD candidate at Ohio State.

Hat tip to War Historian.

This thing has spiraled completely out of control and there's no end in sight. We're not talking about Iran anymore though, are we?

It is finished...or is it?

2006-07-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

For all my readers who sit in burning torment, worried for my sanity as I attempt to complete my MA thesis, calm yourselves for I have finished. I wrapped up my final chapter, which is essentially a conclusion, on Wednesday. All I lack is an introduction. Currently my page count stands at around 160 (without the intro)with a perfunctory page limit set at 130 . However, this does not include a chapter that I've written on the use of print and pop culture by Air Force and Navy during their public relations campaigns, A CRUCIAL CHAPTER for which I'm gonna have to fight. My solution to this problem seems to be a perfect microcosm for the institutional evolution of military history. My opening chapters drip with traditional “drum and trumpet” issues, they’re heavy on conceptional air force and naval strategy, doctrine, and force structure problems. Therefore, in order to make room for more “accepted” academic methodologies, such as the culture chapter and a Foucaultian discourse argument, these chapters must be cut. It’s gonna be tough to do but I’m trying to demonstrate how cultural analysis can be paired with traditional narrative methods in order to form a piece of research that still makes a “good story.” Therefore "drums and trumpets" must be sacrificed for the greater good;). Time to get out the ax.

OK I'm startin' to lose it!

2006-07-11T18:40:00.000-07:00

This damn thesis is about to suck the soul right out of my body! I mean really. I keep writing and writing and the fucker just keeps snowballing. Jesus I'm losing all control. I stopped counting pages like a month ago and I was at 130! I've got to be over my limit--which was set by the academic establishment at 130--by 50 fucking pages. That's right sports fans, I'm sticking it to the academic man. But when I turn this bitch in "the man" is gonna hand me my ass in a handbag. Damn I've gotta go buy some more paper...

Good news in "The Long War?"

2006-07-06T18:59:00.000-07:00

Interesting note from Barnett on Iraq:

Just-in-time strategy for this stop on the Long War

ARTICLE: “U.S. and Iraq Make Inroads With Insurgents,” by Greg Jaffe and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 22 June 2006, p. A3.
ARTICLE: “Some Insurgents Are Asking Iraq For Negotiations: Sunni Groups Reach Out; Reconciliation Plan Draws Responses From Factions Said to Be Nationalist,” by Edward Wong, New York Times, 27 June 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: “Car Bomb Kills More Than 60 In Iraq Market,” by Edward Wong, New York Times, 2 July 2006, p. A1.

One story I did not clip but only heard on the TV/radio over the past couple of weeks was members of Congress getting mad at an Iraqi proposal for amnesty to insurgents who have killed American soldiers. All I thought at the time was how unrealistic those sorts of demands would be on our part, plus how insulting they could come off to the locals (as in, it’s okay to kill Iraqis and get amnesty but kill an American and that’s that).

But as far as I know that’s a hubbub that comes and goes, since the first article above said that “the only firm line… was that no amnesty would be granted to members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or guerrillas intent on restoring Saddam Hussein’s rule.” That seems reasonable enough.

But beyond all those details, the key thing is that we’re talking directly to insurgent groups, and when I say “we,” I mean both the U.S. forces and the Iraqi government. To the extent that Sunni insurgency factions come in from the cold and we affect a sort of ideological divorce between them and the Saddamists and Salafi jihadists represented by Al Qaeda, this insurgency becomes a whole lot more manageable and ultimately small enough to turn over to the Iraqi forces with the U.S. remaining primarily in the advising role (sort of a purer SysAdmin from above--or behind the scenes).

All of this unfolds with increasingly bold talk from U.S. commanders of reducing troop levels in the fall. With the continuing violence, that seems far-fetched as a hope, but it need not be. Insurgencies ratchet up violence as negotiations such as these mature. We’ve seen this time and time again. The insurgents want to be able to claim that the change achieved was primarily due to their willingness to commit acts of violence. For some, it’s an honor thing, for others, sheer negotiating plank, and for still others eyeing the next fight (like the Al Qaeda guys), there is the need to start building the myth--however far-fetched--that it was their “glorious victory that drove out the invaders” when--in reality--the “invaders” simply shifted the Long War to its next logical stop.

Things that Piss Me Off

2006-07-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

Okay, we’re gonna start a little George Carlin section that I’ll be coming back to every now and then entitled “Things that Piss Me Off.” I’m sure George won’t mind, and if he does, well, I don’t really give a shit, he kinda pisses me off too. If you know me personally you’ll know that these types of entries could be quite numerous, but I promise to limit my cynicism as much as possible so bare with me. I’ve also told my sister that I’d try to watch my language but no promises here.

First on my list: PEOPLE WHO GIVE ME BOOKS TO READ

A lot of people seem to love to do this, and I’m guessing a few people, hell maybe even a lot of people like to get said book, read it, and then tell the giver they’ve read it so they can talk about how the damn thing changed their lives. My mom just goes ape-shit over it. Well let me just state for the record that I can’t fucking stand it. Every time someone gives me a book I feel like they’ve just handed me like 48 hours of work to do. Cause let’s face it, you’ve gotta read the damn thing. Everybody is always asking “hey did you get a chance to read so and so?” and you always feel like you’ve done something wrong if you haven’t read it. You wanna say “Uh, no I haven’t read your book and I don’t intend to but thanks for the effort.” But you can’t say that, it would be rude. Anyone ever notice that the truth is usually rude? Anyway, everybody feels like they’ve got to enlighten you. Well look, I don’t care to be enlightened! The self help book is the worst. What am I supposed to think when you give me a fucking self-help book? Look bud, if you think there’s something wrong with me why don’t you just keep it to yourself okay? If I want help I’ll get it, I don’t need, nor do I want your opinion on the matter.

