The Case for Staying

Osama Bin Laden is dead. With his expiration, Al Qaeda has lost its figurehead, and one of the early objectives for American involvement in Afghanistan has finally been met. Bin Laden’s bullet ridden corpse had barely begun to cool when pundits began discussion the ramifications his death would have on the United States’ presence in Iraq. Many speculate that the President will now push forward with his promise of withdrawing from the Af/Pak theater, while others argue that our job is far from done in Afghanistan, and that the battle against Al Qaeda is only a small part of our efforts there. On the other side of the battle-line, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are also weighing in, "With Bin Laden's death, one of the reasons for which violence has been practiced in the world has been removed," Essam al-Erian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's governing body, told Reuters. "It is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries," he went on to say. It is apparent that the rhetoric of the current administration, which has described our mission in Afghanistan in limited terms, will now likely be used as the rope to pull the US out of the Central Asian nation.

The withdrawal would be politically logical for the Obama administration. It would fulfill a campaign promise, it could be sold as being economically expedient, and it would show the world that the President is perhaps slightly less undeserving of his woefully premature Nobel Peace Prize. But would it be the right thing to do?

Only a fraction of the battle in Afghanistan in recent years has been directed against Al Qaeda. Limiting the influence of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network has taken up a large portion of US efforts. While these organizations are linked with AQ, they are not formally part of the network. They are instead part of the larger militant Islamic movement that remains a viable threat to American interests. A clear case can be made that it is better to combat this movement where it lives as opposed to letting it spread to other parts of the world. The battle against militant Islam is an important one for the US, and leaving Afghanistan would embolden our enemies, while weakening our position in the region.

The debate as to whether or not we should devote billions to nation-building in Afghanistan remains, however an American presence in the region, so long as it is long enough to carry the fight to militant Islamic groups in the region, is vital to US interests. Though Bin Laden is dead, the ideas he stood for are alive and well, and it is those ideas with which we are engaged in the War on Terror. Leaving Afghanistan would be a step backwards in the war against militant Islam, therefore we should maintain an offensively capable presence there.

JSOC Shows the Way

On May 1^st, 2011 Navy Seal Team 6, part of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted a raid in the town of Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al Qaeda figurehead Osama Bin Laden. Carried into battle by the UH-60s of the 160^th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the Seals took 40 minutes to achieve the mission objective and get out. This raid is just one more in a long line of operations conducted by the Seals and their comrades of JSOC such as the 75^th Ranger Regiment, and Delta Force, but unlike many of those actions, this raid will receive worldwide publicity.

JSOC has been a vital asset in the American War on Terror of the past decade. The unit has seen extensive combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years, with much of their work unacknowledged by US officials. The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the taking of a host of Al Qaeda officials notwithstanding, this units actions were criticized by some during the Bush Administration as being nothing more than an ‘assassination squad’ for the President and Vice President Cheney. What a difference an election makes, however, as this unit’s efforts will now undoubtedly become a focal point of praise towards the current administration’s foreign policy. President Obama certainly deserves credit for allowing this unit to continue its effective operations from the war on terror, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

With American involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan seemingly winding down, perhaps it would be wise to expand the numbers and resources of JSOC, effectively creating a force that could continue to fight the long, protracted struggle against Islamic terrorism that will undoubtedly go on even after US troops leave the Baghdad and Kandahar. With economic necessity and the dwindling hope for an acceptable endgame in Afghanistan, the US could secure its long-term national policy objectives in the region by relying solely on units within JSOC to keep a lid on terrorist activity in the area. Afghanistan and Pakistan and their respective populations are certainly never going to become stauch supporters of the American way of government, so why not pull out, and rely on a counter-terrorism approach to achieving our policies in the region?

