Giuliani Endorses McCain

Big Armies and Small Wars

Part of the difficulties facing Western Armies today, such as stretched-thin war duties, equipment wearing out faster they can be replaced, and poorly armed insurgent forces often besting us in a fight, stems from our dependence on technology and old industrial age military strategies. A new book by a French general echoes these inconvenient truths, via Defense News:

“Tomorrow’s War – Thinking Otherwise,” (Economica) by Maj. Gen.
Vincent Desportes, draws on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israel-Hizbollah war to
promote the idea that France — and by implication, Western allies — need land
armies capable enough to fight an asymmetric war and large enough to stay on the
ground for years to restore peace.
“There has been a disconnect between the
military effect and political effect,” said Desportes, who runs the French
Center for Doctrine for the Employment of Forces, which specializes in drawing
lessons from campaigns.
He argues that the U.S. focus on weapon technology
and operating tempo have led to confusion over means and ends.

We currently base our warfighting tactics on the Israeli lessons of the past. Considering future wars to be quick and decisive, we manufacture technically superior weaponry not designed for a war of attrition, with the intention of overwhelming our enemies in a few short days or weeks. Desportes, however, argues even the Israelis are finding such a blitzkrieg strategy unworkable in an insurgent conflict, the most common one the West finds itself involved in of late:

Desportes makes a sustained frontal attack on the conventional
wisdom of the revolution in military affairs and an excessive reliance on
transformation, which he believes has led to a costly dead end. He argues that
sending small expeditionary forces that sought lightning victories delivered
instead the continued crisis in Afghanistan and the calamitous aftermath of the
2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Lebanon war showed the Israeli high-tech approach
to be inadequate against an agile and inventive Hizbollah, which refused to
engage in ways that would have given the advantage to the Israeli Army, expert
in network-centric warfare.

Where, then, are we headed?

But in Desportes’ view, future wars will be against an enemy that
seeks to outflank the Western technical and industrial armory. That undercuts
the effectiveness of the transformation effort, which assumes a state enemy with
a hierarchy of decision-makers and physical assets suitable for precision
bombing...Transformation has been ineffective against nonstate entities like the
Taliban, now fighting from caves, insurgents triggering roadside bombs in Iraq
and suicide bombers. In Afghanistan, small groups of combatants avoid attacking
in open ground.

However effective precision bombing is against a enemy who fights the way we fight, it appears to be headed down a dangerous path of empowering Third World radicals, who have learned to bypass our superiority by melting into the crowds. With precision, we are geared for stalemate in Great Power conflict, like the A-bomb gave us in the Cold War. But we shouldn't rule out such conflict altogether, as we learned in the Gulf.

As with Nuke Weapons, we should keep an adequate supply of the precision bombs in stockpile and always ready, just in case. Our conventional forces, however, should be numerous, with plentiful littoral ships, COIN aircraft, plus an excess of manpower. This would basically entail a large counter-insurgency style military, which could also fight a old style conventional battle in a pinch. Such an attitude would take a transformation in our thinking, rather than in our weaponry as was expected and planned for during the 1990's.

Mac is Back. Giuliani is Out

John McCain continues his victory Surge across the country, well on to win the Republican nomination. Very sorry that Rudy Giuliani has lost his bid for the White House:

Rudy Giuliani told supporters Wednesday he's abandoning his bid for
president and backing Republican rival and longtime friend John McCain.
Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican and adviser to Giuliani, said
the former mayor called him this morning to tell him of his plan.
Giuliani
"will be announcing his endorsement today," said King.

What became of Rudy? Of course, the Media consensus is his "Florida Strategy" of ignoring the small states and going for the larger delegate count, which thus placed him out of the limelight for several crucial weeks. There may be another cause, though.

Could it be success for the Iraq Surge, and the long years since 9/11 have made Americans more confident and less anxious over the Terror threat? This was Giuliani's strong point, and the principle reason yours truly threw his unwavering support towards America's Mayor. By no means do I consider the TWar on Terror over, and we let down our guard at our peril, but do think that Al Qaeda is currently on the defensive in Iraq and around the world. The lack of an attack on America's soil since 9/11 speaks for itself.

Good luck Rudy, and might we see a McCain/Giuliani ticket this fall? Talk about a dream team!

Afghan Rescue!

An older picture of US forces on an Afghan roof top. The CH-47 Chinook is a great plane dating from the Vietnam era, still battling on.

The End of Al Qaeda in Iraq

Michael Yon reports from the front:

Major operations against al Qaeda have begun in northern Iraq. Al
Qaeda is in serious trouble. These are not ad hoc operations, but are
deliberate, systematic, well-planned and working. I’ve been watching this unfold
for months but have not reported due to sensitivity, but the real shooting has
started and Maliki has announced it. There is every indication that this series
of operations could be the death blow for al Qaeda in Iraq.

This is excellent news and maybe why Bush didn't hail this momentous event, due to security reasons. This is not only good news for our America and our troops, but for the entire Middle East. Our enemies, as well should take notice, especially the rebellious Iranians who have seen their intimidation tactics against our naval ships, do little to further their aims.

USAF's Bomber Conundrum

The Fighter Mafia, which since the end of the Vietnam War has dominated US Air Force strategic thought and procurement, is struggling over the increased need for a new long range bomber. It is ironic that the fighter pilots supplanted the bomber generals within the high command just as modern weapons were giving the large planes the capabilities which airpower prophets has so long promised.

We were told since the dawn of military aviation in the last century that "the bomber will always get through". After each major conflict the heavy planes were seen as the ultimate deterrence, the acquisition of which would prevent any aggressor form attacking the homeland if the enemy was in turn threatened with massive retaliation upon its civilian population.

