MiLinks

USAF Fights Congress to Retire Ancient Aircraft.

UK Army tests James Bond style tank that is 'invisible'.

Aussies Defend Super Hornet Purchase.

France's Wheeled APC.

MRAPs going to Iraq on Russian cargo planes.

Reaper UAV conducts first strike.

Armies of the Future Need Brains and Bullets.

Canadian troops on cutting edge with 'Starship Enterprise' system.

A Maginot Line in the Sky.

Homeland Security Spreading its Wings.

F-35s to Israel Early?

V-22 Osprey in First Search & Rescue Operation.

How to Wage War on Iran, by Norman Podhoretz.

Pentagon seeks urgent funding for massive bunker busting bomb.

Remote-controlled aircraft would patrol Arctic.

Beleaguered NATO set to charter helicopters.

Army Sends World's First Hybrid-Electric Howitzer to War.

Astonishing!

Remind me never to discuss Advanced Calculus in this blog, since I know less than nothing about it. Neither should some at the Huffington Post ever write about naval matters, as the Weekly Standard points out:

The Huffington Post routinely allows its authors to write about subjects with which they are completely unfamiliar, largely uninformed, and generally ignorant--take Laurie David and global warming for example--but today's post by Barry Sanders (I wish it was that Barry Sanders) sets a new standard. Sanders's piece is about "the military's addiction to oil," and his point is to illustrate the military's contribution to global warming, but not content merely to opine on something he didn't understand...he had to make his own facts up, too.

Sanders writes:

But, we do know that President Bush ordered the USS Stennis and the USS Ronald Reagan to the Gulf in January 2007 as part of the surge. He also sent a "strike group," led by the nuclear aircraft carrier the USS Eisenhower, along with a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate, a submarine escort, and a supply ship. Already sitting in the Gulf were ten other "Carrier Task Forces" built around the aircraft carriers Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Chester W. Nimitz, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington, Harry S. Truman, and the Abraham Lincoln. Ninety attack planes sit on each carrier's deck, ready at any moment to fly into combat.

The United States has never, ever, had twelve carrier task forces stationed in the Gulf, not this year, not any year.

Exhibit 2:

The USS Abraham Lincoln, familiar to us as the ship on whose deck President Bush declared to the nation, on May 2, 2003,"Mission Accomplished," remains in service, but the military keeps classified all the numbers about its fuel consumption. The USS Lincoln helped deliver the opening salvos and air strikes in Operation Iraqi Freedom. From March 2003 until mid-April of that same year, during its deployment in the Gulf, the Navy launched 16,500 sorties from its deck, and fired 1.6 million pounds of ordnance from its guns.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has no "guns," other than those used in air defense. The 1.6 million pounds of ordnance should refer to bombs dropped in Iraq via aircraft.

Wait there's more at the link. I might also add that the Navy only possesses 11 carriers in commission, and when its last fossil fueled flattop the Kitty Hawk is retired, only 10.

Op-For rightly points out "Not mentioned was the fact that the Air Force has been one of the most aggressive organizations in the world when it comes to the push for alternative fuel sources."

Pay as You Sin!

clipped from www.terrapass.com

Indulgences are back! Guilt is for the poor, right?

H/t to Jerry Pournelle

Mahan Against the Little Ship Navy

Galrahn at Information Dissemination has a great post about the US Navy chasing pirates in Somali waters, but I was a little distracted by this statement:

"More interesting is news that the Somalian government has given permission to the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) to enter Somalian waters to pursue the hijacked vessel."

Thats great, but I still cringe everytime I hear of one of these 9000 ton destroyers built to fight Soviet nuclear subs in the North Atlantic chasing pirates in wooden dhows or tiny speed boats. This is comparable to using an M-16 rifle to swat mosquitoes. I am fearful that if one of these little "Davids" were to launch a mine, torpedo, or missile and damage one of our naval Goliaths, it may be viewed as a great propaganda victory for the terrorists, as seen in the 2000 USS Cole incident.


William Lind might have the answer with this post titled A 'little ship' Navy:

Today as throughout the Cold War, the U.S. Navy is building a fleet perfectly designed to fight the navy of Imperial Japan. If someone wants to contest control of the Pacific Ocean in a war between aircraft carrier task forces, we are ready. Unfortunately, no one does, absent that general resurrection when Shokaku and Zuikaku, Soryu and Hiryu -- the four Japanese aircraft carriers sunk at the Battle of Midway in 1942 -- will rise from their watery graves.

Were the U.S. Navy really to turn to Corbett, it would build lots of ships designed for operations in coastal waters and on rivers, often with troops on board. But such ships are small ships, and the U.S. Navy hates small ships. Some 30 years ago, when the senator I worked for was trying to push the Navy into buying some small, fast missile boats, the PHMs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James L. Holloway III said contemptuously in testimony, "The U.S. Navy has no place for little ships."

That last comment is evident from this article titled The Boat Nobody Wanted, but getting back to Lind, he was discussing the difference between 2 schools of naval thought, one led by the famed Alfred Thayer Mahan and the other by the less well known Julian Corbett. Mahan was an advocate of big ship, battlefleet type warfare, the kind our Navy continues to practice long after the Cold War, while Corbett was more flexible, concentrating on operations like commerce protection and amphibious warfare. The latter 2 are sadly neglected by the USN except when it is forced on them during wartime.

I see where Mahan theory failed at the battle of Jutland in 1916, and when the British were so reluctant to deal with the submarine threat in that war. Again in the second world war, the Navy was dilatory in applying new weapons to fight the sub, especially aircraft. At late as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Halsey left the invasions forces on their own to chase Japanese carriers dearth of aircraft, in a desperate attempt to fight Mahan's "decisive battle", almost incurring disaster.

