The Art of War

2003-07-21T19:42:00.000-04:00

Ok - so I'm back. New googleplex. Woohoo. I'll get back into soon. Clausewitz wrote on guerilla warfare - although back then they called it "the people's war"... some of it sounds like its straight from Saddam's playbook...

"According to our idea of a people's war, it should, like a kind of nebulous vapoury essence, never condense into a solid body; otherwise the enemy sends an adequate force against this core, crushes it, and makes a great many prisoners; their courage sinks; every one thinks the main question is decided, any further effort useless, and the arms fall from the hands of the people. Still, however, on the other hand, it is necessary that this mist should collect at some points into denser masses, and form threatening clouds from which now and again a formidable flash of lightning may burst forth. These points are chiefly on the flanks of the enemy's theatre of war, as already observed." (Chapter 26, "On War", the J.J. Graham translation).

We'll take a hard look at Vietnam and the lessons we should have learned then. How come in all the talk about transformation, it's only about how to fight overwhelming force wars and not peacekeeping and guerilla war? I'll leave that with you.

2003-04-27T15:43:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post published a number of last letters from military killed in OIF including this one which should be read aloud at the next counter-protest:

Marine Capt. Ryan A. Beaupre

Mom & Dad,

Well if you are reading this, then things didn't go well for me over in Iraq. I'm sorry for the pain that I have caused you because of this. Please do not be upset with the Marine Corps, the military, the government, or the President. It was my choice to go into the military. The President and my higher commanders were just doing what they thought was best.

Realize that I died doing something that I truly love, and for a purpose greater than myself. There is a paragraph that I read from time to time when I lose focus. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stewart Mill Now there is a little Marine Corps bravado in there, but I do believe in the basic premise. I want you to know that I could not have asked for better parents, or a better family. ..... I'll never forget that one of my friends in elementary school said that if he could trade places with one person, he'd trade places with me because of my parents and home life. I truly feel that I've had a blessed life thanks to you two.

Please give my love to Alyse & Ryan, Kari & Matt & the girls, Chris & Brandy, and everyone else in the family.

2003-04-27T15:40:00.000-04:00

A first attempt by Bill Swanson (whom we have linked to previously) to see if John Boyd's ideas were applied successfully in Operation Iraqi Freedom:

All that talk about "we should have sent in the 4th Infantry (armored) Division" was just the Old School failing to understand how the OODA Loop works, as they always have. The whole point of rapid mobility and maneuverability is to be able to go to Iraq, observe the situation, make a decision and act, not to sit in Arlington and draw up a plan even the critics agree "won't survive first contact with the enemy."

The Washington Post article about the effect of the "Shock and Awe" campaign suggests that it did work.

In the aftermath of defeat by a U.S. invasion force that took three weeks to capture the capital, it is evident that even senior Iraqi military leaders failed to grasp the technological prowess that they were up against.

U.S. air power, combined with the lack of any Iraqi air defense capability, proved devastating not only to military equipment, but to the will to fight of soldiers and officers alike.

In addition, the strategy employed by the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division of sending a tank column barreling through Baghdad on what commanders called a "thunder run" -- a demonstration of U.S. might on the eve of the thrust into the heart of the capital -- achieved its intended result, shocking Iraqi leaders and weakening their resolve.

2003-04-27T09:31:00.000-04:00

"ELEGY WRITTEN IN
A COUNTRY CHURCH-YARD"

The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
The lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea,
The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to darkness and to me.

Now fades the glimmering landscape on the sight,
And all the air a solemn stillness holds,
Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight,
And drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds:

Save that from yonder ivy-mantled tower
The moping owl does to the moon complain
Of such as, wandering near her secret bower,
Molest her ancient solitary reign.

Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree's shade,
Where heaves the turf in many a mouldering heap,
Each in his narrow cell for ever laid,
The rude Forefathers of the hamlet sleep.

The breezy call of incense-breathing morn,
The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing horn,
No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.

For them no more the blazing hearth shall burn,
Or busy housewife ply her evening care:
No children run to lisp their sire's return,
Or climb his knees the envied kiss to share,

Oft did the harvest to their sickle yield,
Their furrow oft the stubborn glebe has broke;
How jocund did they drive their team afield!
How bow'd the woods beneath their sturdy stroke!

Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the Poor.

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

Nor you, ye Proud, impute to these the fault
If Memory o'er their tomb no trophies raise,
Where through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault
The pealing anthem swells the note of praise.

Can storied urn or animated bust
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can Honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?

Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd,
Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre:

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
Rich with the spoils of time, did ne'er unroll;
Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.

Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood,
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood.

Th' applause of list'ning senates to command,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
And read their history in a nation's eyes,

Their lot forbad: nor circumscribed alone
Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined;
Forbad to wade through slaughter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,

The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride
With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.

Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenour of their way.

Yet e'en these bones from insult to protect
Some frail memorial still erected nigh,
With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture deck'd,
Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.

Their name, their years, spelt by th' unletter'd Muse,
The place of fame and elegy supply:
And many a holy text around she strews,
That teach the rustic moralist to die.

For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
This pleasing anxious being e'er resign'd,
Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
Nor cast one longing lingering look behind?

On some fond breast the parting soul relies,
Some pious drops the closing eye requires;
E'en from the tomb the voice of Nature cries,
E'en in our ashes live their wonted fires.

For thee, who, mindful of th' unhonour'd dead,
Dost in these lines their artless tale relate;
If chance, by lonely contemplation led,
Some kindred spirit shall inquire thy fate, --

Haply some hoary-headed swain may say,
Oft have we seen him at the peep of dawn
Brushing with hasty steps the dews away,
To meet the sun upon the upland lawn;

'There at the foot of yonder nodding beech
That wreathes its old fantastic roots so high.
His listless length at noontide would he stretch,
And pore upon the brook that babbles by.

'Hard by yon wood, now smiling as in scorn,
Muttering his wayward fancies he would rove;
Now drooping, woeful wan, like one forlorn,
Or crazed with care, or cross'd in hopeless love.

'One morn I miss'd him on the custom'd hill,
Along the heath, and near his favourite tree;
Another came; nor yet beside the rill,
Nor up the lawn, nor at the wood was he;

'The next with dirges due in sad array
Slow through the church-way path we saw him borne,-
Approach and read (for thou canst read) the lay
Graved on the stone beneath yon aged thorn.'

The Epitaph
Here rests his head upon the lap of Earth
A youth to Fortune and to Fame unknown.
Fair Science frowned not on his humble birth,
And Melacholy marked him for her own.

Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere,
Heaven did a recompense as largely send:
He gave to Misery all he had, a tear,
He gained from Heaven ('twas all he wish'd) a friend.

No farther seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from their dread abode
(There they alike in trembling hope repose),
The bosom of his Father and his God.

By Thomas Gray (1716-71).

........................................

2003-04-27T09:04:00.000-04:00

Victor Rostow, son of Walter Rostow, the late National Security Advisor during the Kennedy-Johnson era, is serving in Iraq:

Victor Rostow, a Pentagon policy official who is serving as a liaison to the Iraqi team, said its task would be to help Garner “turn over functioning ministries to the new Iraqi interim authority after a period of time.” link

2003-04-27T08:55:00.000-04:00

Here we go again... More on the defense vs. diplomacy act and what many consider the next war front. Walter Strobel reports that Rumsfeld is calling for the U.S. to pull out of the talks with North Korea and China.

Hawks, including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argue that the results of the Beijing talks "show this whole approach is futile," said a senior U.S. official involved in the discussions. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has argued for trying to engage the prickly North Korean government.

2003-04-27T08:51:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld has been at the war with the Army since the very beginning. Thomas White didn't play along and instead sided with the "old guard" and now he is gone. Note also that Rumsfeld has appointed only one Army four star to a unified command post since he has been in power (most notably, he assigned a Marine Corps General to European Command, traditionally an Army post and replaced an Army General with a Navy Admiral at Joint Forces Command, home of transformation - and let's not forget whom General Myers replaced at the JCS slot!).

Gen. Shinseki, the last Clinton appointee in a staff position, is retiring and word is, now, that General Keane (the Vice Chief) is also retiring early.

Interesting how this article notes White's relationship with Powell, whom some would also associate with "Old Army"...

Rumsfeld on Friday fired White, the Army's top civilian official since May 2001. White was a White House pick and had a sometimes difficult relationship with Rumsfeld. He was close to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has had policy disputes with Rumsfeld.

2003-04-27T08:41:00.000-04:00

Love 'im or hate 'im but Newt's broadside against the State Department warrents serious consideration. I disagree with him on the early efforts of diplomacy. We couldn't have attacked even if we had all the forces we needed poised up until several weeks before the war. Colin Powell and George W. Bush's biggest blunder, I believe, was going back to the U.N. for a second time. Tony Blair asked for this, apparently, and we felt we had to accomodate him - however several weeks into the war, Blair's numbers rose. Nothing helps like a little success.

Unfortunately, the debate that should have been started has been drowned out by the Santorum nonsense. Regardless, I would not be suprised to hear that Colin Powell resigns within a year.

2003-04-27T08:37:00.000-04:00

And now for some nostalgia courtesy of Newsweek, its a reprint of their article revealing radar technology shortly after World War II.

Stinky and Mickey: The sea-search equipment, with only slight modification, was used for the strategic bombing of German cities and industry. The device, known as BTO (for bombing through overcast) was the answer to the problem of bombing Germany in those months when weather made visual observation difficult and, at times, impossible.
BTO threw the Germans off balance and denied them the precious time to develop V-weapons in quantity and finish research on the atomic bomb. The British pilots called their set “Stinky.” Our nickname was “Mickey.”
Stinky and Mickey were first used in the successful raid against the German naval base of Wilhelmshaven on Nov. 3, 1943. After that, they were responsible for more than half of all the heavy bombing and virtually all the navigation to and from targets in Germany and Japan.

2003-04-27T08:34:00.000-04:00

This is a long read from Sierra Times by Caleb Carr on his lessons learned... I haven't really digested it yet but may update after I have read it through.

2003-04-27T08:33:00.000-04:00

More write-ups on "lessons learned" (generally this phrase is an oxymoron in the Department of Defense, but hope springs eternal):

Still, some achievements will withstand years of scrutiny. In Iraq, speed didn't kill, it saved. Bypassing key southern cities saved coalition and Iraqi lives, preserved mosques and hospitals, schools and homes. The lightning move to Baghdad left Iraq's ground forces dazed and demoralized. (by Major Garrett, Fox News)

2003-04-27T08:30:00.000-04:00

Well, back from parts unknown just in time for Spring!

And... just in time for the perennial air power debate that seems to follow every conflict we get in...

Basically, Houlahan, a former ground-poundin' paratrooper believes that Iraqi Freedom proves that air power is not the answer:

Operation Iraqi Freedom provided good news and bad news for advocates of strategic bombing. The good news is that our bombing was more accurate than it has ever been before. The bad news is that, dramatically increased bombing accuracy notwithstanding, strategic bombing once again failed to bring Saddam Hussein's regime to its knees. As was the case 12 years ago, victory required significant fighting on the ground.

I'm sure the Air Force will weigh in eventually, if they haven't already...

2003-03-08T22:27:00.000-05:00

Tim Russert is interviewing Tom "Kinky" Friedman and Friedman is talking about how the notion of the Bush Administration that they will rebuild Iraq into a Democracy is very Clintonian, that is naive and idealistic, I suppose. And "they don't have a Clintonian bone in their body."

He's got a point - this is the same administration that turned its nose up at "nation-building" and said that the military should only be used for fightin' wars. This is the same President who during his primary reacted so viscerally against being compared to Clinton by John McCain.

However, it gets me onto an interesting idea. What if Bush, in a masterstroke, hired ex-President Clinton to be the new proconsul of Iraq. Think about it. Clinton would be effectively out of the Republicans hair for the forseeable future (all the less time to spend on his wife's Presidential ambitions), partisan snipers will be neutralized and if things go wrong... well, there's plenty of room to spread the blame. And the thing is, Clinton was born for this shit.

2003-03-08T14:26:00.000-05:00

This article was linked earlier this week by Instapundit and he says in response to it "looks good to me." The article deserves a closer look.

American might is sailing away from Europe
By William Richard Smyser
Published: March 2 2003 20:07 | Last Updated: March 2 2003 20:07

The shrillness of the debate about French and German opposition to war on
Iraq has concealed the change in fundamental American strategic thinking
that lies at its heart. The Pentagon is returning the US to its traditional
role as a maritime power. In that strategy, western Europe, indeed Europe as
a whole, will matter less than it has done.

