UK's Man of the Year

The London Telegraph names an American, General David Petraeus as its top pick:

He has been the man behind the US troop surge over the past 10 months, the last-ditch effort to end Iraq's escalating civil war by putting an extra 28,000 American troops on the ground.

So far, it has achieved what many feared was impossible. Sectarian killings are down. Al-Qaeda is on the run. And the two million Iraqis who fled the country are slowly returning. Progress in Iraq is relative - 538 civilians died last month. But compared with the 3,000 peak of December last year, it offers at least a glimmer of hope.

This is an interesting endorsement, since he was overlooked by some of his own countrymen. But even this monumental achievement wasn't enough to rate this blog's Man of the Year. Stay tuned...

Top 5 News Stories from 2007

My own list from this year:

1. The Surge-Could be considered one of the epic turnarounds of military and political fortunes in recent memory. After the catastrophic debacle of 9/11, Bush desperately wanted a counterattack worthy of the hurt done to the nation by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda minions. Iraq would be the "Central Front" in the War on Terror, but in recent years, the outcome has hung by a slender thread, and likely gave anti-war Democrats control of Congress in 2006. Yet, a new general and a new strategy has dramatically and perhaps irreversibly changed the tide of the conflict, giving the US forces in Iraq a greater opportunity for victory, and President Bush a legacy worthy of any past commander in chiefs.
   
2. Democrats failure to end the war in Iraq-This quote from the AP says it all. "It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence."
   
3. Resignations-From Karl Rove to Tony Blair, many of Bush's top allies seemed to be abandoning him this year. Then along came Sarko!
   
4. France elects conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy-Possibly the nations most charismatic leader since Charles De Gaulle, and a friend of America to boot! Weary of too-lenient immigration laws and a floundering socialist economy, the French elected this tough talking free market advocate, to restore their nation's declining fortunes.
   
5. The Jena 6- Six black students attacked a single white youth over a noose which hung from an "all white tree" ( a charge which later proved a hoax). The Media and Civil Rights leaders briefly expressed outrage, until the facts began to sink in, that an imaginary lynching wasn't as bad as an actual one.

Stories from this past year I could care less about were the latest antics of Rosie, Paris, and Brittany, and global warming.

Aussies Plan New "Super Subs"

It is apparent that the Royal Australian Navy "gets it", when it comes to the future of war at sea. In the past few years they have constructed what many consider the finest conventional submarines in the world, the large and powerful Collins class. As a small but technically capable minor power, Navy planners focused on what might give the country an edge over larger powers without bankrupting the defense budget. It is interesting that they skipped plans for fielding too costly supercarriers to the real capital ship at sea in the 21st Century.

Collins class sub HMAS Rankin

Now plans are ongoing to replace the 6 Collins with even more powerful undersea boats fitted with the latest nautical technology. From The Australian comes new details on these potent new warships:

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.

The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

The article further details the amount of new weapons and equipment these new superships will carry, including:

• The possibility, but unlikelihood of the new ships being fueled by nuclear power.
• They will carry small unmanned mini-subs that can be launched from the "mother" submarines.
• Air-independent propulsion systems (AIP), which allow them to stay underwater for longer periods.
• Long-range weapons such as cruise missiles as well as short-range tactical land-strike missiles.
• They will also be capable of transporting SAS squads (Australian Special Forces) into regional hot spots.

Such craft then, will maintain a regional superiority that Australia already possesses with the Collins subs. Remember that these fine Aussie boats often trounce US warships in wargames, as revealed in a much publicized episode from a few years back, where the HMAS Sheean "sank" the state-of-the-art nucear sub USS Olympia in a naval exercise.

We are reminded then of the recent Chinese Song class submarine that shadowed the carrier USS Kitty Hawk undetected. Such routine occurrences are placing at risk the expeditionary strategy which Western naval forces have been so dependent on. In a case of "having your cake and eating it too", the Aussies are going the expeditionary rout themselves, as they construct giant new carrier-like helicopter ships, and expensive Aegis destroyers to escort them.

The new subs will be expensive enough though, involving a program costing $25 billion. As I've written before, can even the richest nations afford such grandiose construction plans, also rebuilding their air forces and rearming the ground troops, while still providing generous social benefits for their citizens? Likely something will have to give.

Update-More proof of the dominance of the submarine in Australian naval thought, a former defense minister declares "Sub fleet should be doubled".

Giuliani's 9/11 Ad

I heard some commentors on MSNBC complaining about this ad, but I say MORE, MORE! Never forget.

Thoughts on the Bhutto Assassination

Benazir Bhutto died not because she was a threat to Musharraf, but because she was a secular female who spoke out against Radical Islam, all three traits alone which made her a target by extremists.

This is President Musharraf's Tet. The question is whether the bad guys will win this time or not. With Bhutto gone, he remains Pakistan's and the West's best hope in the country.

Presidential candidates are falling over themselves to use the assassination to tout their foreign policy experience, or their opponent's lack thereof. Since when though, did such experience matter in an election? Lincoln had little military experience, until later in the Civil War when he began appointing winning generals. JFK fumbled badly at the Bay of Pigs, but restored his legacy during the Cuban missile Crisis. Ronald Reagan was an actor for Pete's sake! But he went on to change the world.

Musharraf would have to be the dumbest post in the fence to pull off such an operation, knowing it would further decrease his already floundering popularity.

Likely an Al Qaeda operation, as we know how the terrorists thrive on inciting chaos and paranoia against legitimate governments. Don't give them the advantage!

Not More, But Smarter Defense Spending

Here's Kim Holmes and Mackenzie Eaglen writing in the Washington Times calling for a increase to 4% of the GDP on Defense:

The 3.9 percent of GDP we now spend on the core defense budget is far lower than during the Cold War and almost a full percentage point below defense spending in 1950. The defense budget is expected to drop even further to less than 3.2 percent of GDP by 2012.

People here and around the world count on a strong U.S. military for their security. We can't afford any more North Korean-style disasters. Our leaders should agree to spend at least "4 percent for Freedom" each year to ensure that our forces remain capable and ready.

Critics of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan bemoan the fact that the expense of the War on Terror is delaying the Pentagon's long overdue modernization of the post Cold War military. This is a puzzling assertion since America's past wars have always provided a boon in extra military equipment for our armed forces.

