More Ground Troops Needed?-Updated

The argument is on going and in this Washington Times Op-Ed. I for one have been against more troops in Iraq, and the President echoed this with sound reasoning in his speech last night:

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

I am always reminded of Westmoreland in Vietnam calling for increased troops strength, getting them and still losing the war. That said, I think that an increase in Army strength is inevitable, as the saying goes, There's probably very little on earth scarier than a US soldier or Marine with a map and a radio.

From the Op-Ed:

An interesting moment in the ground-forces expansion debate happened earlier this month when a panel of experts on the military convened at the American Enterprise Institute to discuss the subject. AEI's Thomas Donnelly, one of the leading proponents of expansion, remarked that both the Army and the Marine Corps "are just simply too small for what we're asking them to do now and what we're likely to ask them to do in the future. And I think that current estimations of how much larger the force needs to be" -- 40,000 more, in a Senate bill earlier this year -- "are off by maybe a factor of five or so. So I would think that over the long haul increasing ground force, and I mean Army and Marine Corps, both, in strength, by something in the range of 125,000 is definitely called for." That would hike the Army's numbers to over 600,000 from its current level of around half a million.

There's good news: The Army is going ahead with plans to increase troop strength on its own by returning troops from overseas (70,000 from Europe) and reorganizing the brigade, now called units of action. This latter plan will increase the number of brigades/UA's from the present 33 to 48 in a few years.

The Speech

My favorite quote from President Bush's speech on Iraq and the War on Terror last night is this:

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,"

That is our policy for the many critics, though they still won't shut up. But here is a verse from Psalms 37 which may give the faithful comfort in these times:



I have seen the wicked in great power,

and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not:

yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.

Reasons We are Winning

Most of the news reported from Iraqi lately seems to be all bad. Having realized they have missed the boat after the Iraqi elections, terrorists are going all out with bombings and assinations as a last ditch effort to defeat democracy and humble the coalition forces. Unintentionally, we suppose, the bringers of bad tidings are assisting this effort, but There is good news:

1. As the insurgency has intensified, so has the American effort to defeat them. Just this month alone we are witnessing major offensives throughout the country to route out the enemy including Operation Spear, Operation Lightning, and Operation Moon River Dragon.
2. America and Britain both reelected their leaders who led the coalition against Saddam Hussein, George Bush and Tony Blair.
3. Democracy is spreading throughout the Middle east, directly because of the Iraq War, while tyrants around the world are getting nervous.
4. No terrorist attack has struck the US since September 11, 2001.
5. The Iraq election, and growing confidence in their new government, the military, and themselves.

War and Revolution at Sea

The US Navy is in the midst of historic change, according to Strategypage, but is facing an uphill battle trying to convinnce Congress of this. The need for more ships is evisent, but no one seems to agree on what type os ships. Congress is interested in high price battleships of the Cold War era which keep shipyards open and constituents happy. The Navy still wants the older type ships, but less of them because of their great expense. What the fleet does want and in large numbers is the new littoral combat ship (LCS).

The LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is seen as the model for the 21st century navy. While the aircraft carrier will remain the “capital ship,” the next generation of them (the CVN 21 class) will be very different from current carriers. The navy wants to spend more money, and effort, on increasing the capabilities of sailors, using more robotics and making the navy more mobile and in touch. Admirals recognize that, unlike in the past, there is no one enemy fleet you go after. The future threats will be all over the place, and you have to be able to get to them quickly, and with the kind of forces that will take care of the problem before it gets any worse. The navy is looking at doing more with mobility, in the same sense that the army has long studied that issue.

and

This means a very new type of navy, one that it is having a hard time selling to Congress, and the many influential supporters of the traditional, "high seas," navy. The politicians have come to rely on those very expensive contracts for building large warships. But the navy is pulling back from that, and getting some political heat as a result. It’s tough to sell the politicians on a lot of untried ideas. But it’s a new century, with new technology. If the U.S. Navy doesn’t figure out what to do with all this, someone else may.

The good news is: As it often does, war is forcing change, as well as the spiraling cost of traditional weapon systems. The navy may purchase as many as 100 LCS, which is just the vessels to intercept terrorists on the high seas and in the coastal regions.