This is the basic thesis of the author and while there is some evidence to suggest this, it is more complicated than that. First of all, he ignores the role of space. After all, Rumsfeld has appointed almost all his science advisors from the space community and was the co-chair of a commission that recognized the strategic importance of space for the future of the US.

Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac are serving as a convenient excuse for
President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, to
slash the American presence in Europe. The US has always been primarily a
sea power, from the days of the privateers to Theodore Roosevelt's "Great
White Fleet" and Ronald Reagan's 600-ship navy. Now that it no longer needs
a massive land presence in western Europe it wants to return to that
strategy.

This should not be construed as not needing a land power at all, however. Its just that it will be lighter and more supported from the sea and from the air. The pre-World War II American way of war was to mobilize. The new model cannot rely on mobilization because of the other new rule sets of war - that is low body counts on both sides, minimal collatoral damage, etc. leading to the need for technicans as well as troops capable of peacekeeping operations. Therefore, the citizen-soldier model will no longer fit.

Sea powers behave in predictable ways. Strategically, they try to dominate
the oceans (and now the skies). They abhor large and fixed land deployments,
preferring to use local auxiliaries. They like to control or at least to
neutralise the opposite shores of contiguous seas and oceans.

But its not just the "shores" - it's also all the land in-between - if not to neutralize than to at least be able to project power.

Diplomatically, they have no fixed alliances but only fixed interests. They
can make commitments, but they want to feel free to leave. And they always
like to have long strings of bases around the world. Britain sought all
these things in its heyday and America wants to return to them now. That is
the true meaning of the phrase "coalition of the willing".

And this is where the post-World War II rule sets will cause not a great deal of division among Americans. Since World War II, we have seen ourselves as being the leader of a group of "core" countries that accept the rule of law. Playing realpolitik with traditional allies will no doubt cause much contention and grief in this country.l

The US can cut its troop presence in Europe now that the Soviet threat is
gone. Others can protect that particular shore of the Atlantic. Washington
does, however, still want bases along all vital sea routes, such as the
Mediterranean. Thus Spain, Italy, Turkey and Israel become much more
important than Germany. Iraq becomes much more of a threat - to Israel, to
the Middle Eastern balance and to US security on the Mediterranean and Gulf
routes. That is why Pentagon civilian planners have persuaded Mr Bush to
support and fund Israel's costly occupation of Palestine and to reinforce
Israel with an even more costly occupation of Iraq. Nato is no longer as
important.
The appointment of General James Jones, a US marine, as commander of
American forces in Europe is a harbinger of things to come. Unlike the army,
the Marines are not permanent defensive forces. They are temporary
expeditionary forces. Gen Jones will operate on that basis.

What the author missed though is not just the loss of European Command by the Army but the overall low number of Army Joint 4-Star billets. Think about it - the Army only has three 4-stars in joint billets - the Army Chief of Staff (who is on the Joint Chiefs of Staff), the Commander of SOUTHCOM and the Commander of CENTCOM. The USAF controls alot more: Joint Chief of Staff, USAF Chief of Staff, NORTHCOM, SOCOM, TRANSCOM and I'm probably missing one or two. The Navy and Marine Corps combined control quite a few slots: Vice Joint Chief of Staff, EUCOM, PACOM, JFCOM but by and large it is the Air Force that this administration likes the most.

This does not mean that all US forces will leave Germany and western Europe.
Some will be needed in support and maintenance roles. Washington could not
have conducted the Afghan operation without them and the number of US forces
in Germany duly rose during the Afghan war. Nor could Washington dream of
fighting a war in Iraq without those bases. But Germany is no longer a
prize. It is a launching platform.

Nor is this the end of Nato, despite its diminution. Nato has survived other
crises and will survive this one. Being a political alliance, Nato can be
flexible. But Shape, the Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe
which is the military arm of Nato, will undergo fundamental and still
unforeseeable changes.

In fact it is - the November NATO summit announced that SHAPE will "transform" into Allied Command Operations and SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic) will become the Allied Command Transformation, whatever that means.

Washington may not announce this new strategy for some time, if ever,
because that might reinforce Europe's wish for its own security and foreign
policy. Like all traditional naval powers, Washington prefers to keep a
balance of power between various states on other continents. That is one
reason Mr Rumsfeld called upon "new Europe" to balance "old Europe". But the
maritime strategy will become clear over time.

I'm not sure why being allies with the Czhech Republic will help a maritime strategy. Nor do I think "balance of power" politics are very much in the American way of doing things (but then again, they said the same thing about containment). This is grasping at straws, me thinks.

This could create some problems for Tony Blair. The US wants to cut its role
in Europe but does not like an independent-minded European foreign and
defence policy. Mr Blair will have to resolve that contradiction and may be
asked again to choose sides.

"No permanent allies or permanent enemies" - the Brits will adapt.

Some Europeans believe that Mr Rumsfeld is as guilty of "irrational
exuberance" today as the New York stock exchange was in the bubble years at
the end of the last decade. He has certainly done all he can to annoy the
Europeans. But he is preparing for a new and different strategic environment
and western Europeans should understand their diminished role.

Reasonable people may even ask whether current US policies will serve the
new American strategic objectives. Such questions are, of course, legitimate
but only if they are posed in terms of the new strategy. They should not be
posed - as many now are - on the basis of what the new breed of Pentagon
planners would regard as terminally obsolete sentimentalism about
superannuated cold-war relations.

Ouch. The problem, of course, with a maritime-aerospace power strategy is that it can easily be converted into neo-isolationism if it has some setbacks. Hence, 10, 20 years from now a new great and possibly sinister power could arise in Europe or other places we would naturally begin to neglect.

The writer is a professor of political economy at Georgetown University

2003-03-08T13:54:00.000-05:00

The actor who portrayed the North Vietnamese Colonel in last year's excellent "We Were Soldiers" is not just being blacklisted by his own country but his passport is being revoked and he will not be able to act for five years. Saith the communist government:

"By being a propagandist and a lackey of hostile forces, smearing the image of the People's Army soldiers and smearing the Vietnamese people, Don Duong has sold his conscience at a cheap price and has become a traitor."

Wonder if the Screen Actor's Guild has anything to say?

UPDATE: Just checked their website and here is what you get when you search for Don Duong:

Sorry, no matches were found containing "Don Duong".

Too bad he wasn't protesting the non-existent war in Iraq. I'm sure they would have stuck up for him then!

2003-03-08T13:42:00.000-05:00

Danny watches the feed.... and doesn't like what he sees. But to quote Norman Mailer's views of the whole thing, a guy who hasn't written a coherent word in 30 years, is a bit over the top.

2003-03-08T13:36:00.000-05:00

Und jetz, Herr Colonel von Clausewitz fur der Fuhrer Hussein:

This use of fortresses has been too little regarded in modern times, and yet it is one of the most natural, and one which has a most powerful effect, and is the least liable to mistakes. If there was a country in which not only all great and rich cities, but all populous places as well were fortified, and defended by the inhabitants and the people belonging to the adjacent districts, then by that means the expedition of military operation would be so much reduced, and the people attacked would press with so great a part of their whole weight in the scales, that the talent as well as the force of will of the enemy's general would sink to nothing.

2003-03-08T13:31:00.000-05:00

Anyone else find it interesting that the Iraqis withdrew their Republican Guard units only days before Turkey turned down the United States?

2003-03-08T13:29:00.000-05:00

An now for your moment of Tzu:

Generally in warfare:

If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them;

if five times, attack them;

if double, divide them;

if equal, be able to fight them;

if fewer, be able to evade them;

if weaker, be able to avoid them

2003-03-08T13:27:00.000-05:00

An interview with Harlan Ullman...

My sense is that as soon as the war starts, or just before the war starts, and the Iraqis understand how badly outgunned they are, far worse than '91; I think it's very likely there are going to be huge, huge defections. So I think there is a certain chance that this war could be over in a matter of days.

Now having said that, the Japanese were very confident on Dec. 6, 1941, the Americans were going to fold. The Clinton administration was very confident that when the first bomb dropped on Belgrade in 1999, Milosevic was going to fold. That didn't happen. So who knows? If Saddam has got weapons of mass destruction, if he falls back to Baghdad and makes it into a Stalingrad, if he blows all the bridges, if he has a scorched- earth policy – if, if, if, if, if. Or if we screw up, we don't get it right. There is a possibility that that's going to happen. But I think it's more likely it's going to be the former than the latter.

2003-03-02T18:12:00.000-05:00

Just for kicks, I put up some photos from my travels and a sample of some of my "artwork".

2003-03-02T17:00:00.000-05:00

NewLeftPolitics - A prowar blog coming from the left here. Check it out. Too bad he doesn't update it more. I imagine he is getting as frustrated as me...

2003-03-02T16:58:00.000-05:00

Punditwatch is up.

Winner of the hyperbole award, however, is Rep. Porter Goss, R-FL, on This Week [on the arrest of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed - ed.]: “This is a very huge event, the equivalent of the liberation of Paris in the Second World War.”

He doesn't cover Chris Matthew's show, which is sort of a hipper variant of the McLaughlin Group, with even less yelling if you can believe that. Katrina van Heuvel, punditdom's Woman in Black and Tucker "Little Lord Tucker" Carlson got into a good debate... or should I say funny debate when Tucker noted that the anti-war movement, at least in the United States, had yet to produce a credible spokesperson or a credible alteranative plan. Katrina claimed that Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich were those people to which Tucker loudly and correctly laughed in her face. Chris Matthews who leans towards antiwar agreed with Tucker on this point.

2003-03-01T18:19:00.000-05:00

Shakespeare on war. Here's my favorite:

We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit but the name.
(Hamlet 4.4.18-19)

2003-03-01T15:49:00.000-05:00

Here's a well-reasoned essay on why we don't need NATO anymore and how maybe its time to for a new team to deal with post-Cold War tyranny. It's all about self-interest and no permanent friends or allies. Here's the new club he proposes:

An awake Russia would be a fine ally in the new war, since once a Russian’s heart is engaged, so is he come what may. They understand, having been on both sides, that there is Good and Evil. America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Eastern countries believe that too. Spain and Italy seem to get it. The Turks get it. Israel knows it.

So what do we do with all the NATO infrastructure, divvy it up with the EU "army" and the new Coalition of the Willing?

Found via foolsblog.

2003-03-01T11:16:00.000-05:00

Strategy Page has a picture of the Massive Ordnance Air Burst weapon (or at least the 10-ton version - there's also rumored to be a 15-ton version):

In dry, dusty conditions, the Daisy Cutter produces a mushroom cloud similar to that created by a nuclear explosion (and for the same reason, the sheer size of the explosion creates an upward pull that sends up a "mushroom" of smoke and dust on a column of smoke). In addition to a more reliable and powerful explosion, MOAB doesn’t need a parachute, like the Daisy Cutter, but uses a GPS (like JDAM) and an aerodynamic body to detonate the bomb at a precise area. Thus the MOAB can be dropped from a higher altitude (like outside the range of machine-guns and rifles).

2003-03-01T11:09:00.000-05:00

Okay, now that Bush has revealed, somewhat, his grand strategy in Iraq and the Middle East, shouldn't he be preparing people for the horrors of war that will inevitably be broadcast by the "imbedded media"? What he needs to do in his subsequent speeches is to expand on this part of his Feburary 26th speech:

Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we'll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges.

Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: The liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people.

I would suggest that this be done at West Point, Ft. Hood (home of 4th ID) or Ft. Benning (home of 3rd ID) and then carry these same themes into his inevitable speech before the nation prior to the commencement of this war.

2003-03-01T09:53:00.000-05:00

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the tri-axis of evil, Iran holds elections today . Many hold high hopes. Others don't:

…so, now I think that the result of election makes no difference in the situation & that will be just another list of names of the ones who come to steal & save more money for themselves… (from Iraniangirl.blogspot.com, 1 March)

ADDENDUM: In other election news, a conservative has been elected to the presidency of the Czech Republic. Bad news for France.

2003-03-01T09:43:00.000-05:00

This is for Soviet history buffs. Today is the anniversary of the death of Stalin. Glenn Frazier links to a BBC story speculating on his death and has a cool picture of Uncle Joe's toppled statue.

2003-03-01T09:38:00.000-05:00

Radio Tikrit tied to the Iraqi National Accord?

I first read about this in the 26 February edition of the Wall Street Journal article by Andrew Higgins noting that a Swedish Radio buff had discovered a mystery radio station broadcasting in Arabic. Radio buffs began following it and noted that while at first the station, named Radio Tikrit, supported Saddam's regime, in recent months it has grown more negative. The website Clandestine Radio has been following this and ties the broadcasts to the Iraqi National Accord, a Iraqi liberation group reportedly tied to the CIA (I have reported on this previously).