Such a plan would be uneasy to swallow for many Americans, who would likely see a withdrawal from Afghanistan as a retreat. The death of Bin Laden, however, provides an opportunity to claim victory in our efforts there. Future actions in the region can be the sole purview of JSOC, while the rank and file of the American military can come home, rest, rearm, and prepare for the future strategic threats facing the United States. Forget nation-building, forget drinking three cups of tea and winning hearts and minds. Let us instead focus on keeping the enemies of the United States at arm’s length if not six-feet-under. JSOC is a tool that could be used to achieve a more cost-effective US policy in the region that still maintains the safety of the American populace.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Despite the political back-and-forth that has dominated foreign policy discussion over the last decade, administrations from both sides of the aisle have maintained largely the same policy objectives, with only slight variation around the edges. Wars fought for the sake of spreading democracy under George W. Bush are now wars to protect human rights under the Obama administration. Engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, once called ‘dumb wars’ by the current President, have been continued with deference to the previous administration’s policy (as in Iraq) or with increased vigor (the case with Afghanistan). The newest battle joined by US forces, this time in Libya, faces a potential mission creep that could bring our involvement there on a level with that of Iraq or Afghanistan. Libya is only the most pressing example of the developing trend of populist Middle Eastern uprisings, with Egypt, Syria, and Yemen all being considered for American action. Our current administration must resist these urges, the Arab spring is not our fight.

Afghanistan was our fight because of 9-11. Iraq was our fight due to the necessity to finish the job from a decade previous. The uprisings that constitute the ‘Arab Spring’ are the internal affairs of those sovereign nations. Though the United States certainly has a vested interest in the outcome of these uprisings (as well as in Iran), and would welcome a wave of secular democracies within the Middle East, the, US policy makers must recognize that the ideal outcome is far from the most likely outcome in this scenario. There is a great difference between Islamic populism, the force that appears to be carrying the day in the Arab Spring, and a democracy that respects the rights of all its citizens to life, liberty, and religious freedom. Violence in Egypt against women and other minorities after the so-called liberation of the Egyptian people shows that while the US is now contending with a new leadership (or soon will be) in a host of Middle Eastern countries, the new leadership in the Middle East is far from likely to be amenable to American interests.

The Middle East will likely be in convulsion for months and years to come, and the United States must let the uprisings run their course. Many will argue, be they Neoconservatives or Progressives, that we have the responsibility to protect the people of the Arab world from potential genocides and civil wars, or that we have a responsibility to spread democracy, or civilization to the world. While these intentions are certainly noble, US policy makers must remember that their first responsibility to the American citizenry, and the defense thereof. In a time of grave economic crisis, spending copious sums of taxpayer dollars attempting to affect positive change in a region of the world that will always be a problem for the United States is not sound policy. The United States in 2001 and 2003 could afford, both geopolitically and economically, to launch sustained efforts in the Middle East. We now face a different reality.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our policy regarding the Middle East has remained the same under administrations claiming to be from polar opposite ends of the American political spectrum. This is far from the truth. A new course in the Middle East is needed, however, as the situation on the ground in the Arab world is increasingly fluid. American policy makers must reevaluate our policies and ongoing operations in the Middle East, and continually weigh if they are in the best interests of the American people.

Boeing, the Obama Administration, and the future of the Defense Industry

In April, a controversy developed between the Obama Administration and Boeing, the United States’ sole mass producer of wide-bodied civil aviation aircraft, and one of its largest defense contractors. The National Labor Relations Board, headed by Obama appointee Lafe Solomon, decreed that Boeing must halt its plans to produce the new 787 Dream Liner aircraft in South Carolina and instead shift production, set to begin next year, to Washington state. The change was made due to South Carolina being a right-to-work state, and the NLRB’s desire to have the 787 Dream Liner produced by union labor.

Though this action the part of the NLRB is a clear affront to Boeing’s rights as a private business entity, Boeing does not cut a sympathetic figure when one takes into account the government protection the aerospace giant has received from the government in recent years. In the realm of civilian and military contracts, Boeing has been the beneficiary of the current administration’s protectionist policies. Since President Obama entered office, Boeing has been given over 45 million dollars in government contracts, in addition to over 14 billion dollars in guaranteed loans from the Ex-Im bank as part of the administration’s efforts to boost US exports. Boeing’s ties with the current administration run deep, and it appears that this case of the NLRB’s ruling is nothing less than the administration cashing in on an IOU.