The reality was that even when married to the frightening new and powerful A-bombs, the strategic bomber wasn't very effective in preventing new wars. Man has always found a way to kill one another. The end of Great Power war after World War 2 only saw the rise of guerrilla conflict, most notably in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and today in Iraq. For deterring war, today's bomber fleets are equally impotent. However, For quick and decisive tactical strikes and even close air support, such planes are now the weapons of choice. The huge ordinance load which include new precision guided weapons, each of which can be programmed to attack individual targets, make them a far more economical choice than short range fighters. America's premier force of B-1s, B-2s, and ancient but well-preserved B-52s have performed stellar service in all America's recent military actions; especially in regions where nearby landing fields are sparse or unavailable due to reluctant allies.

Rather than speeding development full force on the new planes, the Air Force is instead enamored with its new superfighter, the F-22 Raptor, some 25 years in the making. Strapped for cash in the War on Terror, the pilots have been forced to make due with only 180 of these $200 million hi-tech wonders, far fewer than they desire. Distracted and disappointed, the USAF seems stymied for a solution to their future needs.

Some see unmanned technology, such as the Boeing X-45 UCAV as a solution. Other call for a "stretched" version of the Raptor for our long-range perpetrator needs. A radical and more affordable solution might be a converted airliner, which could load cruise missiles or precision bombs as well as a B-52.

Whatever the new bomber ultimately reveals itself as, it can come none too soon for the USAF, with only a handful of fairly new B-2s in service, and the older workhorses already several decades old.

Bush's State of the Union

This was not by far the President's finest speech, but it didn't need to be, since he could look back on the entire year of 2007 for one success after the other, most notably the Surge into Iraq. I'd preferred that he started the SOTU trumpeting the great victory that has pushed Al Qaeda almost completely out of the country, and loosed the stranglehold the terrorists possessed on the population. It would have been outstanding to have General David Petraeus seated on the front row (if he could be spared from the war), showcasing one of the greatest feats of American arms in modern history.

Still, it wasn't bad. I'm sure he pandered to the crowd with talks of the stimulus package, though it is unlikely they will appreciate the favor. Notably, he did not gloat at the repeated failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to dictate to the White House terms of retreat from the Middle East. His plan to take on earmarks is very late and little enough, but welcome still. Lets hope this movement to control spending catches on and doesn't stop with the next administration.

Navy belatedly recognizing China missile threat

Back in the 1980's, the US Navy began deploying its enormously expensive and hi-tech Aegis weapons system to combat the threat from low observable cruise missiles. Like the British Royal Navy once felt with its ASDIC (Sonar) as a total answer to the submarine menace before the world war, the Admirals seem to consider the missile problem solved. However the Aegis system has yet to be completely tested under full combat conditions and some contend, including yours truly, that more radical hull designs are required to ensure our fleet survives the next "Armageddon at Sea". Here's more from Defense Daily (sorry, subscription only):

If the United States were to procure Littoral Combat Ships
(LCS), the DDG-1000 destroyer, and other stealthy, radar-evading platforms, it
would help U.S. forces to overcome the threat of Chinese missiles aimed at the
Taiwan Strait, a top admiral said yesterday. Adm. Tim Keating, commander of the
U.S. Pacific Command, described conversations he had with Chinese military and
other leaders during his recent trip to China, in which Keating sought, but
didn't receive, a full and open transparent explanation of why China has
embarked upon a lavish military buildup, including "a bristling number of
surface missiles directed across the Strait of Taiwan." Chinese leaders only
offered a general response, saying that the missiles are to "protect the things
that are ours," Keating told the Defense Writers Group. China has 1,328
radar-guided missiles aimed at the waters between Mainland China and Taiwan,
according to a Taiwanese estimate.

Some military analysts said that deadly concentration of
missiles means that the U.S. Navy cannot risk sending the current generation of
non-stealthy aircraft carriers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers and other non-radar-evading ships into the strait if China attempts
to invade Taiwan...analysts say if non-stealthy U.S. ships are sent into the
strait, all those Chinese missiles could sink the American vessels.

This latter problem is something which concerns me greatly, that we are attempting to fight a new war involving astonishingly accurate precision guided weapons, with the weapons of another era. Yet, the following comment by Keating makes me think the Navy will not go all the way:

"It is of less concern to us at the Pacific Command what particular
piece of hardware do we employ" in a shooting war, but rather how the "full
component, the full suite of systems, and systems of systems...ensures that the
first shot is not fired," he explained.

This makes me think the Navy is considering the deterrence is actually more crucial than preparing its forces to fight such a war. The new Maritime Strategy seems to lay greater importance on war prevention than war fighting as well. This, I think, is a major blunder which the US Army has had to learn the hard way in Iraq.


Winston Churchill once stated that "armies are meant to fight". The same goes for navies as well. If the Admirals must put all our precious fighting power into one costly basket (currently our aircraft carrier battlegroups), why not make it the most survivable and deadliest of our sea-going armada, namely stealthy attack submarines? Such mighty undersea vessels are already low (or no) observables, totally invulnerable to the cruise missile threat from China, and likely as much a counter to the Red Surface Navy as their subs our to our own.

Another casualty of the Iraq War

Arthur Chrenkoff says America has lost faith in Old Media reporting:

The future of Iraq is still uncertain, and one has to resist
the temptation to claim victory, in contrast to so many others who have been
declaring defeat virtually from the start. One thing is almost certain though:
however Iraq will turn up, the mainstream media has become one of the casualties
of that war. As the recent study by the Sacred Heart University
has shown, less than 20% of Americans believe the media all or most of the time.
Specifically, the study found that

"Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%,
indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages
troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or
somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq
because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or
somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media
portrays."

The more reflective among the media professionals might
ponder on why they have become as trusted as a profession as used car
salesmen...