Radio Tikrit and Twin Rivers Radio (Wadi al-Rafidayn), CRW and Radio Netherlands Media Network can exclusively report, are "sister" stations of the London-based exile group Iraqi National Accord's own program, al-Mustaqbal (The Future).

A representative of the Accord, which encourages regime change through a coup d'etat, responded to an inquiry about the three radio stations with an invitation for listeners to send e-mail for all three programs to the main Accord e-mail address.

The Accord and its station, al-Mustaqbal, have long been known to receive funding and assistance from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Multiple sources within the Iraqi opposition have independently confirmed that al-Mustaqbal broadcasts from a 50kW Harris transmitter located in Kuwait from a facility also used by the Voice of America. The transmitter broadcast Radio Hurriah (Freedom) programs on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress between 1992 and 1997.

2003-03-01T09:27:00.000-05:00

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (Formerly Defense Mapping Agency and Central Imagery Office) have just put up some high resolution maps of Baghdad, Iraq and Middle East. These are VERY large - 150 MB uncompressed and require a special viewer. You can also order print versions of the graphics by calling up the U.S. Geological Survey at 1-888-ASK-USGS. The link to NIMA gives you the map numbers. Read more about it here.

2003-03-01T09:19:00.000-05:00

Hack compares the (potential) clash between the US and Saddam as similar to the Battle of Arbela, the decisive victory of Alexander the Great over the Persian Darius and draws some lessons that should be learned:

There are many lessons of history to learn from Arbela, but here are a few obvious lessons. Saddam is no different that tin-horn military dictators who have ruled Middle-Eastern countries for thousands of years. Most of Saddam's army are little more than the farmers with pitchforks who made up the army of Darius. They may show up on a battlefield, but if confronted with a force like a Macedonian phalanx, or an American armored infantry battalion, they have no intention of doing anything but surrendering or running for their lives. It is said that Alexander took about 300,000 prisoners at Arbela, and similar numbers of prisoners could be expected in an invasion of Iraq today. But the key lesson is that Saddam himself is the only real opposition in Iraq today. The best way to deal with him, is to open up a hole in his lines, and head straight for him, just like Alexander did at the battle of Arbela. I'm just a country boy, but where I come from we always said that every bully is also a damn coward, and my guess is that as soon as an American armored infantry battalion or air mobile assault force arrives at a compound where Saddam is holed up, that he will flee from Iraq as fast as he can (if he can flee, and if he is not murdered by his own bodyguard first). And once that happens, the rest of the Iraqi army will collapse as quickly as the army of Darius did at Arbela.

But perhaps the most important lesson from Arbela is this. One of the worst mistakes that American military planners could make would be to try to inflict heavy Iraqi military casualties as a way of defeating Saddam, because most of the Iraqi military who would be killed by unnecessary "shock and awe" tactics, probably don't like Saddam any more than Americans do. And by far the worst mistake that American military planners could make, would be to inflict heavy Iraqi civilian casualties as collateral damage while trying to inflict heavy Iraqi military casualties. Some American military planners are trying to build a case that Iraqi officers would be charged with war crimes if they use civilians as human shields, and heavy civilian casualties result.

Hack's other recent column, "Hurry Up and Wait", can be found here.

2003-02-28T22:33:00.000-05:00

One last cup of coffee before I go... to the valley below...

Buster Glosson was quoted in this piece several days ago. It appears to confirm that the USAF has some problems with the so-called "Shock and Awe" plan which I had mistakenly labeled (weeks ago) an "air power" plan. Seems Buster, who the article claims was the "architect" of Gulf War I (try Col Warden, instead) is mad that they aren't bombing the hell out of the infrastructure before sending in the "roman legions" -- which says more about how some in the USAF see the Army and USMC than anything I can try to get into words.

2003-02-28T21:05:00.000-05:00

Ages of thoughts on war cascades here. Read them quickly and in order.

2003-02-28T20:36:00.000-05:00

This blogger writes that "As Clausewitz wrote, it is important to get public backing for a war - but a few extremist protestors led by the Marxist group ANSWER does not represent a significent portion of the American body politic."

Wellllll... no, Clausewitz never wrote that. In fact, in some cases you don't want public backing for a war. By that I mean, passions of the people, or "hatreds and animosities" may overrule the logic of war being used for political purposes - see for instance The Peloponnesian War, the Sicilian Expedition. Instead, Clausewitz argues for a balance among his trinity of war - the other corners of this triangle being creativity and rationality (cost/benefit analysis). Notice he says that the "hatreds and animosities" concerns "more the people." Here's what he wrote (as translated on the www.clausewitz.com site):

War is, therefore, not only a true chameleon, because it changes its nature in some degree in each particular case, but it is also, as a whole, in relation to the predominant tendencies which are in it, a wonderful trinity, composed of the original violence of its elements, hatred and animosity, which may be looked upon as blind instinct; of the play of probabilities and chance, which make it a free activity of the soul; and of the subordniate nature of a political instrument, by which it belongs purely to the reason.

The first of these three phases concerns more the people; the second more the general and his army; the third more the Government. The passions which break forth in war must already have a latent existence in the peoples. The range which the display of courage and talents shall get in the realm of probabilities and of chance depends on the particular characteristics of the general and his army; but the political objects belong to the Government alone.

These three tendencies, which appear like so many different lawgivers, are deeply rooted in the nature of the subject, and at the same time variable in degree. A theory which would leave any one of them out of account, or set up any arbitrary relation between them, would immediately become involved in such a contradiction with the reality, that it might be regarded as destroyed at once by that alone.

The problem is, therefore, that theory shall keep itself poised in a manner between these three tendencies, as between three points of attraction.

UPDATE: On second thought, I don't want to give the impression that the sentiments of the blogger is wrong, it's just that Clausewitz never exactly said you need the support of the people. In the American way of war, I think that when you commit the Army to a major operation, you do need the support of the American people. The Chief of Staff for the US Army General Gred C. Weyand said in July 1976:

"The American Army really is a people's Army in the sense that it belogns to the American people who take a jealous and proprietary interest in its involvement. When the Army is committed the American people are committed, when the American people lose their committment it is futile to try to keep the Army committed. In the final analysis, the American Army is not so much an arm on the Executive Branch as it is an arm of the American people. The Army, therefore, cannot be committed lightly."

Some say we should get a declaration of war from Congress if we are to go to war with Iraq, that the pre-election resolution is not enough and it was done under extreme political pressure by the administration.

2003-02-28T20:24:00.000-05:00

An interesting article reassessing what is meant by a Center of Gravity (found via the Navy's Open Source Weblog):

However, its application must be judicious. The center of gravity needs to be redefined as a “focal point,” not as a strength (or a weakness) or a source of strength. A CoG is more than a critical capability; it is the point where a certain centripetal force seems to exist, something that holds everything else together. For example, al-Qa‘ida cells might operate globally, but they are united by their hatred of apostasy.39 This hatred, not Osama bin Laden, is their CoG. They apparently perceive the United States and its Western values as the enemy CoG (though they do not use the term) in their war against “apostate” Muslim leaders. Decisively defeating al-Qa‘ida will involve neutralizing its CoG, but this will require the use of diplomatic and informational initiatives more than military action.

Commanders and their staffs need to identify where the connections—and the gaps—exist in the enemy’s system as a whole before deciding whether a center of gravity exists. The CoG concept does not apply if enemy elements are not connected sufficiently. In other words, successful antiterrorist operations in Afghanistan may not cause al-Qa‘ida cells in Europe or Singapore to collapse. Indeed, given the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-explosive weapons that is expected to occur over the next decade or so, it is dangerous to assume that all the segments of the enemy can be defeated by a single knockout blow. Indeed, the continued proliferation of such weapons could very well make the CoG concept academic.

2003-02-28T19:56:00.000-05:00

Monkey Business wants to get Saddam on American Idol.

Too late! Already been done.

But many people are hesitant to put Saddam in Pandemonium’s echelon - why? Possibly because he has the characteristic of a comic figure, a cliché, a ridiculous man whose most visible crimes seem to be sins against our notions of good taste. He builds gilded gaudy palaces; he wears silly hats; he fires rifles in the air; he does the obligatory dictator-swimming-in-cold-river bit to prove his virility. He looks almost goofy when he smiles. His rhetoric is larded with mythic grandiosity that amuses the jaded Western ear. Simon from "American Idol" would cut him to shreds: "first, lose the moustache; we're not shooting a porno movie and it's not 1979. Second, I don't believe your gestures. I believe you believe them, but that hardly counts. I don't hear passion. I don't hear hate. I sense hate, but I don't feel hate."

2003-02-28T18:50:00.000-05:00

Und hier für Ihr Vergnügen ist Oberst von Clausewitz:

Every one knows the moral effect of a surprise, of an attack in flank or rear. Every one thinks less of the enemy's courage as soon as he turns his back, and ventures much more in pursuit than when pursued. Every one judges of the enemy's general by his reputed talents, by his age and experience, and shapes his course accordingly. Every one casts a scrutinising glance at the spirit and feeling of his own and the enemy's troops. All these and similar effects in the province of the moral nature of man have established themselves by experience, are perpetually recurring, and, therefore, warrant our reckoning them as real quantities of their kind. And what could we do with any theory which should leave them out of consideration? (On War, II:15:3)

Tell me, between Iraq and the US, whose currently got the greater spirit and feeling and whose general is known by his reputed talents?

2003-02-28T18:45:00.000-05:00

And now for today's Moment of Tzu:

In war, the general first receives his command from his sovereign.

Then he collects and concentrates his troops and blends and harmonises the different elements before pitching camp.

After that comes directing manoeuvres, of which nothing is more difficult. The difficulty lies in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain.

Thus, though taking an indirect route after diverting the enemy, and marching forth after he has gone, arriving before him shows knowledge of the strategy of the direct and indirect.

Manoeuvres can offer advantages; but with the undisciplined they also pose dangers. Sun Tzu 7:1-5.

2003-02-28T18:18:00.000-05:00

Well, we have an Iraqi blogger live from Bhagdad, why not a US military reservist live from the sandbox? It's like a soap opera right now as the world anxiously awaits how things will go with the Dragon Lady.

2003-02-28T18:14:00.000-05:00

Speaking of Victor Davis Hanson, Little Green Footballs links to his latest National Review column. Thanks, Chuck.

2003-02-28T18:09:00.000-05:00

Robert Kagan's new book was reviewed last week by the Washington Post. The reviewer seems to be unable to make up her mind about it but does find something to sniffle about - you guessed it, Kyoto and ICC, like any terrorist-wannabe gives a flying fig:

Kagan's treatise is remarkably intelligent. It feels right. But his unabashed embrace of double standards is not completely persuasive. Perhaps Kyoto is an imperfect accord. Perhaps France abjures enforcing the Security Council articles against Iraq out of petulance, not principle. But when it comes to the international criminal court, it seems improvident for the United States to advertise justice for all but not for itself. This is an era when only 19 men can kill 3,000 Americans in less than two hours. Terrorists grow from the toxic soil of ignorance, mental illness, fanaticism -- and American double standards. When America announces with impunity that there is one rule for it and another for everyone else, it jeopardizes its security in the raw new world of asymmetrical warfare.

2003-02-28T18:02:00.000-05:00

Max Boot weighs in on the protesters and says that modern peace movements had been responsible for prolonging conflicts by giving false hopes to the enemy (and hamstringing politicians at home). Vietnam demonstrators are the target for his contempt:

Anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, by contrast, still evoke pride among many veterans of the barricades. Indeed, the graying hair and sagging bellies of many of today's protesters suggest that quite a few are 1960s stalwarts bent, like the Rolling Stones, on recapturing the lost glory of youth.

The Vietnam rallies are usually judged to have been successful because they stopped the killing of Americans in Southeast Asia. The killing of local people is another matter. The U.S. pullout led directly to the communist conquest of Saigon and Phnom Penh in 1975. The results were a human rights disaster. Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were executed, hundreds of thousands wound up in brutal "reeducation camps" and more than a million sought to escape in leaky boats. It was even worse in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered more than a million "class enemies."

Rush Limbaugh adds to this:

Former Wall Street Journal editorial writer Max Boot wrote a piece in Thursday's Los Angeles Times titled, "Protesters with Bloody Hands." Boot makes a point that I've been making: these protesters are actually helping Saddam Hussein along. Janeanne Garafalo screamed that Saddam never thanked them when Brian Kilmeade of Fox News made this point, and I was inundated with e-mails making the same erroneous claim. But Saddam say "thanks" clearly in his newspaper, which is run by his son Uday.