While the current battle pertains to the construction of a civilian aircraft, its potential effect on the defense industry is great. Boeing’s ties with the government, and our current government’s ties with Big Labor has created a conflict of interests which will continue to stifle the US defense industry. While the trend of meting out defense contracts to key congressional districts is nothing new, technology is reaching a crossroads that could make government corruption with the defense industry a long-term security threat.

If Unions are going to continue to be catered to by defense contractors, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility to see the once-great companies of Boeing or Lockeed Martin to go the way of general motors. One could argue, that given their ties with the government, Boeing may already be the aerospace equivalent of ‘Government Motors’.

Though the government has clearly overstepped its bounds in the case of the NLRB’s ruling, the bulk of the blame needs to be placed at the feet of Boeing. The Aerospace giant has behaved in a manner that first allowed such a crime to take place, and second severely limited any potential response to the ruling, as such a response could result in the government gravy-train grinding to a halt. For decades Boeing has sought to limit competition by courting pro-Union Democrat politicians in order to gain favorable treatment. Now the latter is simply seeking a return on its ‘investment’. To their dismay, Boeing is only now seeing the pitfalls of its selling-out, and will perhaps in the future will rethink which political forces it chooses to ally itself with.

What Now?

Now that Bin Laden is dead, one starts to wonder where the United States and its allies go from here. An article in the New York Times this morning suggests that there is concern among Afghans that the West may view his death as the end of its mission. In a sense, there is fear that the U.S. and its allies will now pack up and head home.

However, it is hard to imagine that this will be the case. If anything, the United States has more of an incentive to follow through with its undertaking. The top dog has been caught, but there are still plenty of others worth pursuing. There is also hope that the capture and death of Bin Laden will drive the Taliban to stop fighting and consider entering Afghanistan’s political realm. Arsala Rahmani, once a member of the Taliban and now on the High Peace Council, suggests that he doesn’t “think this will affect the Taliban fight in Afghanistan in the short term, but in the long term it will because Al Qaeda helped the Taliban in fighting and other activities” (Rubin). He went on to “[add] that he thought it would drive the Taliban toward negotiations and making peace with the government ‘because they don’t have any other way’ “ (Rubin).

There is still a long fight ahead, and it will be interesting to see exactly how much or how little U.S. allies were involved in the operation to snatch Bin Laden. This is especially pertinent when considering Pakistan. One begins to contemplate how much the government of Pakistan was actually doing to fight terrorists within its own borders. What’s even more striking is the fact that Abbottabad, where bin Laden was captured, is less than 100 miles away from the capital and is known to have a large Pakistani military presence:

“Bin Laden was not killed in the remote and relatively lawless tribal regions, where the United States has run a campaign of drone attacks aimed at Qaeda militants, where he was long rumored to have taken refuge, and where the reach of the Pakistani government is limited.

Rather, he was killed in Abbottabad, a city of about 500,000, in a large and highly secured compound that, a resident of the city said, sits virtually adjacent to the grounds of a military academy. In an ironic twist, the academy was visited just last month by the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, where he proclaimed that Pakistan had “cracked” the forces of terrorism, an assessment that was greeted with skepticism in Washington” (Perlez).

In the end, the coming days and months will bring about new details. The world will have to sit back and wait to see what this all means for Washington’s relationship with Pakistan and for the international community as a whole.

Image from: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/map-bin-laden-killed-0502_rdax_676x456.jpg

Osama bin laden is DEAD!!!!

I honestly believe we should drag his body from ground zero in NYC to the steps of the White House in Washington DC.  He was reportedly killed by a bomb or missile about a week ago in a mansion in Pakistan.  We waited to confirm DNA evidence before making the announcement.  Familial DNA was used to ID him.
See stories here here here and here .

UPDATE. Conflicting reports indicate that he may have been killed in a ground attack. May just be speculation based on the fact that we recovered remains.