The massive naval buildup of World War 2 provided the US Navy with a huge superiority in warships for decades, as it transfered from the gun to the missile age. Likewise did the Vietnam Conflict spur the fielding of our current hi-tech and precision weaponry which overcame the Soviet Union and is currently forming the backbone of our fighting forces in the Middle East.

It is not so much the overseas conflict or America's lack of military spending (more than all the world combined!) which are stifling our rearming efforts, but the Pentagon's obsession over hi-tech warfare, weaponry which is often obsolete before it is handed over to the troops. They forget that the armed forces' principle mission is to fight, with many in Washington thinking only whiz-bang wonder weapons are required to deter the nation' foes and maintain peace.

Yet, it was Clinton Era Secretary of State Madeline Albright who once said "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?" (she was for war before she was against it)As likely she would deny this primary purpose of military power today, the Secretary hit on the correct strategy for the post Soviet Era, with the armed forces filling the vacuum that created rogue states and radical regimes, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are missions where giant supercarriers, stealth fighters, and main battle tanks are less required.

Twenty-five year old designs like the F-22 Raptor jet or uncertain technology as the V-22 Osprey tiltroter are now kept in the production stages for decades, with only a handful eventually built, while are troops fight our nation's conflicts with ancient and continually patched weapons. In contrast, we arm our allies such as Iraq and Afghanistan with lo-tech Russian weapons, like AK-47s guns and T-72 tanks. These same arms which once fought against democracy are now being used overseas to further the aims of freedom. If lo-tech is good enough for our friends, it should be adequate for America too!

As much as I do support an increase in our defense budget, it would be more desirable to have wiser spending than is currently happening. For the price of a single supercarrier, a whole fleet of littoral ships could be bought to tackle Al Qaeda pirates and contend with Third World submarines. For the cost of one F-22 superfighter, a whole squadron of counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft could be bought to support the army's efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.

With so much extra weapons on hand, we might finally have the military we need, rather than the one the admirals, generals, and politicians wish for. I consider 4% of the GDP for the military to be desirable, but 3.2% or less adequate, and not "just enough" for our defense as the Left or Ron Paul might contend, but for a superior and dominant armed force, if spent in the correct manner.

Breaking: Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated

Welcome Lowcountry Blogosphere.Updates below!

A sad day for democracy in this troubled region. Via Yahoo/AP:

Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack...

Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile Oct. 18.

A major setback, but could this extreme reaction by her opposition be the catalyst that pushes the country toward free elections?

Update-Bill Roggio at the Weekly Standard says "The mode of attack suggests a level of training, discipline, and expertise of a military organization." But he still thinks its was the Taliban or Al Qaeda, which should have plenty of experience for such operations.

I still think this may be the straw which breaks Musharraf's back, whether he was involved or not.

This just in-Roggio reports Al Qaeda is taking credit, and they may have had assistance from the Pakistani military:

Al Qaeda's central command is taking credit for today's successful assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A senior al Qaeda military leader in Afghanistan has contacted Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani journalist for the Asia Times and Adnkronos International with close connections to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and bragged about killing Bhutto.

"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen," Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told Mr. Shazad.

More-Heather at Lowcountry Blogs is tracking local reaction.

Bush Responds:

Dole Chastises Huckabee

For a so-called conservative, Mike Huckabee has offended many influential Republicans. Here's Senator Bob Dole (ret.) via the Weekly Standard:

"As a veteran, I worry about the future security of the good people of Iowa and all other Americans. We are engaged in a global war on terror which will not disappear because you imply a willingness, without any preconditions apparently, to sit down with the enemy. Sure we can all find fault with President Bush and his Administration on policy matters and phases of the Iraq policy. I doubt however Iowans will applaud second guessing more than five years after the agony of 9-11..."

And the brow-raising climax:

"... I am troubled about some of the statements attributed to you in the Foreign Affairs article."

First Huck went after Rush Limbaugh, possibly the most influential talk radio host ever. Now he's raised the ire of a conservative icon. He just might get elected President, but not by any from the Right!

Goose Creek Terrorists One of Charleston Top 2007 News

It was #9 on the Charleston City Paper's Top 10 List of the year:

...the Aug. 4 arrest of two Egyptian-born students in Goose Creek for having incendiary devices in their car sent some reporters groaning about one local calamity too many. Reportedly traveling between Tampa, Fla., and North Carolina, Youssef Samir Megahed and Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed told officers there were "fireworks" in the trunk, which turned out to be explosives. They were charged in federal court in Tampa for carrying explosives over state lines. There was an additional terrorism-related charge for Mohamed after an instruction video posted on YouTube was found on his laptop that showed him creating a homemade bomb out of a toy boat.

Here is my own coverage of the event in order:

Breaking: Bomb Threat in Charleston

Charleston Bomb Suspects ID'd as "Islamic"

"He was in possession of pipe bombs"

Tampa Channel 10 on SC Bomb Suspects (video)

SC Bomb Suspects Linked To Sami Al-Arian

Goose Creek-FBI Cautions Against Common Sense

Breaking: Goose Creek Suspect Had Terror Past

Goose Creek Suspect Made Bomb Tape

Goose Creek Suspect Admits to Terror Video

Goose Creek Suspect Denied Bail

The Surge Top Story of 2007

This according to Michelle Malkin's Year in Review and I agree!

Let’s start with the beginning: January 2007. For me, what happened in January defined the rest of the year. We rang in 2007 with vehement Democrat opposition to the “surge” in Baghdad. In the ensuing 12 months, Democrats tried and failed repeatedly to sabotage and undermine this military campaign. Their poisonously partisan allies at MoveOn attempted to smear Gen. David Petraeus. Their fellow travelers in the MSM fought tooth and nail to obscure the successes of the counterinsurgency tactics with their relentless “grim milestone” drumbeat. But by year’s end, even anti-war Democrats and adversarial media outlets alike were forced to acknowledge that undeniable military progress and security improvements had been made.