2003-02-28T17:53:00.000-05:00

Imperial Overreach? (Part II)

The Economist raises the unanswered question that Bush's new policies bespeak: Can the global policeman really do it all? Or more succinctly, (here comes the obligatory Clausewitz reference) are we soon reaching the "culiminating point of victory" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)? ((This article is available to premium users only))

All the same, if defeating Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il were the only big things America had to worry about, its ten army divisions, its three marine divisions and its overwhelming air power would be sufficient. The numerical superiority of the Iraqi and North Korean armies would be no compensation for America's vastly superior weapons. The Iraqi army is much weaker, in conventional terms, than it was before the Gulf war of 1991, when it was routed. South Korea's army, sniffed at by the Pentagon's war-planners, could probably hold off an invasion from the North—or better—until the American cavalry arrived.

There would be difficulties. Just getting the troops to two conflicts that began simultaneously would be tricky: the assembly of one invasion force in the Gulf has been a ponderous business. Intelligence-gathering equipment, such as spy satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, would be spread thin. The strain would be taken by America's reserves and its National Guard, 168,000 of whose members have already been mobilised. They do much of the unglamorous donkey-work, and the burden laid on their shoulders has grown as the full-time force has shrunk.

America would not necessarily win the two wars as swiftly and bloodlessly as the doctrinal requirements of America's top brass suggest, and as ordinary Americans have come to expect. Even apart from its nuclear threat, North Korea's missiles and artillery could do much damage in the South. Yet the Americans would still win; so the basic answer to the two-fronts question is, yes, America can successfully fight Iraq and North Korea at the same time.

The “but” has to do with the fact that merely ousting Mr Hussein and neutralising Mr Kim would not be all America's generals had to worry about. For one thing, there would be the reconstruction of Iraq. On February 25th, General Eric Shinseki, the army's chief of staff, predicted that lots of soldiers—maybe several hundred thousand—might be needed to feed the hungry and prevent internecine blood-letting. If other countries fail to share the burden, sustaining that sort of commitment would be enormously difficult for America even if the rest of the world were quiet. If American troops had to be diverted to the Korean peninsula, it would probably be impossible.

2003-02-28T17:47:00.000-05:00

InsideDefense.com reports that perhaps the bureacratic war between the SecDef and the Joint Staff may be over. The Pentagon has dropped two proposals that would consolidate staff resources for the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and eliminate legislative requirements that the White House appoint certain assistant secretaries of defense for homeland defense, legislative affairs, reserve affairs and special ops/low intensity conflict. Bottom line: Continued bloated bureacracies.

This is a blow to Rumsfeld's vow to fix problems in the post-9/11 security environment. The iron majors of the Joint Staff, who equate the number of people filling desk space with power, win again.

2003-02-28T17:42:00.000-05:00

Per the New York Times, Bhagdad Iraqis "prepare" for war.

President Saddam Hussein warned the population Wednesday night to start excavating trenches in their yards as bomb shelters. There was no sign today that anybody was responding with alacrity. Over all the drumbeat of war — quieter in a country without ready access to satellite television — elicits little more than a collective shrug.

2003-02-28T17:39:00.000-05:00

Looks like Saddam is doing a little big of operational analysis and giving up on the North.

Iraq has begun shifting some of its best-trained, best-equipped troops from a base around the northern city of Mosul to positions farther south in an apparent effort to bolster defenses around either Baghdad or President Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, defense officials said yesterday.

The movement of the Republican Guard's Adnan division marks the first major repositioning of Iraqi forces in recent weeks, the officials said. While the purpose of the move was not immediately clear, it fit with U.S. predictions that the Iraqi military would attempt to defend against an American invasion by falling back to main population centers and drawing U.S. troops into prolonged and bloody urban battles.

The danger here for Saddam is that this gives the US basically an unopposed area to operate in the North - I suppose the remaining Republican Guard division positioned near Kirkuk and the Army divisions will be there to destroy oil fields, air fields and infrastructure conducive to operations.

UPDATE: Washington Times reports that those same northern Army divisions are spending their time talking about surrendering. Who knows, we may get a whole Army division or two. Oh, that genius Saddam!

Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army.
One was a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk. The captain told our informant that the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. The captain said morale was so low that younger soldiers are speaking openly about surrendering — before the first shot has been fired.
A second soldier, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul.

2003-02-28T17:35:00.000-05:00

Speaking of Annapolis, the current Superintendent is under investigation for a run-in with a Marine guard. I'm suspecting there was probably not a little alcohol and arrogance involved here. Not exactly troubling, per se, but the reaassignment of the Marine after the incident seems uncalled for as it will always be called into question when his performance is reviewed and he is considered for promotion. Sounds like he did the right thing and the Admiral needs to get out of his office more so his employees can recognize him in his civvies.

2003-02-28T17:29:00.000-05:00

A nice, Washington Posty style article on life at Annapolis during war.

They're ready to get to work, and questions about U.S. justification for deposing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein are, for the most part, not on their screen.

"I don't think that's our focus, whether or not it's a just war," said Mathison Hall, commander of the Brigade of Midshipmen and the highest-ranking student at the academy. He could well be on the front lines in Iraq as a Marine second lieutenant after his graduation this spring.

"My focus right now is: We may be going to fight a madman. How am I going to lead my troops into battle?" he said. "Thirty years from now, when we're generals, admirals and senators, we'll be focused on the reasons for going to war.

"We don't want to breed robots, but at the same time we follow our orders."

Peloponnesian war fans and National Review readers alert: Victor Davis Hanson also makes an appearance in this article.

2003-02-28T17:24:00.000-05:00

Yale Kramer has an alternative plan to nation-building in Iraq. It is sort of imperialism by a coalition of the willing.

2003-02-24T05:11:00.000-05:00

A critique sent to me of the Barnett article a few posts down:

This was obviously written last year, before the schism with France and Germany became apparent. Call me an unabashed Huntingtonian (Samuel Huntington, and hey, I even live in Huntington Beach!) but this analysis sounds like Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden". And that ultimately led to a situation of imperial overstretch for the British, who in the last century were the preeminent world power. They found themselves unable to handle the rivalries that developed with Germany in 1914 and again in 1939 without bankrupting themselves and utimately losing their empire. And then as now, the Belle Epoche is drawing to a close.

I agree with George Modalski and Tobjorn Knudsen (and yes, William Strauss and Neil Howe) that many of history's driving forces are cyclical. And one of the most important historical truths of the 4 century historical cycles from the 1500s to the 1900s has been that a set of international systemwide wars create enough devastation and trauma to enable the winner to define the social trance or as it were, the "regime of truth" In other words, become a hegemon with full legtimacy. Without that trauma, there is nothing to motivate nations to accept another's social trance and social truth. Their people ask the question: "Who the hell set them over us? Why should we obey them?" And we ask that question just as loudly when it comes to the UN and accepting the authority of an international consensus over our behavior as the Europeans and the Arabs ask it of doing things the American way. We call the French ungracious for not being our ally on Iraq when we liberated them from Hitler. But actually our parents liberated their parents from Hitler. All our generation did for France was to spy on thier business dealings with Echelon and then pass the information on to American competitors.

Which brings up another reason why we will probably fail as the world's policeman. In a word, as a cop, we're crooked. For most of our history, our foreign policy was based on conflicting domestic constituencies, and that was certainly true of the 1990s. As much as we hate the Council on Foreign Relations (which started out in the 1920s as a council advocating having foreign relations) in its heyday from 1940 to 1980, it provided a forum for consensus building amongst elites that enabled the US to act responsibly, albeit in an environment in which it was the only intact world power, at least at the start. Now we are seeing unilateralism on both sides, between the US and the core of the EU. And France and Germany are now strategic competitors and will remain that way even if we take over Iraq. Because we no longer have the legitimacy, as much as we think we do.
And like the UK, we too can be overstretched. That's what Al Qaeda's strategy is all about. Maybe we can fight a war in Iraq simautaneous with one in Korea (if the Chinese don't intervene on the side of the North Koreans). But we will need to mobilize every National Guardsman and Ready Reservist to do it. And when they get exhausted and need to be rotated back to the rear, we'll need draftees or foreign legionnaires or criminals fighting for clemency, somebody, to replace them with. And that's just manpower. We will still be short of raw materials. We don't have enough of our high tech weapons for two wars let alone more than that. And will Al Qaeda start to attack targets more strategically and tie us down in more places from Colombia to the Phillipines and Indonesia to break our logistics still further?

We may have superiority in the world, but even militarily, we do not have supremacy.

2003-02-23T17:38:00.000-05:00

I saw the movie ARARAT today and following is my review:

The historical topic of the film, the still-controversial Armenian genocide at the hands of turks (1915-1918) deserves a director that can focus on the horrible event rather than one who uses the event to perform an excessive psychoanalysis of his characters and ends up effectively making a movie about rememberance and its effect on a interconnected group of people.

At times this film was clever - for instance, in using the "film within the film" to show how ultimately film, art and memory are disconnected from the truth, however awful that may be. But this device dilutes the atrocities as you know it is just part of the film being watched by the filmmaker and star at the opening. When Bruce Greenwood makes his impassioned speech to Ani, who has interupted one of his scenes, it rings phony and a bit pretentious. One almost has to laugh at how into his character he has become (this is shown in an earlier scene where Greenwood's character lectures Bogosian's character, who it turns out is an Armenian himself). The movie itself is shown to be false or at least overdone - it draws Greenwood's character as a shining hero in white and the Turkish Colonel as a mustachioed racist villian snarling in dark places. Unconciously, perhaps, it echoes the excesses that the filmmaker has taken in this extended psychoanalysis. It is the movie that this should have been but not quite, too phoney and detached.

The use of the custom's agent and his own little personal psychodrama with dealing with his son's homosexuality also diluted the film. What ultimately does this have to do with the Armenian genocide or even the ostensible topic of the film, rememberance. Its as if a separate movie was being made about forgiveness and acceptance of alternative lifestyles. It was a bit trite to suggest that this man had some sort of epiphany sitting there watching Raffi and hearing his story and believing his innocence. If the forgiveness and acceptance story here were somehow related to rememberance (like the subplot between Celia and Ani), perhaps it might have made sense, instead it is disconnected. I am reaching for a reason - in that perhaps the filmaker by showing a subplot involving contemporary Canadians (David's lover, for instance makes this argument) who are disconnected from their past and even their God, he was making some sort of comparison between his culture where rememberance of a long history defines its people and his adopted culture (Canada and by extension the US) where the past is prologue to a future filled with opportunities. Well, at least that is a counter argument that could be made. If so, why didn't he make a stronger case?

And let's go to Raffi. Was he innocent? Did he know what was in the film cans or suspect? I would guess that he did and that his girlfriend set it all up. One doesn't go through such a journey and take something from the land of Midnight Express in his bags without first knowing what the contents were. Had he instead been told that the films were related to the genocide - perhaps first-hand filmed accounts by the survivors - it might have made it more believable and tied into the main story. The film that is shown, his video, is shown on a small screen, again disconnected and at times inconsequential to the dialogue that is going on between Raffi and David. In this sense, Armenian civilization is minimized into an amateur travelogue. Even David admits later to Celia that he received no revelation from traveling to the heart of his civilization and it was only in the harsh glare and darkened spaces of the custom's office that he finally connected with his past (personified by his father). It is interesting that after the film an Armenian stood up and talked about he deep connectedness to Mt. Ararat. Raffi shows none of this - Mt. Ararat is shown in his video from the perspective of a car window as a place he had to go to in order to receive the film cans.

Atom Egoyan, while good-intentioned, has not fulfilled the wish that his persona (the director) wanted to do - that is, tell the story of the Armenian genocide in fulfillment of his mother's wish. instead, he, as is usual in his films, took on an entirely different topic - that of the role of rememberance and memory and how it relates to one's personal development. In the context of that topic, he has made a good, though flawed, movie. But in terms about making a movie about the Armenian genocide, perhaps that will be someone else's to make.

2003-02-23T14:28:00.000-05:00

Sami, the recently arrested professor from Florida, has the potential of becoming this generation's Alger Hiss or Anita Hill. I hope for the sake of the anti-terrorist cause that Mr. Ashcroft has the goods on him and the evidence is not ambiguous.

Nahla al-Arian, al-Arian's wife, who has been studying for a master's degree in comparative religions at the University of South Florida, dismissed allegations that her husband could be behind Palestinian Islamic Jihad in North America, as the government alleges.

"I know my husband. He is a scholar," she said.

The reason for her husband's arrest, she suggested, is that "there are powers in America who do not want any relations between Muslims and America."

2003-02-23T10:26:00.000-05:00

A round-up of the warblogs that I like and have read recently:

Iraq War Info: A decent, well-designed compendium of war information and links to news articles. It reminds of a little of slashdot.org in that you can quickly scan for categories using the iconic images next to each posting.