The Son Apparently Will Be Punished For His Father's Sins

And this is the reason I waited so late for my last blog post. According to multiple reports (video!), NATO planes bombed a house belonging to Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, a son of leader Moammar Gaddafi. Saif al-Arab and at least three of Moammar Gaddafi's grandchildren are reported to have been killed. Oh by the way, Moammar Gaddafi was reported to have been in the house at the time of the bombing!

Lt. General Charles Bouchard, the commander of NATO military forces, said that all targets that are bombed, "are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the [Gaddafi] regime's systemic attacks on the Libyan population...We do not target individuals." Not to call foul on the good general, but apparently yes, we do target individuals. I think this touches on what we mentioned in class this week regarding the targeting of "command and control" elements of the Libyan government. This of course is a nice way of saying that we are going after the position, not the man. In other words, NATO isn't bombing Gaddafi because he's a bad man that we don't like; NATO is bombing Gaddafi because he is the leader a hostile regime.

This bombing, and the previous one of Moammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, show fairly clearly that the removal of Gaddafi by force is something that NATO forces have decided will be accomplished sooner or later. What remains to be seen is if this is a good idea, and if anyone is prepared for Libya without Gaddafi. Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya, recently said, "I don't believe that any credible group or individual sees the solution to the Libyan problem without the removal of Moammar Gaddafi, one way or the other." To be clear, this is not Iraq; no one thinks that the removal of a dictator will automatically set up Libya as a flourishing democracy. However, I have yet to see a solid plan regarding what will actually happen if and when NATO forces are successful in killing Moammar Gaddafi, and I'm not sure that any of the NATO forces that are currently responsible for keeping the rebels afloat have any commitment to that cause once Gaddafi is dead. That is, until those French forces finally move in...

The Importance of Making Good Sub-Optimal Decisions

David Rothkopf has an interesting blog post up right now about the reshuffling of deck chairs on the Obama national security cruise ship. He seems to like the decision and goes to some length about a quote from the ubiquitous unnamed source, breaking it down piece by piece. The quote in question is, “the strongest possible team to exercise our strategies and policies. I stress the word team.”

Rothkopf makes the observation that the important word, the really important word isn’t strongest or team, but instead possible. In doing so, he opens up a conversation on an important aspect of formulating any kind of policy, but particularly those having to do with international affairs. I agree with Rothkopf’s general idea that an important aspect of any president’s decision-making—whether it concern staffing, plotting a new course in an ongoing conflict, or evaluating other foreign leaders—is the need to make really good suboptimal decisions. By that I mean, having to look at your preference ordering (i.e. the way you’d really like things to unfold) and immediately have to jettison option one or maybe even option two for something lesser because any number of externalities interfere with the ideal.

Doing this effectively can be hard work. Just think about recent history of appointees, whether they are related to domestic or international policy, and a number of stinkers from both Bush and Obama come to mind.

Rothkopf really goes into detail about this, but what I got from it was an emphasis on the notion that preferences cannot be formed in a vacuum. Once allowed to “burn in the sun or rot in the humidity,” a policy or appointment that looked great in optimal conditions doesn’t respond well to crosscutting interests/policies or domestic political conditions. Thinking about your ideal fix to any problem isn’t difficult; most savvy international policy observers could do that. The challenge is actually two fold: first, one must line-up good “least bad” options, and second, the decision maker must know what external considerations are truly important and grounds for disqualifying one policy in favor of a another.

Take the always-treacherous subject of U.S. policy towards Pakistan for example. I struggle to think that our Pakistan policy is exactly what we’d like it to be…no regrets. Clearly we are forced to work a sub-optimal policy but deciding how far down the order of preferences to slide is the true challenge. One important question is actually how badly will the Pakistanis react if we favor India on more substantive issues? Answering that incorrectly could stymie future relations with India or It could create a truly violent backlash from Pakistan’s proxies.

Presidents never have perfect records on these things. I think I agree with Rothkopf that Obama got the most possible out of these appointments, given all of the externalities. I don’t however believe we worked the synergy between interests, strategies, and preferences very well in crafting our Libya policy. But both decisions highlight the importance of maximizing possibility and not dreaming about perfect solutions.