I give credit, though, to Mahan for bringing America out its its Post-Civil War doldrums, and setting the Navy and the nation on the path to world power and greatness. I fear though, that our obsession with his inflexible and unimaginative strategy may be steering us toward disaster, especially with insurgents eager to bypass our hidebound theories of war fighting, as we have seen consistently since 9/11.

Some good news- Galrahn also posted on using the new LCS to ferry Marines, recalling the fast destroyers transports of the war era.

For more on Julian Corbett, you can read his masterpiece of naval strategy for free here: Some Principles of Maritime Strategy.

5 Lessons from the 1956 Suez Crisis

After the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser, the British and French, along with Israel launched Operation Musketeer, on October 29 and the 31st of that same year. Militarily the air-land-and sea campaign was a glorious success, but politically it was a failure as the 2 new superpowers forced the three victorious allies to back down. The Middle East hasn't been the same since, and from this we get these 5 lessons:

1. Don't abandon your allies. Britain and France were wrong in launching the operation without first consulting their most important ally, the USA. Yet, America was equally at fault for siding against their partners to be humiliated by coercion from the Soviet Union, and for leaving the Canal in the hands of a dictator. Britain would eventually withdraw from the region, leaving a power vacuum that America had to fill, and France soon quit NATO.
2. Seapower is still essential. Even in the age of jet fighters and the atom bomb, the allies proved that naval forces were still vital, as did the Korean War 6 years earlier. Seven Anglo/French aircraft carriers participated in the operation, including the first use of helicopter-borne assault troops. Britain would relearn this same lesson 26 years later in the Falklands Conflict.
3. Don't give in to dictators. Prime Minister Anthony Eden rightly likened Nasser's power grab to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930's. The principle reason for launching the Operation was not just securing the Canal for the West, but forestalling future war and instability in the region. Considering the trouble we find ourselves currently in the Middle East, the reasoning was a sound then as it is now.
4. Israel is the West's best friend in the Middle East. Musketeer couldn't have been pulled off so smoothly without military support from the Israelis, who quickly seized the East bank of the Canal. Besides being a superpower in the region, Israel shares common European values, and didn't need to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept democracy. Any diplomatic agreement with the Arabs that threatens the security of Israel should be avoided at all costs.
5. Don't underestimate the British. By 1956, Britain may have been a weakened Empire, but the amazing strike on the Egyptians so far from her shores proved the Royal Navy was still a force to be reckoned with. The Argentines would repeat the folly to their chagrin in 1982, Saddam Hussein in 1990 and 2003, while Iran currently is headed down the same disastrous path.

Due to pressure from the Eisenhower Administration, and missile threats from Khrushchev, the British and French were forced into a shameful withdrawal. Afterwards, the UK began a drastic cutting of her armed forces, while speeding up the decolonization process. Nasser would give birth to a new Arab nationalism that has shaped our modern world, mostly for the worse. The Soviet Union, which got away with squelching Hungarian freedom at the same time, felt emboldened to demand further concessions from the West, eventually leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Ike would later say he regretted the decision to abandon the Allies at Suez.

Goose Creek Suspect Denied Bail

Seems no one else is reporting this. From the Tampa Tribune:

A University of South Florida student charged with transporting explosives will not be released on bail, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

In ruling that Youssef Megahed poses a flight risk and a danger to the community, Judge Steven D. Merryday overturned a Sept. 14 ruling by federal Magistrate Elizabeth Jenkins, who said the defendant could be released on $200,000 bail under strict conditions.

Here's how the judge established his decision:

"Guns, explosives, fuses, canisters of gasoline, ammunition, welding equipment, GPS devices, all-night interstate drives to an unstated and indeterminate destination, stops to check gun prices and availability, and computers with a recent history of visits to sites that feature the advocates and the means of violence are not attributes that a disinterested but cautious observer associates with a safe and tranquil citizen of the community," the judge said.

Sounds reasonable to me! Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds.

5 Ways to Get the World to Like Us Again

Hillary says she would send out her ambassadors to do this, but I like Ron Silver's take, as long as his tongue in still in his cheek:

1. We can start by helping the Arabs retake Andalusia. Having conquered it once, it belongs to them forever.
2. Let’s remove our troops and fleet from the Pacific. I’m sure, without our meddling, China, the Korean Peninsula and Japan and Taiwan in addition to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore as well as Indochina will finally be able to get over centuries of enmity.
   
3. Disband NATO—the French never really liked it anyway.
4. South America and Mexico and Canada are easy. Open our borders.
5. Leave Africa to the international community, with its many indispensable nations, Russia, China, the EU and Principe and San Tome to take the lead. With the able assistance of the Great African Leaders of Sudan, Chad, Somalia and Zimbabwe, Kofi Annan who was head of peacekeeping for the U.N. during the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, and as Secretary General, presided over the massacres in Darfur can help his former colleagues work it out.

Yep, then all will be right with the planet. Of course, who then will the world blame for its troubles? Read the rest of this funny article.

The Irreplacable Officer

Victor Davis Hanson is concerned about the safety of our man in Iraq, General David Petraeus:

My only worry about him is that he travels extensively, in helicopters and Humvees, in places recently secured and less so. Rarely has a war rested so much on the shoulders of one officer, and his safety, it seems to me, is critical to this nation’s effort. That may sound absurd in the modern age, where protocol and technology have supposedly relegated the human dimension to a secondary role. But it is true, nonetheless.

Indeed, it is difficult imagining a victory in Korea without Matthew Ridgeway. I don’t think Lincoln would have been reelected without Sherman in Atlanta. No other Union general could have replicated his march through Georgia and the Carolinas.

In truth, there are thousands of officers like a workmanlike Henry Halleck, George Meade, Mark Clark, Omar Bradley, or Courtney Hodges, but rarely a US Grant, Nathan Forrest, George Patton, or Curtis LeMay. The perception of Iraq, and I think it is earned, is that a single American officer set off a chain of events that have turned around an entire war. So let us hope that this irreplaceable officer keeps safe and healthy to finish the task at hand.