Liberals Love Apologies

The Dems who were strangely quiet when Dick Durbin compared US Soldiers to Nazis, are now demanding the head of Karl Rove, who said they were soft on Terrorism. Listen to what Governor Pataki of New York had to say to Sen Hillary Clinton:

"I think it's a little hypocritical for Sen. Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comment, when she never asked Sen. Durbin to repudiate his comments," Pataki told reporters, after she complained that he sat idly by as Rove blasted liberals for being soft on terror at a New York Conservative party function Wednesday night. "She never responded when asked to respond [about Durbin]," Pataki complained. "She never responded to Howard Dean's insult to every single Republican, saying that they never earned an honest day's living.
"She never responded to Sen. Reid's unfair criticism of the president - he called the president a loser and a liar. He's never apologized - she never requested that."
"She never called for an apology or clarification when Moveon.org called for moderation and restraint in response to the terrorist attacks."

The good news is: The President is standing by his man. White House spokesman Scott McClellan says the President will not ask Rove to apologize, calling the it "different philosophies and different approaches" of warring against Terror. The Dems obviously have the wrong philosophy.

The Poll

70% of Americans say that prisoners at Gitmo are getting what they deserve or better. Apparently Democrats weren't polled, if you listen to Congress.


Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanomo Bay
Unfair
20%
Better than they deserve
36%
About Right
34%
RasmussenReports.com

The good news is: Wait! This is good news!

We are Winning!

The commander of US froces in Iraq yesterday warned of growing complaceny over the War on Terror. This may be over poll numbers showing a drop in American support for the war:
The top U.S. operational commander in Iraq warned yesterday against an emerging "complacency" among Americans who now question whether the two-year war in Iraq "is worth it."

"The United States has not been attacked again since 11 September. And so there's some questioning, perhaps, of whether or not what's going on here is worth it," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the Multinational Corps Iraq. "Quite honestly, I think we have a pretty clear-cut choice. We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us, as it would inevitably, as it has previously." The comment from Gen. Vines came as American support for continued troop presence in Iraq is slipping in the polls and some members of Congress have offered particularly negative war assessments. All of this comes as the American death toll in Iraq topped 1,700 since the March 2003 invasion.

I am reminded of another time in our history when Thomas Paine warned against growing complacent in a time of war:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

There is good news: All things past, and its always darkest before the dawn. I can imagine the soldiers shivering in the bitter cold of Valley Forge as their officers read them this treatise, and we now the outcome of that conflict. May we follow their example today and perservere.

Something Has to Give

The DDX cost $3 billion, the Future Combat System $145 billion, and America's top fighter, the F/A-22 Raptor comes in a $330 million each. The cost of some of America's arsenal of super-weapons are more than many nations entire defense budget. At this rate according to this article from Times 7, "something has to give":

The U.S. is getting a quarter of the number of planes promised, at a price per plane almost ten times greater. And ballooning costs are a problem for all branches of the military.
The Navy once planned to build 24 DD(X) destroyers. Today, that number has dropped to five; the first two are estimated to come in at a cost of $6.3 billion, up $1.5 billion from last year's estimates.
The price has been driven upward by old-school politics and the rusty machinery of American shipbuilding. Part of the problem is a lack of discipline within the Navy's own design system. The DD(X) started out at about 8,000 tons; it's grown to 14,000 tons.
The Navy says it can make do with fewer big ships patrolling the oceans. It wants more fast boats and aircraft to fight offshore and upriver, a speedier force to counter terror. But Congress, seeking to sustain America's shipyards, wants as many big ships as possible.
Wheeler says the DD(X) is no longer a destroyer: "This is a very large surface combatant. It's not quite clear what its mission is, because it has so much stuff added to it."
The system, says Wheeler, is out of control "because nobody is controlling it."

There is good news: Thanks to this same high-tech arsenal, new weapons are being developed and fielded which are affordable and equally as effective as the gold-ticket super-weapons. Some like the Army's Stryker, is off the shelf; it was ordered and fielded in just a few years compared to decades for some weapons. The Navy's new littoral combat ship was laid down this year and expected to join the fleet late next year. UAV's, precision weapons, and other unmanned vehicles are being procured cheaper and more quickly than the traditional planes, tanks, and aircraft carriers and revolutionizing warfare.

