Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Crossing the Korean Rubicon

Stopping Iran - Norman Podhoretz, WSJ, 23rd Jan 2008
The CIA was established in 1947 in large measure to avoid another surprise attack like the one the U.S. had suffered on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. But only three years after its founding, the fledgling agency missed the outbreak of the Korean war. It then failed to understand that the Chinese would come to the aid of the North Koreans if American forces crossed the Yalu river.
If American forces had crossed the Yalu then the Chinese would have been perfectly justified to react to an invasion of their country as this river lies on the Chinese Korean border.

Later in the war the USAF would take pains to stay on the Korean side of the river while bombing the bridges over it used by the Chinese to resupply their forces.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Japan rolls back pacifist pillars - CNN.com

Japan rolls back pacifist pillars - CNN.com, 15th Dec 2006
Postwar Japan has been solidly pacifist under the 1947 U.S.-drafted Constitution, which foreswears Japan from using force to settle international disputes, and Tokyo maintains fighting forces only for self-defense.
Which has been deployed to support American forces at sea and in Iraq. Also this Self Defense Force is quite large.

Japan Self-Defense Force - GlobalSecurity.org
With nearly 240,000 military personnel and an annual budget of close to $50 billion, Japan's military outstrips Britain's in total spending and manpower, while its navy in particular scores high among experts for its sophistication.


-HJC

Thursday, April 20, 2006

U.S. Navy denies deal to battle Somali piracy - Apr 18, 2006

U.S. Navy denies deal to battle Somali piracy - CNN, Apr 18, 2006
But Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, denied any deal. "The Somali government did not talk to the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has no agreement with the Somali government," Brown said.
I trust that that the U.S. Navy is not running their own foreign policy on the side.

However we do have a combined civilian and military task force in the area and I wonder why CNN couldn't find the time to ask them about this. Are the reporters lazy or just ignorant?

Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa

-HJC

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Army not fit to fight GWoT?

Generals' Revolt - PBS Newshour, April 18, 2006
The second thing is we put an army on the battlefield that I had been a part of for 37 years. The truth of the matter is: It doesn't have any doctrine, nor was it educated and trained, to deal with an insurgency. And that insurgency challenged us, as I knew it would for that first year.


Now if only we had a ground force that has trained to deal with stability operations for the past 66 years.

Perhaps even Corps sized would be a little small if they had to shoulder the brunt of the Global War of Terror on their own, simply because the US Army couldn't be bothered to properly prepare for the post Cold War world.

USMC Small Wars Center of Excellence

-HJC

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The buck does not stop with the SoD

Debate Over Rumsfeld's Future Grows - CBS News, Apr 16th, 2006
A tumultuous week for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not end on a quiet note as prominent military and political leaders debated his future on the Sunday morning talk shows.


Busy McCain expresses views on Rumsfeld, immigration, Iraq war - The Tribune, Apr 15th, 2006
Or more precisely, the generals are falling in line with McCain's long-standing assessment, McCain said Friday.

"I was asked a long time ago, I think a year and a half or two years ago, if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. I was asked that directly. I said, 'No,' " the Republican senator said during a news conference at his Phoenix office.


Darth Rumsfeld - The American Prospect February 26, 2001
Though genuflected to by the Washington press corps and political establishment as a genteel graybeard, the real Rumsfeld may be, in fact, much closer to Darth Vader, both on defense issues and as a practitioner of politics. "The notion that he's a gray eminence," laments William Hartung, the World Policy Institute's veteran defense analyst and a longtime Rumsfeld watcher, "is, in large part, based on press laziness."


Rumsfeld's agenda and failings were very clear from the start and if Senator McCain had a problem with the Secretary he could have held up the confirmation. He didn't.

If Senator McCain has a problem with America's defense policy then he should take it up with the President who has repeatedly turned down Secretary Rumsfeld's offers to resign.

This isn't about 2003. It's about 2006 and 2008. If Senator McCain is serious in his policy objections and believes that the nation is being endangered then he should take the constitutional path and come out with support for Bush's impeachment.

Otherwise Senator either shut up and get back to work or resign from the Senate and go campaign full time.

In this time of crisis, American, like Iraq, needs a stable government, so either accept the team we have now or make a change at the top, because the buck does not stop on the desk of the Secretary of Defense.