All I can do is say a prayer each night for our courageous general and his selfless soldiers fighting for a free Iraq.

5 Consequences of the Cuban Missile Crisis

The military confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union over nuclear missiles in Cuba, in October of 1962, is often cited as the closest the 2 rival powers came to all-out nuclear war. While a timely US naval "quarantine" by President Kennedy forced Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw the weapons, there were losers on both sides, as these 5 points indicate:

1. Hard liners seized control of the Soviet Union. After forcing out Khrushchev who was considered a failure over the crisis, a new leader, Leonid Brezhnev led the Russians in a massive new arms race with America that nearly gave them victory in the Cold War. It was only matched by the USA beginning in the 1980's by President Ronald Reagan.
2. Decline of the Democrat Party. The Crisis was a high tide of the Party that defeated fascism in WW 2, and began the Cold War against the Soviets. Though they had pulled off an enormous diplomatic coup, the Kennedy Administration was apparently so intimidated by nearly starting World War 3, they agreed to nuclear parity with the Warsaw Pact. Negotiations over arms became common, and soon were the rule with the failed Detente Policy, with the Soviets often came out best in these deals. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara felt they had won the Crisis by restraining the military from launching a war, thus began a reflex suspicion of the Armed Forces within the Party.
3. Road paved to Vietnam. When the decision came over how to combat communism in South East Asia, the advice of military leaders were often ignored, thus beginning the path to failure in the War. McNamara's successful micro-managing of the brief crisis didn't work so well in a sustained military campaign, and is often cited as the cause of our defeat in Vietnam.
   
4. Cuba remained communist. By assuring the Soviets that Cuba would not be invaded, as a condition for removing the missiles, the island nation would remain in bondage to failed socialism long after communism had fallen in Eastern Europe.
5. Allies on both sides felt alienated. The Cubans under Fidel Castro were angered that Russia agreed to pull out the missiles without consulting them. Likewise was Turkey left out of the loop over the secret America deal to dismantle nuclear rockets in that country. Britain and France accelerated their own nuclear programs, after being ignored in the Superpower negotiations, even though they would be on the frontlines of any war between the 2 antagonists.

Certainly a turning point in the Cold War, with America increasingly on the decline, but still constantly on her guard. Luckily, the slide toward defeat was halted in time under Reagan and a revitalized conservatism to steer the Soviets toward a peaceable collapse.

What's Wrong With Our Military

Apparently some retired officers don't like fighting wars. Here are two quotes I picked up from the Navy Clips newsletter:

From General Barry McCaffrey (ret)-

"The Air Force's failure to secure more procurement dollars is largely due to the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are consuming much of the nation's attention and defense budget.
"The bottom line is ... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan suck up the oxygen in the debate about what we really want the Air Force and the Navy to do," he said. And, "If you're spending $12 billion a month [for the wars] ... then you don't have the money to get [more]."

And Democrat Senator and former Marine James Webb concerning the Navy-"

"One of the problems you have cyclically throughout history is when you get involved in situations with long-term ground operations, is you tend to eat up your budget and tend to lose focus on your strategic responsibilities."

So, if it wasn't for those darn wars, which militaries are created to fight, the Navy and Air Force could order all the cool new toys they want and play soldier? This, to me shows a lack of strategic vision, when you have a real threat to our country thats already attacked the homeland once, Al Qaeda terrorism, and will likely do so again if given the chance. Were we to return to a Cold War mindset and ignore the instability of the Third World, as these two gentlemen seem to suggest, then we would surely have repeat 9/11s, perhaps this time using nuclear weapons from Iran.

My advice: Give the funds to the Army who have kept this country safe from attack for the last 6 years, and are living in reality rather than the past.

Kos Waves the White Flag

An astonishing quote from Democrat fundraiser and Left wing blog Daily Kos (via the Weekly Standard):

While it appears from more than one point of view that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are situations from which we may never be able to extricate ourselves, from the mountains of Pakistan comes a very simple solution: convert to Islam.

Before we reject this out of hand, lets seriously consider it for a moment: Osama Bin Laden promised the wars would be over if Americans convert to Islam.

Yeah, and Hitler promised no more invasions after Munich in 1938. You can't trust the word of mass murderers, which should go without saying in normal times.

Army Defeats Enemy Media

Don't gets your hopes up. I'm talking about the Al Qaeda propaganda wing in Iraq, according to Bill Roggio:

Coalition and Iraqi special operations forces continue to target al Qaeda's propaganda capabilities. Over the summer, US forces scored a major victory with the capture of Khalid Abdul Fatah Da’ud Mahmud al Mashadani, also known as Abu Shahed. Mashadani was al Qaeda's minister of information and served as the go between for al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al Masri and Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. The capture of Mashadani has shed light on al Qaeda's media operations, and has allowed Multinational Forces Iraq to roll up al Qaeda's media cells throughout Iraq...
The Mosul cell members echoed recent statements made by Osama bin Laden on the dire situation in Iraq. "(They) have indicated that al Qaeda propaganda efforts have been degraded in recent months,” Smith said. "There is almost nothing left of (al Qaeda in Iraq)."

That last was my favorite quote.

Blinded by the Right

I am HORRIFIED that some self-styled Republicans are using the racial card to deflect debate over the very real problems of our times. Earlier I heard Mort Kondrake on the Beltway Boys express the common sentiment of those on the left, that those against illegal immigration, amnesty, and open borders are racist. Glenn Reynolds points to a Pat Buchanan editorial (via Classical Values) that insinuates those who are against the radicals within the Muslim communities hate all followers of Islam, also a common talking point among many Democrats. I think it sad because these are supposed to be highly educated commentators, who despite the fact that bogus charges of racism often bring about tensions and violence, as seen in the Duke Lacrosse and Jena 6 episodes, they flippantly bring these accusations against fellow Republicans.