Much like the terrorists, they bet all on a US and Bush defeat in Saddam's old stronghold, and lost. The Democrats don't seem to be doing much better, distracted as they are with their own Civil War.

Obama's Iraq Strategy:Losing

The new Media darling Barak Obama offers a message of hope every where he goes, except on winning in Iraq, says Tom Donnelly:

...when it comes to winning in the war in Iraq, Obama’s message has
been and remains one of relentless despair; in that same South Carolina speech,
he lamented "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged."
The Iraq "surge," he still insists, "has failed," and why we need to begin "not
just talking to our friends but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to
try to stabilize the situation there" by an American withdrawal. Indeed, Obama
was among those who believed the surge a failure even before it began: he voted
in March 2007 to remove all U.S. combat forces within a year.
Three simple
words: No. We. Can’t.

I guess the message of change doesn't involve the brave men and women in our armed forces, who sacrificed so much to bring freedom to those who've never known democracy. This isn't Kennedy but Carter.

The Essential Giuliani Presidency

Among all the presidential contenders of the Right and Left, Rudy Giuliani stands head and shoulders above them all in terms of tested leadership and proven experience. As a US Attorney in the 1980's he helped bring to justice some of America's most notorious criminals, the New York Mob. Later, as mayor of New York City in the 90's he transformed what was basically a cesspool of crime and poverty into what is once again viewed as one of the gretest cities on earth. During the catastrophe of 9/11, 2001, he again proved his metal by taking charge of what was at best a chaotic situation, bringing hope to the country and inspiring the world.

Since then, "America's Mayor" has supported President Bush's initiative to take the War on Terror away from the country's cities, and placing the frontlines squarely in the midst of the radicals, as in the invasions 0f Iraq and Afghanistan. He has echoed the wisdom of transforming the terrorist breeding grounds of the tyranny infested Middle East into democratic friends and allies.

I believe if Rudy does miss his chance in 2008 as our commander in chief, it would be a great loss to the nation. With so many crucial issues facing this generation such as illegal immigration, an aging infrastructure, economic challenges, and of course Islamic Radicalism, we can't afford to let such proven experience and leadership pass us by.

Thoughts on the Races

Both Hillary and McCain are scorned by their own Parties, yet are mostly in the lead in their respective campaigns. Democrats and Republicans are holding their noses...

Obama is leading a great many black Democrats away from Hillary. Will these wayward voters return to support her in the Fall, if she wins her Party's nomination? Might be interesting to see the Dems have their own "Ross Perot" factor in Obama.

The Clintons' vicious attacks on Obama may be another milestone in how race relations have changed in America. The fact that members of their own Party can attack a fellow black candidate on issues other than his race without being skinned alive, is as much a milestone as is the first real chance for a black candidate to be elected President in America.

That said, are some in the Media still living in past for lambasting Bill's attack on Obama? Are they saying Hillary's attack dog shouldn't go after her opponent because the former President is wrong in his criticism, or because Obama is black? Since Barak is leading a supposed "movement", the Press apparently thinks he should be untouchable and above politics as usual. Sorry, we aren't trying to elect a Pope but a President.

Some on the Right's standards seem so high, as revealed by their attacks on Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, McCain, as all being "too liberal", even Ronald Reagan would be unacceptable as a candidate for the GOP nomination.

For all of Obama's "Kennedyesque" oratory about change, he is more Jimmy Carteresque. Anyone remember long gas lines and shortages, double-digit inflation, and America almost losing the Cold War and actually losing Iran to this day?

Hillary Clinton used be a part of the New Left, which was hawkish on defense issues and careful on Iraq. With the rise of Obama, she has taken a decidedly left wing approach to politics, ready to cut and run on Iraq, and eager to transform our excellent healthcare system into a clone of Europe's disastrous socialized medicine. Will she return to her more moderate stance if elected to the Presidency?

Why Vote McCain

Victor Davis Hanson offers some sound advice:

I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on
immigration—he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration, restoring
fiscal sanity, cutting spending, and insisting on victory in the war are the
essential issues, and on all he is far preferable to Hillary. There really
is a
difference between “suspension of disbelief” and “no substitute for
victory.”
That is why a number of conservatives have and will continue to
hold their noses and endorse McCain.

Republicans, like it or not, have been given a great gift.
Just three months ago Hillary was coronated in the media as our next President,
as polls showed her winning against all comers. Then came her demonization of
Obama and the entrance of pit-bull Bill—and the country was reminded of the
Clinton viciousness and the entire fraud of modern liberal thinking.

This makes alot of sense to me. For some reason, the Right has become obsessed with the perfect, meaning a Reaganite clone, while some good candidates are being brushed aside or belittled for a few faults. My own opinion is this current crop of candidates, even those on the Left, are an extraordinary bunch, perhaps some of the most outstanding in this nation's history.

Have conservatives become so stubborn that we'd seriously stay home from the polls if a social conservative like McCain is on the ballot, while a devout Leftist like Hillary or Obama gets the vote? This is what occurred in 2006, and if we allow bias to prevail over judgement, the Right deserves what it gets, which likely will be 8 more years of Clinton. Personally, I'm rooting for Rudy, but won't think it a disaster if the "Maverick" gets the nod for the November White House bid.

Finally, he adds proof that even Reagan couldn't make the standards we are setting for Republican candidates these days:

Remember that Ronald Reagan signed the greatest amnesty bill
in our history that helped to ensure the present 10-15 million illegal aliens,
raised payroll taxes and upped gasoline taxes, sold arms secretly and illegally
to the Contras, had a disastrous episode in Lebanon that cost 241 Marine lives,
naively called for global nuclear disarmament, and far more unconservative
accomplishments—and rightfully, despite all that, deserves the mantle of a great
President.

How Bush Decided on the Surge

A great article by Fred Barnes. Check it out!