It’s not that I don’t like books; my problem is I love books, people know it, and they know I read military history. They just don’t know the specific type. Look folks there are thousands of books on military history out there, the vast majority of which I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. I’ve got literally boxes of military history books people have given me to read and you know what, they’re still in the damn box. I am very particular about the books I read. I seriously have a list of like twenty books that I want to read right now, some of which I’ve already bought. I can see them. They’re sitting there justa callin out. But due to my heavy required reading schedule, I get very little time for pleasure reading and I’m not about to spend that precious time reading some kind of crappy military history book that somebody saw at Barnes and Noble and picked it up cause they “thought of me.” That’s sweet, I appreciate it but I’m not gonna read it. I’ll lie to you and tell you I’ve read it, but I won’t read it. Oh, and try not to ask me too many questions about it or it will just be awkward. Next time, just get me a gift certificate.

Easy there big fella

2006-06-30T07:20:00.000-07:00

Wow, major overreaction this week from the Israelis. Let’s stop for a little while and think about this a sec. Israel loses three soldiers in a Palestinian raid and they respond by moving ground and air forces into Gaza and seize 64 members of Hamas, including a third of the Palestinian cabinet?! Meanwhile, Israeli aircraft buzz the Syrian capital in a show of force?

What in the hell is going on? Where was the diplomacy here? Ehud Olmert, the new Israeli PM, is really flexing his muscles here without significant justification. Nothing good can come from this. Fatah, the “moderate” party is going to be pulled farther into the radical camp while these military operations, especially the air strikes, are going to give Hamas hardliners a major injection of popular support. What’s the political end here fellas? Regime change? Who’s the replacement? The whole damn thing is going to shit!

Face it, Hamas was democratically elected, you can’t just bring down the government when you don't like the result. Exercise some restraint and give them a chance before you get all cowboyed up, they might just self-destruct on their own. By all indications sanctions seemed to be working and it appeared an agreement was in the works to recognize Israel, even though Olmert wouldn't give Hamas the time of day. All this is moot now though. Oh and by the way, where in the hell are the voices in the press calling out for restraint? Everybody’s so damn happy about the Gitmo ruling, I guess they don’t have time for this.

A Strategic Signpost

2006-06-26T05:54:00.000-07:00

This is REALLY great news from Iraq. For all the focus on security operations we tend to forget that counterinsurgency depends on long-term stability. Schools bring literacy, literacy brings jobs, and jobs provide economic opportunity thus dissuading disillusioned men from turning to terror groups. This kind of news is in the same category as nailing Zarquawi and in some cases is even more important. Zarqawi was one man, these school will disuade thousands from becoming terrorist sympathizers. THINK MACRO PEOPLE!

Amid Iraqi Chaos, Schools Fill After Long Decline
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
The New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 25 — Enrollment in Iraqi schools has risen every year since the American invasion, according to Iraqi government figures, reversing more than a decade of declines and offering evidence of increased prosperity for some Iraqis.

Despite the violence that has plagued Iraq since the American occupation began three years ago, its schools have been quietly filling. The number of children enrolled in schools nationwide rose by 7.4 percent from 2002 to 2005, and in middle schools and high schools by 27 percent in that time, according to figures from the Ministry of Education.

The increase, which has greatly outpaced modest population growth during the same period, is a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy landscape of bombs and killings that have shattered community life in many areas in western and central Iraq. And it is seen as an important indicator here in a country that used to pride itself on its education system, then saw enrollment and literacy fall during the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule.

Sorrows seep into the classrooms. During a chemistry exam at Hariri High School in Baghdad on Thursday morning, a random sample of students turned up one whose father had been killed three days before, another whose uncle had been killed in an American-led raid and yet another whose family was leaving Iraq for good once she finished. The official who helped prepare the statistics for this article was assassinated this month.

But while life in Baghdad grows more paralyzed — it was the only province in the country where primary school enrollment fell — the figures for the rest of Iraq show that everyday life goes on, particularly in the largely peaceful south, which experienced the biggest jumps, with some regions having above 40 percent enrollment increases since 2002.

Full article here. (Free subscription required)

To the Readers of The Greater Good

2006-06-25T12:49:00.000-07:00

I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God my presence stands again on the soil of blogdom -- soil consecrated in the postings of thousands who have gone before. I have come, dedicated and committed, to the task of destroying every vestige of left and right-wing bullshit, and of restoring, upon a foundation of indestructible, strength, the quality of For the Greater Good.

At my side is my bloated ego, Elitist Know-it-all, worthy successor of that great patriot, Better Than-you. My presence is now therefore firmly re- established on Internetian soil.

The hour of your redemption is here. Your loyal readers have demonstrated an unswerving and resolute devotion to the principles of The Greater Good that challenges the best that is written on the web pages of human history. I now call upon your supreme effort that the enemy may know from the temper of an aroused and outraged readership within that he has a force there to contend with no less violent than is the force committed from without.