In this day and age, personal opinions and petty animosities trump reality. Meanwhile, the problems on our border remain unsolved, and the terrorists are emboldened by social politicians who are sympathetic towards them because of their color, while being blind to their radical actions. Will we ever have the color blind society in this country, that Martin Luther King fought and died for?

5 Lessons of War from the Falklands Conflict

25 years ago the first major air-land-sea war of the Missile Age was fought over a few sparsely populated islands in the far-off South Atlantic. Being the first major naval encounter since World War 2 with large fleet units on both sides, the 1982 Falklands Conflict offers many useful insights on conducting future warfare:

1. Numbers still count. Before the war, Britain was prepared to sell off a huge chunk of her Royal Navy, including a brand new aircraft carrier plus her 2 remaining assault landing ships, while reducing the number of Royal Marines. The timely Argentine invasion interrupted these plans with bare months to spare. Also, when several warships were lost due to cruise missiles and bombs, these were easily replaced in the frontline thanks to her large fleet of over 50 destroyers and frigates.
2. Military heritage still matters. Though the British armed forces were a shadow of her Imperial self, it still could field several old and highly skilled infantry units, including the Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines, SAS Commandos, the Ghurkas. Such professional volunteers easily bested the ill trained conscripts of the Argentine Army.
3. Cruise Missiles decide strategy. The single factor in the placement of naval forces, other than the exceedingly long logistical chain to the South Atlantic, was the new power and reach of cruise missiles, as proven dramatically after the sinking of HMS Sheffield by a single Argentine Exocet missile. The British carriers were forced to sail at their planes operational limit to distance themselves from this threat, and the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano was decided for fear she carried such weapons. The loss of a single aircraft carrier might have decided the war.
4. Every ship is an aircraft carrier. The capabilities of the Harrier "jump jet" astounded friend and foe alike, with its capability against land based fighters, while being able to fly in the most adverse weather off any flight deck. Such planes could fly off a short runway of light carriers, or even a merchant vessel. The West's future jump jet, the F-35B Lightning could be spread throughout the fleet, along with new unmanned aerial vehicles, rather than limited to a few vulnerable and expensive platforms.
5. The submarine is the new capital ship. This can be proved after a few observations of the sinking of the Argentine ship Belgrano by HMS Conqueror. The escorting destroyers chose to flee for their lives after the sinking, when in WW 2 they would have immediately attacked the aggressor sub. Likewise the Argentine Navy fled to port for the duration of the conflict. The lesson here is: Ignore the power of the modern nuclear attack sub at your peril!

Thus from this single battle we divulge these 5 lessons which matter most in future war: plenty or enough of the right weapons, well-trained infantry, non-traditional aircraft, precision guided weapons, and submarines. Future military strategists and politicians in charge of buying new armaments, please take note!

Ford Endorses Giuliani

Just in time for Halloween, from the Great Beyond? No silly, before the ex-president's death. NY Daily News reveals what he said:

"That would be a great contest between Hillary and Rudy," the 92-year-old former President told a reporter in May 2006. "I think Giuliani is an electrifying guy," he added. "He's a great speaker. He's had a good record of winning in New York City, and he can be tough."

...Before his death in December 2006, however, Ford was asked by an old friend to predict who the Republican nominee would be.
He smiled and replied: "Well, if they want to win, Giuliani.

I believe Gerry may have something there. If only the rest of the GOP realizes this, and forget about chasing rainbows such as the next Ronald Reagan. Great leaders like Reagan only happen once in a generation, but George Bush is finishing his work of spreading freedom. Rudy can keep the revolution going.

Honest News

Iraqi girls walk to a primary school in the Andaloos district of Fallujah, Iraq, Oct. 17, 2007, to receive school supplies from U.S. Marines and Iraqi police. U.S. Marine Corps photo

Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq.

Worried Bin Laden Urges Iraq Insurgents to 'Unite'.

America needs to be heartened by our success in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Its Last Throes?

Bin Laden: IED Attacks Failing Due to "Negligence".

President Bush Presents Medal of Honor to Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy.

A Protector as a Child, Honored as a Hero.

Real American Heroes.

No Casualties in Anbar Last Week.

Shiites work against extremists, generals say.

Bush Administration Announces New Sanctions Against Iran.

Iraq is No Longer a "Nightmare".

Pakistan Deploys 2,500 Troops to Combat Taliban.

Sharp Drop Seen in US Deaths in Iraq.

On That Fake FEMA Press Conference

Glenn Reynolds says:

WITH ALL THE CAREERS BEING BUILT ON FAKE NEWS, I don't see why a fake press conference comes as any surprise, really . . . .

In the Colbert Administration, all press conferences will be done this way!

I was thinking the same thing! Great minds...

Update: I was listening to the Wall Street Journal Report on how the government is "feeding the flames" in a sense that they are so eager to bail out anyone who builds in a fire hazardous zone. The state governments and insurance companies won't pay for covering these accidents-waiting-to-happen but the far-off Feds, eager to look compassionate, are more than willing to take help them rebuild. So the cycle of burning and rebuilding continues, much like in New Orleans where they continue to build in hurricane strike zones or flood-intensive areas.

Also-Jerry Pournelle says we need a proper Civil Defense to handle these disasters rather than the hopelessly dysfunctional FEMA, and I tend to agree.

The Military and Square Pegs

Remember when Don Rumsfeld declared "You go to war with the military you have"? Like putting square pegs in round holes, Western nations develop its war planning around the kind of weapons it buys, when the opposite should be happening. Here is a debate ongoing in the British Parliament:

The military seem to be obsessed with fast jets, yet history has proved that small and slow is far superior for close air support. For the price of one Eurofighter we could have a squadron of Super Tucanos. They can carry the same ordnance as a Harrier, with its loud bang, but unlike the Harrier, which can be over the battlefield for no more than 20 minutes, Tucanos can loiter overhead for hours on end, ready for use in a ground attack at a moment's notice. We also tend to go in for expensive and complicated helicopters, which soak up manpower, like all complicated equipment. There appears to be little understanding of how light helicopters can be used effectively for ground attack.