The Church of the Environment

Michael Crichton talks about the West's new religion:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World
is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for
urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If
you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st
century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and
unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a
result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions
there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to
die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.
Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic
food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the
right beliefs, imbibe.

I also caught the similiarities a while back in this article titled "Superstition Rises".

Romney: General Petraeus Not General Clinton

Amen!

Pakistan Hits Al Qaeda Stronghold

This is in the Waziristan district said to be the hiding place for Osama Bin Laden. From Defence Talk:

Pakistani troops backed by tanks and gunships cleared militant
hideouts near the Afghan border amid fierce fighting that left eight troops and
40 rebels dead, the army said Thursday. Thirty militants have
also been arrested during clashes over the past 24 hours in the South Waziristan
tribal district, the hideout of an Islamist commander accused of masterminding
the killing of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Pakistani forces have
launched a major operation against extremist positions following days of
gunbattles in the barren region, which the United States has identified as a key
lair of Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

The other day I mentioned the Surge might be headed for Afghanistan, as CentCom commander Admiral Fox Fallon mulled the possibility of the US training Pakistani troops in counter-insurgency warfare. This "Third Front" in the terror war reminds me of the last ditch stand of the Nazis in the Second World War. The comparison is interesting for, when the US joined Britain to fight in the North African Campaign in 1942, it was considered a "distraction" from the real war against Germany. Some in the US were so incensed that we were simply propping up the old colonial powers in the region, that they advocated America pulling out and devoting all our resources to the Pacific War against Japan.

In fact, North Africa was an important stepping stone on the road to defeat the Germans. There green American troops could get essential battlefield training in modern warfare, without a major disaster occurring, as likely would have happened had we invaded France in 1942, as some were advocating. Equally has Iraq become an important training ground for democracy, as well as US forces learning to defeat the insurgents, before we send our brave and brilliant troops into the enemy's lair, such as Waziristan, where they garner much support from the Muslim populace and the terrain is highly favorable for defense.

Were US troops to head to Pakistan, it would unlikely be a full scale assault as in the Iraq and Afghan Theaters, but one similar to our recent adventure in Somalia to defeat the radical Islamic Courts. There, our forces provided valuable air and naval support plus intelligence to the invading Ethiopian Army, with ground troops limited to Special Forces, and maybe some Marines. So it would be in Waziristan region, with elite American light forces backing a newly trained Pakistani assault force.

Thus, has Iraq become our first and Central Front in the Global War on Terror, followed by Afghanistan as the Second in importance (though we invaded here first), with the climax coming in Pakistan, which has become the Third Front in our bid to outlast and outfight the Radical Jihadists.

Grey Lady Kills McCain Candidacy

The New York Times is endorsing McCain along with Hillary. Glenn Reynolds says that "Rudy's people are even pointing out the endorsement". Well, they should if Giuliani or Romney want to win the election. Its make or break time!

This will hardly help McCain's already unfavorable standing with the GOP. How bad is it? Read this by Ann Coulter and also by Pat Buchanan. You can also head on over to Rush Limbaugh almost anytime, who seems to have forgotten his feud with Huckabee.

China Targets US Carriers

This is why I consistently advocate moving the fleet underwater. This report comes from World Net Daily:

According to an assessment published last week in the Jamestown
Foundation's weekly "China Brief," the People's Liberation Army navy "is
developing methods to disable or sink American aircraft carriers and gathering
the specific force packages to do so."
The analysis, written by China expert
Richard D. Fisher Jr., says Beijing "has long anticipated that to militarily
subdue democratic Taiwan it will first need to win a battle against the United
States."
...In his analysis, titled "To Take Taiwan, First Kill A Carrier,"
Fisher says that China's naval strategy may be to make defending Taiwan too
expensive for the U.S. in terms of manpower, assets and political pressure.
"By actually sinking" an American carrier, Beijing hopes "to terminate U.S.
attempts to save the island," Fisher said.
According to recent Chinese media
accounts cited by Fisher, PLA navy officials appear to be focused on
neutralizing U.S. carrier battle groups.

Here's an interesting observation from Maj. Gen. Huang Bin, a professor at the PLA National Defense University, which I often make myself:

"The United States likes vainglory; if one of its aircraft carriers
should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to
complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder
and harder."

Frightening but true. The loss of even one of our magnificent but increasingly vulnerable supercarriers with its 6000 crewman, would be a catastrophe far worse than the September 11 attacks, or even Pearl Harbor 1941. It would likely change our entire Expeditionary Naval Strategy that has been the foundation of our military power since World War 2.

Rambo Hearts McCain!

The Navy's Underwater Bridge

Quoting my favorite naval strategist, Sir Julian Corbett was enough to get my attention. Galrahn at Information Dissemination talks of the need for change in the future fleet, and channels my thoughts from "An All Submarine Navy":

To meet future challenges, we believe the Navy should add a
new dimension to its future fleet studies. We observe that on the advice of
Julian Corbett, the US Navy should disconnect traditional function from
traditional classification in its future fleet designs, and only by doing so
will the balance between the strategic peacemaker and warfighter requirements be
achieved in the future fleet while at the same time, potentially expanding
tactical capabilities...

The emerging future submarine force is very different than the
submarine force of the cold war. Today's active duty submarine force offers the
Navy 574 VLS cells specific to a cruise missile deep strike capability. A future
fleet projected to include all 4 SSGNs, and perhaps 48 SSNs with VLS will
feature close to 1200 cells for cruise missiles. From a tactical perspective, a
true stealth platform like a submarine can conduct launches of land attack
cruise missiles much closer to the enemy coast, allowing it much greater range,
and can do so against a minor power with limited sea denial tactical capability,
or a major powers with an advanced anti-access / area denial capability that
would keep surface ships far back from the engagement line.