Milbloggers have almost unanimously labeled Petraeus as Man of the Year, for his brilliant new strategy to defeat Al Qaeda and bring greater security to Iraq. His astounding success has also increased President Bush's own fortunes, despite the surprise Democrat takeover of Congress last year. Then, the resurgent liberal victory in the Elections was considered a humiliating defeat for the President, but now seems of little relevance in the ongoing War on Terror.

The Christmas Story

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.


And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.


And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.


Merry Christmas to all, and God Bless you Angel, wherever you are!

Continuing Charlie Wilson's War

Just viewing the trailer of the recent Hollywood biography titled "Charlie Wilson's War", you get the impression that Democrats single handily won the Cold War, with little or no assistance from a certain Republican president of the 1980's. This astonishing piece of revisionist history does get one thing right: Congressman Charlie Wilson was a real liberal hero, and no embellishments or outright lies are necessary. Without doubt he was a driving force in Congress for supplying monetary aid and military supplies to the Afghanis that eventually saw the retreat of the Soviet Union from the occupied and long-suffering nation.

Charlie was an anomaly in the Democratic Party of the Reagan era, with most liberals preferring to live with rather than confront communism. Many though, like Wilson, openly rebelled against their colleagues seeming indifference to the threat of our times, with some becoming "Reagan Democrats", most notably Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Perle.

Today's liberal movement once again seeks to embrace the failed policies of detente, wishing to appease our enemies instead of holding them accountable for atrocities committed against the West and fellow Muslims. Aside from Senator Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent in last year's election when his radical Party based rejected their former Vice Presidential candidate, none on the Left are embracing the spread of freedom and the liberation of the Third World from terrorist oppression, as Charlie Wilson once did against the forces of communism.

In their fight with the West, the terrorists have adopted the tactics of their old enemies the Soviets. They commit atrocities against Muslim women and children, behead prisoners, and mistreat them without regard to the conventions of war. They also have established torture chambers throughout Iraq, which make the US prison on Guantanamo Bay appear as a vacation resort.

Yet, few on the Left are speaking against the crimes against humanity, as Charlie Wilson once did. Instead they seek an early withdrawal before the generals there see their mission as finished, withhold vitally needed funds to continue the operation, and blame the woes of the Middle East on the Bush administration, rather than extremism where the real fault lies.

Something strangely missing as top priorities of the Democratic platform is spreading liberty, fighting our enemies, and supporting our allies against Al Qaeda. Issues such as these were a driving force behind Wilson's obsession to aid the Afghani rebels against the Soviet invaders, and defeat the communist ideology. The Democrats see our involvement there in the 80's as an incentive for the birth of today's radical Islam, a convenient excuse for not supporting the President's War on Terror.

Wilson thought otherwise, and felt his Party and his country would be "damned by history" if they failed to act in the Great Calling of his time. Will Democrats heed this sound advice, support the President, and fund the troops, or will they let partisan politics and the hope of the next election distract them from the noble goal of continuing Charlie Wilson's War?

Remembering the Troops This Christmas

And their many sacrifices:





Write or call your Congressman and plead with them to fully fund the war and let the troops finish their mission. Sometimes, with all the comforts of home, we may forget why they fight. Thank God that our brave men and women in uniform know why they are in the Middle East today:

John McCain's Christmas Message

In the Cross! Be my glory ever!

Bush and 1968

Perhaps you've seen the retrospective by Tom Brokaw on a turning point in American history, the year 1968. It was a time which saw the beginning of the end of US involvement in the Vietnam War, and the fall of fortunes in that brutal conflict for US President Lyndon Johnson. There also were the assassinations of 2 stalwart American liberals, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, which greatly deflated the hopes of the once dominant Democrat Party.

Concerning Vietnam, one of the most divisive US conflicts in its history as a nation, it is widely perceived in retrospect that the Johnson Administration, and later President Nixon, conceded defeat to the communists while its military was winning the battles. During the Tet Offensive, after which the White House gave up any efforts of winning there militarily, it was the Viet Cong enemy which suffered a devastation of its ranks, while the American forces under General Westmoreland were intact and prepared to continue the fight. Yet, after being intimidated by the American Media, Johnson refused to continue the struggle he had once sorely believed in.

In the present day, President George Bush suffered his own "1968" period in 2006. At this point, it was obvious the 3 year-old Iraq Conflict had evolved into a civil war after the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque. Then there was the takeover of Congress by a majority of anti-war Democrats, with a mandate to end the War in Iraq and bring the troops home. It was obvious then that the tenure of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, while successful in creating an infant Middle East democracy, had failed to bring the sort of peace and security that would lead to a stable political situation.

Bush at this point could have taken the Johnson way, cashed in his chips and conceded to the terrorists,the Liberal Congress, and their supporters in the Mainstream Media. That he did not must be considered one of the boldest decisions in the annals of our Republic.

Rather than be seen as leading another American "lost cause" as was Vietnam, Bush upped the ante and decided to make one last bid for victory. Though its was obvious the Democrats would attempt to cut off funds, the President gambled that there was still a modicum of patriotism left over from the outrage of September 11, 2001, that saw an unprecedented unity of Left and Right against the terrorist perpetrators.

A new Defense Secretary, a new commanding general, and a new strategy saw the tide of battle turn against the terrorists throughout 2007. Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest point in two-and-a-half years, and the once antagonistic tribes are coming together to drive out their Al Qaeda tormentors. A virtual consensus has given the rightly deserved laurels to the General David Petraeus, and his brave and brilliant troops of the Surge. The once resurgent Democrat Party seems to be suffering its own quagmire after continued fruitless attempts to end the conflict.

Returning to 1968, it appears that President Johnson might have conducted his own successful Surge, rather than giving up when victory was so near. General Creighton Abrams, the successor of the unfortunate Westmoreland, conducted an effective anti-insurgent campaign soon afterwards, until he was restrained by Nixon after the excessive casualties at Hamburger Hill. Perhaps with a determined commander in chief of the likes of a George Bush, Abrams might have been allowed to continue his policy of "maximum pressure" against the communists, and end the war in terms more favorable to the US and the South.

Common Hulls for Navy, Coast Guard

The time is ripe. From Norman Polmar:

The massive cost overruns and some technical problems with the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Coast Guard's new cutters of the Deepwater Project led a key member of Congress to propose a merger of the two programs. Representative Gene Taylor (Democrat-Mississippi) has told Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen that the two services should look to pursue a "common hull" for LCS and the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter program.