Okay, Let's NOT Get Technical

In my prior post, I was going to try and craft my final blogpost entirely on an iPad. Research, links, composition, everything. Well, it let me write a title, but then I couldn't type in the white box where blogposts happen. Oh Steve Jobs, you minx.

Anyway, we can get technical in another way. Let's talk weaponry. And none of this hoity toity "less than lethal" stuff. I'm talking stuff that goes kaboom. And better yet, it goes kaboom when you want it to.

Let's say you're in Afghanistan and some BG (read: Bad Guy) starts shooting you from behind a large rock. You shoot back, but he's too well protected. You have grenades, but the target is too far away to hit with a handheld object. You have a standard grenade launcher, but if the projectile falls in front of the rock, the BG will still be shielded. If you aim higher to get over the rock, the projectile will overshoot the target and land well behind him, causing no damage to him at all. If only there was a way to aim RIGHT over the boulder and then have the projectile explode JUST as it sails over the BG's head. Oh wait, there is and it's been called the Punisher. Okay, the formal name is the XM-25, but come on! THE PUNISHER!

The fancy new grenade rifle system takes something vital away from the enemy: cover. With a state-of-the-art aiming capability incorporating lasers and math, the XM-25 allows a soldier to send a 25mm straight to a BG, all from a safer distance than would be required with a standard grenade launcher.

The Punisher is already being used by Army troops on a trial basis in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense last month signed a $65 million contract with ATK, the munitions contractor responsible for making and testing the weapon. Because it is an experimental weapon at this time, there are only 5 Punishers in existence. But assuming that the weapon continues to deliver in tests, there is reason to believe that another 36 will be available in 2012.

In referring to the XM-25, Brigadier General Peter N. Fuller stated that it "seems to be game-changing. You no longer can shoot at American forces and then hide behind something. We're going to reach out and touch you." What a quote. One sergeant stated, "The XM25 brought the difference to whether they would stay there 15 to 20 minutes shooting [and] taking pot shots or the actual fight ended after using the XM-25." That's a glowing endorsement if I've ever heard one.

If you've seen Restrepo, then you know how the fighting in Afghanistan can take place over incredibly long distances. As awesome as this weapon is, however, I'm curious as to why it's taken this long to be developed.

Let's get technical

Is U.S. Hegemony being challenged by BRICS?

In order to elaborate on this headline, I must first ensure that readers understand what is meant by U.S. Hegemony. Today, many consider the United States of America to be a global hegemon. Not as a brute power or dominant leader mind you, but rather that the majority consider the U.S. as being a global leader achieved through consensus from the majority of nations rather than a leader through force. So considering that U.S. hegemony was reached through elements of power -politics, economics, and culture -exerted over other nations, the U.S. requires the consent of the majority of nation-states to keep its status. Accordingly, given today’s media coverage on changes in political, monetary, and cultural trends of regional powers such as BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) , is U.S. hegemony being challenged by BRICS? To see if there is validity in this question, let us look at the monetary and cultural components of power.

Monetary Hegemony
BRICS encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population - and hold a combined GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) of circa $20 trillion. On almost every scale, they have the potential to be and are becoming the largest entity on the global stage. They are among the biggest and fastest growing emerging markets. This rising hegemonic powerhouse has officially held two summits -2009 and 2011- where their focus was oriented toward future collaboration, discussing their roles in global affairs, and most importantly their intentions to reform financial institutions, even suggesting the controversial need for a new global reserve currency. Many Americans view statements such as this as absurd, but is it really that hard to take seriously considering that China alone holds over $1trillion in U.S. treasury securities and the growth and strength in their economy. Looking at U.S. hegemony and arguments of U.S. GDP and military still surpassing China’s –it’s concerning for U.S. National Security and Defense when Chinese foreign reserves now equal over 50% of their GDP and the U.S. has to debate whether or not to increase its debt limit. Makes you wonder how long we can afford the costs associated with simply maintaining the most superior fighting force in the world for the greater good. And, it’s almost sad that the disconnect between domestic politics and global economics is jeopardizing U.S. hegemony, where domestic politics is letting the security of a nation be tied up in the “good faith and trust in the U.S. dollar”. Domestic politics may be the U.S.’s biggest enemy. Its faith rests in the assumption that the U.S. earns enough a year to make a minimum payment on its credit card. Although, when you’ve maxed out all your credit cards, are asking mother may I to your credit card company (members of BRICS) to increase your credit card limit, but then tell your credit card company that you’re actually still the one who makes the decisions and are really the one in control. Many economists share this concern, to include Goldman Sachs’s global economist Jim O’Neill whom has a fascinating and daunting thesis on the rise of BRICS with many statistics to support this concern.

