Tuesday, April 29, 2008
April 29, 2008
Please answer one of the three following questions. The exam is due at 5:45pm today.
1. The time frame for developing new advanced weapon systems can now be measured in decades. Many defense analysts, however, have argued that we now live in an age of uncertain and unpredictable threats. What are the implications of this apparent contradiction for military procurement, doctrine, and grand strategy?
2. Some have argued that the elevation of General David Petraeus to command of CENTCOM indicates that counter-insurgency advocates have won the day in the US Army. Consider this argument, and discuss the pros and cons of refocusing US military efforts around the problem of counter-insurgency.
3. Compare and contrast the efforts of Iran and the United States to shape the future of Iraq. What military means have each employed to ensure a friendly government in Baghdad? How have each attempted to defeat the strategy of the other?
Russia has said that Georgia is building troops on the border of the breakaway province of Abkhasia, heightening tensions a week after Russians shot down a Georgian plane - while the Russians accused Abkhasians of the deed. Georgians have denied the new allegations, and are accusing the Russians of stirring things up. They even admitted that such a troop buildup would indeed heighten tensions. This is yet another example of unrest between the Russians and one of the countries formerly occupied by the Soviet Union.
Russia is clearly doing its part to promote instability in Georgia, as well as other places, perhaps so they might re-exert their influence if things go badly. Russia has taken an overwhelmingly aggressive stance towards its former subordinates, and this situation is no different. Russia has used its natural resources to hold Ukraine in submission, and Belarus is little more than a puppet at this point. The question is, should the US be concerned with these developments, or is it best to let Russia exert authority within its immediate area, and challenge them on the global stage on issues like Iran? In reality, the US isn't likely to do much in this instance, but if trends continue, a confrontation is likely - it would be difficult for the US to stand by and allow similar things to happen repeatedly.
The New York Times reports Ahmedinejad was not there to, “sign…path-breaking bilateral deals,” nor was he, “trying to iron out the kinks in a proposed 1600-mile-long natural gas pipeline.” Rather, he was there to let the Indian president shake hands with a man America hates.
This move should garner President Singh a bump in support from the majority of Indians who believe their nation should assert its independence from the US. Luckily this symbolic gesture won’t actually interfere with any US policies, so in the short-term it’s a win-win-win for everyone involved.
However, combine (a) Iran’s push for nuclear weapons, (b) the recent US policy of giving India nuclear technology, and (c) a growing Indian-Iranian relationship focused on the common interests of (i) energy and (ii) not doing what the US wants; and the long-term outlook becomes somewhat disturbing in a nuclear-proliferationy kind of way.
Monday, April 28, 2008
However, this event was also seen as a superb target for the insurgency. In turn, Taliban fighters took it upon themselves to fire a couple of rounds and some grenades at the podium seating President Karzai. Mayhem ensued and Karzai was rushed of the stage as several got killed and insured. Needless to say, the celebrations came to an abrupt halt. In response to the attack, significant numbers of Afghan troops crowded the streets of Kabul on Monday to prevent any further attacks from taking place and to flush out Taliban collaborators.
More importantly, a huge offensive was launched by Marines into Southern Afghanistan on Tuesday morning to regain parts of Helmand province. This would mark the first major offensive against the Taliban by American forces in years and is designed to drive back some of the gains that the militants had achieved over the winter. According to military officials the Taliban had of course been warned of the assault and had supposedly prepared explosives etc. to counter the advance of Marine forces. In turn, the Marines are utilizing their full arsenal of Humvees, helicopters, and airstrike to prevent any significant resistance from taking place.
It would seem that fighting in Afghanistan is about to enter a new phase. Not only have the Taliban become bolder in their attacks but the US military has decided to strike deep into Taliban territory to weaken the insurgency. Although nothing concrete has manifested, it should be clear that the next several days will bear witness to some crucial events that could determine the course of the fight in Afghanistan. Should the Marine offensive proof successful a significant part of the Taliban support base could be undermined. On the other hand should the Afghan government prove incapable of providing security for its own president during national celebrations, the Taliban might be able to prove to the people that it is there to stay. In turn, things could turn very sour for NATO troops in future months.
As we all know the Air Force has pretty much dominated all Space related systems and operations. However, it would appear that the US Army has decided that it was time to turn up the heat and see how much better they can be at this space business. According to Military.com the Army has announced that it will launch eight satellites into space over the next nine months. This would be the first time in over 50 years that the Army has shown and active interest in space.