Rally to me. Let the indomitable spirit of national security and military history lead on. As the lines of battle roll forward to bring you within the zone of comment, click and type. Strike at every favorable opportunity. For your blogs and history departments, strike! For future generations of military historians, strike! In the name of disillusioned graduate students, strike! Let no heart be faint. Let every arm be steeled. The guidance of divine God points the way. Follow in His Name to the Holy Grail of righteous victory!

Long absence from the blog over the past few weeks. It’s been a little rough on my end. For some reason events just seem to spiral out of control at the same time and serious setbacks ensue. The main victim in all of this, besides you the reader of course has been my MA thesis. I tend to write most effectively by allotting long periods of time to the process. Early morning to early evenings with an extended caffeine break around noon. I’m a creature of habit. I don’t know why but I find it extremely difficult to start my process in the afternoon and write into the night. Now I’ve got problems though. I’m trying to finish this gaudy monstrosity before law school starts in August so I’m gonna have to buck up this week and do some serious work. That’ll mean around- the-clock writing. I need to get the first draft written as soon as possible so I can work my revision magic which, hopefully, will turn this baby into an effective post-revision yarn of the Revolt of the Admirals.

Time to get it on!!!.

In Remembrance

2006-05-29T06:42:00.000-07:00

This has always been one of my favorites:

"The Mansions of the Lord"
Words by Randall Wallace

To fallen soldiers let us sing
where no rockets fly nor bullets wing
Our broken brothers let us bring
to the mansions of the Lord

No more bleeding no more fight
No prayers pleading through the night
just divine embrace, eternal light
in the mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry and no children weep
We will stand and guard tho the angels sleep
All through the ages safely keep the mansions of the Lord

You can download the West Point Glee Club version here.

Godspeed...

2006-05-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived."
--Gen. George S. Patton

Faces of the Fallen

A most dignified tribute.

Getting Back to Basics

2006-05-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

I was going to get into some other stuff today but after reading King's op-ed this morning I think he's finally on to something:

Don't the Fallen Deserve at Least a Moment?

By Colbert I. King
The Washington Post
Saturday, May 27, 2006; Page A25

"Memorial Day Sale! Warehouse Is Stocked and Ready for Your Home"; "Memorial Day SALE plus EXTRA 15% OFF when you use your store card or pass"; "Memorial Day 1/2 Price Sale on Mattresses!"; "Memorial Day PIANO SALE"; "UNBELIEVABLE! STOREWIDE SAVINGS JUST IN TIME FOR THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND!"

-- Thursday newspaper ads

This cannot be what Maj. Gen. John A. Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, had in mind when he officially proclaimed Memorial Day on May 5, 1868. His thought, as best I can tell, was to set aside a day to honor the war dead. The true meaning of Memorial Day, however, has been overcome by door-buster sales, backyard cookouts and the opportunity to get a little extra sleep.

The fallen don't seem to mean much anymore except, perhaps, to veterans of previous wars and their families, and to the nearly 5,000 mothers and fathers of men and women in uniform who have given their all in Iraq. To those parents, please add surviving brothers and sisters, wives, husbands, children, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces, neighbors and friends. If these folks happen to gather on Memorial Day, most likely it won't be to organize a shop-a-rama or barbecue. For them, Monday will be the time to remember loved ones who lost their lives serving their country.

The shame is that much of the nation won't be sharing this day of observance with those families. The shameless will be too busy with other pressing matters, such as:

· Taylor Hicks, the "American Idol" -- should he have really won out over Katharine McPhee?

· Rep. William Jefferson from New Orleans! Was he on the take?

· Don't forget Angelina, Brad and the expected baby in Namibia.

Then there's Comcast and the Nats; Libby and the Veep; Pelosi, Hastert and the FBI; illegal immigrants, the border and the debate; and the John Allen Muhammad farce in Rockville. Anything and everything but time to honor to those who have paid the ultimate price.

It shouldn't be this way.

Full Piece

CIA Shakedown

2006-05-13T10:07:00.000-07:00

Damn, I’ve been out of pocket for like the past two weeks, not good. Being constantly bounced back and forth between Oxford and Tupelo is definitely not high on my priority list but it’s something I have to deal with from time to time. Not being in my normal environment has really cramped my blogging but I’ve got to say something about the shakeup at CIA, even if I have to peck it out on my keyboard (I normally use voice dictation which is much quicker).

Anyway I’ll have to admit that Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director (DCIA) last Friday came as a bit of a shock. I figured Goss to be more of the long-tenured Rumsfeld variety. Unlike Rummy though, Goss has his an imediate superior other than the president to answer to--John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)--and by all indications he was not getting along too well with the DNI. Overall this is a positive development. Initially, I was a big fan of Goss. He seemed to be a reformer hell-bent on shaking up Langley, which needed a healthy new face after the Iraqi WMD debacle. The problem however, according to most indications, was that Goss brought in a heavily partisan staff that tended to piss people off rather than engender cooperation and build morale at CIA. Goss’s tenure seemed to be plagued by bitter squabbles, possibly partisan in nature, that created an environment where many at Langley turned to the media to air their grievances, trying to speak truth to power, while others simply left the Agency just as soon as they could line up an interview with 60 Minutes. Even seasoned Agency veterans like Gary Berntsen, author of Jawbreaker, who really harboured no ill-will toward the Agency had a near-impossible time trying to publish his book because Goss was so obsessed with secrecy. While leaking classified information, as some at CIA no doubt have done, is certainly improper behavior from active personnel, Goss was responsible, be it directly or indirectly, for creating the sort of hostile environment and low morale that probably sparked these unlawful disclosures. Consequently, he needed to go and I think Negroponte was well aware of this and finally got fed up.