The Brits are concerned over the lack of funding for equipping their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the while they are building large supercarriers for some distant expeditionary role. It's as I mentioned yesterday, our troops are already in the field while the Navy and Air Force want to refight the Cold War.

Luckily for America, she is rich enough to afford both, to continue building Raptor superfighters which won't even be sent to Iraq, and new Ford class aircraft carriers the likes of which no other nation possesses, and likely ever will. Then yesterday President Bush was forced to turn to Congress and ask for another $46 billion to fund the war, when the entire conflict could be payed for by slashing hi-tech weapons which won't be used in the current struggle.

Defence of the Realm tries to make sense of all this:

A defining characteristic of military equipment is its functionality – it is designed for very specific purposes and only very rarely can equipment designed for one purpose be entirely suitable for others. Thus, if we wish to implement policies successfully, we must have the equipment that enables us to do so.
... Our policy, ostensibly, is to fight the "war on terror" on Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we seem to be equipping our forces for some mythical, unspecified war in the future.

I'm not convinced the next war we are planning for is the one we want either. What if the enemy refuses to play by our rules and attacks our carriers before they have a chance to launch expeditionary forces? This would be easy to do considering the long reach of cruise missiles.For that matter, old fashion weapons are effective against our big carriers, as seen when a Chinese Song class submarine stalked the USS Kitty Hawk at torpedo range last year. Our military will have to relearn the hard lessons of war again, at a likely high price in our soldiers' lives.

Photo is British Crown copyright.

"Osama Betray Us"?

What will the left say now that America's enemy Osama Bin Laden proves General Petraeus was right in saying the Surge is working? The Birmingham Press-Register wonders:

THE LATEST testimony about the success of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq comes from an inside source: Osama bin Laden.

In an audiotape played recently on the Al-Jazeera television network, the al-Qaida leader sounds like a worried general who knows he's losing on the battlefield and in the battle for civilian hearts and minds...

Yet when the general reported these successes to Congress last month, many Democrats scoffed. A left-wing group took out an ad in The New York Times vilifying the general as a liar and a traitor. The ad called him "General Betray Us."

I can't wait to see the full page add in the NY Times by MoveOn detailing what a liar Bin Laden is, and how he's just a puppet of the White House!

An Atheist Primer for Kids

Movie The Golden Compass is based on a series of children books written by a notorious atheist, according to Blogs for Bush:

THE GOLDEN COMPASS, a new movie targeted at children, will be released December 7, 2007. This movie is based on a the first book of a trilogy by atheist Philip Pullman. In the final book a boy and girl kill God so they can do as they please. Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God."

The movie is a watered down version of the first book and is designed to be very attractive in the hope unsuspecting parents will take their children to see the the movie and that the children will want the books for Christmas.

The movie has a well known cast, including Nicole Kidman, Kevin Bacon, and Sam Elliott.

Sam Elliott? Say it ain't so!!! And the atheists get angry when Christians try to "force" our religion on them, then they go and propagandize our youth.

Snopes has the full story.

Only Democrats Can Save Al Qaeda Now

And they're currently working overtime to obstruct the forces who are fighting and winning against the terrorist organization, according to Michael Franc:

“Showing apparent signs of concern over events in Iraq,” ABC News reported last week, Osama bin Laden warned his terrorist comrades that: “Your enemies are trying to break up the jihadi groups.” He implored them to “work in one united group.”

That’s good advice for our side. Yet House leaders at that time were pressing ahead with legislation that would dramatically hamper the ability of U.S. field commanders and intelligence officers to win the war in Iraq.

It’s a troubling move toward a time-consuming legalistic regime that would force military and intelligence leaders to cede some of their decision-making authority to government lawyers and federal judges.

To see such legal restrictions in action, consider a tragedy that occurred earlier this year. The New York Post reports that similar obstacles forced U.S. military commanders to delay a search-and-rescue mission for three U.S. servicemen taken hostage by terrorists last May.

Nor does it seem to bother Democrats in the least that earlier in the year Bin Laden and his cronies actually expected the Left to hand them Iraq on a silver platter, before Bush instigated his war-winning Surge under General David Petraeus.

Building for the Future

Some Air Force officials are concerned that the Service is getting too small, aircraft too old. The Navy's shipbuilding woes should be an object lesson here. After World War 2, with over 6000 warships built and in reserve, the Navy felt comfortable enough over the years for a leisurely construction program. Oh, she did build many new ships, such as giant new supercarriers, plus missile ships to protect these, while conducting a hugely impressive and expensive nuclear submarine program. Our sea service also rebuilt over a dozen large Essex class carriers from the war, and hundreds of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. By 1968 she still could field almost 1000 ships, but then the slide began which hasn't stopped to this day. Faced with block obsolescence of hundreds of war-era ships in the 1970s, she belatedly attempted a mad scramble to halt this decline by building a "600 ship" Navy. Partially successful, at the end of the Cold War, the slide became even more pronounced, and we now famously are dealing with a 300 ship fleet, which with only 5 or 7 new hulls constructed annually, will likely become a 200 ship navy by the next decade.


Sustained building is the answer here. The other services, the Army and Air Force, came out somewhat better during this period. Often on the frontlines of any land conflict, from Korea, to Vietnam, and todays Gulf Wars, large amounts of planes, tanks, and other equipment kept flowing, since such weapons are far cheaper and easier to build than say, a warship (though a new Raptor fighter costs about as much as a small frigate, a B-2 bomber the price of a missile destroyer). While the Navy hadn't fought a major war at sea since WW 2, the other 2 services were blessed with the Congressional funding needed to keep their force structures rather large, especially from the 1950s to the 1970s.