Warblogs Central: Another compendium of links, this time to the more prominent warblogs combined with some pithy short commentary. More links for the buck but sometimes gets off topic. Personable and warm.

Blogs of War: Impassioned anti-terrorist, anti-tyrant site. Opinionated but also includes humorous commentary and deconstructed images. Nice design.

Little Green Footballs: Popular log. Keeps track of what is being said in the anti-war world as well as the Arab world. A bit strident and paranoid at times but perhaps the "times" calls for it.

Daghtator Blog: Humorous at times (check out the conversation between von Clausewitz and Freud here regarding that "Enemy of the Warblog State", the hapless English "journalist," Robert Fisk). Has an annoying musical introduction but does a good job of tracking the current pro-war blog memes of the moment. Main link here.

2003-02-23T10:03:00.000-05:00

Comment: Although the blogger is probably tied into the establishment and his apathy and/or ambivalence is regretable (and quite Old European), I have to wonder if the human shields will need more protection from the more opressed Iraqis when and if they are liberated than they need from US bombs.

Their current lodgings, if salam pak is to be believed, are somewhat reminiscent of the "prominent Jews" during World War II who were eventually sent to Therisenstadt and then onto Auschwitz. The following comes from the dear_raed.blogspot.com:

A reader sent me an angry email a couple of days ago
(not the reader who writes in the comments, someone
else) asking me why I dislike the “human shields” so
much, he/she actually asked “why do you spit on
them?”. Ewww. Now I was never that unfriendly. I have
not met any of them in person, which just might happen
in the next couple of days, what I dislike is the
idea. But since dissing them gets people so exited,
here we go and do what [destiny’s child] don’t, “cause
their mamma taught them better than that”, we be
dissing the shields again on the internet.
One of the latest group to arrive in Baghdad, mostly
Europeans, were welcomed to the Rasheed hotel , which
is like the Waldorf Astoria of Baghdad, no other hotel
is more expensive and exclusive. All of them were
wearing T-shirts with what was supposed to be "Human
Shields" in Arabic, but they had it all wrong it said
"Adra'a Basharia" instead of "Duru'u Basharia" which
got them a few giggles and a new name; they are now
the "Adra'a" just to show how clueless they are. A lot
of funny Arabic these days with all these HS's running
around, a van with a foreign number plate standing
near the ministry of information has "No War" written
all over it in many languages the biggest in Arabic.
All over the front of it is says "La Harba" which is
wrong and sounds like a night club, my cousin thought
that was cute. Anyway, what really got my goat this
time was finding out that they get food coupons worth
15,000 dinars per meal, 3 for every day.fifteen
thousan.

Do you know how much the monthly food ration for a 4
person family is worth, for a whole month not per meal
(real cost, not subsidized) ? 30,000 dinars, if you
get someone to buy the bad rice they give you for a
decent price. 15,000. What are they eating? A whole
lamb every meal? Let's put this within context. Today
in the morning Raed, our friend G. and I went for a
late big breakfast we had 2 tishreeb bagilas (can't
explain that, you have to be an Iraqi to get it
otherwise it sounds inedible) and a makhlama (which is
an omelet with minced meat), tea, fizzy drinks and
argila afterwards (the water-pipe-thingy) all for
4,750 dinars, and we were not going super cheap. A
lunch in any above-average restaurant will not be more
than 8,000 dinars and that includes everything. 15,000
thousand is a meal in a super expensive restaurant in
Arasat Street, in one of those places that really
almost have an "only foreigners allowed, no Iraqis
welcome unless you are UN staff" sign on it. I will
stop calling them tourist when they stop taking all
this pampering from the Iraqi government. Did I tell
you about the tours? Today was Babylon day. You are
really missing it, the cheapest way to do the Iraq
trip you have wanted to do but were too scared.
And I have a tip for all freelance journalists who are
not getting their Visas. Join your colleagues. It's
the best way to get past the visa thing, every third
one of these "shields" will be writing an article
somewhere. Hurry contact your local "war tourism"
travel agent.

Sorry, I just don't get it. What are they doing here?
So, that should get me enough hate mail for the next
couple of days.

2003-02-23T09:59:00.000-05:00

"Katyn on the Euphrates"

Billy says I should blog this regarding the human shields and the predicament they have foolishly put themselves into. I wrote this on another mailing list:

I can imagine a scenario where this power station is
hit and the generators are taken offline and a the
door to the dorm and a hand grenade is thrown in (with
somebody with a bludgeon doing the mopping up).

The bodies are lined up the next morning in time for
the "Today" show.

2003-02-23T09:56:00.000-05:00

Thomas Barnett's excellent Esquire article on current grand strategy is up at his website. He says a fundamental shift has occurred since the end of the Cold War and 9/11 woke the American establishment up to this. Unlike, Old Europe which still sees the world in terms of competing nation states and containing the "bad actor" states, this new "rule set" looks at the effects of globalisation and non-state actors in redefining our foreign policy and focuses on shrinking the "bad actors" as they are the breeding and safe harbor for the more dangerous "super-empowered individuals". Much of the Bush policy appears to be in accordance with Barnett's worldview.

think about this larger point: Ever since the end of World War II, this country has assumed that the real threats to its security resided in countries of roughly similar size, development, and wealth—in other words, other great powers like ourselves. During the cold war, that other great power was the Soviet Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in the early 1990’s, we flirted with concerns about a united Europe, a powerhouse Japan, and—most recently—a rising China.

What was interesting about all those scenarios is the assumption that only an advanced state can truly threaten us. The rest of the world? Those less-developed parts of the world have long been referred to in military plans as the “Lesser Includeds,” meaning that if we built a military capable of handling a great power’s military threat, it would always be sufficient for any minor scenarios we might have to engage in the less advanced world.

That assumption was shattered by September 11. After all, we were not attacked by a nation or even an army but by a group of—in Thomas Friedman’s vernacular—Super Empowered Individuals willing to die for their cause. September 11 triggered a system perturbation that continues to reshape our government (the new Department of Homeland Security), our economy (the de facto security tax we all pay), and even our society (Wave to the camera!). Moreover, it launched the global war on terrorism, the prism through which our government now views every bilateral security relationship we have across the world.

In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U.S. national-security establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of future high-tech wars against “near peers” into the here-and-now threats to global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were highlighted, and more important, the nature of the threat environment was thrown into stark relief.

The answer then is not isolationism and constraint but a new military transformation and much more intense engagement in the "non-integrating gap" countries:

Making this effort means reshaping our military establishment to mirror-image the challenge that we face. Think about it. Global war is not in the offing, primarily because our huge nuclear stockpile renders such war unthinkable—for anyone. Meanwhile, classic state-on-state wars are becoming fairly rare. So if the United States is in the process of “transforming” its military to meet the threats of tomorrow, what should it end up looking like? In my mind, we fight fire with fire. If we live in a world increasingly populated by Super-Empowered Individuals, we field a military of Super-Empowered-Individuals.

This may sound like additional responsibility for an already overburdened military, but that is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we are dealing with here are problems of success—not failure. It is America’s continued success in deterring global war and obsolescing state-on-state war that allows us to stick our noses into the far more difficult subnational conflicts and the dangerous transnational actors they spawn. I know most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism are still over there. If gated communities and rent-a-cops were enough, September 11 never would have happened.

This suggests even more that a whole new theory of war is going to be needed - whether it is network-centric warfare or something more along the lines of what Barnett is talking about - i.e., a military of "super-empowered individuals", remains to be seen.

2003-02-20T18:14:00.000-05:00

MAJOR EXCLUSIVE BY YOSSEF BODANSKY IN GIS... unfortunately, it is by subscription only but I will transcribe key sections:

Bin Laden’s Open and Secret Messsages: On February 11, 2003, the Islamist movement faced an unexpected complication. In the early morning (Asia and Europe time), a few sources affiliated with the mujahedin movement in Western Europe announced a forthcoming message from bin Laden. This announcement was solely for internal distribution among the Islamist élite. "Osama bin Laden has issued a new statement on the current military buildup in the Middle East, to coincide with the Muslim Eid Festival," the announcement read. Bin Laden’s statement would consist of "an audio recording and an English transcript" to be issued via a British outlet. The announcement provided instructions on how to get copies of bin Laden’s real message. Significantly, the internal announcement identified the key points to be made by bin Laden in his statement.

Meanwhile, anticipating a leak to hostile intelligence services, the Islamists prepared a diversion. A watered-down statement, also recorded by Osama bin Laden, was sent to al-Jazeera TV quite openly. As anticipated, the recording was intercepted by the Qatari security authorities and then handed over to the US. Both the Qatari authorities, who might have been party to the Islamist deception, and the Islamist leadership were convinced that the US would "swallow the bait" quietly. But that was not to be. Instead, Secretary of State Collin Powell not only announced the existence of the bin Laden statement while testifying in front of the Senate Budget Committee, but claimed it was to be broadcast by al-Jazeera TV later that day. Now, al-Jazeera was caught off balance, as its chief editor Ibrahim Hilal desperately attempted to convince the Western media that al-Jazeera TV had no such tape. Ultimately, however, the Qatari security authorities did provide al-Jazeera TV with the intercepted taped message, and bin Laden’s diversion statement was broadcast later that day.

Osama bin Laden’s "message to our brothers in Iraq" as broadcasted by al-Jazeera TV on February 11, 2003, had no surprises or milestones theological decrees. Bin Laden first described the overall context of the forthcoming war in Iraq. "We are following up with great interest and extreme concern the Crusaders’ preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims’ wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments. This would be in preparation for establishing the Greater Israel," he explained. "Amid this unjust war, the war of infidels and debauchees led by America along with its allies and agents, we would like to stress a number of important values," bin Laden stressed.

Bin Laden’s key message was that the forthcoming war against the US in Iraq was a jihad in the interest of all Muslims rather than the nationalist war advocated by Saddam Hussein. The entire Muslim world must assist Iraq not because of support for Saddam Hussein’s cause but in order to save all-Islamic values from the US-Israeli onslaught. Bin Laden declared that "fighting should be for the sake of the one God. It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq."

But that's not all:

Only on Friday, February 14, 2003, was Osama bin Laden’s real message finally released for select internal distribution; essentially at the last moment before the Friday noon prayers and sermons. The Islamists released high-quality audio recording in Arabic and an excellent English translation for the Western-based Islamists. Titled "Exposing the New Crusader War," bin Laden’s message sought to chart the course of the global jihad.

Some key points: all attacks on Americans and Israelis are sanctioned without having to clear it HOWEVER any attacks in Saudi Arabia must go through the chain of command and are to be planned so not a single drop of Muslim blood is spilt.

- Osama is convinced he will win in Afghanistan
- He puts out a hit on any of the non-Islamist leaders of countries like Saudi, Yemen, etc.
- He thinks that a major attack in Saudi against the Americans will result in either open anarchy or a split in the royal family causing the government to fall
- it's clear that Saudi Arabia is his major objective

GIS should release this report immediately.

2003-02-20T18:04:00.000-05:00

Tough talk from Abu Sayyaf:

THE ABU Sayyaf is preparing a "welcome party" for American soldiers who will take part in the Balikatan 03-1 exercise in Sulu, a top leader of the Abu Sayyaf said Wednesday.

"We will welcome them in our little way . . . and that could be big," said Abu Soliman who has a five-million-dollar bounty on his head.

The American forces may be ready to party.

Go, Marines.

2003-02-20T18:01:00.000-05:00

Osama never said there would be days like this...

AP reports:

Three more men have attempted suicide at the United States prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in the past week, lifting the total to 19, the Pentagon said yesterday. The three were treated at the nearby American naval base and are back in their cells, said Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind. Also yesterday, Commander Burfeind acknowledged that some of the camp's detainees, who are generally terrorism suspects and are considered by the United States to be combatants, were being transferred to detention elsewhere. "From time to time the transfer and release of detainees will occur without notice or mention," she said, refusing to comment on specific cases or locations involved.

2003-02-20T17:56:00.000-05:00

So we aren't going to use the e-bomb afterall. Awwww...shucks. The reasoning is as follows:

"The U.S. doesn't want the rest of the world to get their hands on something that we're highly vulnerable to," says Loren Thompson, executive director of the Lexington Institute think tank based in Washington, which is set to issue a 64-page report on the topic in coming days. Traditionally, new weapons often spur the development of similar systems and countermeasures to render them less harmful. Some who have studied the use of electromagnetic pulses in warfare say that a cheap version of the weapon could be made for as little as $400. (Wall Street Journal, 20 February, by Anne Marie Squeo)

Well, if you actually KEEP IT A FRIGGIN' SECRET, you dopes, maybe we could use it and SAVE SOLDIER SAILOR MARINE AIRMEN LIVES!!!