According to the article these satellites would be rather small in size, only weighing five pounds each, and would be used for communications. Apparently there are large swathes of the developing world in which the Army lacks secure access to communication satellites and has so far relied on commercial vendors. As part of the shift in focus toward these new areas of conflict the Army feels it necessary to acquire in house assets to protect communication and increase its range of operations. Although the Army stated that it did not want to directly challenge the dominance of the Air Force in space, one of its officers did comment that "a little competition never hurt anyone".
The fact that the Army is attempting its own satellite launches does seem odd to me. Why didn't they simply contact Air Force and ask them to place more communication satellites in space? It would seem the Air Force probably has a huge comparative advantage in space technology etc. that would make them much more efficient at developing and moving satellites. It would appear that the Army is simply trying to extend its bureaucratic reach. Maybe it fears that it is being sidelined by its large peace keeping operations in the development of future war assets. Or maybe its just had a tough time to get the Air Force to do its bidding and is therefore attempting to develop its own capabilities. This last point would speak badly for the whole "jointness" effort as discussed in class.
The most current agreement with the new Pakistani government "would require the tribes to expel foreign militants, cease their own attacks and kidnappings, and allow freedom of movement to the Frontier Corps, the local security force. The deal also calls for an exchange of prisoners in return for the gradual withdrawal of the Pakistani military from part of the tribal region of South Waziristan."
So far, the deal has caused the mastermind of Benazir Bhutto's assassination to demand that all of his forces cease actions.
Still, it has been reported that US officials are not fond of this deal. Despite pouring tons of money into the country, the US has not come up with a better plan. A congressional investigation found that the US failed to come up with a "comprehensive plan," that is, one that involves diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and economic aid. Officials in the American embassy in Islamabad said that the US's over reliance of military interventions in the region is because of "a lack of a more comprehensive counterterrorism approach."
The administrations inability to deal more effectively with Pakistan is another example of its struggle to effectively fight COIN in the region.
April 20th saw not one, but two reports by the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (InSurv) detailing woefully, if not pathetically, maintained surface combatant ships. Named in these reports were the Chosin, an Aegis class cruiser, and the Stout, an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer.
Despite the inherent differences in the ships, their shortcomings were surprisingly similar. In both cases, the ships’ flight decks were rendered unusable by a variety of problems, the ships’ combat systems had numerous issues, including guns, close-in weapons and missile cells which COULD NOT FIRE. There were also problems with rudders, communications equipment, anchors, engines, radar, and life-saving equipment, the likes of which should have shamed the captain of a ship-wrecked shrimp boat, let alone an active warship.
Just to be clear, the barrels on some of the 5-inch guns had CRACKS in them and the fuel leaks in the missile cells meant missile launch would likely result in an EXPLOSION. But given all the other problems, the only hope these ships had of any offensive capabilities would involve igniting them and ramming enemy vessels (if they could muster the steering ability and engine power). So maybe the fuel leaks are a good thing.
So now the bad news…these ships were from different fleets in different oceans, suggesting what one retired admiral has dubbed, “an endemic problem in the force.” To be fair, both ships had just returned from deployments, and are scheduled for upgrades and maintenance. However, they are still supposed to be combat-ready and -capable. Clearly they are not, and the commanders of each vessel should be held accountable.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Speaking of giving Hugo more material for condemning the US and pronouncing its eventual burial by the bolivarian revolution: Apparently the USS George Washington aircraft carrier did an unauthorized "steam-by" off the coast of Venezuela a couple of days ago. As expected Hugo was pissed. He denounced it as unlawful and felt compelled to predict that he will bury the old empire of the USA. Interestingly enough he made a reference to the fact that apparently Venezuela and Brazil have been creating the Defense Council of South America. This could be further motivation for the US Navy re-establishing that Fourth Fleet.
Lastly, the US Navy also deployed a sweet stealth ship to Columbia to assist in the War on Drugs. This Stiletto ship has apparently been reaping lots of praise but has generally failed to receive a lot of Pentagon backing. According to InsideDefense.com this new ship class has a very shallow draft, in order to maneuver very close to coastlines, and a top speed of over 50 knots, to easily outrun boats used by drug smugglers. However, so far this boat is listed as unarmed and lacks the sonar capability it would need to detect those crude submarines we have been hearing about. This comes as great surprise to me considering all the difficulties that Navy has experienced in procuring new ship designs. Both the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumwalt class destroyers have been pushed back significantly. Its nice to see that not all is lost in the procurement effort!!