-HJC

Sunday, March 26, 2006

How to lose in Iraq by fighting the Media.

Yes, the American media is biased.

But it isn't a liberal bias, a conservative bias or even a pro or anti American bias as much as it is a lazy bias.

Time and again the media all over the world gets military issues wrong simply because they can't be bothered to take the time to become educated on the subjects they cover.

Take one of the great events in 20th Century media, the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times was spoon fed an internal government document, printed it verbatim and changed the course of a war.

It's useless to blame the Press for bad press. They simply aren't capable of the sort of detailed analysis required to make sense of the big issues and attacking the media simply gives them the chance to rerun the items complained about which takes even less effort on their part.

The Bush Administration has access to the media (when was the last time bin Laden or al-Zarqawi gave a press conference attended by western media?) and the responsibility for ensuring favorable media coverage lies in the White House.

The American armed forces cannot lose in Iraq. All of the islamic nations on Earth combined cannot match the power of the Pentagon and the american losses in Iraq to date are far less that what America has suffered in a single day's fighting in previous wars.

But Operation Iraqi Freedom can be lost in the American heartland. If the Republican congress revolts and demands an immediate pullout of American forces then Iraq will crumble and fragment into another Somalia, this time in the heart of the Middle East.

The current Bush plan for Iraq is almost correct. Even more important than an Iraqi government of national unity are Iraqi security forces of national unity. As long as the Iraqi security forces are seen as various militias in different uniforms then the Iraqi people will all turn to their own militias for defense against their government rather than working with the government to defeat the insurgents.

If the American policy was simply that American forces will not train, equip or operate with segregated Iraqi forces then the Iraqis would be forced to come together and work as one nation.

While this unified Iraqi army is being put together the President needs to hold the country and the Congress together.

The Congress is easy to manage. Simply give them time in the spotlight to expound on the issues of the day and they won't be too tempted to actually do anything. The best way to handle this is to put a high profile charismatic administration figure before a congressional committee every week. There's no need to put a big panel together as it would waste the time of all of them as the congress critters make speeches rather than asking questions. Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Peter Pace and the rest of the joint chiefs are good choices for this because their personal negative ratings are manageable enough to keep them from being the headlines.

As for the Press, the three biggest dangers are Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld and Scott McClellan.

The Vice President needs to be kept far away from foreign policy. A great backdrop for a Chaney speech would be some small family owned firm that has managed to stay in business because of the President's tax cuts or some event by a socially conservative group.

The Secretary of Defense needs to speak more about transformation. Send him out to meet with the Striker brigades, the Marines testing the V-22 or the workers building the first LCS. When he talks about Iraq it shouldn't be a debate with the media about what mistakes were made. Instead he should talk about lessons learned, the unknown unknowns that happened and how Americas armed forces are learning from them and always striving to do better.

The White House Press Secretary is still the same privileged brat that he was in high school and it's hurting the war effort. Scott needs to learn to be calm and rational and appear humble and spin free in public. Instead of blasting the press he needs to learn to say that he doesn't know the details in question but that he'll check with the people who do and get back to the journalist. Any day when the headline is that the Press Secretary yelled at a journalist and hurt their feelings is a distraction away from the job of spoon feeding the media with the President's message in small easily digestible chunks.

Monday, December 26, 2005

The expense of the LCS.

The Pentagon's Outdated Budget Priorities, Fred Kaplan for Slate, Dec 22nd, 2005
Nearly all the big-ticket items belong to the Air Force and the Navy. These services aren't experiencing much of a manpower crunch. (Few pilots or sea crews are being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan now.)
...
The Littoral Combat Ship: tripled, from the administration's request of $249 million for one ship to $689 million for three.
The Navy's major contribution to the Global War of Terror (other than flying sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan) is by patrolling sealanes looking for terrorists and WMD.

$689 million wouldn't buy even one DDG, which is what they're using now because the Navy didn't budget for very many small patrol craft during the Cold War or the Clinton holiday.

281 Deployable Battle Force Ships simply isn't enough and we can't afford to buy ships that are bigger than are needed for the job at hand.

And best of all the LCS carries a fourth the crew of a DDG which allows the Navy to cut total payroll, which is always the biggest lifecycle cost of any ship.

-HJC