Update: More on esoteric weapons (and more handwringing as well) here.

The epicenter of most directed-energy weapons research in the United States is Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. A spokesman at Kirtland said that he could not comment beyond the information on the base's Web site (www.de.afrl.af .mil). Companies including TRW, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are also engaged in directed-energy research. In addition, the research involves nonclassified work being conducted by civilians such as Edl Schamiloglu, director of the pulsed power, beams and microwave laboratory at the University of New Mexico's department of electrical and computer engineering.

2003-02-19T21:03:00.000-05:00

The Army Times is reporting in its subscribers-only section:

Plan could diminish clout, reach of Joint Chiefs
A draft plan circulating within the Pentagon would cut the power and influence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by stripping them of an independent joint staff and changing the way their assignments are structured.

Looks like Rumsfeld is still squabbling with his Chiefs...

2003-02-19T21:01:00.000-05:00

Christopher Buckley is reminded of George Bush's dad back in London, 1983 as he watched the European protests this weekend:

That night in Guildhall, as the vice president gave a positively brilliant speech, the shouting of the demonstrators seemed loud enough to rattle the stained-glass windows of the historic building. There was a question-and-answer session afterward. A politician wearing the clerical collar of the Church of England rose and in a tone of high moral revulsion denounced the United States for bringing emotions in Europe to the present boil and for forcing on an unwilling England and Continent these ghastly weapons. He had children, he announced with umbrage, and he rather hoped he would be able to see them grow up and not be incinerated in a nuclear exchange initiated by America.

The vice president began to answer, in his usual earnest, thoughtful and patient way. And then he stopped. I saw the air go out of him. He sighed. It was as eloquent and sincere a sigh as I have ever heard from a politician.

"Look, I have kids too," he said. "Don't you think I want to see them grow up?"

He followed this remark by saying that these missiles — he did not add, "That you asked us for, bub" — were intended to make Europe safer, not more dangerous. He reminded the gentleman that President Ronald Reagan had pledged to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev "at any time" and "any place" to sign an agreement eliminating all intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

The moment was defused. I had never seen the vice president in better form.

We flew home the next day. In the following weeks, German voters elected candidates who supported the Pershing missile deployments. A few months later, the missiles went in.

A few years after that, Mikhail Gorbachev effectively surrendered in a cold war that had lasted almost four decades, and in a few more years the Berlin Wall came down. Game, set, match. The Gulag Archipelago is now Vladimir Putin's Russia. NATO now extends to the Baltics.

2003-02-19T20:57:00.000-05:00

Michael Kelly has really taken Robert D. Kaplan's book Warrior Politics to heart and finds virtue not in the anti-war position but in fighting a pre-emptive war:

To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil.

This cannot be the moral position.

2003-02-19T20:54:00.000-05:00

Thomas L. Friedman thinks if Bush would be more upfront about why he thinks we need to go to war rather than the "parlimentary shadowboxing" of the U.N. resolutions, that he might be more successful selling it to the people:

Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction.

2003-02-19T20:51:00.000-05:00

Toxic Talk of War Lawrence F. Kaplan thinks there's alot of anti-semites lurking behind the anti-war pundits, both on the left and the right.

The problem here is the implication that some members of the Bush team have been doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, harbor dual loyalties. The charge that the administration's "rabid Israel supporters" are behind the drive to war is risible. Perle and Wolfowitz and their fellow Jewish neoconservatives are surely hawks -- but not merely on Iraq. Their expansive view of America's overseas obligations has in the past led them to support interventions wherever America's interests and ideals have been threatened: Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Kosovo -- in the last two cases for the explicit purpose of protecting Muslims. Many of these officials have also had profound disagreements with their Israeli counterparts -- not least on the question of whether Iran or Iraq presents the greater threat. Then, too, the Cabinet-level officials driving the current debate have mostly been non-Jewish Goldwater Republicans whose brand of conservatism hardly qualifies as "neo." In fact, the claim that Jewish officials with close ties to Israel have been driving the Bush team's policy toward Iraq could just as easily have been leveled against the previous administration, whose Iraq policy was the opposite of the current one. For that matter, a cursory review of the literature opposing war in Iraq reveals that the charge of "Jewish-American hysteria" could just as easily apply to opponents of an invasion.

2003-02-19T20:48:00.000-05:00

Nic Kristoff in yet another rambling opinion piece writes that Bush is too idealistic and needs to learn more about practical results. Meanwhile, Bush's greatest ally, Tony Blair is too realpolitik... another day, another million pundits.

2003-02-19T20:37:00.000-05:00

Neil Baumgardner of the Defense Daily (again, sorry you need an account to access this article) writes that the Pentagon is developing a 20,000-30,000-pound "Massive Ordnance" guided bomb that could be used not just against tunnels and undergroudn facilities but can create "spectacular effects" above ground. Baumgardner cites a CBS News report last week:

"[The Pentagon] has also developed one new bomb, a massive conventional explosive larger even than the 15,000-pound bomb the U.S. has used in previous wars. In addition to its devastating blast, it also gives off a cloud that resembles the distinctive mushroom-shaped cloud of a nuclear explosion.

Pentagon officials refused to discuss how the bomb might be used, but it seems unlikely a weapon that powerful would be dropped on a populated area. It seems moer likely to be used as a way of shocking the Iraqis into surrendering by making them think the U.S. had done the unthinkable and used a nuclear weapon."

Again, I take a breath. Defense Daily wonders if this is related to the "Massive Ordnance" bomb as described by George Ulrich, the director of weapon systems science and technology in the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the recent Munitions Executive Summit in Falls Church, Va. This effort was started after September 11th, 2001 as a means to attack hardened and deeply buried targets. Defense Daily believes this is the rumored "Big BLU" penetrator bomb which would be coupled with a Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kit. The BLU-82, otherwise known as the "Daisy Cutter" was used in Afghanistan to great effect and is 12,000 pounds. According to Defense Daily, a"Massive Ordnance Air Burst" variant (MOAB) was confirmed by the Air Force Research Laboratory as an advanced technology demonstration project begun in Fiscal Year 2002.

A 44,000-pound bomb was developed during World War II known as the T12 and currently is part of the collection at the Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.

2003-02-19T20:23:00.000-05:00

David "leak catcher" Fulghum of Aviation Week & Space Technology (sorry, this is not online) writes that the Pentagon has drafted a plan to quadruple the number of unmanned aerial vehicles by 2010. Among the top dozen priorities is a Predator style UAV that has vertical takeoff and landing and an unmanned combat air vehicle for strike and suppression of air defense. Also in the works, a Navy "flying plate weapon" (hee, hee) that can "reduce concrete structures to rubble or perforate steel," a new high-energy explosive dubbed CL-20 that can increase the power of small bombs and "intermetallic incendiary" technology that generates a 6,700 degree (F) fire that cannot be extinguished with water and could be used to neutralize biological and chemical agents.

Catching breath here....

Also highlighted are 250-lb. smart bombs wtih an accuracy of 16 ft., the ability to penetrate 5 ft. of concrete and the destructive power of a 2,000 lb. bomb. Finally, the UAV report includes plans to demonstrate formation flight by two unmanned aircraft this summer as part of the X-45 program, to be followed by aerial refueling of an unmanned aircraft. Can swarming UAVs be far behind?

2003-02-19T20:14:00.000-05:00

The very best minds

Gen. John P. Jumper writes to the Washington Times about their recent story with a little bit of annoyance:

Readers troubled by 'timid' air strategy story

Thursday's Page One article, "Officers fault air strategy for Iraq war as 'timid,' " based on the musings of a single anonymous source about classified contingency planning for Iraq, brings to mind one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Rules: "Those who know, don't talk; those who talk, don't know."
I am deeply involved in developing military options for President Bush, should he call upon the armed forces to act against Iraq. This process is — at its very core — collegial, collaborative and joint. Moreover, Gen. Tommy Franks' leadership of Central Command during the global war on terrorism is ample proof of his appreciation of the strengths each service brings to the fight and how we will win, together. Every service has been fully represented in current planning, and all have had the opportunity to vet any concerns freely and openly. The result is one all the services support, and one that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will execute brilliantly, together.
Never before in my 37-year military career has the United States enjoyed an environment of such joint cooperation and interservice communication. The very best minds of each service are working to maximize the combined effects of all our forces in pursuit of victory. On that point — and unlike the shadow critic who violates his or her oath even while presuming to represent other airmen — I am willing to put my name and reputation on record.

GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER
Chief of Staff
Air Force
Washington

2003-02-19T20:09:00.000-05:00

It's a fine thing that Joseph Goodwin signed up for the Army after graduating Harvard but with this following passage, I am suspicious that this isn't some sort of Clintonian rehab stunt by his disgraced mother, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

During her son's training, Ms. Goodwin has also been dealing with accusations that a book she wrote on the Kennedys early in her career contained passages that were not properly attributed to another author. That episode, she said, "is happily in the past."

Oh, how the Goodwins are suffering but they're dealing, man, they're dealing...

The couple settle their nerves about the fact that their son may soon be called to fight by learning as much as they can about his experience. Their home is scattered with evidence of their efforts — a book chronicling Ranger training school in one room and Army-produced videotapes on basic training in another. Mr. Goodwin keeps a digital photo catalog of his son's progress on his computer.

Like Vernon below, Doris is in a win-win situation. She'll finagle some juicy talking head consignments whether the war goes bad or not.

2003-02-19T20:02:00.000-05:00

Dangerous Pride Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, military correspondents for the Washington Post, write another boring and pretentious Postie-style piece on the state of the military. On one hand, we have lots of technology according to Loeb and on the other hand, the military is way too overburdened. I guess he gets to have it both ways. But he strains credibility when he quotes retired General McCaffrey:

A few officers are beginning to worry that traces of a dangerous pride may also be showing in the military.
In contrast to the Vietnam-haunted officers who commanded during the Gulf War, said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division back then, today’s top brass have known mainly success over the past 12 years. (Many of them regard the October 1993 firefight in Somalia, during which 18 soldiers were killed, as an anomalous episode caused by civilian leaders pushing the Army into a misbegotten mission.) But that pride may lure the military into thinking it can take on more missions than it can carry.

So, what we REALLY need is a dispirited and hollow Army like after Vietnam because, you know, at least they didn't have hubris and "dangerous pride"...

And this:

The Pentagon is now so superior militarily that it really does not like to fight alongside its allies — it feels they slow U.S. forces down. Yet the United States still needs allies, said retired Army Lt. Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “for forward basing, niche capabilities we find valuable, and to take care of the peacekeeping” that follows each war.
If the United States keeps pursuing military hegemony, Krepinevich and others fear, it will alienate its allies and become weaker in the long run.

Now I have nothing but abiding respect for Krepinevich but READ the dang National Security Strategy and tell me where it says anything but going unilateral only as a last result? And how about sourcing this statement somehow, Vern: "The Pentagon is now so superior militarily that it really does not like to fight alongside its allies." Oh really, I never heard that pronouncement... must have missed it.

2003-02-17T19:05:00.000-05:00

Heretical Ideas posts the following as his 2/15/03 quote of the day:

“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all the ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by his sovereign. Victory lies in the knowledge of these five points.”
-- Sun Tzu

One could argue either way for the current US-Iraq situation.

2003-02-17T13:45:00.000-05:00

Pat Buchanan's latest column is up at WND. If you didn't know this already, Pat is the leading anti-war conservative/isolationist voice out there, I guess. He detests the neo-conservatives as much as he does the socialists.

He says we shouldn't invade Iraq because it will rally more forces to Osama bin Laden's cause and that in fact, similar to Noam Chomsky, our prescence in the Middle East is the cause of the terrorism. He's right, but in the short term, do we have a choice? Do we just leave Israel and the friendly countries in the region (Turkey, Jordan, yes, even Egypt and Saudi Arabia) to their fate, allow a madman to harness the natural resources and create an even bigger threat that we will have to fight 10, 20 years down the line. I am no neo-conservative but I do share their realism and cold assessment that events in this region will affect our future security. Isolationism was never an answer for America and even more so in this dangerous, networked world. But let's let Pat get his word in:

If 9-11 was the opening shot in America's 50-Year War on Terror, what will history say was the cause? That America was attacked because we were free, or that Islamic jihadists attacked us to drive us out of their world? Have we no choice but to drink from this bitter cup for the next half century, or can this be war on terror be averted, consistent with America's honor, freedom and security?

Is it too late to avert this 50-year war?

Sadly, the question should be, should we act now an avert a calamitious war between Islamic fascists and those who believe in freedom or do we accept, however reluctantly, the mantle of another cold war, be it 50 years, 20 years or 100 years?