Representative Taylor said "We can't afford to keep repeating mistakes," referring to the massive ship acquisition and development problems that both services have had with key shipbuilding initiatives.

Building warships to fight Al Qaeda pirates and watch the navies of potential Third World adversaries should be a no-brainer, but Washington has caused each program to be over-complicated and hardly affordable. If there's anything we should learn from the Army's successful counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq, is that numbers count as well as strategy. The Navy has the plan, now let them build the ships to support it.

Galrahn at Information Dissemination has more on the Navy COIN strategy, or lack thereof.

Bush Vs Earmarks

In a White House speech earlier today, the President praised Congress for finally passing a budget, and scolded them for the vast amount of Pork contained therein. Yet, the Club for Growth contends that Bush could legally sweep away the Congressional pet projects:

During a press conference, he announced his disappointment with the number of earmarks in the recent Omnibus spending bill. He said:

"I am instructing the budget director to review options for dealing with the wasteful spelling in the omnibus bill.”

This is president-ese for "through an executive order, I might tell the respective agencies to ignore the earmarks and to spend the money on higher priorities."

This is a HUGE deal. With his signature, Bush could effectively wipe away almost all of this year's earmarks. It would easily be the biggest achievement on wasteful spending of all time. And it would set a wonderful precedent for the future that would deter the abuse of earmarks by members of Congress.

What a boon this would be for our economy, suffering as it is with so much waste from the Imperial Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats have proven unable to control themselves when trusted with the fortunes of taxpayers. Now they must be reigned in like spoiled children. The Line Item Veto failed the test, so more stringent measures must be applied.

Bush Winning Budget Battle

As we predicted here, earlier this month. This latest is from the Weekly Standard:

The Democrats continue their march toward complete surrender...to President Bush.

Last night, the Senate passed a $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan funding package--without any restrictions or timetables. The package is expected to pass in the House on Wednesday.

Fred Barnes analyzes the vote at the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, noting "the 70-vote approval of the war by the Senate represents the breathtaking dimension of [the Democratic party's] failure."

This present Party of Democrats doesn't have the courage to withhold funds from the troops, thank God! You can also judge the extent of the President's victory with the Surge in Iraq, by the refusal of Democratic candidates to even discuss the issue. I have to wonder, will the Left simply ignore this astounding achievement of American arms over the terrorists and their own attempts to sabotage the operation, thinking it will be forgotten in the future?

The Incredible Disappearing Border Fence

This was sent to me by John Burtis, and is written by Michelle Malkin:

Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act." Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles...

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles.

No surprise there. Washington is so out of touch with most of the country, intimidated as they are by the Media, advocacy groups, corporations, as well as memories of the Civil Rights Era, they are too fearful to upset Hispanic groups. Even the unprecedented attack on our homeland of 9/11 isn't excuse enough for politicians to defend our borders.

Rudy's Holiday Message

MSM can rest easy. No crosses here.

F-35B: The Essential Vertol

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard doesn't understand the need for the F--35B, the short take-off, vertical lift version (STOVL or vertol) of the F-35 Lightning II:

...I've never found the rationale for STOVL very convincing. The Marines want to be able to operate from remote bases close to the battle, but a first-class Navy ought to be able to seize and build landing strips, position aircraft carriers, refuel in mid-air, etc., so as to obviate the need for STOVL. Our allies, the British and the Italians specifically, operate small carriers that rely on STOVL aircraft. So it makes a lot of sense as an export. But the added cost in R&D is substantial, and it has long since become a serious drag on an already expensive program.

Some may recall the original rationale for vertol aircraft like the classic Harrier, was the need for NATO to have some type of survivable jets after the likely destruction of our forward airbases by the Soviets along the Central Front during the Cold War. This still seems to be the rationale for the RAF's plan to replace their own Harriers in the near future, as well as our own Air Force toying with the idea as an attack plane to replace the A-10.

So we see it not just for the Navy's sake that we need the F-35B. Had I my druthers, I would see the entire line of the Lightning II produce the vertol version, backed up by swarms of UAVs.

Liberals for Corporate Greed

Victor Davis Hanson reveals this bizarre alliance over the illegal immigration issue:

Examine the institution on its merits: illegal immigration depends on the union-busting employer’s exploitation of cheap labor that cannot bargain or organize. The Left cynically sees a new politically dependent constituency that will need group representation, and supposedly show lasting thanks for the extension of entitlements (note the Left still bristles at illegal immigration from Cuba)...

Meanwhile play-by-the-rules Asians and Africans wait for years in line and must show specialized skill to enter the US legally.

I'm still scratching my head over the Left's sympathy for Radical Islam, which seeks to destroy everything they hold dear: women's lib, homosexuality, free speech, and the rampant immorality emanating from Hollywood.

But Whoopi recently agreed with Rush Limbaugh so i guess anything can happen these days!

The F-16's Staying Power

Here is another article (after this one) on America's hardest working jet fighter, the venerable F-16 Freedom Fighter, and why we might should keep it around:

Some skeptics have wondered why U.S. officials are investing nearly $300 billion to develop and buy the F-35 when the F-16, which costs about $40 million per jet, has proven so popular and easily upgradeable that 24 countries have bought them, many as repeat customers.

"There's a pretty good argument to keep building new F-16s forever," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "It's hard to say you can get a better bang for your buck."

Reason for its staying power? Besides the low cost compared to modern stealth planes, it has become extremely adaptable to new roles:

Bill McHenry is in charge of selling them for Lockheed. As he puts it, "This is not your father's F-16." Asked why, he ticks off a slew of technological upgrades. The F-16 has gone from having minimal radar ability in the 1970s to having some of the latest air-to-air and air-to-ground radars. Countries such as Greece, which doesn't have in-air fuel tankers, have requested that extra gas tanks be fitted on top of the planes. Lockheed obliged. The F-16 now has helmet mounted cueing, which displays targeting information on the visor of the pilot's helmet.

Today's warfare is not so much about the platform itself, but what the plane is carrying. This is why UAVs are so crucial despite being basically model airplanes for military use: the new advanced sensors and precision weapons they carry. The F-16 could easily load the same new smart bombs and air-to-air missiles which the increasingly unaffordable, F-35s and F-22 Raptor carry, at about 1/2 to 1/4 the price tag.