So, exit Goss. Enter Hayden.

I heard about the news on NPR last Friday afternoon on my way to Tupelo and remembered thinking that Bush should go with General Hayden, the current DDNI and former NSA director for the DCIA position, and low and behold... that’s what we got! Damn I’m good! I initially learned about General Hayden from a long-time friend (civilian)who works for DoD when the General was nominated for the Deputy Director of National Intalligence(DDNI). His opinions of Hayden bordered on glowing, interesting in that he’s just about as liberal as you can get without hopping on the socialist train. He pointed out that Hayden's administrative talents were phenominal and it was his opinion that NSA was able to avoid the Intelligence firestorm that followed 9/11 precisly because of Hayden.

But now we've got a bunch of bull shit complaints concerning Hayden being raised on both sides of the aisle. Criticism over the wiretaps issue is legitimate; I don’t necessarily agree with the Dems on this but I understand where they’re coming from. What I don’t get are the red flags being raised about his active military status. I'm sure most people are now aware that we've already had six DCIAs that wore the uniform, all with varying degrees of success and effectiveness. Admiral Turner for example, destroyed our HUMINT, or ground operations (human agents), in the Halloween Massacre where he eliminated over 800 operational positions, effects from which we are still reeling. General Vandenberg's tenure on the other hand, although short, was considered to be fairly sound, setting the General on an eventual path to Air Force Chief of Staff. As with most of these positions though, I'd say "effectiveness," even if you're able to define and judge it for this sort of position, tends to depend on the actual individual rather than one’s military status. And if recent history is any guide, all factors seem to indicate that Hayden will do well in the DCIA position.

Most of the Congressional opposition concerning Hayden, especially on the Republican side, seems to stem more from a desire to distance themselves from the White House and guard their left flank on the wiretaps issue in the midterm
elections rather than legitimate complaints about civil-military relations. Most people believe that Hayden is not a Rumsfeld yes-man, he’s got a great relationship with Negroponte, and everyone he seems to have worked with seriously just seems to love him--a great morale builder. He's the kind of man that CIA, being in desperate need of unity and a serious boost in morale, will require in order to get the Agency back on track. It will be a travesty not to confirm.

Godspeed Hayden and good luck before the Intelligence Committee. I only hope that the Senate will keep the needs of the country in mind rather than their own Congressional seats.

Welcome to the World Artie

2006-04-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

Interesting opinion piece this week from Arthur Schlesinger, a historian and former presidential advisor to President Kennedy. Whenever a “historian” ventures outside the confines of the ivory tower and utilizes historical analysis to comment on contemporary affairs for any medium, I’m always interested in what they have to say. In my opinion, the historical profession has been plagued in recent years by an ever-increasing lack of influence in government positions. This has occurred for many reasons, one of the main ones being that some historians view current events in past paradigms, a sort of if-it-worked-in-the-past-it-should-work-now mentality. This analytical shortcoming was glaringly evident in The Washington Post on Monday.

So here we have a little article by Schlesinger, which seems to parallel his book War and the American Presidency on the concept of preventive war throughout American history and the dangers of unilateralism. This kind of analysis is the reason why no one cares what historians have to say. Throughout the article, Schlesinger lists several historical events, his favorite of course being the Cuban Missile Crisis, where U.S. presidents refused to initiate preventive war. That’s fine, he’s essentially correct but he completely fails to demonstrate historical relevancy as he goes on:

[O]ur Cold War presidents kept to the Kennan formula of containment plus deterrence, and we won the Cold War without escalating it into a nuclear war. Enter George W. Bush as the great exponent of preventive war. In 2003, owing to the collapse of the Democratic opposition, Bush shifted the base of American foreign policy from containment-deterrence to presidential preventive war: Be silent; I see it, if you don't.

Hello! (bangs on Schlesinger’s apparently empty skull) wake-up buddy...(Schlesinger’s eyes slowly open)...(in soothing tone) hey how are you bud....you must have been asleep for awhile now...CAUSE THE FUCKING COLD WAR IS OVER!!! Jesus man, wake up! Containment and deterrence were engineered by Kennan to discourage aggression by the Soviet Union, it is not a trump card formula that will govern international relations until the end of time. It was constructed with a specific enemy in mind, an enemy that possessed its own unique social, political, and economic behavior which influenced how it conducted relations with the outside world. Engineering a grand strategy based on these same Cold War assumptions is dangerous because it encourages analysts to search for an enemy that does not exist, this is exactly why many in the Pentagon view China as a likely enemy. Furthermore, containment focuses on a nation state opponent that fortunately does not exist. Islamic extremism, our current enemy, possesses no national border or allegiance. Sticking to deterrence, as the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations did, created an environment conducive to the growth of terrorism. Al Qaeda destroyed our marine barracks in Beirut, and we did nothing; they bombed the World Trade Center, and we did nothing; they bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we lobbed a few missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan; they attacked the USS Cole, and we did nothing, then, you guessed it...9/11.

Islamic extremism is a force that must be actively confronted or it will spread. People within these areas are seduced into terrorist networks because they have no real economic options. They live in poverty and have no way out. Logically they look for someone to blame for their circumstances and the U.S. and its allies become convenient target’s thanks to a healthy dose of encouragement from their local misguided Imam. If these same individuals are provided with an economic stake in society that gives them other options, then they are less likely to turn to a life of violence. Authoritarian regimes do not provide these incentives, which is why they have to be taken out. And since no other military possesses the flexibility that is needed to take down these regimes, it has to be us.