The idea would be to build large numbers of cheap and expendable surface craft, like patrol boats and fast catamarans to show the flag and chase Al Qaeda pirates(rather than the large, pricey, built-for-another-war super destroyers and cruisers we currently use in this role). Then the sea control duties would fall to the stealthy and virtually invulnerable attack boats, which are now armed with long-range precision weapons placing them out of range of most of the battle fleet's ASW defenses.

Heath Ledger's Death No Joke

I've suddenly lost any interest in seeing the new Dark Knight flick, though I'm a Batman freak from way back.Thanks for nothing Frank Miller. Makes me pine for the camp days of the 60's and Caesar Romero, or even the silly but fun Mark Hamill cartoon Joker of the 1990's. Comics sure aren't for kids anymore. Fredric Wertham, how we miss you.

War on Three Fronts

Update below.

Could the Surge be headed to Pakistan? It stands to reason. Here is the Star-Telegram:

The commander of U.S. forces in Central Asia has launched
planning for more extensive use of U.S. troops to train Pakistani armed forces,
a senior defense official said Wednesday.
Adm. William J. Fallon, commander
of U.S. Central Command, issued a planning order, an internal instruction to
lower-level commanders, to propose ideas for a long-term approach to helping
Pakistan combat what has become an expanding, homegrown insurgency that
threatens the stability of the government.
Fallon's intent is to develop new
approaches to help Pakistan, with a time horizon stretching to 2015, the
official said.

My prediction is, with Iraq almost won, and 3200 Marines headed to the Afghan front, already our military is gearing for the final showdown in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. There will see the end of Osama Bin Laden and his outlaw terrorist regime! Stay tuned...

Update-More on Pakistan from Campaign Standard.

Soros Group Funds Iraq War Study

The usual suspects are attempting once again to disparge our troops' efforts in Iraq, and deny America's right of self defense against the terrorists. Here's the Conservative Voice:

The "Center for Public Integrity," a front group for
billionaire George Soros, has published another "study" intended to distract
attention from recent progress in Iraq. The study rehashes the old canard that
President Bush led the country to war under false pretenses...

The study claims that the Bush Administration issued false
statements about the security threat posed by Iraq. The study is absurdly
misleading, as are news reports discussing it.As noted at HotAir.com, "by
stopping the research at 2001, the story is set-up to misreport the facts. The
Clinton administration spent years warning the public of the threat of Saddam
and his WMD. They even bombed a pharmaceuticals factor in Sudan on the suspicion
that it was making WMD for both al Qaeda and Iraq. So the story either
unintentionally or by design left out years of context."

"Center for Public Integrity" sounds like "Honest John's Used Cars", and Honest George is once against selling the country a bill of goods. This so called "study" doesn't bear serious consideration.

More-Ed Morrissey writes:

Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their
reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from
the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times
Foundation.

Streisand eh? There's non-partisan for you. Sure.

The Fruits of Victory

We may have entered into Iraq in 2003 with what now appears bogus reasons, but we mustn't forget the root cause of our intervention, which is to defeat Islamic Radicalism and those who support its dark ideology. Here's Oliver Kamm writing in the Guardian:

One point the much-reviled neoconservatives have right is that
Islamist terrorism has deep roots in the perpetuation of autocratic states in
the Middle East. Denied an outlet in politics, dissent emerges in the only part
of society open to it: religious fanaticism. The overthrow of the most bestial
of despotisms in that region removes a crucial player and an appalling dynasty
from that equation.
We can, moreover, verifiably assert that two of the
states in the region that previously held WMD - Iraq and Libya - no longer do
so, owing directly to our intervention. If Iran did indeed suspend the more
overtly military aspects of its nuclear programme (though not uranium
enrichment, for which its civil nuclear programme has no need) in late 2003,
that is also suggestive that Saddam's overthrow gave greater impetus to the
cause of nuclear non-proliferation than CND cares to acknowledge.

Critics of the Iraq intervention create a mountain out of a molehill by continuously bringing up the charge of a White House conspiracy for the war, revealing a deep-seated anti-western ideology, and totally excusing the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and before.

Where to Vote

It took me several clicks to finally discover my polling place for the January 19 GOP Primary at the SC Votes website. You can find out in one.

(Note-I'll repost this again on Election Day)

A Defense Budget for the Long Haul

It is ironic that the nation with the world's largest defense budget, more than all the world combined, can be suffering with antiquated equipment such as warplanes literally falling from the skies. It is true that the budget it stretched thin with many fingers in the pie, as this from the Weekly Standard reveals:

First, we now have an all-volunteer force that costs a lot more
when it comes to personnel, insurance, housing, and retirement benefits than our
previous draft-heavy force. Unless Americans and their representatives in
Washington want to return to conscription, which no one except Rep. Charles
Rangel seems ready to do, fielding a force is just going to be a lot more
costly. Second, the weapons and platforms we buy are fewer in number, and partly
as a result we ask them to do more. That in turn drives costs up. Third, one
reason we spend more than others is that with the major exception of China
virtually everyone else cut spending at the end of the Cold War and has kept
cutting. Fourth, unless we want a whole different global security order, the
burden of keeping the peace in the world remains largely in America's hands, as
manifest in the fact that we have gone to war multiple times since the fall of
the Berlin Wall. And, finally, yes, we do spend a lot, but we are also fighting
two wars.

Lets focus on the second problem, which I think is something we can do fix now, specifically the high cost of modern weaponry. With our current method of procurement, the present expenditure on the military of about $500 million, or 3.5% of the GDP would have to grow to $1 trillion, or 7% of our economy and maybe more to rebuild our forces. This is taking into account that we continue to purchase $200 million jet fighters, $8 billion aircraft carriers, and $10 million battle tanks.