McConnell Defends the English Language

Some welcome and long overdue legislation is emanating in the SC State Government. Here is the Charlotte Observer:

The head of South Carolina's Senate has a message he wants to send to non-English-speaking immigrants looking to use state or local government services: No hablamos español.

Sen. Glenn McConnell's proposal, among dozens of bills filed in anticipation of the coming legislative session, would require that all government paperwork and videos use only English.

"If you go in and fill out something, it's going to be in English," said McConnell, a Charleston Republican. "There's nothing unfair about it. They have to do what everybody else has done who's immigrated here -- learn the language."

Of course, you have the critics:

Printing documents only in English won't help people learn the language, said Raul Gonzalez of the Washington-based National Council of La Raza.

He called it discriminatory legislation that, if passed, would likely be challenged in the courts and end up costing taxpayers.

Actually, failing to encourage those who come to our country to learn our language and culture is itself discrimination, since you are saying Hispanic immigrants aren't smart enough to learn our way of life, like so many millions before them. Plus, those who support having a bilingual services are fostering "two Americas", divided rather than united, and encouraging future violence of the type some Europeans countries are enduring with Islamic immigrants.

My message to our legislators: this is not racially motivated but a way to provide legal visitors to our country a chance to enjoy the blessings of liberty. They come to the US for a better way of life, not more of the what they left behind.

America Needs Giuliani

His latest ad. Powerful stuff!

Defunding the Navy to Save It

Updated with figures below.

It is a fact that when budget time comes around, America's three armed services seek to defend a triad of main weapons. For example:

• Air Force-Bombers, fighters, missiles
• Army-Armored vehicles, helicopters, artillery
• Navy-Aircraft Carriers, surface warships, submarines

Admittedly this "combined arms strategy" has given the individual services an unprecedented superiority, some might say overkill, in 21st Century warfare. Such military power controlled by one of the world's great democracies is very desirable but hardly affordable if our nation also wishes to continue spending on much-too-generous social programs for its citizenry. Beyond that is the fact that in this age of smart bombs, cruise missiles, and unmanned vehicles, known as Precision Warfare, such highly expensive arms more often than not duplicate the others' capabilities.

Concerning the naval aspect, this was the purpose of my call for "An All Submarine Navy". With the fleet's main purpose being to defeat an enemy battlefleet, modern undersea boats with their high speeds, unprecedented stealth and the long reach of modern cruise missiles, give this weapon of war no peer at sea. The subs can now be seen as the battleships of this new age and should be given the primary budget consideration over any overly-expensive, and perhaps outmoded ideas of combined arms.

To shake the Admirals out of their lethargy and away from their Cold War mindset, a reduction in shipbuilding funds might be in order. Such a drastic move could then force shipbuilding planners to utilize their precious resources more sparingly, directing them away from our current "luxury fleet" of every powerful warship imaginable, that can be bought only in greatly shrinking numbers. Moneys leftover should be given to the brown water navy, to buy patrol craft and smaller landing craft (such as the Austal high-speed ferries) to maintain our dominance of the shallow seas.

Update-Here are some figures I have worked on in the course of the day:

Navy shipbuilding is currently budgeted at $12.5 billion. In my own scheme, this figure could be reduced to around $10 or even $8 billion annually, with the bulk of procurement funds going to the construction of new submarines.

Two subs per year is the goal envisioned by naval planners for the near future, but my plan would produce 4 boats annually to match potential Blue Water aggressors such as China or Russia, and to takeover most of the missions of vulnerable and costly surface ships.

Northrop recently reduced the cost of new Virginia class subs to $2 billion, and with a doubling of purchases this can be further curtailed, perhaps to $1.5 billion each.

Even more desirable would be the acquisition of air-independent-propulsion submarines, copied for simplicities sake from European designs, built with little extra equipment which the Navy loves so well, and which too often raises the cost of warships. Such vessels currently are priced below $1 billion dollars and would be more relevant for cruising in shallow seas than the giant Virginia's.

We Win Some...

A few, including Galrahn at Information Dissemination, are coming around to my way of thinking on primary role of the submarine in modern war at sea, probably because of the shocking cost of new warships on the Navy's expansion plans. With little likelihood that there will be a big shipbuilding boost in the near future, desperate times call for desperate measures. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead apparently has seen the light:

...The primary reason the Navy is building a larger submarine force is to counter the threats of China. I'm sure everyone assumed as much, but it is refreshing to see it stated by the CNO.

He also rightly chastises the Chief for planning the littoral combat ship around a future conflict with the Chinese, but maybe the Admiral has ulterior motives. The Air Force added the "A" for ground attack designation when it seemed procurement of their hot Cold War era F-22 Raptor was in danger, a ploy which worked to an extent. Perhaps Roughead is utilizing the same strategy to push through the troubled LCS program.

Whenever the China threat is mentioned, everyone seems to perk up like "E.F. Hutton"!

Oh, and Galrahn goes on to flatter yours truly by stating "Mike's ideas look smarter and smarter everyday with this type of talk from the CNO, which pains me to say since I often disagree with his ideas."

All is forgiven!

Petraeus: Man of the Year

Not content to wait for Time Magazine's annual choice, National Review names the commanding general who turned conditions around for the better in Iraq in a few months time:

Time magazine hasn’t announced its pick for “man of the year” yet, but we certainly know ours: Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq and architect of the surge strategy that is turning the tide in the war. Petraeus formulated a brilliant counterinsurgency plan. He executed it with care and diligence. And when much of the country didn’t want to notice the security gains that the surge had wrought, he took the national media spotlight to defend his strategy and his honor. In all this, he was nothing less than masterly.

And I heartedly concur with their view! Petraeus helped to turn what could have been a shameful retreat before a murderous ideology which has held the world under siege since 9/11, Al Qaeda terrorism, into a glorious triumph for the West. Rather than a New Dark Age, we now have hope for a new era of peace in the Middle East, and a long-neglected opportunity for democracy to take root. For all this, plus keeping our troops safe, this country owes the General our heartfelt gratitude!