Replacing the Sub Fleet

In the next few years America will significantly cut its submarine force. All ready the repercussions have begun, not from our enemies abroad, but here at home. Fearful of losing jobs in the Military Industrial complex, Congressmen and citizens, and some veterans are lining up to decry this supposed loss in America's defense capabilities. If we lose our submarines, they say, so important in winning the Cold War, and also this present War on Terror, how will we defend ourselves? Luckily more far-seeing minds in the Pentagon are producing New weapons which can deal with future threats, without bankrupting our military budget. These are new Unmanned Underwater vehicles (UUVs), which are advanced enough now to do many of the missions our submariners are now forced to do in harms way. The new littoral environment is no place for the giant and noisy super-subs of the Cold War, but are the ideal domain for tiny and silent UUVs. In the future more advanced craft will slink into enemy harbors and perform surveillance, locate mines, and even perform combat missions. Read this article from SeaPower magazine.

War-Weariness or War Bonds?

Cries to end the Patriot Act, close Guantanamo Bay Prison, and an early withdrawal from Iraq, all point to war-weariness and lack of resolve on the part of Americans. Austin Bay, on a whirlwind tour of Iraq, echoes this in his Blog. Here's the best part:

I find that this return visit to Iraq spurs thoughts of America– of American will to pursue victory. I don’t mean the will of US forces in the field. Wander around with a bunch of Marines for a half hour, spend fifteen minutes with Guardsmen from Idaho, and you will have no doubts about American military capabilities or the troops’ will to win. But our weakness is back home, on the couch, in front of the tv, on the cable squawk shows, on the editorial page of the New York Times, in the political gotcha games of Washington, DC. It seems America wants to get on with its wonderful Electra-Glide life, that September 10 sense of freedom and security, without finishing the job. The military is fighting, the Iraqi people are fighting, but where is the US political class? The Bush Administration has yet to ask the American people –correction, has yet to demand of the American people– the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots, and bricks. Bullets go bang, and even CBS understands bullets. Ballots make an impression–in terms of this war’s battlespace, the January Iraqi elections were World War Two’s D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge combined. But the bricks– the building of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other hard corners where this war is and will be fought– that’s a delicate and decades long challenge. Given the vicious, megalomanical enemy we face, five years, perhaps fifteen years from now occasional bullets and bombs will disrupt the political and economic building. This is the Bush Administration’s biggest strategic mistake– a failure to tap the reservoir of American willingness 9/11 produced. One afternoon in December 2001 my mother –after reading a column of mine in her local paper– called me long-distance. She told me she remembered being a teenager in 1942 and tossing a tin can on a wagon that rolled past the train station in her small Texas hometown. (Plainview– one reason I know Lanc-Corporal Solis’ hometown– it’s my parents birthplace.) Mom said she knew that the can she tossed didn’t add much to the war effort, but she felt that in some, small, token perhaps but very real way, that she was contributing to the battle being waged by our soldiers. “The Bush Administration is going to make a terrible mistake if it does not let the American people get involved in this war. Austin, we need a war bond drive. This matters, because this is what it will take.”

Same thing happened in Vietnam, we failed to mobilize the Home Front . Despite this, I think America's cause is noble, we have a great and tireless President, and God isn't finished with us yet.

Paranoia over Gitmo

Defense Sec. Rumsfeld defended the decision to keep the Guanatnamo Naval prison over widespread dissension, manly spread by the anti-American media, over alledged torture going on. This statement says it all for me:

"The kind of people held at Guantanamo include terrorist trainers, bomb-makers, extremist recruiters and financiers, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden and would-be suicide bombers," Mr. Rumsfeld said yesterday. "They are not common car thieves."

President Bush also defended allegations from Amnesty International that the prison was a "gulag", calling it "ridiculous". This strange liberal paranoia over anything we do to win the War on Terror is shameful. While claiming to do good, they infact support the terrorists, and hurt America's image in the world. Thankfully, the elites of the world do not speak for the average America, who remember September 11, support our troops, and our President!

Update: Here is a very good article from Canada called Much ado about Guantanaomo.

"Bloody Nonsense!"

This is the statement from the builders of Britain's new aircraft carriers, BAE Systems. Cost estimates, as on so many of America's high tech weaponry, seem to be greatly exaggerated, from the present $5.24 billion (US), to a more probable $6.32 billion.

Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE Systems, Britain's largest defence contractor, has savaged what he sees as premature announcements by the Government of the price of huge military contracts.
Turner told The Sunday Telegraph: "This country has all too often in the past shot itself in the foot by standing up in Parliament before any work has been done at all, any money spent, saying it's going to cost £2.9bn and be in service in 2012. Bloody nonsense! Nobody knows!"

Soundsvaguelyy like American cost estimates for its own futurecarrierr CVN-21, with total price ranging from $6 to $11 billion.