Containing the problem to the Middle East and the rest of the Third World will only breed further instability and cause a much greater problem down the line. Throughout the Cold War these areas were neglected and dictators encouraged, now we’re dealing with the results of that neglect: a bunch of pissed-off people with plenty of time and AK-47s on their hands just looking for a fight. Are we at fault here? You bet you’re ass we are but instead of pursuing an isolationist policy, pulling out and leaving these areas to their own fates, we’ve got to confront the problem. This is the price we pay for winning the Cold War.

Schlesinger, you’re just wrong. Events change, situations and relationships change, and instead of poking at the problem with the same old solution you’ve got to roll with the punches and adapt. New enemies call for new strategies and no one should know this better than a historian. His analysis is an insult to the profession and is exactly why no one cares what historians have to say anymore. Just because you’re a historian and study the past, doesn’t mean you have to live there.

A Military Historian Joins the Fight

2006-04-27T08:13:00.000-07:00

Great piece by Max Hastings:

Behind the Revolt
The Generals' View: To the Micromanager Goes the Blame
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; Page A25

The "generals' revolt" against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has provoked debate on both sides of the Atlantic about the proper boundaries of military protest. Many people who oppose the Iraq war and deplore Rumsfeld are nonetheless troubled by the notion of senior officers, even retired ones, openly criticizing political leadership.

But in truth, retired soldiers have always been outspoken about the alleged blunders of successor warlords, uniformed and otherwise. During Britain's colonial conflicts and in both world wars, through Korea and Vietnam, hoary old American and British warriors wrote frequently to newspapers, deploring this decision or that, exploiting their credentials to criticize governments and commanders.

During the Iraq campaigns of 1991 and 2003, I heard British chiefs of staff express their fervent desire for veterans to get themselves off television screens. We may assume that, as chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff today, Gen. Peter Pace feels the same way.

Winston Churchill's wartime chief of staff, Gen. Hastings "Pug" Ismay, charmingly described in his memoirs how, in 1940, lunches at his old army club in London became intolerable because at every mouthful, he was beset by veterans explaining how his master should properly be running the war. In self-defense, Ismay resorted to lunching at White's, a venerable aristocratic institution where few members had noticed that a conflict was taking place.

In the past, however, there was a clear demarcation between those issues for which governments were responsible in war -- high policy and the appointment of commanders -- and those of which generals were in charge: field operations. Administrations in the United States and Britain sometimes perished for starting the wrong wars or mismanaging the big issues -- Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam, Britain's Asquith government in 1916. When battles were lost, however, it was generals' heads that rolled, not politicians'.

Full article

Revolt of the Generals?

2006-04-18T17:53:00.000-07:00

So, I'm currently knee deep into writing my MA thesis on the "Revolt of the Admirals," the title of a 1949 newspaper article that described an interservice fight between the U.S. Navy and Air Force over the proper role of air power in the U.S. military. Even though I've stated that I don't like historical comparisons, the Revolt of the Admirals seemed especially relevant this week because of the retired military brass lining up against Secretary Rumsfeld.

The origins of the so-called "Revolt of the Admirals" began immediately after World War II but came to a boiling point in the years following the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The Navy and Air Force favored the development of different weapon systems that would ensure that their service would be capable of delivering atomic weapons against the Soviet Union. The Navy sought to supplement its current carrier strength with a new heavy attack "super carrier" capable of carrying long-range strike aircraft that could deliver atomic weapons while the Air Force favored the development of the B-36 bomber, a propeller driven aircraft with intercontinental range. Anyway, long story short...James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense, had resigned and was replaced by Lewis Johnson, a hardened Air Force partisan. After only a month in office, Johnson canceled construction of the Navy's "super carrier," which had previously been approved by the President, without the Secretary of the Navy's consent. The Secretary of the Navy promptly resigned in protest and was replaced by a Johnson "yes-man." Fearing further cuts in naval aviation, an anonymous letter was leaked to Congress accusing the Secretary of Defense of profiting financially from the construction of the B-36 which instantly prompted hearings. Before the House Armed Services Commitee the Chief of Naval Operations and other leading Navy officers accused the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense of endangering national security by placing too much emphasis on the B-36, which one officer termed a "billion dollar blunder." After the hearings the CNO was promptly fired and many of the other naval officers who spoke out were also punished by Johnson.

There are of course many differences in the "Revolt of the Admirals"; and the ongoing dispute between Secretary Rumsfeld and the retired generals that are currently "revolting" against him. The obvious one is the status of the officers. The Revolt of the Admirals involved active naval officers who were called to testify before the House Armed Services Committee, they did not go to the press or write books to tell their story while the revolt was occurring. Currently all of these generals are retired personnel who are free to engage in public criticism. The problem though, as this anonymous editorial in the Washington Post correctly points out, is that several of these generals claim to speak for active service personnel which sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten to undermine the civilian control of the military. If the Secretary of Defense, which by the way is one of the most difficult positions in government, feels that he must please the military command to be effective, then we've lost civilian control, he could never accomplish anything. Speak for yourselves guys, let the active personel talk to SECDEF.