Friday, April 25, 2008
The DoD's Human Terrain System sets out to "recruit academics whose area expertise and language skills can help the military wage a smarter counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. These specialists, among other things, are meant to map the population of towns and villages, identify the clans that matter and the fault lines within them, then advise U.S. commanders on the right approach for leveraging local support."
Since its inception, there have been many criticisms against the HTS. Most criticisms have to do with the lack of credintials of the social scientists on the team. For example, of the 19 social scientist on the team in Iraq, only a few are Middle East experts and only three speak Arabic.
Gates response to the criticism was to say that the program is still nascent and that it will--in time--become more effective.
If people are going to criticize the HTS, they should be critical--not of the administration (did I just say that?)--but of social scientists as a whole. It's not that the administration isn't capable of finding the scientists, it's that there are not enough who are willing to participate. On average, the anthropologists receive $300,000 annually plus a sign on bonus, so it is not as if the pay is insufficient.
At the American Association of Anthropologists annual conference last December, Zenia Helbig (a former researcher with the HTS) spoke about her experiences. She explained how she agreed with the idea of the HTS, but that the administration was not properly implementing it. Her remarks:
Having spent four months with the Army, I can’t stress to you the tremendous need for both social science and academic rigor in the military. More particularly... the Army is in need of regional experts, who possess a knowledge of the history, culture and languages of both Iraq and Afghanistan... Yet even HTS, despite its millions of dollars of funding, is proving incapable of delivering those much needed skills to the military in Iraq. HTS has proven unable to deliver because of its own internal tensions, and due to a lack of professionalism, organization, and general competence on the part of its staff, contractors and administrators.
After her remarks, the attendants began to ask questions. One person asked if she was embarrassed that her husband, who was still working for the HTS. The audience started laughing, and Helbig began to cry.
After the incident, Helbig told a reporter, "they just didn't want to hear anything that didn't jive with their conspiracy theories."
Academics need to realize the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Anthropologists are denying assistance to the US military because they believe that the initial decision to go to war was unjust. I guess, they may also believe that the way the military is fighting is unjust. For the most part, though, this is not true. The social scientists would be helping the Iraqi citizens more by improving the HTS than by allowing the US military to continue its fumbling COIN tactics and strategies on its own.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Such a high toll in Canadian lives and mounting domestic opposition have driven the Canadian Parliament to demand 1,000 NATO reinforcements as well as a shift in the duty of Canadian ISAF troops away from combat operations. In return they have guaranteed a Canadian presence in Afghanistan through 2011.
Ranked #14 in the world for net military expenditures, it’s not unreasonable to expect Canada to make a significant contribution to NATO missions. What is unreasonable is letting other, more powerful NATO allies off the hook. The major coalition combatants in Afghanistan are the US, UK, Denmark (!) and the Netherlands.
Admittedly, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc… do have sizeable deployments in Afghanistan, but these forces are all severely hindered by their home governments in their ability to actually engage with the Taliban. So although it’s nice to have them around, they could be doing a lot more.
While it would be difficult for domestic political reasons for NATO to require all countries to share combat duties equally, there must be some mechanism to reward those nations that shoulder the burden. As Time suggests, “NATO rules should be rewritten to ensure that countries that invest disproportionate military and financial resources should have some of their costs subsidized by the alliance.”
Such a step would ensure that all alliance members continue to contribute to trans-Atlantic security as the NATO mission shifts to address post-Cold War threats.
There are several reasons why it is conceivable that Russia shot down the drone to signal to NATO that Georgian membership is a bad idea.
The incident occurred over the unrecognized republic of Abkhazia in Georgia. Abkhazia is one of three unrecognized regions in Georgia that has recently experienced an increased push towards independence since Kosovo's independence declaration. Because a majority of the population living in Abkhazia is ethnically Russian, there is somewhat of a push for Russia to recognize its independence. This push, however, is countered by Moscow's fear that recognition would rile up Chechnya's separatist movement. The Russian Duma addressed the status of these three regions just last month and decided to postpone the issue. Duma deputy Sergei Markov commented on the issue saying that it would be addressed "only when that issue is really pressing. It is not out of the question that it could be provoked by other events. It is the opinion of many Russian politicians, for example, that if Georgia wants to join NATO, then they can do so without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Many support this position."