While the Army continues to do better in funding, the Air Force has wasted its lead building wonder weapons such as stealth bombers and fighters which tie up vast funds and resources, while more useful equipment such as airlift, helicopters, and ground support aircraft are neglected. The Raptors and B-2s are essential to fighting someone with equal weaponry, but as yet no nation has fielded such whiz-bang planes outside the experimental stage. The Air Force has even made it clear that the F-22 will not be sent to Iraq to fight the war we have now.

Belatedly, the Service is admitting it made a mistake. USAF Secretary Michael Wynne recently stated: "In the 1990s, the Air Force deliberately chose to assume risk in modernization and, instead, sustained aging weapon systems throughout continual combat operations."



As I posted earlier, the Air Force is confronted with a block obsolescence of the magnitude faced by the Navy in the 1970's with its war-built hulls. The backbone of our aerial armada, include planes which were designed in the 50's and bought in the 1960s. Even our frontline fighters in the War on Terror, the F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s were designed in the Vietnam War and fielded during the Reagan Era. Patched up year after year, and worn out with each new conflict, they threaten to endanger the lives of our troops, and the security of our nation. Something should be done to halt this inevitable decline of our essential and unprecedented air fleet, even using the desperate measure of abolishing the stagnating bureaucracy of the Air Force and returning it to the land and sea forces where it was born.

Sea Links

All friends now: Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen (DDG 82) and Russian destroyer RFS Admiral Panteleyev transit together while conducting an underway replenishment maneuver during exercise Pacific Eagle.

Maritime Strategy: Desires for Mahan and Realities of Corbett.

The Navy’s New Flat-Earth Strategy.

Naval Strategy for the 21st Century.

Malaysia launches its first submarine.

FREMM multi-mission frigates for Moroccan Navy.

Riverines return to Hampton Roads.

Tricked-out sub stops at Pearl Harbor.

Lockheed Moves Forward With USN’s LCS.

Israel Seeks Uparmed LCS.

USS Miami Completes Undersea Exercise with UK Submarine.

USN Looks To Reduce Crew Sizes on Carriers.

Little-noticed, yet vital navy force patrols Iraq oil.

Work Starts On Carrier Variant of F-35 Lightning II.

Canadian Navy seeks old U.S. missiles for target practice.

Why We Have Half of the World's Naval Power.

Elliot Ness for President?

So, did you hear how GOP presidential contender Rudy Giuliani was the target of a planned mob hit in the 1980's? Here's the NY Post story:

The bosses of New York's five Mafia families in the mid-1980s came a hair-trigger away from sanctioning a hit on then-federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani, according to bombshell FBI records made public yesterday.

The mob bosses decided by a 3-to-2 margin not to try to whack the future mayor and presidential candidate. But before cooler heads prevailed, at least two of the dons argued fervently that the mob-busting U.S. attorney should sleep with the fishes.

Giuliani responded (via Fox):

"You get used to living with it and you make a choice and you say to yourself, it’s worth doing what you’re doing and it’s always a remote possibility,"

This can only help America's Mayor with those still undecided whether he would make a good President or not. Forget about the scandals, folks, and look at the record. Today we need heroes, and this is proof that there's more to Giuliani than just 9/11, though that was certainly an eye opener on his tough and decisive leadership qualities.

Here is a contemporary article from Time on Rudy versus the Mafia.

"Forces are in Place" to Bomb Iran

That's author and Rudy Giuliani advisor Norman Podhoretz view, and I think he's right. From the New York Observer:

"The forces are in place and all you have to say is 'go.' said Podhoretz, a father of neoconservatism and a senior advisor to Rudy Giuliani. "You could wake up tomorrow morning" and it could be done.

After acknowledging that he was not a military man, Podhoretz offered that the attack should be carried out by air, with no commitment of ground troops, and the sooner the better.

But the CIA says it will be years before Iran has the bomb, right?

"The CIA says five years. The CIA has been wrong about everything. I don't see why we should think that they are right about this. Some Israelis I know say nine months - a year before the point of no return is reached. I think the responsible course is to accept the low-ball estimate."

I keep thinking of how emboldened the anti-war Left was during the Nixon Administration after he invaded Cambodia in 1970 on what seemed like at the time good reasons. All it led to though, was Hanoi 1975 and the communist victory there. Of course, the Viet Cong wasn't building nukes, were they?

Update-Some good non-bombing news. Walid Phares says "Today's U.S. Treasury Department revelation of financial measures being taken against the Iranian military can only be described as a strategic masterstroke against the heart of the Iranian regime."

More Media Myths from the Jena 6

The Christian Science Monitor reveals these 12 myths on the racially charged tale, from a local Jena journalist:

1. Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree-it wasn't
2. Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students.-Also wrong
3. Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime.-Not
4. Myth 4: DA's Threat to Black Students.-Didn't happen.
5. Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident.-It was a private party.
6. Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident.-Gang violence.

Go to the link for the other six myths, and greater detail on each. This sounds to me like more "fake but accurate reporting" the left uses to antagonize people and further their agenda.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Cheerful iconoclast says "I told you so".

Amazing NASA Photo of California Winds

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh.

Battling a Different Enemy

A gallery of our troops fighting the blazes in California:

.

MRAPs and the Next Tank

There's an increasing debate on the viability of ordering so many Mine Resistant Vehicles, some 20,000 so far for the Army and Marine Corps, even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might now be winding down. It's been especially heated over at Aviation Week, which reported this recently:

The same amount of money expected to be spent on MRAPs could have bought 10 Virginia-class submarines, three Ford-class aircraft carriers, half of the planned Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program or even 100 C-17 airlifters, he noted.

While there is broad agreement that the Army and Marine Corps fielded too few MRAPs earlier in the war, the risk now is that the Pentagon may produce far too many...