The problem with both of these revolts stems from an inability to listen, debate and compromise effectively. In both cases arrogance abounds on all sides. In 1949 the Navy leadership felt that the Secretaries of Defense and Navy had a reckless agenda and refused to work with them. Conversely the Air Force and service secretaries refused to listen to legitimate Navy fears and, as a result, carrier aviation was severely weakened which almost proved disastrous in the opening months of the Korean War. It seems Rumsfeld also displays a bit of this my-way-or-the-highway type management of the Pentagon which, if this is accurate, is not a healthy environment to formulate effective policy decisions. As John Nagel argues in Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife successful and effective military policy must be created within an environment that is conducive to learning. Commanders must feel that their opinions are being heard by the civilian leadership, and civilians must be open to good ideas as well as criticisms in order to formulate effective policy decisions. However, this exchange of ideas must take place within the military, the Secretary of Defense must be able to make controversial decisions without fearing reprisal from the military leadership. Both sides must adapt and weigh the national interest over their own individual loyalties and beliefs. The situation is too important, as it was in 1949, to let an arrogant and close-minded Pentagon stand in our way. Listen to your commanders Rumsfeld, encourage debate and the "revolts" will stop. On the other hand, if these boys did voice their opinions and were simply overruled by SECDEF, I'm afraid that's just tough shit. That's life in a civilian controlled military...get over it.

The Post Goes for W's Throat

2006-04-18T11:04:00.000-07:00

Don't have time to get into it right now but this little piece just pissed me off. STAY AWAY FROM HIS FAMILY YOU FUCKING BITCH!!! This is the kind of W-hating shit thatI just can't take. Go after his policies, go after his decisions, hell go after his intelligence, but leave the twins alone. What did they ever do to you?

You're Killin' Me Charles!

2006-04-08T08:48:00.000-07:00

So, I’m reading my Washington Post yesterday and ran across this from Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer’s a funny little cat. I was first exposed to him on PBS shortly after my accident in 2001 and therefore, being a fellow quadriplegic, was instantly interested in what this guy had to say. You never really know what you’re going to get with one of Krauthammer’s pieces. Sometimes I am completely enthralled with his pointed, well-reasoned opinion and yet on others he makes me realize why so many people hate Republicans so much. This little article, I’m sorry to say, falls into the latter category.

Immigration is obviously a big issue nowadays and I’ve been intending to do an entry on it but this little piece provided me with the kick in the ass that one often needs to get the ball rolling. So, here Krauthammer proposes the now famous radical right solution to our little immigration problem: build a fence. Somehow the word “fence,” I guess, is supposed to be less offensive than the word “wall” but a wall is really what it is. Charles softens up his audience by first proposing amnesty for the 11 million illegals that are already here and justifies building the “fence” as a way to calm the fears of those opposed to legalization:

My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.
Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Holy shit . . . holy fucking shit . . . are you serious! Do you know how long the United States’s southern border with Mexico is? 1,951 miles!!! Let’s take a minute and let that sink in. That’s nearly the same distance from Knoxville, Tennessee to Los Angeles, California!!! Not only does Krauthammer proposes building TWO of these so-called “fences” but also a road for patrols, cameras, and sensors!!! Oh by the way, who’s going to man this 2000 mile monstrosity? I sure as hell know who’s gonna build it . . . the same people who build everything in this country: Latin American immigrants, most of whom are probably illegal!!! Hmmmm . . . how quickly we forget! But this isn’t even my favorite part of the piece, oh yes sports fans Krauthammer goes on:

Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.

Oh, well now I feel better ‘cause the Korean and the Arab-Israeli relationships seem to be working out just fine . . . wake up and smell the fucking reality Charles!!! Not only are these "fences" mere fractions of the size that would be needed to "secure" our border, they also do little to establish long-term security. They are a simple solution that, if effective, provide short term border stability. Walls solve nothing, they only serve to antagonize. If you truly want to solve the immigration problem and create long-term security, you've got to work with our Latin American friends and create economic incentives there, so workers won’t feel like a mad dash to the United States is their only way out of death, disease, and poverty. Will this happen overnight? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. But it is the right thing to do and everyone, deep down, knows it. Big problems call for big solutions and until this kind of economic overhaul can be achieved for our sisters to the south, I’m fond of quoting that often repeated phrase, upon which this country was built but which now seems forgotten:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Bleeding Kansas and Iraq

2006-04-02T07:23:00.000-07:00

Interesting segment on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer a couple of weeks ago. James Woolsey, a former CIA director during the Clinton administration, compared the sectarian violence currently going on in Iraq to Bleeding Kansas. As far as historical analogies go, I’d say this one is fairly accurate. I’m usually not a fan of comparing contemporary affairs to historical events because there’s always somebody out there who points out the shortcomings of the comparison, but divorced from the nineteenth-century political situation I’d say this one works well to contextualize the current state of civil violence that plagues our on-going operations there. The point is that Iraq is not in a civil war . . . yet. Just like Kansas in the1850s though, I’m afraid lines are beginning to harden as the opposing sides harden their agendas and continue to implement some John Brown vigilante justice on neutral parties forcing them to choose sides.