Now, fast-forward to the NATO Summit meeting earlier this month when Bush's firm support for starting a Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia was met with disdain from France, Germany, Italy, Benlux, and especially Russia. Bush was unwavering in his support for the MAP, arguing that "it would send a signal throughout the region that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.”
It seems that Russia--maddened by Bush's vigor--may have sent a signal of its own....
It is evident in Markov's comment above that Russia wanted to do something to protest Georgian membership into NATO, but it knows that it must avoid opening a pandora's box with the Chechnya situation. It is possible that instead, the Russians decided to shoot down the Georgian UAV with the intention of reminding NATO members how risky Georgian NATO membership would be. The Russians could have reasoned that NATO would perceive the action one of two ways: 1. Abkhazi separatists are responsible for the missile firings, that is, Georgia is a largely unstable country or 2. Russia is responsible, that is, Georgia is involved in a conflict with Russia. Either of these perceptions would lead NATO to conclude that Georgia is an unattractive NATO candidate. If this is true, this unprecedented aggression towards Georgia is a pretty bold move.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
This statement from an article out of Reuters seems to insinuate that her opponent Barack Obama would not do the same. Of course, on a key primary election day in Pennsylvania critics charged her with sabre rattling to shore up a failing campaign. Clinton has to win big in Pennsylvania just to stay alive.
There seems to be no response from the Obama camp, but based on historical close ties with Israel, it seems Clinton's statement is a little moot. After all, although the US holds no formal commitment to defend Israel from Iran, such hostility would likely trigger world rebuke from all but a few rogue states. (North Korea, Sudan, perhaps China). The US fearing little in the way of a direct Iranian attack would likely face little consequences for a nuclear retaliation.
So does it matter if Clinton spatters such invective? Likely not. Obama and McCain would do the same. They just don’t have to say it.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
We never thought we would see this guy again, but Tariq Azizuddin--Pakistani Ambassador to Iraq, who had been kidnapped last February--was seen in a video shown on Al Arabiya TV channel. In the video, Azisuddin pleaded for the Pakistani government to meet his captures demands to release Taliban prisoners.
Unfortunately for Mr. Azizudden, a senior Pakistani government official said, “As things stand right now, we are not going to negotiate with militants and we can’t release people [already in custody] in exchange [for Azizuddin]."
Past events, however, suggest that the captures demands may be met. Last summer, the Pakistani government gave into terrorists requests, releasing some 20 Islamic militants for about 250 military and paramilitary Pakistani hostages. Given the success of this exchange, Taliban leaders are likely to believe that this tactic will work in the future.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of threats, but on the same day, Pakistan--at an undisclosed location--successfully test-fired a long-range ballistic missile with a range of 1,245 miles.
It seems like Pakistan is making its way towards offering an effective counter-balance to India's nuclear capabilities. If only they would exert such energy towards fighting the terrorists' stronghold that exists in their own country!
Friday, April 18, 2008
What's interesting here, at least to me, is idea that the Chinese government might have encouraged him to speak out, since he is such a well known figure in America. Surely he is in a tough spot, since his time outside of China will surely have introduced him to the fact that some of his country's policies are misguided, to say the least. But regardless, its sad whenever beloved stars are forced to defend their countries' policies, especially in a case like this.
It is, of course, rather unfortunate that no substantive debate has emerged from this situation- only whether or not we should boycott the Olympics, and if so to what extent. Its sad when beloved celebrities say things we don't agree with especially if there's a chance they were coerced into doing so. Surely we don't know Chan's motives, but if the government was behind what he said, it shows the sad state of freedom of speech in China.
Monday, April 14, 2008
According to Schneiderhan, Germany’s deployment, which more accurately numbers around 3,200 presently, is ‘stretched to the limit.’ He expects German trrops to face more attacks in their zones of control in the northern region of Afghanistan, which had until recently seen relatively low levels of violence.
As 26 German soldiers have been killed and dozens more wounded during the occupation of Afghanistan, German public opinion can be expected to resist an expanded presence in country, however Germany’s decision to stick to the still-less-violent northern regions should help mitigate the public’s objections.