The Key Monk says "unless Time makes the same pick, NRO's will be better."

Kevin Gregory at the McClatchy Watch agrees with National Review.

Obama Silences Hillary Cackle

Smackdown! Is this the beginning of the end for her campaign? Some say yes.

Internationalism Destroying Western Navies

I am convinced that the desire by Western politicians and military leaders to go to war only when they are backed by Coalition partners, is the primary reason for the decline of Western Navies since the Cold War. Satisfied that they can rely on their allies in the event of a crisis, they are gutting the backbone of their sea services by retiring vast numbers of destroyers, frigates, and patrol craft, while failing to replace them in adequate numbers.

I wrote about this in Strategypage back in 2004:

The overstretched US Fleet is smaller than it’s ever been in modern times. With less than 300 vessels there is no sign of an increase in numbers in sight. These reductions in size will only make America more dependent on the navies of friendly countries, and make it less likely to antagonize them politically in the future.

The problem with this internationalization of Western Fleets is the fact that too many countries are preferring to leave their defense to UN resolutions, which have consistently failed to bring about change to the world's long-suffering poor. The fact is, the global community has done almost nothing to alleviate Africa's ongoing agony, and perhaps have compounded it by propping up corrupt regimes with foreign aid. Neither have they prevented North Korea from acquiring nukes, or Iran from supporting terrorism worldwide. Most notably they have refused consistently to support US efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Getting back to the Naval issue, an article in Human Events reveals how British leaders have convinced themselves it is OK to gut the once mighty Royal Navy, because in the long term they are committed to the European Union’s European Security and Defence Policy:

Britain’s naval contribution to the ESDP under the 1999 Helsinki Headline Goal consists of “18 Warships, including an aircraft carrier, a helicopter carrier, destroyers, frigates, mine-hunters and submarines; plus support ships”. The EU’s Headline Goal 2010, which was created to provide the ESDP with a more modern and realistic approach to the security needs and capabilities of the EU in the post 9-11 world, called for Britain to provide “the availability of an aircraft carrier with its associated air wing and escort by 2008”.

Thus they feel it acceptable that they can no longer mount even a Falklands style task force to defend their own nation's concerns, as long as they defend the collective interests of Europe.

US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen has his own excuse for gutting our own once invincible sea armada, with plans for a "1000 ship navy". While America focuses exclusively on the Blue Water threat from major powers such as China, Russia, and perhaps India, Coalition partners such as Canada or Japan will defend the littorals with frigates and corvettes. Thus they excuse the outmoded need for giant carrier task forces, Aegis missile cruisers, and expensive amphibious warfare ships. This is further evidence of a misguided dependence on world government to bring peace and security, as well as ensure the future of Western Civilization.

More-Robert Kaplan says all this may be inevitable:

For more than six decades we have been the near-hegemonic successor to the Royal Navy, but in coming decades we will likely have no choice but to gradually cede oceanic space to the rising Indian and Chinese navies with whom, more often than not, we will hope to cooperate.

He may be right, but it need not be today. We'll leave the surrender for the next generation.

Worst Headline Ever

I couldn't resist this, from the NY Post:

IKE 'BEATS' TINA TO DEATH

Huge Taliban Defeat

Stephen Grey at ABC News has an eyewitness account, concerning the Battle of Musa Qala:

The operation was launched last Tuesday with an attack across the Helmand River by British Royal Marine commandos, a thrust from the west by light armor of the U.K. Household Cavalry Regiment; all this, however, was a feint for the main airborne landing from the north of a battalion of soldiers of Task Force Fury from the 82nd Airborne.

Faced with a full brigade of NATO forces, a brigade of Afghan government fighters and the defection of a key Taliban commander, the Taliban chose not to flee at first but to fight a desperate battle.

An interesting aside on how the defunct Soviet Union was involved:

While hundreds of Taliban are believed to have been killed, two British soldiers and one American soldier lost their lives. All the deaths, however, resulted from vehicles striking mines left not, it is believed, by the Taliban but by Soviet forces in the 1980s.

Bill Roggio also posted on this story, here and here.

F-22 Raptor Combat Ready, After 25 Years

That's about how long the planning for our newest and most advanced fighter ever has been ongoing, as detailed by Bill Sweetman at the Ares Blog:

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I covered a Society of Automotive Engineers aerospace conference in Anaheim. It was the first public occasion where industry and air force people talked about the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), and it was pretty clear where the requirement was headed: supersonic cruise, stealth and a primary air-to-air mission.

That was TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

He inserts an interesting note:

The most successful fighter of the modern age is indisputably the F-16. The project was launched in 1972 with a contract for two prototypes...
It was operational eight years later.

The mighty F-16 was also designed under the watchful eye of Col. John Boyd, likely America's greatest military strategist of this generation. I have consistently called for production of more F-16s, which have been fighting all our wars anyway for the past 20+ years, to replace our aged and worn out fighter fleet. Otherwise, we may see our unmatched aerial armada become another "hollow force".

The Second Revolution

Continuing to publish exerts from my book, also titled "New Wars" (see top right corner). I wrote the following allegory as a warning to those who play politics with the lives of our troops.

The “Long War” with the terrorists was finally over and a welcome, though unnatural peace now settled on the Middle East. Still, while America slowly rotted internally, an outside enemy had designs on the new Arab republics. Russia and China had grown increasingly jealous of American military successes, and were starved for oil. The two former Cold War rivals joined forces to grab the precious fuel reserves while America was complacent.

The battle weary US Army was caught off guard by the enemy blitzkrieg. It was a Battle of the Bulge, Yalu River, and Tet Offensive all rolled into one, as millions of the so called “Northern Alliance” flooded into the south, carrying all before them.

The Congress, its credibility waning for decades, saw in the catastrophe an opportunity to restore themselves in the eyes of the people. First they blamed the debacle on the military, who presence in the Middle East, they said, had intimidated the Russians and Chinese. Next, they accused the President of incompetence for not being aware of the enemy buildup. Finally they called for an “honorable withdrawal” of American troops which they claimed would appease the invaders.