2003-02-17T13:31:00.000-05:00

Walt Rostow, former national security advisor under Johnson and a principal architect of the Vietnam War is dead at 86.

It was his memorandum to JFK in April 1961, that recommended "gearing up the whole Vietnam operation," including the despatch of US special forces, to fight the communist insurgency. At various stages he advocated bombing north Vietnam, mining its ports and increasing the US military presence throughout the region, all positions that became official policy.

Unlike many of his colleagues, Rostow, a World War II OSS agent, never renounced his policies.

UPDATE: I'm reading Gaddis's "Strategies of Containment" and came across the following on Rostow.

Rostow...[produced the] 284-page draft statement (for Kennedy) of "Basic National Security Policy" comparable in purpose to, but much broader in scope than, the studies Eisenhower's National Security Council had regularly produced. Kennedy never formally approved Rostow's "BSNP" draft, partly because of unresolved questions relating to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, partly for fear that an official enodrsement might tie the President's hands. The document was widely circulated wtihin the government, though, and in retrospect it stands, along with Kennedy's public pronouncements, as the most comprehensive guide to what the administration thought it was trying to do in world affairs." (These assumptions stayed in place after Johnson became President, despite his dramatically different personal style. Folowing Bundy's resignation in 1966, Johnson turned to Rostow as his national security advisor. Page 200)

2003-02-16T20:54:00.000-05:00

Robert Kagan is interviewed in a fluff piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Too bad they wasted his time with some pretty stupid questions but he manages to get some zingers in.

Your new book, ''Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order,'' has made you the toast of the foreign-policy set.

I've undergone a strange phenomenon. People tell me I've become a pop star.

Maybe that's all you neo-conservatives really want. Doesn't your book basically update the old idea that Americans are cowboys and Europeans are wimps?

It's more complicated than that. Europe is not up to the challenge of meeting the war on terrorism. Americans are readier to use military force.

2003-02-16T20:08:00.000-05:00

OK, so I still don't understand www.blogrolling.com. I think its supposed to be an easy way to manage the links on the right hand side of your page. I'll figure it out eventually. Argh.

2003-02-16T20:01:00.000-05:00

I received the following email (write me at nsapc3f - at - yahoo.com) from a Brit regarding my post on "Eye of Vichy"...

I suspect that if all the stories of French treachery during the WW2 were published, we would not have time to read anything else.

There are, however, two 'incidents' which I am able to recall firsthand. The first was a news reel shown in British cinemas after the liberation of Paris. I was only seven years old but I clearly remember the outrage it caused in my family. It showed Allied troops marching through the streets of Paris, during the liberation, and the French women, lining the streets, booing and spitting in their faces.

The second-involving a personal encounter with a French Resistance Fighter was in 1988 or thereabouts-was when I was flying from Lyon to Geneva occupying a window seat and having spread myself out as much as possible, rather selfishly I have to say, to discourage anyone wanting to sit next to me! It was not long before I was approached by an elderly Frenchman in the usual berét.

Uncharacteristically, he was exceptionally polite for a Frenchman and I remember being struck by his bright sparkling eyes and sincere smile. ''Excuse me Sir, you are Engleesh?'' It was a reasonable assumption; I was reading the Daily Telegraph and had a copy of the FT (Financial Times!) on the seat next to me! ''Yes'' I replied (uncharacteristically politely for me when speaking to a Frenchman, I have to say!) ''In that case'' he said, ''I would like to shake you by the hand if I may?'' ''Of course'', I said as I proffered my hand in response, ''But May I ask why?''. I found myself instinctively making room for him to sit next to me.

He sat down and started to explain. By this time he had tears in his eyes as he proceeded to thank me profusely for the wonderful and brave support the British and the American people had given France during the 'last war'.

He went on to criticise, in the strongest of terms, and at the same time apologise for, the behaviour of the majority of his own countrymen towards both the British and the Americans after the 'last war'. He related stories of treachery by people in his town and of some of the people with whom he had worked and known. He related many stories about his experiences, each one detailing some awful treachery committed by one of his own countrymen.

His stories were frequently interspersed with genuine tears of remorse as he recounted the dreadful treachery he had either witnessed personally, or could vouch for. His reminiscences lasted for the entire flight. I cannot remember how long it was-but certainly more than an hour. At no stage did I even think of questioning either the man's sanity or his sincerity. I was in the presence of a truly remarkable man.

He extolled the virtues of the Allies in a manner I had never before heard- let alone from a Frenchman. His profound gratitude was so obviously sincere but most striking of all was the contempt in which he held the majority his own people and he went on to ask himself how ever could the debt be repaid and the 'guilt lifted from our shoulders'.

When we parted in the baggage hall, he thanked me once again, with immense and sincere gratitude, and with tears still in his eyes. I shall never forget this exceptional Frenchman, nor his parting words for as I turned to go he said: ''Pray God that my Countrymen one day will see the errors of their ways''.

Not a prayer that so far seems to have been answered.

2003-02-16T19:54:00.000-05:00

OK, so I have a great local video store and I am currently watching the whole series of Winds of War and War and Remembrance (the latter is to be out fully on DVD shortly). I just got to the part where one of my favorite characters, the poor lovelorn schlump Leslie Slote finds his courage, quits the beggars game of diplomacy, signs up with the OSS and is inserted behind enemy lines in June 1944 to organize the French Resistance.

Of course, one of the Frenchmen betrays them to the Germans and he gets shot and dies.

This series will be much better when it comes out on DVD because, like Pearl Harbor, one can edit out all the hokey melodrama and bad TV acting (Polly Bergen! Mike Conner! Peter Graves! Ali MacGraw!) to get to the good stuff.

2003-02-16T19:45:00.000-05:00

Blogs of War has lots of great links to other war blogs and some first-hand opinionating and speechifying - true democracy in action. Among his most recent links is this and that. Check it out.

2003-02-16T18:17:00.000-05:00

I am reading Gaddis's "Strategies of Containment" and there are some stellar quotes from George Kennan, the author of the anti-Soviet containment policy, from way back in 1947.

On the peace movement: "There is 'peace' behind the walls of a prison, if you like that."

"Unpleasant as this may be, we may have to face up to the fact that there may be instances where violence somewhere in the world on a limited scale is more desireable than the alternatives, because those alternatives would be global wars in which we ourselves would be involved, in which no one would win, and in which all civilizations would be dragged down. I think we have to face the fact [that] there may be arrangements of peace less acceptable to the seucirty of this country than isolated recurrences of violence."

"Perhaps the whole idea of world peace has been a premature, unworkable grandiose form of day-dreaming and that we should have held up as our goal: 'Peace if possible, and insofar as it effects out interest.'"

On the U.N.: "a contest of tableux morts: there is a long period of preparation in relative obscurity; then the curtain is lifted; the lights go on for a brief moment; the posture of the group is recorded for posterity by the photography of voting; and whoever appears in the most graceful and impressive position has won.... parliamentary shadow-boxing"

2003-02-16T07:59:00.000-05:00

The National Security Strategy for Combating Terrorism is out. This is a strategy subordinate to the overall National Security Strategy. There is a companion piece for homeland security.

Two comments: "terrorist organizations of global reach" are the focus of this document - however, this term is never really defined. Is Abu Sayeff with their ties to Al-Qaida such a terrorist organization? What about Hamas? What about the nature of pre-emption? With this one word, you can turn any terrorist organization into an organization of global reach because you surmise they will eventually become linked with Al-Qaida.

The other thing is the admitted by the document. When is victory achieved? The nature of terrorism makes this hard to answer.

2003-02-15T18:48:00.000-05:00

Some more on Vichy France taken from a review of the film, The Sorrow and the Pity:

One of the interviewees, Claude Lévy, who has written one of most complete accounts of Jewish persecution in France and was an active member of the Resistance from the age of 16, provides details on the infamous Velodrome d’Hiver events in mid-July 1942, when French police rounded up nearly 13,000 Parisian Jews—including 4,051 children—and jailed them in the d’Hiver cycling stadium. Five days later, these prisoners were loaded onto cattle cars and transported to Drancy concentration camp just outside Paris and then to the Auschwitz death camp. In fact, French officials deported some 75,000 Jews, including 12,000 children, to Nazi camps between 1941-44, where they were executed.

2003-02-15T18:44:00.000-05:00

The Eye of Vichy is a 1993 documentary recently out on
DVD. Via Vichy's own propaganda news footage
interspersed with English commmentary, it shows just
how complicit the French were with Nazi Germany. Did
you know that the French sent 100s of thousands of
workers to Germany to shore up their industry thereby
freeing the Wehrmacht to handle the three-front war?
Or that Vichy France raised and supported a small Army
to go fight the Soviets, shoulder to shoulder with the
Nazis? Or have you ever seen footage of the French
"sieg heiling" or the French version of the Nazi
Youth? How about the French-made anti-semetic movies
that portrayed Jews as rats and vermin? How about the
French newsreel that extols Nazi hegemony over all of
Europe and Russian Asia - with the French commentator
bragging that France will be in charge of Atlantic
Ocean defense (i.e., French Navy against the UK/US
Navy).

Did you know that only mere days before the Americans
and English liberated Paris, the French held a huge
rally for Petain in Paris? Kind of makes that tearful
welcome for the allies (the footage that always gets
shown) seem a bit fake after you see this?

P.S. There is a hilarious propaganda cartoon by the
French featuring Micky Mouse, Donald Duck and Popeye
bombing Paris.

2003-02-15T10:40:00.000-05:00

Quote of the week from the afore-mentioned US News and World Report article:

"On some days, I get up thinking this will be relatively quick and we will be left with a pretty good situation afterwards. On other days, I wake up and think, 'Holy sh--'"

Let's hope all those smug radio commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who think Iraq will be a cakewalk are reading this. War should never be undertaken likely, to paraphrase Clausewitz. That said, after reading the article about Feith and Cambone, I am convinced that we have some smart folks at the top. Still, one can never predict how this will turn out.

2003-02-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

Donald Rumsfeld likes making lists...

His list of the top six things that can go wrong in Iraq are instructive:

1. Iraqis unleash their chemical and biological weapons arsenal (you know, the ones that don't exist).
2. Saddam makes a bloody last stand in Baghdad (the Stalingrad-Manilla-Grozny scenario)
3. Iraq's oil wells are turned into fields of fire.
4. Saddam puts civilians in harm's way
5. Terrorists acquire Saddam's weapons of mass destruction

His psy-war is addressing number 1 by sending the message to Saddam's general's about the consequences of chem/bio weapon use. His plan seems to address number 3 by early insertion of Marines and Airborne to key sites. Items 2, 4 and 5 will be the hardest thing to counter - they are problematic to bomb and you a number of borders where such weapons might be received (Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran). This article also notes that Saddam could destroy the four key dams controlling the water supply in order to flood out the South and slow the advance of the Army.

And don't forget number 6:

But Iraqis, freed from Saddam's repressive grip, could unleash a wave of revenge killings that could spin out of control. "After a period of bloodletting, there will have to be law and order," says one U.S. official. This would most likely take thousands of U.S. soldiers camping out in Iraq for many months. While most Iraqis probably would be happy to be rid of Saddam, there is great resentment after years of American-led sanctions. If the Iraqi death toll in a war is high, U.S. forces could be greeted very coldly.

2003-02-15T10:28:00.000-05:00

With the JDAM missile kit becoming so important in GWII, perhaps even a center of gravity for the Army, it's little wonder that the factory in Missouri that assembles them have attracted attention from protesters and the like.

Two protests with more than 40 arrests were held at Boeing last year, with more action planned for next month. Protestors said technology shouldn't mask the fact that bombs will kill people if used.

St. Charles Mayor Patti York said the Boeing technology makes her hope there might be less collateral damage and keep her son safe if a war breaks out in Iraq. The 26-year-old Marine is serving in Kuwait City.

Ironic that the weapon which should reduce civilian casualties because of its precision should be getting attention from the protesters. Have they found the plant that makes daisy cutters yet?

2003-02-15T10:22:00.000-05:00

Wall Street Journal, 13 Feburary, 2003 (sorry no link to the actual story but here's a summary) writes of the XM29, a prototype rifle that fires bullets and grenade-like rounds programmed to explode at precisve distances. This would replace the M16 and M203. The gun includes a laser range finder, a ballistic computer which programs the electronic fuse into the round, which counts the number of rotations it makes as it hurtles through the air. Picatinny Arsenal is funding some other work related to small arms such as a "small missile with 200 tiny thrusters around the edge of the projectile to control its course. The Army funded other teams to figure out how to hunt down people by zeroing in on their body heat."