The strategic question of an Iraqi civil war though is much larger. If shots are fired on Sumter and sectarian violence does escalate into a broader civil war the question becomes, what impact will this have on our long-term strategic goals for the region? The answer, of course depends on the war’s outcome, presupposing that there is an eventual outcome, and who you are talking to. A “successful” outcome in the Bush administration’s eyes would almost surely involve the maintenance of Iraqi nationality with the country’s current border system preserved and some form of government in place. This would be the Lincoln end, or what actually occurred after Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Other viewpoints favor the Jefferson Davis view of partition, probably the more likely result if the Iraqi conflict becomes protracted. In Barnettian strategic terms, if the former occurs and U.S. forces remain, we’re back to square one, still working to “connect” Iraq economically but with a significant more amount of treasure spent and blood spilled. If the latter takes place, and you believe Thomas Barnett, who continuously argues that a partitioned Iraq would not be a significant setback, I guess it’s still more of the same, only now you’ve got three governments to negotiate with instead of one. Geography however, seems to be against Dr. Barnett on this one. A divided Iraq, partitioned along areas of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish concentration would yield three separate countries. The Shi'a and Kurds, living in the North, East, and South, would have access to vast oil reserves while the Sunnis, confined to Western Iraq, would be mainly left with desert, seriously handicapping economic progress in the region. Failed economies breed instability and instability breeds terrorism. Thus a partition of Iraqi would offer U.S. policy a significant setback, so let’s hope Beauregard keeps his guns silent this time.

Defending Ole Pete

2006-04-01T10:00:00.000-08:00

I’m currently TA’ing for “The Blue and the Gray” a military history of the US Civil War, the only military history class at Ole Miss. The course is taught by Dr. John R. Neff, author of Honoring the Civil War Dead, a department favorite among many students here, both graduate and undergraduate. I usually agree with Dr. Neff, and if I don’t at first, he usually wins me over with his remarkable ability to point out impracticality. However, there are a few areas where we do disagree and last week another one emerged.

The lecture topic for the day was the first and second day at Gettysburg. I should point out here that the Civil War is not an area where I specialize but is a topic that interests me and, as an undergraduate, I took every class offered on the Civil War era; whether or not this enables me to speak with some authority on the subject, I will leave to the reader. Our topic of disagreement centered around, surprise surprise, Lee’s relationship with Longstreet. Normally, the point of contention on this issue, among historians and the buff community, concerns the disagreement between Lee and Longstreet over the best plan to assault the Union position on the second day and why Longstreet took so long to get into a position to press the Union left in order to gain the Emmetsburg Road. However, this was not the point I found most troubling.

It was Dr. Neff’s contention, as I understood it, that there was never any dissension between Lee and Longstreet on this issue and Longstreet had simply made up this disagreement in his postwar memoirs to rescue his reputation. His point was that the Lee-Longstreet controversy at Gettysburg was a direct product of Longstreet’s memoir and his writings for the Southern Historical Society Papers, which were written during a storm of controversy as Longstreet tried to justify his wartime decisions to a hostile public that was furious with him for joining Lincoln’s Republican Party. According to Neff, Longstreet, like everyone else in the Army of Northern Virginia after Chancellorsville, believed Lee could do no wrong and agreed to implement his orders with little or no disagreement.

While I agree that Longstreet’s postwar views on the battle are biased and may not display an accurate account of “what actually happened,” I don’t think you can argue that Longstreet wasn’t dissatisfied with Lee’s plan of attack on the second day, the evidence simply isn’t there.

Faulting Lee’s failure at Gettysburg on Longstreet has its origins, mainly, in a speech given by Jubal Early at Washington and Lee University on 19 January 1872. Early, a leader of the Lost Cause coalition, sought to answer accusations made by Longstreet to a New York Times reporter that Lee’s Gettysburg strategy was flawed, by defending his commanding generals plans and accusing Longstreet of disobeying orders. Yet one of Early’s central accusations against Longstreet was that he did not give Lee’s plan enough support. If Longstreet had not disagreed, as Neff asserts, it would seem only logical that Early and his supporters would have pointed out that Longstreet was lying about his dissension in their indictments, instead of making it a central premise upon which their arguments were based. To my knowledge no one ever accuses Longstreet of lying about this point in the documents and simply claiming that we can’t trust Longstreet on this because his memoirs are flawed seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Longstreet did disagree with Lee at Gettysburg. As to the nature of this disagreement and how dissension influenced Longstreet’s decision-making on the second and third day is another matter and will not be argued here. I simply point out that the “Old Warhorse” was not happy with Lee’s strategy on those fateful days in Pennsylvania in early July, 1863 and to accuse him of lying on this point is a faulty and groundless accusation.

Justifying Retreat: Why I'm Leaving the Academy

2006-03-29T19:39:00.000-08:00

So, yesterday I’m on my way to my lunch break and the department graduate adviser asked me if I had time to talk. Sensing the presence of my inevitable come-to-Jesus meeting with the history department, I told him I did and followed him to his office. When he sat down he promptly asked me, “do you want to be a lawyer?” Evidently word of my law school acceptance had gotten around the department and my adviser, who I consider one of the most gracious and helpful human beings on the planet, wanted to know why the historical profession was “losing me.” As I tried to list my reasons, he quickly tried to assuage my concerns and it became evident that my points really weren’t getting across, or they were simply ill founded fears. Therefore, I thought I’d take a few minutes to explain my reasoning.