Aided by the sensation seeking media, an able job was performed on convincing the public that our military had failed. Back home in the states, panic was widespread. Anti-war protests broke out nationwide as live photos of retreating Americans forces were published. Radical mobs blocked off the flow of vital war supplies for our troops to intimidate the politicians, and it worked. In a rare moment of consensus, Congress ordered the troops to return home. When the President balked at this violation of his Constitutional powers, he was impeached.

While the world braced themselves for an impending American Dunkirk, our troops were fighting back. When the top US commander was killed in a jeep accident, he was replaced by the brilliant young war hero Col. Arthur Maxwell. Given a battlefield promotion, he became Supreme Commander of the coalition which included Arab, Jewish, and Western armies.

Finally taking a stand at Jerusalem, the new Commander held the Alliance for a year, while he prepared his counter-offensive. With no supplies from home, the Coalition was amply equipped by Europe, who realized they would be next if Israel fell.

Maxwell, though vastly outnumbered, easily defeated the World War 2 style armies besieging him. He first launched an air assault across the Jordon using thousands of helicopters, capturing the enemy rear bases. Next his infantry launched a frontal assault, catching the enemy in a vice. The enemy was slaughtered enmasse and the great retreat of a year earlier became a glorious triumph of American arms.

With the east soon pacified and the Alliance licking their wounds, the commander prepared to return to America. Not, as Congress planned in shameful defeat, but as a conqueror! Maxwell and his sore but victorious troops planned for revenge on those who abandoned them to near destruction. The army landed not near Washington as expected, but farther south in Savannah Georgia. There they witnessed the vast stores of supplies which were denied them when so sorely needed. Anger seethed against Congress and the protesters.

In a reverse of Sherman’s March, Maxwell led his forces toward Atlanta, along the way leaving the bodies of many war protesters. This bold act brought to his side those Americans who supported the war, but were fearful to speak out. Capturing the satellite stations of the city, the commander broadcasted his demands to the Congress: resign now and prepare to answer for abandoning the Army and causing lawlessness and chaos throughout the nation. This demand of course was refused and Maxwell prepared for battle.

The greatest battle fought on American soil ended with the death of democracy on the continent. The crushed members of Congress either fell on the battlefield or fled the country into exile. The supreme moment came when on the steps of the Capitol, the American Army declared Maxwell the Supreme commander of the US, granting him all the powers of executive, judicial, and legislature.

Goodbye to MRAPs?

There seems to be a major slowdown coming in the purchase of Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles for the warzones, according to the Weekly Standard:

IT WAS THE CAUSE du jour for the 110th Congress; a silver bullet that would save lives in an increasingly unpopular war, make even the most superfluous lawmaker look like they were on top of defense issues, and bolster the military credentials of any Pentagon-hostile Capitol Hill denizen...But now the game has changed. Finally sober minds are beginning to prevail and the services are finding the courage to push back. Let's say the surge gave them the "breathing room" to take a moment to really examine whether these vehicles fit their battle plans or were, as one defense researcher termed them, just a "million dollar Kleenex."

...And now, apparently, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the number two commander in Iraq, is questioning whether his service needs its 10,000 MRAP order (down from 17,000 earlier this year). He told USA Today this week that with the success of the surge and the increase in tips and other intel on IEDs, the need for MRAPs has waned.

I too was an avid proponent of the new vehicles, more as a less costly tank replacement than for any political reasons. Yet, I bow to the wisdom of the seasoned combat commanders on the frontlines.

Democrats Seen Abandoning the Troops

I don't think they will, but it is a sad spectacle as a once great party is placating the radical Left over vital supplies for the US Armed Forces. From the Washington Times:

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way...

In short, for the sake of placating MoveOn.org and other radical anti-war groups, the Democratic leadership is willing to lay off thousands of employees in America and under cut the incredible success of our troops in Iraq.

Sad, especially at Christmas time. While we here in the states are spending the Holidays with our loved ones, these selfless men and women are fighting and dying to keep us safe and free. Victory will still be their's however, but it could be counted as the Dem's success as well, if only they will release the necessary funds without precondition.

Towards a sensible shipbuilding strategy

Someone in the Navy is finally showing some sense concerning the warship procurement process. From Defense News:

The U.S. Navy’s top strategist has floated to the chief of naval operations three alternatives to the service’s current 30-year shipbuilding plan that if adopted would radically reshape American naval power.
The three options are contained in a 26-page briefing titled “Three Futures, One Navy, A Portfolio Analysis” by Vice Adm. John Morgan, the service’s strategy chief, which was e-mailed to Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, just before the Thanksgiving holiday.
The force structure options — a 263-ship fleet optimized for major combat operations against a peer competitor; a 534-ship shaping force tailored for coalition and maritime security operations; and a 474-ship balanced force able to perform high- and low-end missions — would replace the current 30-year shipbuilding plan.

Naturally, the leadership is so set on the fleet's current death spiral, that they are attacking the individual plans:

“The proposal has not been vetted among the Navy leadership,” said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman. “The hypothetical numbers listed in the brief are ludicrous and are not reflective of Navy leadership’s thinking or intent and has no bearing on the budget or POM (Program Objective Memorandum)

.

Still, there are very interesting proposals, worth taking notice, for instance:

• A force of 263 ships, smaller than the 313-ship fleet that Roughead has said he wants, tailored for battle against a peer competitor. Mainly the kind of fleet we have today.
• A fleet of 534 ships, mostly corvettes and patrol boats better suited to littoral, maritime security and partnership operations. The kind of which I have frequently proposed to seal with the kind of foe we face today, as opposed to the above Cold War type fleet.
• A fleet of 474 ships able to conduct operations from high-end battle to low-end counterterrorism and maritime security. Possibly the safest route for navy leadership to take, i.e., the best of both worlds.

The article goes on to point out the small number of submarines planned in the last 2 strategies, 36 each compared with 56 in the first. With the Virginia subs practically the only class where savings have been made in recent years, it makes more sense to keep this rare success going, with 56 boats a bare minimum. In my own view, and as I have written before, the submarine can take the place of numerous types of warships in many cases, especially large destroyers, all the while being our only true stealth vessel.