Less Bang for the Buck

According to Strategypage, the US defense budget is getting larger, while procurement of new weapons is getting smaller. In fact, spending has approached Cold War levels during the reagan admisnistration, and if you count supplemental spending for the War on Terror, it actually surpasses it. Read the article:


Not many new tanks, warplanes or combat ships are being built, as everyone continues to live off the Cold War surplus. Many countries want to build new stuff, but everything has gotten so much more expensive. That’s because computers and powerful sensors and all manner of nifty technology provide most of the lethality in new weapons. Build the old style weapons, and you’re just providing expensive targets for those with the most modern weapons. Even your basic $500 assault rifle becomes far more lethal when you add several thousand dollars worth computerized accessories. Countries are spending more on defense, but they aren’t buying the same kind of stuff they were two decades ago.

I was a big supporter of the Reagan buildup, which actually doubled spending from 1980-1988, until I actaully witnessed what little was purchased for the money. Actually very little "extra" was bought, the money mainly went to comlpete programs already underway, such as the MX missile, the B-2 bomber, and various Navy and Army projects. Thankfully though, it was enough.

Navy Says New Carrier is Cheaper

I love the way the navy juggles figures and quotes facts, anything to keep over-priced, obsolecent equipment in the budget. Anyone with a little common sense can see that $11 billion is not cheap, all the while the Army is struggling for manpower, and the fleet has fallen way below 300 ships.

From Janes:

Amid Congressional pressure to curb rocketing US naval shipbuilding costs, a senior navy acquisition official said the next-generation aircraft carrier will be less expensive to build than continuing production of its predecessor.
Briefing reporters on 2 June, the navy's programme executive officer for aircraft carriers, Rear Admiral Dennis Dwyer, rejected the notion that it would be cheaper to continue building CVN-77 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers rather than jumping to the next-generation CVN-21. "Construction cost in the first ship will be less than the [CVN]-77," he said.

For less than a billion the Navy could build Arsenal Ships which could carry the UAV's and other modern weapons which the Pentagon says the carriers can do.

Underwater Breathing Without Tanks

Very interesting tech article here about an invention to breath underwater without using cumbersome scuba gear. Read the full article Here:

An Israeli Inventor has developed a breathing apparatus that will allow breathing underwater without the assistance of oxygen tanks.This new invention will use the relatively small amounts of air that already exist in water to supply oxygen to both scuba divers and submarines.

Bringing Back the Battleships

Congress is planning to dispose of the last 2 American battleship, Iowa and Wisconsin. Both, along with 2 sisters New Jersey and Missouri, now museums, were designed in the 1930's, built in the 40's, and refurbished in the 80's. There is a large block of veterans, media, and politicians who want to keep them around for the War on Terror. Read this from Washington Times:

What can a supposedly antiquated battleship bring to the fight? During the Vietnam War, the New Jersey was on station for 6 months. It wreaked havoc on the DMZ and in the North, including destruction of the deeply buried North Vietnamese Army (NVA) command headquarters. Had this ship been deployed throughout that war, a fair fraction of the 2,000 aviators killed, missing in action or captured as prisoners of war would have been spared. No statistic conveys the impact of the New Jersey's assault on the NVA better than the fact that North Vietnam demanded the withdrawal of the ship -- not the B-52s -- before it would continue with the Paris peace talks.

I have mixed feelings on all this. As a naval enthusiast, I'm enamored about the idea of the last battlewagons sailing the seas again. Also, I am a big believer in getting the most out of weapons as opposed to expensive new platforms. In this latter role the battleships would be a bargain, and could operate as flagships, missile platforms, operate SEAL teams, ect.

On the other hand, they are very old, and would need constant servicing. Crew complement in the 80's was over 1000, and the Navy just can't spare the manpower at the moment, when it plans to let go 50,ooo sailors. Last, in this era of cheap precision weapons, is naval shore bombardment as important as in the great Pacific and European Wars?

Back to the Atlantic Alliance

This is a great and encouraging article in the Washington Times about Germany returning to the fold, and of the greatest alliance in world history that defeated communism and restored freedom to Eastern Europe. Here's an exert:

"BERLIN -- The conservative Christian Democrats and their Free Democratic partners will restore Germany's alliance with the United States and downgrade Berlin's ties with Russia if they win elections in September, leaders from both parties say. In a series of interviews, they also said that they would review their alliance with France, which they intend to keep strong, but warn Paris not to challenge Berlin to choose between the United States and France, as was the case with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Wolfgang Schaeuble, deputy chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) parliamentary group who is in charge of foreign policy, accused Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Social Democrat, of undermining trans-Atlantic ties."