2003-02-15T10:15:00.000-05:00

Richard Chesnoff writes of some developments in the Jihad world that are alarming - but not unpredictable:

According to the sources, whom I have known for more than two decades and whose information has always proved impeccable, groups of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah activists from the Sidon area of Lebanon met in Africa in December to set up joint operations there.

The sources say the meeting was attended by a leading operative from Hezbollah, Abu Jaffar. Al Qaeda, dozens of whose fugitive fighters found shelter in Lebanon, was represented by two men: one of Osama Bin Laden's top surviving chemistry experts and Haroun Fazul, a senior African-based operative who U.S. intelligence believe was involved in the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The sources charge that the meeting was used to coordinate final details for a joint chemical weapons lab in one of Al Qaeda's safe houses, possibly in Somalia. The plan calls for the transfer of precursor chemicals and such agents as cyanide and nerve gas to the safe house.

2003-02-15T10:08:00.000-05:00

Get used to hearing these names: David McKiernan and Michael Moseley as they are going to be the key players in Gulf War II. McKiernan is an Army general who will command the combined force land components and Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley is the air commander. The cooperation between these two will be crucial since the supposed plan based on maneuver warfare relies on unprecedented and immediate cooperation between the Army and the Air Force. But... they are geographically separated. McKiernan is in Kuwait (Camp Doha) and Moseley is in Prince Sultan Air Base.

To that end, Inside the Pentagon (requires account to view article) reported on 13 February (page 1) that Air Force Maj. Gen Dan Leaf and an 11-member "air component coordination element" will augment McKiernan's staff. Leaf will technically be under Moseley's command but is empowered to make decisions on the spot to assist the groundwar. Leaf, pulled from his job in the requirements division at the Pentagon, says "It's relatively unprecedented, though its been done on a smaller scale in some of our recent operations. But the Air Force -- with the potential for combat operations sadly looming -- has recognized that we can enhance our command-level connectivity with all of the other components."

For a service that stoutly embraced Air Power theory throughout even the Gulf War, this is a shocking admission. ItP writes:

A virtual firestorm between the two services erupted last fall when Anaconda's two-star Army commander griped in an interview about insufficient air support for ground troops in the March 2002 Anaconda operation." To be fair, the Navy, USMC and USAF received the operational plan (a Powerpoint briefing) from Maj. Gen Frank Hagenbeck the night before. Leaf has alot of joint experience and went to the Army Staff college (and was on the faculty for two years) so we hope that the Pentagon has chosen the right man. He and Mosely have a tight connection as well, going back 20 years.

2003-02-15T09:50:00.000-05:00

Nicholas Lemann interviews Douglas Feith and Steve Cambone, leading policy makers in the Pentagon to discover whether the Gulf War II is, as some scholars have suggested, part of a larger audacious plan to bring a new balance of power to the Middle East.

Feith explains why Iraq really is part of the Global War on Terrorism:

"One of the principal strategic thoughts underlying our strategy in the war on terrorism is the importance of the connection between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors," he said. "Terrorist organizations cannot be effective in sustaining themselves over long periods of time to do large-scale operations if they don't have support from states. They need a base of operations. They need other types of assets that they get from their connection with their state sponsors—whether it's funding, or headquarters, or, in some cases, the use of diplomatic pouches and other types of facilities. And one of the principal reasons that we are focussed on Iraq as a threat to us and to our interests is because we are focussed on this connection between three things: terrorist organizations, state sponsors, and weapons of mass destruction. If we were to take military action and vindicate our principles, in the war on terrorism, against Iraq, I think it would"—he paused, looking for the right word—"register with other countries around the world that are sponsoring terrorism, and would perhaps change their own cost-benefit calculations about their role in connection with terrorist networks. I think this process got under way with Afghanistan. There you had a regime that was ousted because of its support for terrorist operations against the United States. If the Iraqi regime gets ousted because it ultimately proves unwilling to disarm itself in a coöperative fashion with the U.N., and if the United States leads a coalition and overthrows that government, I think that the combination of those two actions will influence the thinking of other states about how advisable it is for them to continue to provide safe harbor or other types of support to terrorist organizations."

So, it's really NOT about oil? Well... not quite but also not in the way the anti-war left thinks. Cambone explains:

the Iraqis provide oil to the Syrians, supposedly well in excess of the quantities permitted under United Nations sanctions, and get Syrian money and support in return. Jordan is also dependent on Iraqi oil, which means that its government has to tolerate Saddam's political wooing of the country's Palestinian majority. If Iraqi oil came with different ideological strings attached, these governments might feel freer to resist Islamic radicalism openly.

And they are really thinking about what comes after in Iraq. In fact, that's what the war is really intended to address. On the other hand, they are also thinking about what Clausewitz said when he noted that the best strategy can go wrong in light of the fog and friction of war.

Now, things could also go badly. One should not discount, for all that one can imagine good things happening, the prospect that things that would not be helpful or positive could occur, too"—especially, he added, if the United States and its allies do not manage the postwar period adeptly. Is the hope of effecting secondary changes part of the motivation for war? Cambone thought for a long moment. "Hmm. I don't know how to answer that." He stopped again, and finally, deliberately, said, "There is no lack of reflection on what the consequences either of the regime persisting or of its being gone might be. That is all part and parcel of how one thinks through the problem."

This article has been overlooked by the Blogger community - probably because of where it was published (The New Yorker, a magazine that has printed some irresponsible journalism in the past) but it is well worth your time.

2003-02-15T09:35:00.000-05:00

The New Republic has an article on the Iraqi opposition groups (requires registration). The reason the opposition group conference in Northern Iraq has been delayed is not because of security concerns, according to this article:

But, more than a fear of provoking Saddam, Washington feared that opposition leaders would make good on their vow to create a provisional government in exile, something the Bush administration, which does not want the exiles to make up the core of a government immediately after Saddam is toppled, has rejected in recent weeks.

Also interestingly, or ominously, is this note:

Indeed, some administration officials have been reaching out to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), an Iraqi exile group based in Iran. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently wrote to SCIRI's leader, Muhammad Baqr Al Hakim, to invite him to send people for American training in Hungary. Similarly, other Pentagon hawks "know there is a practical need to deal with Iran on this," says one exile source.

2003-02-10T17:20:00.000-05:00

Dear Jacques,

So I hear the de Gaulle is steaming towards the Gulf. How wonderful. Two questions, have you packed any chem-bio protection gear and which side are you fighting on?

Your Dear Friend,

George

2003-02-09T18:50:00.000-05:00

Live fire urban warfare training is underway in the Kuwaiti desert with the 3rd Infantry Division...

Too hazardous for peacetime because of the risk of injury or death, the drills are unique because of the use of live fire and the scope of the weaponry and vehicles involved. Troops are surrounded by flying bullets, including one that hit a young soldier in the abdomen recently, wounding him only slightly because he was wearing a flak jacket.

2003-02-09T16:06:00.000-05:00

John R. Boyd's briefings and writings are available at Belisarius.com. See if you agree with his biographer's assessment that he is the greatest theorist since Sun Tzu. I'm still divided on that one. At times, reading his stuff reminds me of the work of a schizophrenic but aren't all geniuses insane? The book is good reading although I find myself yelling at it at times and total disgust at how Boyd's family was treated (by him). Boyd's life begs the basic question - is patriotism, anti-careerism and the pursuit of truth truly worth almost destroying your family and leaving them bereft? The guy could have made some decent bucks but he refused all but the minimal payment from the DoD and his speaking engagements. Now the part of his family that can't fend for themselves (his elderly wife and a mentally problematic boy and girl) lives on in a cramped two bedroom apartment. Was it worth it?

2003-02-09T15:53:00.000-05:00

Global Information System... a subscriber only service reports via Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily about current psychological operations in Iraq:

The CIA continues to operate a number of stations aligned with its favored opposition grouping, the Iraqi National Accord (INA). These operate primarily from the 50kw Voice of America transmitter in Kuwait. The main CIA-run stations, al-Mustaqbal and Voice of the Brave Armed Forces, primarily broadcast to the Iraqi military, inciting officers to launch coup attempts. The latter station is part-run by Jordanian intelligence. Saudi intelligence, meanwhile, has run the Jeddah-based Voice of the Iraqi People since 1991. Though USIA-run Voice of America Arabic language stations have increased their output dramatically, they are not believed to attract wide audiences amongst key constituencies such as youth or the armed forces.

Notice that the Iraqi National Congress is NOT favored and in fact, according to this brief, have been denied funding and access for their own radio station (Radio Hurriah - translated Radio Freedom). A search of news.google for the Iraqi National Accord yields 34 hits while a search for the Iraqi National Congress yields 268 hits.

The New York Sun doesn't like the INA and says they are infected with Baathists:

On the Iraq issue, there’s Ben Miller, a CIA staffer who recently helped arrange a meeting between Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and an Iraqi “opposition” group, the Iraqi National Accord, that is so infected with Saddam Hussein’s Baathist ideology that it reportedly tried to assassinate members of the democratic opposition group. Mr. Miller has been taking a role in the policy debate within the administration, arguing for a coup in Iraq instead of a democratic revolution.

Here be their website. They do not, at least in what I have read, identify publicly with the Baath Party but they do expouse keeping the same borders and better relations among the Arabic countries (the original ideals of the Baathists was Pan-Arabism - in other words, a united Arabic nation). They claim to be pro-democracy and establishing rule of law within Iraq. Additionally, they will repatriate Iraqi refugees and seek compensation from the Saddamites, if any are left.

The INC, then are out of favor. Reports I have seen suggest that a) the CIA doesn't want to be reminded of their failure in the mid-90s when Clinton encouraged the INC to overthrow Saddam and then backed out, b) the INC is dogged by tales of financial "issues" associated with the leader and c) they are not the "umbrella group" their propaganda makes them out to be.

Overlooked in all the coverage is that the U.S. is training a 3000 man Iraqi cadre in Hungary to perform liasion, scouting and language translation functions in GWII. The local residents claim the base is protected by gum-chewing American soldiers wearing dark glasses . Uh...huh.

2003-02-08T20:01:00.000-05:00

Greg Jaffee reports in Friday's Wall Street Journal (sorry no link, subscription only, I'm quoting from my newspaper) that a Master Sgt. Rudy Romero's email to his boss detailing recommendations following Enduring Freedom made its way up to the top brass and has resulted in some changes for the equipment used in the Central Asian theater. He and two of his buddies were invited up to Natick to brief an auditorium of engineers:

The three raised another practical concern: Too many of the Army's new gadgets use different kinds of batteries, further increasing the load. Some soldiers, Sgt. Romero explained, buy commercial GPS locators from camping stores and discard their military-issue devices simply because the civilian ones use the same batteries as their night-vision goggles. The engineers, who had heard similar complaints before, said they would keep that in mind but made no promises.

Oh well, they're Army civilian engineers... what can I say?

And the best munitions for clearing out a cave? "Bring lots of Thermite grenades and C-4," he suggests. His unit, not accustomed to clearing caves, never seemed to have enough.

Hmpf... so much for those fancy thermobaric bombs.

2003-02-08T19:54:00.000-05:00

From Washington Times "Inside the Ring" column:

Marine gunfight rules

With U.S. military forces ready for war with Iraq, troops around the nation are preparing to ship out for the Middle East. The Marines have taken a lighter look at some rules of ground combat, and we obtained a copy of them.

Among the 24 rules are such gems as, No. 1: "Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns," and, No. 2, "Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive."

Rule No. 7 is: "In 10 years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived." And No. 8: "If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading and running."

Rule No. 10 addresses a worst-case scenario: "Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." And No. 11: "Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose."

As for prisoners, the rule is: Be careful. No 18: "Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them)."

And advice for warriors in combat, Nos. 21 and 22: "Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one."

In a dig at other services, the Marines offer this: "U.S. Navy rules: 1. Adopt an aggressive offshore posture. 2. Send the Marines. 3. Drink Coffee."

Army rules: "Show up after fight to provide security and help hand out food to all of the displaced civilians."

Air Force rules: "Watch this all on cable in a BOQ [Bachelor Officers´ Quarters] while drinking a beer."

What, no Coastie bashing?

2003-02-08T19:51:00.000-05:00

Al Kamen, noted war commentator, makes a guess at when the missiles will fly.

2003-02-08T19:46:00.000-05:00

The embittered and attention-starved war hero, Col. David "Hack" Hackworth does what he can to buck up the morale of our troops:

The risk they face is also of debilitation, new and old Gulf War syndromes resulting from USG provided toxins – whether they are injected benevolently before deployment, or administered on the battlefield from the stocks of agents we sold or gave the Iraqi government in the late 1980s.

Thanks, Dave.