Another factor in the larger ship plans is the (as I see it) excessive number of amphibious ships called for, which is likely as unaffordable as the current Navy shipbuilding scheme. Still, the idea of 23 assault carriers, their decks loaded with vertol planes like the F-35 is an intriguing concept, reminding us of the successful "Harrier carriers" utilized in both Gulf Wars. I also contend that converted merchant vessels would proved adequate and affordable amphibious craft, without sacrificing the numbers so desired by our Marines.

Of course, the construction of large numbers of LCS corvettes and patrol craft are essential to our fleet's continued success fighting terrorist pirates at sea. The current strategy of using our billion dollar Burke Aegis destroyers to chase insurgents in speed boats are at best overkill, and a disaster waiting to happen. I believe we are headed for another Philadelphia incident if such a waste of our resources continues, or have we already had one with the USS Cole?

Also, Galrahn pronounces this report "a great development".

Top 5 Lessons from Pearl Harbor

Varifrank lists 8 Lessons, but here is the his top 5 from America's first Day of Infamy:

1. Nothing starts a war faster than someone having the stray idea that you really don't want to fight.
2. Just because your enemy has its ambassadors in your capital speaking to you about peace doesn’t preclude the fact that they don’t also have a fleet of aircraft carriers on their way to strike your fleet.
3. Talks about peace are almost always diplomatic cover for the military to do what it does at a time of their choosing.
4. Your enemy doesn’t work to your schedule.
5. Your big bad battleship is tomorrow's sunken target.
   

Go to the site for the rest, and pray America takes heed next time.

Democrats for Torture Before Being Against It

The Washington Post reveals:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised...The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

The farther we get from the brutal slaughter of innocent civilians on September 11, 2001 by the terrorists, the more our priorities to prevent a second attack becomes blurred. Look for some on the Left to claim they were deceived by the President into acquiescence, just like they attempt to deflect reponsibilty for their votes to start the Iraq War.

Obama, Oprah in SC

Gleefully I watch as Hillary Clinton actually has to fight to keep her lead in the Democrat presidential bid, rather than having it bestowed on her as inevitable. From the Greenville News:

Talk show queen Oprah Winfrey joined U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday to fire up a crowd of more than 29,000 people at the University of South Carolina's football stadium in what Obama said was the largest gathering for his campaign to be president.

The crowd danced, chanted and roared during the rally, which combined the feel of a rock concert and a religious revival...The Columbia rally originally had been planned for inside USC's Colonial Center, which holds 18,000. But organizers quickly transferred the event to Williams-Brice Stadium, with a capacity of 80,250, when it became clear thousands more wanted a chance to see Winfrey and Obama. Campaign officials later estimated more than 29,000 people attended Sunday.

My own opinion of Obama? He is more style than substance. His foreign policy is extremely Carteresque, which is to punish your friends and appease your enemies. As far as healthcare and the economy, he's full of the typical liberal spin, which is never to bypass a chance to raise taxes.

Still, its good to see the Clinton's squirm over this, and Hillary's not looking so good. Playing the typical dirty politics doesn't seem to be working, so maybe now is her chance to step from behind Bill's shadow and define herself as a candidate. Personally I'd love for Obama to get nominated, which would give the far more experienced Giuliani a chance to rip him to shreds.

The Navy's Dillema

We continue to provide exerts from my recent book "New Wars: The Transformation of Armies, Navies, and Airpower in the Digital Age" which you can purchase via the ad in the top corner:

Soon Britain and America will have to decide what type of Navy is to defend their respective countries into the 21st Century. Currently the powerful fleet of carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and nuclear submarines are increasingly harder to build and maintain. To compensate, both nations have systematically stripped the number of smaller frigates and patrol craft, which once comprised the bulk of the fleet...

Many reasons are given by both navies for gutting their surface fleets for a few of the big ships. Often it is the need to maintain vital expertise for constructing nuclear vessels in a few select shipyards. Or the fact that larger ships are more useful and survivable in the modern war at sea.

This begs the question whether keeping the Cold War era shipyards open is for our national security, or to keep jobs, for decades dependent on government subsidies? Likewise are increasingly unaffordable and vastly technical nuclear powered ships still relevant in this age of the gas turbine, fuel cells, and air-independent propulsion (for submarines)?

Aircraft carriers and other large warships are useful vessels, especially in amphibious expeditionary warfare. Yet, with the increasing widespread use of smart precision weapons and cruise missiles, there is growing doubt whether they are more survivable than smaller ships. Despite spending vast sums in recent decades to protect the massive carriers, with wonder weapons such as the Aegis antimissile ships, the Navy has yet to face a mass missile attack on its fleet. During the Falkland Islands War of 1982, Britain lost 6 modern warships to less than a handful of cruise missiles, as well as the archaic bombers of the Argentine Air Force. One has to wonder what would have become of the Royal Navy task force had the enemy been equipped with the new smart bombs, used so effectively in the Gulf Wars, rather than old style “dumb bombs”, many of which failed to explode?

It is also uncertain if the big ships are useful enough to justify their great expense. In the Falklands, the light carriers of the Royal Navy carried Harrier jump jets which overcame the high performance fighters of Argentina, many of whose pilots were trained by Israel. There is much evidence to suggest that modern “Harrier carriers” with planes armed with precision bombs and missiles could easily replace the supercarriers, armed with hordes of fighters and bombers.

Strangely, even Britain has forgotten these hard-won lessons. Soon she will discard her veteran light carriers for 2 large deck vessels, vastly reducing her surface fleet to pay for them. America too will start her $11 billion CVN-21 carrier, and the $3 billion DDX destroyer which is really a battle cruiser in all but name. These latter ships are touted as the heirs to the valiant sub-hunters which in their hundreds defeated the Nazi sub menace, and later held the line against Soviet Russia. The DDX will not be built in hundreds, but probably less than a dozen, to make our Navy’s heart swell with pride at our vast technical expertise. The real test, though, will come in war. With some 400 submarines and counting scattered throughout the world, we can only pray our technology alone will save us.

A relevant posting from Galrahn is titled "Cancel The CVF While the Fleet Still Floats".

Antiwar General Now Supports the Surge

This is General John Batiste, writing in the Washington Post:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Common sense once again trumps anti-Bush rhetoric. The General goes on to bemoan the partisan politics the Iraq issue has evolved into, as opposed to contending with our real enemies, Al Qaeda terrorists.

Hat tip to Hot Air.