The good news is, Schneiderhan is lobbying the German government for a larger deployment, showing that at least the Germany Army is committed to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Hopefully, the German regime will heed his advice and step up its troop levels to meet the growing challenge posed by the resurgent Taliban rather than passing the buck to other NATO allies.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
This, along with the agreement from North Korea to get rid of their weapons program, has been seen as a huge diplomatic success for President George W. Bush, who is wanting to be remembered for not only something positive in his administration but also for something other than the Iraq War. The deals with North Korea seem to be one of the successes he has been desiring. In return, North Korea, if they continue to cooperate, will be taken off the US' list of states who sponsor terrorism. This is a huge step with relations considering where tensions were a few years ago. It seems as if there were many skeptics of deals with this magnitude actually taking place. Either way, it's kind of a big deal.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Pentagon has revealed its new anti-terror weapon, a hand-held lie detector device, that has already been used some in Iraq, and will now be deployed to Afghanistan to help determine who's a terrorist and who is not. Naturally, this has been met with a great deal of skepticism, as polygraphs are known for not being entirely accurate (of course, still accurate enough for people to go on TV, reveal their life's secrets, and destroy their families for cash.) Even better, these handheld devices are less accurate than polygraphs, as they are placed on the fingertip and cannot determine rate of breathing, blood pressure, etc. Also, polygraph technicians must take a 4 year course before administering the test, but these new devices will be used by enlisted soldiers following a 13 week course.
The argument is that it still helps, and is significantly better than a coin-flip. Hooray. The main thing it goes by is pulse, and I'm sure that innocent Afghanis don't have rapid pulses when being approached by US soldiers. So, instead of approaching each situation will caution, and maintaining a neutral stance to people whose allegiance is unknown, a small device will tell soldiers "hey, this guy's lying", while the chances that he's actually lying aren't much better than 50%. A real improvement, indeed.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Due to this shortfall, the USN is currently considering three options: (1) upgrade older planes to keep them in service longer, (2) speed up the JSF program so new planes will be available in time, or (3) postpone JSF development and purchase 50 to 282 new F-18s.
Clearly option 1 is risky. Maybe the Navy would have better luck than the Army in dealing with old planes, but as we’ve seen over the past year, aging planes can fall apart in mid-flight. Add carrier take-offs and landings into the picture and the odds of a serious failure increase greatly. Option 2 on the other hand would be the most expensive, taking money away from other Navy projects.
Option 3 seems increasingly attractive, as it provides the Navy with a relatively cheap and safe solution to this dilemma. Conveniently, Boeing has just released a new version of the F-18, so the USN can still claim to be upgrading its forces while saving money.
While this is great news for the Navy, it has the US Air Force and Marines as well as the Royal Navy up in arms. Like the production of most goods, the F-35 JSF is subject to economies of scale. In other words, the more you build the cheaper they are to produce, so by holding up their end of the program, the USN is pushing greater costs on all parties interested in developing and purchasing the JSF.
For the Brits this is also received as a message that the F-35 is unnecessary and the Royal Navy might as well buy Eurofighters or Harriers for their two new carriers currently in production. Such a move would shoulder the Air Force with an even greater share of the cost of the JSF program.
But whatever the reaction of the British, a move by the Navy away from the JSF would be a major blow to the program, and at this late stage of the game would be detrimental to US interests.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
BUCHAREST (Reuters) - It's "Love me tender" between the United States and France after President George W. Bush compared French President Nicolas Sarkozy with rock'n'roll singer Elvis Presley.
Bush told NATO leaders at a Bucharest summit on Thursday that when Sarkozy visited the United States recently, he was seen as "the latest incarnation of Elvis".
Such an example of "Burning love" marks a sea change from the "Suspicious minds" that clouded Franco-American relations under Sarkozy's predecessor, Jacques Chirac, who often seemed to see Washington as "The devil in disguise".
Bush has made clear the diminutive French leader, who recently married another singer, Carla Bruni, is now his "Good luck charm" and "My little friend".
Sarkozy has shown he is "All shook up" by heaping praise on Bush as the first U.S. leader to understand the need for a strong European defense.
(Reporting by Susan Cornwell, writing by Paul Taylor)
Now while I accept the importance of a thaw in relations between the U.S. and France, and the French always appreciate a little flattery, is it really necessary for Reuters to reference Elvis songs a total of SEVEN times? Yes, we get the joke, you’ve cleverly managed to weave song titles into your article, but I think one or two would’ve done it just fine.
Unfortunately, the remark didn’t appear to diminish France’s opposition to Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO hopes, as the results of the recent NATO conference show.
Moreover, I’m a little upset that President Bush didn’t use this tactic with former Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi, who, being a huge Elvis fan himself, might have appreciated the compliment a little more.