Cultural Hegemony
The use of language can serve as a means of creating and applying hegemony. With the U.S. disseminating information through its media to the global public and holding dominance over the internet, the U.S. is, intentionally or not, practicing its influence over other cultures. These influential institutions have subtly used language to frame a message. Now consider the changes in demographics, the rise of the “social media revolution” and BRICS accounting for over 40% of the world’s population -it doesn’t take long to envision how BRICS’ cultural demographics will challenge U.S. cultural hegemony.

If BRICS chooses to embrace the phenomenon of language and media to influence thought not only within their countries, but also across their regional societies and seeing that BRICS is embracing globalization through their own terms, what do you think this will mean for U.S. hegemony, or is the rise of BRICS merely the move to preserve the balance of power in international relations? At first glance, it appears that the U.S. is on a concerning course –where “the ship” is sailing at its flank speed and if the U.S. doesn’t consider new azimuths and doesn’t consider charting a new course, it will reach rough waters and possibly run aground on the shores of BRICS.

Pirates, Unions, and the Need for Naval Collaboration

What do labor unions and Somali pirates have in common? Well if you’re an Indian, Russia, or Indonesian sailor and a member of a big maritime union, the latter could be the cause for a huge strike brought about by the dangerous working conditions that arise while repeatedly transiting the Indian ocean with some of the world’s most precious cargo.

Two days ago, a representative for such a maritime union told the AFP that, “There is a strong possibility that a collective international boycott by the seafarers coming from the labor-supplying countries like the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Russia, Bangladesh, etc. is round the corner.” The article goes on to suggest that the containment policy pursued by numerous navies in the region is failing. The threat of a strike could further jam up supplies of all things hydrocarbon, including asphalt, petroleum, and coal, potentially driving up prices for commodities that are already viewed as too expensive.

While this is an issue commonly discussed in energy-related publications, it has not gotten much attention in the broader world of international politics and defense news. The ripple effects of a labor strike could bring the story of piracy’s tangential effects front and center. Piracy is not enough of a force to halt shipping on its own, but it need not fully impede shipping in the Indian ocean to adversely affect the world economy—the potentially for a pirate-induced labor strike demonstrate this fact.

A potential work stoppage should raise critical questions about the counter-piracy policies of the U.S. and its allies and the need for more meaningful naval cooperation. India’s navy, the fifth largest in the world, will likely be at the center of this debate. Platt’s blog “The Barrel” has been on the record since February in calling for the Indian navy to step up its efforts in interdicting pirates as they venture further and further from the African littoral. These “blue water” pirates (I know it’s a stretch, but just follow along for now) highlight how asymmetrical conflict should be an emphasis of naval strategic thinkers as much as it is in the Army and Marines.

Furthermore, the specter of international piracy and its pestilent effect on transnational shipping should influence naval procurement both in the U.S. and abroad. Big deck amphibious ships like the ones off the coast of Libya are interesting platforms for effectively challenging the pirates.

Burden sharing will be the likely catch phrase of counter-piracy strategy going forward. Putting together an arrangement between countries like the U.S., India and China is certainly difficult, but this is the kind of interest-based collaboration that should be the emphasis of military-to-military collaboration in the Asian region.

"Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

France is deploying an new old weapon in Libya this week : concrete filled bombs, remarkably similar to...giant rocks. While earlier press statements falsely noted that the 660-pound “training bombs” were being employed due to a lack of explosive munitions, it turns out in some cases they are actually preferable to traditional explosives, as they can cause massive damage to Qaddafi's forces-especially tanks- without the shrapnel that could harm nearby civilians.

Destroying tanks while avoiding damage to nearby civil infrastructures and civilians certainly seems like a good idea, which may make Americans wonder why we ever departed from the strategy in the first place, as American fighter pilots used similar concrete devices in Iraq in 1999. However, while, damaging a single tank may be easy, one could imagine that destroying a cave or camp would actually be better done with the use of shrapnel devices that work in a wider radius, when the purpose is to cause harm.

Interestingly, in the NYT article linked above, Steven Lee Myers notes that "The concrete bombs are also an apt symbol of a low-level war against Iraq that is dictated as much by political and diplomatic sensitivities as strategic or military concerns." Sounds familiar, eh?

However, this isn't to say that throwing stones should be a strategy we resort to in the budget crisis, as even 600 pound concrete bombs have to be guided by modern technology, whether it be a GPS or lasers. Some estimates put the French GPS kits at around $125k, and US kits at $40k. Then again, $40k bomb bomb kit sounds expensive....until you realize it's destroying tanks that cost 1-2 million dollars.

Now, imagine how devastating they could be if we could launch them from space instead...... oh wait, we're actually researching that. Probably not quite what Einstein imagined when he said "I do not know how the third world war will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the fourth… rocks".

If "Afghanistan" is in the Headline, Expect More Bad News

Check it:

"Eight American service members and a contractor were shot and killed by an Afghan military officer on Wednesday while they attended a meeting of foreign and Afghan officers on the military side of Kabul International Airport, according to statements from Afghan and NATO spokesmen."

Here is another lovely problem with the war in Afghanistan that has no solution. With the beginning of US troop withdrawal just months away, now is not the time for there to be another shooting of coalition forces by an Afghan soldier. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid was quick to say that the Taliban had orchestrated the attack, something that Afghan officials have been just as quick to deny. On the one hand, the Taliban are willing to claim responsibility for anything that disrupts the war effort. Doing so provides them with a modicum of psychological leverage in the war of ideas. On the other hand, it is unlikely for the Afghan government to willingly advertise to the world that its military is ridden with armed insurgents.

Whether or not the shooter in this (or any other) case was Taliban is mostly irrelevant. From Tony Corn's article in Small Wars Journal, we already know that the Afghanistan government is as corrupt as a stack of Richard Nixons (the recent jailbreak in Kandahar is a great example of such grandiose lawlessness... in all seriousness, Afghanistan needs a Batman).

Like I stated above, there is no real solution to this. We can't disarm Afghan soldiers when they're in the presence of Americans. Despite background checks and interviews, there's no foolproof way to keep dedicated insurgents or mentally unstable soldiers out of the Afghan military. Maybe these attacks will lessen when forces begin to leave the country. Maybe not.

In a barely related story, this guy argues in the Huffington Post that the Obama administration has "quietly instructed the CIA to intensify its efforts to hunt down, capture, or kill Osama bin Laden." The author insists that as soon as the US is out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will invite their "guest" back to the country so that everyone can realize that the past ten years have been for nothing. Now THAT would be a depressing headline.

(For the record, I'm pretty sure this is a doctored photo... I don't think Bert has have ever been in the same room as bin Laden)

---UPDATE---
So Osama is dead and buried at sea. This is a very big deal and also not. The assassination of bin Laden has resulted in a big sigh of relief for everyone who thought he was going to die of old age, but at the same time few have predicted that his death will bring about the end of the war more quickly, or that the enemy will suffer from a lack of morale. Like we always say, the enemy has a vote in war. At this time, there's no telling how al-Qaeda and its allies will react to bin Laden's death. The world will have to wait and see.

In the meantime, isn't it gratifying to know that at this very moment he's likely being picked apart by crabs?