Like most causation, my motivation comes from a combination of factors, some more important than others. I guess I should say that I still have not made a final decision, but it is the most probable considering my circumstances. The first reason I'm leaving, which most people will probably point to as the “real reason” that I’m not pursuing a Ph.D., is the simple fact that I “didn’t get in.” While this may indeed be the “real reason,” I do not consider it to be the dominant factor. First and foremost I still have not received a reply from the institution, which for now will remain anonymous, to which I applied. Realistically, I figure that I’m on some kind of waiting list somewhere or I would have gotten a “we regret to inform you” letter long ago. Who knows, maybe I’ll get an acceptance letter in the mail tomorrow and I might just very well hit the delete button on this little blog, or at least change its billing, but I doubt it. I would also argue that if I really wanted to pursue a Ph.D. in military history, I could find a program somewhere that would accept me. But, for the time being at least, my mind is pretty much made up due to a number of things that go well beyond the fact that I “didn’t get in.”

Probably one of the most important factors determining my decision, at least in my book, relates to my disability. I am a C-5 quadriplegic, meaning I am paralyzed from about the top of my collarbone down. Though I remain mostly independent during the day, I require a large amount of help in the morning and at night to . . . let’s just say make ends meet. Moving away from my current living situation would be extraordinarily difficult and could quite easily damage my health if I moved to a town where, initially, I knew no one and something happened that required immediate assistance. Staying in Oxford is safe and comfortable.

“Well why don’t you do your graduate work here?” my adviser replied as I listed the above excuses to justify my decision, “you certainly have a lot of fans here that would hate to see you go.” Well, I thought for a minute and never really gave him a straight answer to the question. Truth be told, it tore me apart. Most of the faculty I’ve encountered in the history department here, from the chair on down, have been so kind and encouraging that I feel like I’m letting them down to a certain extent. They’ve gone out of their way to accept me with open arms after my accident, they’ve entrusted me with a TA position; compromised their interests, and quite possibly their beliefs, to work with me in military history; and have agreed to advise my thesis when there are a thousand other things that they could, and should, be doing. But they accommodated me anyway, actions for which I will ever be eternally grateful. Pursuing a Ph.D. at Ole Miss however, would require me to compromise my research interests and pigeonhole me into a category I do not wish to go.

Gender, class, race, and social history are fine. But enough’s enough. I need some narrative. A few drums . . . a couple of trumpets . . . you know . . . in the words of George Jung, “the disco shit!” Lord knows I have been an advocate for incorporating gender issues into military history over on War Historian and in my graduate papers but there are certain instances where these analytical categories work, and there are times when they have absolutely nothing to do with historical causation. Did Forrest Sherman construct his “attack at the source” naval strategy against the Soviet Union because he feared that relying on the Air Force’s use of the atomic bomb would destroy his masculinity as a U.S. naval officer? No, he formulated “attack at the source” because the Soviet submarine fleet would threaten Allied SLOC’s if the US went to war with the USSR and the Navy needed a way to justify its existence during postwar budget cuts. Now gender is applicable during Admiral Denfeld’s decision to participate in the so-called “Revolt of the Admirals” as his wife challenges him to “stand up” and testify, in my opinion an assault on his masculinity, but this is incidental and does not explain the revolt’s causality. Cant we just admit that there are some areas of history where gender just doesn’t work?

Most members of the Ole Miss history department are obsessed with these methodologies and if you’re not interested in Southern, intellectual, or cultural history you better get your ass out of dodge! 'cause these are the ONLY classes that are offered, so that’s what you’re gonna be studying. There’s nothing wrong with this, it just isn’t for me and I’m not going to change my interests to be accommodated by a department that doesn’t have a faculty member that can cater to my area of concentration. And so, no matter how difficult it may be, it is time to say goodbye to Ole Miss history I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. . . it’s been a joy.

Dispensing with Pleasantries

2006-03-22T19:31:00.000-08:00

I begin this journey at a crossroads in my life. For the past five years I have been an avid student of military history at Ole Miss, or the University of Mississippi to the "enlightened" crowd. As an undergraduate, perhaps because of my grandfather's service in the US Navy, I pursued research interests in naval aviation and sea power theory. During this research process my advisor informed me that I possessed both the talent and intellect that makes a good historian and he encouraged me to enter graduate school. Not entirely enamoured with going to law school at this point, I decided to take his advice. Unfortunately, like most universities, the history faculty at UM was devoid of a "trained" military historian. Not good if that's what your looking to study. Yet because of factors beyond my control, which I will discuss in a coming post, I chose to pursue an MA at Ole Miss anyway, as I was promised that the MA program could give me a firm grounding in historical methodology despite the absence of a military historian.

The first year of graduate school was miserable. It wasn't especially hard, and my grades were good, but I was forced to study aspects of history that didn't interest me in the least. I've never quit anything before in my life though, so I didn't intend to start then. The second year was better as I was able to take an independent course from a professor who understood my predicament and I was able to pursue readings more attuned to my interests. This semester however, I am writing my thesis on the "Revolt of the Admirals" which enables me to revisit my interests in sea power and naval aviation history. At some point though, the thesis will be completed and my life will move into its next stage. If that next stage was to include a Ph.D.in military history though, I would need to apply somewhere else, and I did.

At this point, March 26, I am still waiting to hear from that institution. The application was due on December 1st of last year. Funny that my law school application was due on March first and a decision was reached by the 9th and I'm still waiting on the military history program. However, for a number of reasons, I have decided to leave academia for the UM School of Law.

Yet I am still fascinated with military history and national security They have played an enormous role in my life in the past few years and I love discussing them. This blog is an attempt to maintain that connection. So with background out of the way, it's time to blog. Brace yourselves for a tsunami of brilliance.