Over at Information Dissemination they may have inadvertently stumbled on a more economical way without draining our national treasure dry: common hulls. Here's Galrahn:

As shipbuilding costs have continued to rise, several suggestions
have been made to help bring down the costs in shipbuilding. Among the many
suggestions, one that continues to rise to the top is for the Navy to use common
hull strategies for ships, similar to how the Spruance class destroyer hull and
Ticonderoga class cruiser used the same hull.

This works for me, except I would go a further step and require the entire military to to place in production a common weapons program, to bring some sanity and affordability to procurement. Back in 2006, I described what such a 21st Century US military would be like:

• Army: Consisting of mainly Stryker type armored vehicles and up armored Humvees for rapid air transport. Increase use of troop-carrying helicopters as an “anti-IED” vehicle. Manpower increased to produce a “Million Man” Active Army, lessening dependence on the Reserves and National Guard.
• Navy: 200 Common Naval Platforms, built to mercantile specifications, with removable mission modules for use as a vertol aircraft carrier, missile launcher, troop transport, or cargo/replenishment ships. 100 conventional fueled littoral submarines, or new unmanned submersibles as they are available. 400 littoral combat ships and patrol craft forward deployed against terrorist pirates and enemy diesel subs.
• Air Force: 2000 Common Air Platforms based on a commercial derivative (Airbus or Boeing), for use as bomber, maritime patrol, transport, or tanker. 2000 light fighters based on late model production aircraft such as the F-16 or British Hawk trainer.
• Marine Corps: Converted back to its traditional naval infantry and light interventionist role, for service on Navy’s littoral ships. Retire expensive and vulnerable amphibious fleet.

These ideas aren't set in stone; the point being is to provide a continuous manufacturing supply of weapons available at all times for the military, whenever a plane, warship, or armored vehicle reaches the end of its usefulness due to age. The new Digital Age technology would be the key to make such a strategy work, as the type of platform is no longer as important as the weapon it carries. This is why you have 7th Century-minded Al Qaeda terrorists running around in pajamas, brandishing cell phones as IED detonators, computers as recruiting tools, and ordinary airliners as weapons of mass destruction. They make our hi-tech and expensive fleets of stealth bombers and supercarriers appear ridiculously nonessential in such a lo-tech conflict.

The key is still our technology, especially robot planes, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and communications equipment. The JDAMS, UAVs and Tomahawks, are the real revolution in warfare, not the stealth bombers, or Abrams Battle Tanks, or super stealth destroyers, which can only be afforded in small numbers, with decades-long construction cycles, often making the platform obsolete before they are deployed. Concerning the JDAM, Strategypage reveals the revolution such arms have brought to warfare:

JDAM (GPS satellite guided bombs) were developed in the 1990s,
shortly after the GPS network went live. These weapons entered service in time
for the 1999 Kosovo campaign, and have been so successful, that their use has
actually sharply reduced the number of bombs dropped, and the number of sorties
required by bombers. The air force generals are still trying to figure out where
this is all going.

I'm thinking this new technology is bringing down the cost of the warfare, though the Admirals, Generals, and Politicians have yet to realise this fact.

For further thoughts, read my earlier post titled Not More, But Smarter Defense Spending.

Super Cruise F-16

No secret we are a big fan here at New Wars of the John Boyd inspired warplane, the mighty F-16 Falcon, which has kept America supreme in the skies through 2 World Wars (The Cold War and the ongoing GWOT)! Here's some good news on its continued versatility from Strategypage:

The U.S. is offering to sell India a special F-16 that can do
supercruise. Thirty years ago, the manufacturer of the F-16 modified the design
a bit, and created a version (F-16XL) that could supercruise. That means it
could travel faster than the speed of sound ("supersonic", or about 1,000
kilometers an hour) without using the fuel guzzling afterburner. The concept was
put aside, because it wasn't really worth the effort at the time. A decade
later, when the F-22 and F-35 were in development, supercruise was reintroduced.

The F-16XL

Cost is expected at $100 million per aircraft, or about half the price of the latest F-22 Raptor Jet. USAF take notice, since the Falcon will likely still be in service somewhere for the next global conflict.

White Democrats Losing the Black Vote

Simple reason: they have overcome! Here's Charles Krauthhammer:

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it
done. -- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon
Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for
me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president
enacting African-American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied
blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white
liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty --
is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about,
although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

I'm thinking that the Dems have taken the black vote for granted too long, keeping them satisfied with government tribute, while quietly but steadily blacks have been increasing their gains into American society ON THEIR OWN. You can't go anywhere without seeing them in all positions of government and industry. This is the American Dream fulfilled, and they are saying to the liberal panderers and opportunists like the Jacksons and Sharptons, who want to keep them victimized and servile WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE, if they ever did.

Huckabee Defends SC Flag

Kudo's to the Governor! This is from Fox News:

Flanked by wrestler Ric” The Nature Boy” Flair, and
roundhouse-specialist Chuck Norris, GOP White House contender, Mike
Huckabee, took the old American flag adage of “Don’t Tread on Me”, and went a
step further when alluding to the SC controversy over the flying of the
confederate flag.
”South Carolina people know true conservatism when
they see it.You don’t like people outside the state telling you how you ought to
raise your kids, you don’t like people from outside the state telling you
what to do with the flag,” Huckabee said during a rally at a Myrtle beach
airport hangar. “In fact, if somebody came down to Arkansas and told us
what to do with our flag, we’d tell’em where to put the pole.”

Actually, I thought he was going to speak against the Flag, as John McCain once did. Get so tired of these carpetbag politicians who come down here to pander and score points only on election time. Well done, Mike!