Better too many than not enough, right? What disturbs me about this way of thinking is the quick return to old ways of fighting, or business as usual. It seems after every war America fights, the ground troops do most of the work and the Air Force and Navy gets all the credit. That's a little exaggerated I know, but I hope we don't go back to our usual retrenchment and gutting of the Army, thinking we can ignore continental concerns, as is the impression I got from the Navy's latest Maritime Strategy.


Concerning the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles, I don't think they should be discarded so easily. I believe $25 billion is a small price to pay compared to the $140 billion the Army originally expected to shell out for the Future Combat System, previously considered as its replacement for the tank and other armored vehicles. I think with the lessons learned from the Stryker, uparmored Humvees, and more recently these newer class of MRAPs, that the wheeled armored vehicles are the wave of the future. Back in 2004 I described what I considered to be the future of warfare:

The infantryman, with GPS and a laser range-finder, is the new "God of Battles". He can call in an air strike with a guided bomb, whether fired from land, sea, or air. This is the new warfare. All he needs is a ride and a little cover to hide behind. A main battle tank out in the open has no defense against a laser-guided bomb. He cannot maneuver well enough and no armor can save him...Landing troops will spread out into the countryside like swift Mongol cavalry in LAV's, similar to the recent assault on Baghdad.

This was before the Stryker LAVs and her smaller cousins became so essential to the urban combat we are now fighting. Such a scenario isn't all in my imagination, because a similar conflict was fought a few decades ago by the South Africans in their conflict with Cubans and Angolan Marxists. Thanks to the UN arms embargo during Apartheid, the South Africans were forced to produce their own armaments, and these included innovated and large armored wheeled vehicles able to combat tanks. They were used during the above mention Angolan Conflict successfully against Russian-built armor. Such weapons are equipped with a 105 mm cannon, standard armament for heavier tracked tanks. Wheeled vehicles were used for other missions as well, including personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery.


Already we see American thinking in this direction with the Stryker Mobile Gun System, with its own 105 mm gun. Such weapons are often too large to fit in the more numerous C-130 transports, but several can be fitted in a C-17, and even more on these fast catamaran vessels which the Army is now purchasing for resupplying the troops. The MRAP vehicles will thus be set for the future, as our new infantry fighting vehicle, not only for asymmetric duties, but conventional warfare as well.

A Tale of A Two Stories

All over the Internet, and I heard it on Fox News earlier, is the fact that casualties in Iraq have dropped dramatically since last year. From the AP:

October is on course to record the second consecutive monthly decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths, and U.S. commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al Qaeda and Shiite militia extremists...As of Tuesday, the Pentagon reported 28 U.S. military deaths in October. The toll on U.S. troops hasn't been this low since March 2006, when 31 soldiers died. In September, 65 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

But how does the NY Times tell the tale?

"The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse."

So what alternate reality are they reporting from? Sadly, one in which their stock is not tanking and Al Gore is President.

Hat tip to all you Milbloggers who have fought this good fight for a free blogosphere from the start.

5 Ancient Aircraft in Frontline Service

Earlier I posted to a story titled "A fighter conceived in the 1960s is still on the job". You may be surprised to learn that there are several types of aircraft still in service today from the 1950's and 60's, which are not only still in active service, but are the backbone of our Flying Forces, including:


1). B-52 Stratofortress: The concept for this granddaddy of bombers was first conceived in 1945, under the old Army Air Force! Originally designed as a straight wing, propeller driven aircraft, Boeing took it on its own to create the more revolutionary swept wing jet bomber we know today. First flown in 1952, the USAF received its first operational version in 1955. The B-52H version which our pilots fly today, was accepted in 1962, the last in October of that year when John F. Kennedy was President! An astounding total of 744 planes were bought, with 94 still flying.


2). KC-135 Stratotanker: Probably the most essential of our ancient aircraft, without which our forces would lack the global reach it possesses today.The first of a total of 732 were bought by the Air Force in 1954, with 550 remaining in service. A replacement for this venerable and essential warhorse remains elusive.


3) C-130 Hercules: Another essential senior citizen for all services, including the Coast Guard, the mighty Herk was first conceived at the height of the Korean War in 1951! Worldwide, some 2100 have been built, with the USAF alone still flying over 500. First flight was in 1954, and production continues today with the "J" version, over 50 years later!


4) U-2 Dragon Lady: What better plane to replace our Mach 3 capable super spyplane SR-71 Blackbird (retired in 1998), than the same sub-Mach aircraft it was supposed to supersede! Designed by the famed "Kelly" Johnson at Lockheed's "Skunk Works", the U-2 first entered service in 1956. It came into public view after being shot down in 1960 while flying over the Soviet Union. Likely to be supplanted by unmanned aerial vehicles, this must be the only aircraft on record to have outlasted its replacement.


5). CH-46 Sea Knight: This twin roter Navy and Marine helicopter first entered service in 1960, with the last rolling off the assembly line in 1971. These giants have served faithfully from Vietnam to today's wars in the Gulf. Of 625 built, 239 still remain in service, mainly with the Marines. Its successor will be the V-22 Osprey tiltroter plane, itself a concept from the 1970's!

Most of these well-used planes have been extensively updated over the decades, as is the case with the B-52, with modern weapons and electronics, until there are basically new aircraft. Makes you rethink the need for the expensive R & D costs and long development periods of modern planes, when you can just keep the production line going on still-useful airframes year after year!

MiLinks

A vintage P-47 Thunderbolt and an F-16 Fighting Falcon perform a heritage flight over San Antonio Oct. 11 as part of the 182nd Fighter Squadron's 60th anniversary celebration. USAF Photo

Future Heavy Bomber Loses Its Crew.

Time to Disband the Air Force.

Sayonara For F-22A Raptor?

A fighter conceived in the 1960s is still on the job.

Taiwan To Develop 'Blackout Bomb'.

Small Diameter Bomb a Dud with Troops

Army Orders Quick Deploy Mortar.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Looks Beyond Current War.