Schaeuble goes on to blast Schroeder for his abandoning the Alliance:

"It is not acceptable that the German government is often very critical of Washington -- sometimes rightfully so -- but stays silent on Russian violations of legal matters," he said. "For example, Mr. Schroeder had nothing to criticize about the verdict in the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky."

Remember John Kerry's apologetic plea for America to go back to the old ways of dealing with Europe. This proves WE weren't the ones who left, as I argued HERE. Barring a catastophe, we may hope to see such sound leadership in September when Germany votes for a new government.

Fighting the New Pirates

For years I have wondered why the Navy has publicly turned away from its Cold War, blue water strategy, to littoral or coastal warfare, while continuing to build large, expensive carriers, destroyers, and attack subs ; at the same time disposing of lo-end platforms such as frigates and patrol craft. After 15 years it seems the Navy is getting the message, as stated in a Sea Power magazine article:

"The Navy is working to figure out what changes are in order for its blue-water fleet, which is designed to fight a conventional enemy on the high seas. Until the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Navy prepared for two major theater wars with the expectation that all other missions — from humanitarian relief to peace-keeping to counterterrorism — could be accomplished with the organizations, equipment and skills at hand.
Prepared by the Navy’s Information, Plans and Strategy staff at the Pentagon, the draft strategy acknowledges that the likelihood of major war on the high seas has significantly diminished. While maintaining the ability to conduct a major combat operation the Navy must be prepared to deal with a wider array of maritime security operations, including stability operations, the global war on terrorism (GWOT) and homeland defense.
The draft strategy anticipates a “limited number” of new requirements will take shape to fulfill these missions, and that some existing capabilities will need modification to keep them relevant in the new strategic landscape, “while other capabilities will need to be expanded in scale to meet the challenges of the post-9/11 security environment.”
To enhance its ability to contribute to the GWOT category, the Navy will enhance its theater security cooperation. “The maritime dimension of the GWOT — the ability of terrorists to exploit the seas — requires the U.S. Navy to operate in a manner analogous to that of the British Navy in the 18th century during its campaign against piracy,” the strategy states. The idea is to improve the proficiency of navies around the world at policing their own regional waters, freeing the U.S. Navy to work elsewhere."

I keep thinking the Littoral Combat Ship, which is designed to fight the threats mentioned above, will save the navy from itself. Lets hope this time the brass will get the message and build ships it can afford, instead of massive battleships, to fight this new age of pirates at sea.

The Age of "separate but equal"

The future of warfare is to be led by the Army, just as it has since the beginning of time. The age of "separate but equal" services are over, replaced with the new era of "jointness". We can no longer afford each service fighting its own wars, as been ongoing since World war 2. The Air Force with its bombers, or the Navy with its own infantry and air force, must now support the Army, since Desert Storm increasingly the more crucial to the nation's defense. The Navy of the future will consist of giant mobile sea bases which carry aircraft and resupply for the land troops. The Air Force will speed these troops to world hot-spots in fast strategic airlift planes. The Army will utilize armed UAV's for close air-support, and the Navy will continue to provide coastal security while unmanned underwater vehicles will protect the sea lanes.

Cheaper Subs or More of the Same?

The Day.com has a interesting article about the navy looking into smaller, cheaper subs to restore numbers to the fleet. Here is an exert:

"Electric Boat has been awarded three research contracts totaling almost $21 million, the first granted under the Pentagon's Tango Bravo program, whose goal is to develop a half-size, half-price attack submarine.
EB had submitted proposals that were among more than 30 received by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is funding Tango Bravo. DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker said additional contracts with other companies are expected soon.
The news was warmly received at the shipyard here.
“We're very encouraged that DARPA and the Navy are funding the development and demonstration of these technologies,” said EB spokesman Neil D. Ruenzel. “Electric Boat has been investigating these areas for several years, and we believe they can play an important role in the future of the submarine force.”

While I think it is a wonderful idea for smaller, cheaper subs, and long over due, I consider it a mistake to depend on this government subsidized dinosaur for something inexpensive. It would be far better to give it to a shipyard not dependant on military contracts (Austal?) and who would be open to new, even radical ideas. That said, I think more feasible than a small sub is the new classes of Unmanned underwater vehicles which could replace the giant Cold War era subs far cheaper, and harder to detect.