America's Vanishing Air Force

It's dying of old age. Here's a list via the World Affairs Board Forum:

Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+

Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+

Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+

C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000

ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours 18,000

This is criminal, in my view, the result of technology worship so prevalent in today's military. There might be some good news, though.

Rudy's Hail Mary Play

Giuliani is staking his campaign on Florida Jan. 29! From Yahoo/AP:

As his opponents spent time, money and energy battling in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and beyond, Giuliani shifted his resources to Florida, where he hopes its winner-take-all Jan. 29 primary will hand him 57 delegates and catapult him overnight to the top of the race for the nomination. He has no delegates so far.

Mitt Romney, who won the Michigan primary Tuesday, leads the delegate race with 42, followed by Mike Huckabee with 32 and John McCain with 13. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination...

Florida's media market is so expensive that the candidates — having blown much of their money on the first several primaries — will be relying heavily on news coverage to get out their messages.

I also consider that with the race for the White House starting so early this cycle, almost leading to a continuous campaign from election to election, some are getting weary of the top candidates already. At least the current frontrunners like McCain, Obama, Hillary, Romney, must themselves be getting "war weary" from the hectic schedule. Anyway, I'm thinking Rudy's plan might be the right one, but we'll see.

Need Some Defective Body Armor?

clipped from cgi.ebay.com Current bid: US $609.00 Reserve not met PayPal account required Your maximum bid: US $ (Enter US $619.00 or more) No payments for 3 months Apply

Embed Journalist Michael Yon insists this is for entertainment purposes only!

I paid approximately $4,000 for this body armor but would not recommend it to any buyer who plans to use it in combat. I do not like Dragon Skin for various reasons. The Dragon Skin is too heavy and also relatively difficult to wear. If you fall in the water with this body armor, I think you will drown before you can shed the Dragon Skin, or if you are trapped in tangled wreckage after an IED, you will have an extremely difficult time shedding the Dragon Skin. There is no quick release and it’s plain hard to get in and out of...

Again, please do not buy this for combat. There are cheaper body armors that are better.

Random Thoughts on Modern War

Generals and Admirals seldom want the weapons they need, or need the weapons they have. All this reveals itself belatedly in wartime.

Nuclear weapons are of little value, since their acquisition by your adversary cancels out your own stockpile. Greater relevance is then placed on conventional forces, which vastly increases the burden of the arms race.

The Fall of the Soviet Union to inside forces is proof that nuclear bombs cannot secure a weakened regime indefinitely against a determined foe. Iran should take notice.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Defenses are likely more trouble than they are worth. Though defensive in concept, such weapons foster an inferiority complex and paranoia on those who fail to match our technology, thus breeding an even more dangerous environment.

The recent "Hormuz Crisis" reveals an interesting fact: Both the Iranian Mullahs and the Western Anti-War Left desire a military attack by the US. In today's backward political environment the inevitable and possible disastrous loss of life in such a conflict on both sides is less important than the international sympathy for the radicals such an action would garner, especially from the liberal Worldwide Media.

So-called World Peace Organizations actually cause more wars than they prevent. An aggressor nation can always count on an "easy out" provided by a UN mandated cease fire when their attacks go awry. This allows them to declare victory, pull out, and prepare for the next conflict at their leisure.

Grey Lady Vet-Bashing Debunked

The floundering "war on the war" avails the New York Times little, as the Weekly Standard reveals:

On Sunday, the New York Times printed a massive front-page story about a supposedly alarming homicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan vets. The Times reported 121 cases of homicide or homicide charges and attributed them to post-traumatic stress disorder--presumably an attempt at making another case for ending the war, if we know anything about the Times's editors.

Unfortunately, the paper misreported the facts they had and left out key statistics--most importantly, a comparison of the vets' homicide rate to that of the general population--and they were quickly caught.

Yesterday, WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John J. DiIulio Jr. proved the Times's "wacko-vet myth" to be just that--a myth. Read it at the DAILY STANDARD. With a little investigation and some high-school math, he found that the homicide rate among vets is exceedingly lower than the general population--a detail the Times reporters missed.

Just throw out a few unverified facts and let the "blame America first" crowd, as well as the radicals overseas gather their talking points. Yet, in this Internet Age the truth is easily discovered as the aging MSM finds out with lagging subscriptions and falling credibility.

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Key Benchmark

The fallout from the Surge is beginning. Via FoxNews:

Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of thousands of former supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to government jobs, a key benchmark sought by the United States as a step toward easing sectarian tensions.

The bill, approved by a unanimous show of hands on each of its 30 clauses, is the first piece of major U.S.-backed legislation approved by the 275-seat parliament...Traveling with President Bush in Manama, Bahrain, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the legislation, coupled with a pension measure approved by the parliament, "is important especially not just for the Iraqis but it shows the American people that our troops and Americans that are there working hard to help them get this to the point, are doing the job, they are fulfilling their mission. It also shows the region that they should have some confidence in what is happening in Iraq."

Though change isn't occurring as fast as some in Washington would like, now that peace is being secured in the countryside we should expect more such political progress. The Surge Worked!

Analysts: Army Can't Fight Because Its at War

Huh? I get so tired of these stories bemoaning the fact that our excellent military is doing what its paid to do, which is fight our country's wars. Here's more of this tripe via the Marine Corps Times:

If the U.S. were to face a new conventional threat, its military could not respond effectively without turning to air power, officials and analysts say...

“I believe that we, as a nation, are at risk of mission failure should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat,” Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, said last year, basing his assessment on classified Army readiness reports.

“Iraq is sort of sucking all the oxygen out of the room,” said Tammy Schultz, who studies ground forces for the Center for a New American Security, a relatively new Washington think tank dedicated to “strong, pragmatic and principled” security and defense policies.

“My huge fear is that ... we’re really putting the nation at risk,” Schultz said. “It could reach absolutely tragic levels if the United States has to respond to a major contingency any time in the near future.”