US Pilots See Higher-Tech Attacks from Iran.

When the Military Needs It Yesterday.

Europe sees first live intercept of ballistic missile.

Sweden Commits to Gripen's Future.

Pentagon orders 2,400 more MRAP armored trucks.

Land Warrior Makes Itself Useful.

Metal Storm Attracts Attention at US Army Show.

First LAV-A2 goes to US Marine Corps.

Russian Bombers on Exercises Over Arctic, Atlantic.

The Navy Can't "Go it Alone"

Another fault I notice in the Navy's New Maritime Strategy, was the perception that the sea services can ignore the Goldwater/Nichols Act from the 1980's that calls for cooperation in the Pentagon. Loren Thompson noticed this as well:

...The new maritime strategy makes it sound like the three sea services can achieve overseas military objectives by themselves without depending on other components of the joint force.

The reality is a little different. Most of the global connectivity, reconnaissance, navigation and weather information the sea services depend on is provided via satellites managed by the Air Force. Sea-based aircraft can't get very far inland in Southwest Asia or the Western Pacific without aerial refueling from Air Force tankers.

Nothing in the current sea-service arsenal remotely approaches the overland persistence of a Global Hawk surveillance drone or the survivability of a B-2 bomber. And we all know what would have happened to the Marines if they were sent to secure Iraq without the Army.

I would have included the Army first, which seems to be responsible for our fleet's continued dominance on the high seas.

Playing "Capture the Flag" in a Warzone

Fellow South Carolinian W. Thomas Smith Jr. played a dangerous game in Lebanon recently and won:

I snatched a Hezbollah flag — the yellow banner with the green fist and rifle — from one of the enemy's strongholds in Lebanon recently. And when I say stronghold, I literally mean a strong, heavily defended battle position where the Lebanese Army and police dare not enter, and I had to enter covertly...


First, in my often flawed logic I figured that if the terrorists caught me taking the flag, they would — as expressed by a former Christian militiaman who was with me at the time — “cut my head” (meaning “cut my head off”). But the way I saw it, they would “cut my American head” if they caught me flag or no flag anyway.

Second, I hate those guys.

How cool! Not too many journalist/heroes around these days, but Smith is one in my book.

Scrapping the Air Force

David Axe points to an article in the American Spectator (sub. required) detailing how our youngest military branch might not be so useful in an era of combating insurgent terrorists. Says Axe:

Fed up with unnecessary gold-plated fighter jet programs, the service’s impatience with counter-insurgency and its anti-China rhetoric, back in August I proposed the disbanding of the U.S. Air Force. The air service’s missions could be folded into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps without any loss in national power — and we’d benefit from cuts to Pentagon overhead.Now Robert Farley over at The American Prospect has taken up the cause in a new piece, “Abolish the Air Force”...

And then we read this from Strategypage that the Army isn't too keen with the new small diameter bomb, touted as the fighter jocks' contribution to urban warfare:

Basically, if you add high precision to a bomb or missile, you increase its cost by $25-50,000. But while cost is a consideration, it's not the only one. You need just enough explosives to do the job. Too much bang, and you just endanger your own people. More important is availability. The infantry need their explosion when they need it, not when the air force gets around to it. Thus the army prefers to rely on precision weapons they control.

While I wouldn't go so far as to abolish the service yet, I do think we should reconsider the budget priorities of each branch of service. Since the Army is carrying most of the load in the War on Terror, and thus is more susceptible to reform than the other two, they should get the lions share of the annual funds, say a 50%-25%-and 25% ratio. Then perhaps their more hi-tech siblings would become less interested in fighting some future war that never occurs and be more useful in wars we already have.

Also read "A fighter conceived in the 1960s is still on the job". There are also several aircraft from the 40's and 50's still on the job, because the USAF can't/won't build anything to replace them.

Bush Presents Medal of Honor to Fallen Warrior

A true American hero is honor by his country in a posthumous ceremony at the White House:

Today, we add Lieutenant Michael Murphy's name to the list of recipients who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, this brave officer gave his life in defense of his fellow Navy SEALs. Two years later, the story of his sacrifice humbles and inspires all who hear it. And by presenting Michael Murphy's family with the Medal of Honor that he earned, a grateful nation remembers the courage of this proud Navy SEAL...
On June 28th, 2005, Michael would give his life for these ideals. While conducting surveillance on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan, he and three fellow SEALs were surrounded by a much larger enemy force. Their only escape was down the side of a mountain -- and the SEALs launched a valiant counterattack while cascading from cliff to cliff. But as the enemy closed in, Michael recognized that the survival of his men depended on calling back to the base for reinforcements. With complete disregard for his own life, he moved into a clearing where his phone would get reception. He made the call, and Michael then fell under heavy fire. Yet his grace and upbringing never deserted him. Though severely wounded, he said "thank you" before hanging up, and returned to the fight -- before losing his life.

This should be on the frontpage of every newspaper in America and told to our kids in their schools. Duty, honor, and sacrifice!

Osama Denounces Al Qaeda Extremism

Obviously he now sees the fallacy of his own dark ideology, especially when his cause is failing. From FoxNews:

"I advise myself, Muslims in general and brothers in al-Qaida everywhere to avoid extremism among men and groups," he said, saying leaders should not build themselves up as the sole authority, and that instead mujahedeen should follow "what God and his prophet have said."

Bin Laden used the Arabic word "ta'assub," which in traditional Islamic thought means extremism in allegiance or adherence to a group, to a degree that excludes others -- apparently advising flexibility to overcome divisions.

"Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes," he said. "Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahedeen have to correct their mistakes."

I don't think anyone will be fooled by all this rhetoric. While the West was blaming America for atrocities in the warzone, Iraqis were witnessing the terrorist horror first hand. It likely left a bad taste in their mouths.

Update-Sen. John McCain says "It's a clear sign that we are succeeding in Iraq".