The Army is bearing the brunt of the fight, and senior leaders readily acknowledge that.

“We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other contingencies,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 15.

Here's a thought-lets all band together as a nation and win the war we already have, then maybe future enemies will think twice about attacking us when they see our resolve. How hard is that? Sheesh!

More-An excellent rebuttal on the "stretched thin army" argument is from Eric Swabb at the Wall Street Journal:

It is true that repeated deployments have caused considerable strain on service members, equipment and our ability to respond to other contingencies. These problems, however, only tell half the story. The Iraq war is also dramatically improving the military's understanding, training and capabilities in irregular warfare. Since this is the preferred method of Islamic extremists, the experience in Iraq is transforming the military into the force required to help win the Long War.

...overemphasis on the "eroding" capabilities of the armed forces belies the incredible emergence of an irregular warfare capacity in the world's greatest conventional military.

This hard-fought transformation faces resistance from advocates of the status quo in the military, and thus is easily reversible without political support.

See? A battle-hardened, not a beaten force!

Iran Practices "Millennium Challenge" Tactics Against USN

An interesting article in the New York Times recalls an imaginary defeat of the mighty US Navy that could be all too real in today's warfare at sea:

In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

“The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.”

Read more here on the 2002 Millennium Challenge Exercise.


Of course, the Grey Lady never misses an opportunity to bash the Bush Administration, except this goes far beyond the White House into the ingrained platform centric mentality of the Navy leadership. This is an obsession with building ever more expensive and technically complicated warships of the last generation, which are at risk against low cost Digital Age weaponry, like smart bombs and cruise missiles.


The modern Navy feels the platform is more important that the weapon it carries, whereas history proves the opposite is true. The broadside battery of the ship of the line of the 18th Century gave way to the turret battleship in the 19th, with the latter's exploding and armor piercing shells. The slow and strategically limited turret ship was soon superseded in the 20th Century by the naval bomber launched from the fast and more mobile aircraft carrier.


The range and accuracy of precision weapons are giving small strike craft like the Iranian speedboats, and stealthy conventional submarines a "David versus Goliath" mentality against our Big Ships, the loss of even one which may force a change in our long-proven Expeditionary Strategy. It is a good sign, then, that some in the Fleet are revisiting the 2002 exercise in much the same way the Army under Petraeus was forced under the pressure of combat to revise its own outdated thinking.

Resisting the Tyranny of the State

So rare these days, but its good to be reminded. Via Power Line.

The Fox Loosed on Iran

We've heard little of Admiral William "Fox" Fallon of late. The head of Central Command in the Gulf seems content to allow the glory of the Iraq Surge to go to his more media savvy subordinate, General David Petraeus. This fits in with my earlier comparison of the Admiral with World War 2 British Middle East commander Gen. Harold Alexander, who was also forced to concede the limelight to his more charismatic underling, Bernard "Monty" Montgomery, yet played an equally crucial role in defeating the Axis.

Over at Information Dissemination, in my view the premier MilBlog concerning naval issues, Galrahn has been keeping tabs with the CentCom chief, specifically his actions during the ongoing Strait of Hormuz crisis. We find that this recent incident is not the first, when Iranian speedboats closed aggressively with Coalition warships, some of the confrontations involving the firing of shots by the USN to warn the radicals off. Here is the blogger's view:

The other line of thinking, the Fallon / Gates camp, prefers to keep these type of events quiet. Under Gates and Fallon, the tension between the US and Iran has been reduced on every issue, the threatening public rhetoric to Iran from administration and Pentagon officials had almost dropped to zero prior to this incident, from the nuclear issue to the Iraq issue, even the blocking strait scenarios had disappeared from the weekly reporting on topics relating to tension between the US and Iran. Reducing public tension is a textbook Fallon strategic approach...

This is why you only hear about such things when the Iranians want us to, and everyone in the Press and the blogosphere goes hyper. But Fallon's approach, I am sure, is the right one. The Admiral is maintaining a visible but cautious stance to keep the peace, while we are preoccupied with Iraq. The mullahs over there and the internet mob over here would love an incident, but the admiral isn't playing anyone's game except the president's and his own. A cool, level head leader, in the right place at the right time.

Bush's Iraq Coup

He is removing the Iraq War as an issue which might hurt Republicans and help Democrats in this year's election. From Newsweek:

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: "We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington," he told reporters. "The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process." The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House--in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Wow! Some lame duck, eh? Bush has not only placed a new democratic, pro-Western government in the heart of the terrorist breeding grounds, but is ensuring its continuance as an ally! The Left may have felt invigorated since 2003 due to their hostility to the liberation of Iraq, but they are swiftly losing it as a recruitment tool, leaving only unanswered questions on how will they govern in Bush's stead. So far, the new Democratic Congress, hasn't proved very encouraging in this respect.

Why Not John McCain?

Sen. John McCain may be hawkish on defense matters, but he's on the Left side as far as domestic politics, reveals Mark Levin:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

That's not all, so read the rest. And I was just beginning to like McCain! Thanks for the reminder Mr. Levin, and I'm still standing by Rudy!

Petraeus Art on Ebay

This is pretty cool, and only $250! Here's the description:

To honor my son's service in Iraq, I am offering a series of original works depicting the heroic efforts of our soldiers in harm's way. All works will be offered as signed and numbered limited edition giclee prints on canvas, and as slightly smaller open editions on heavy art stock paper. I am donating 20% of the proceeds of all of these works to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, managed by the Intrepid Museum.

Hoping the owner doesn't mind me using the partial photo of the art for the extra publicity, but I will remove it on request.

Giving Al Qaeda No Respite

General Petraeus's forces are continuing their campaign to drive the terrorists out of Iraq, with the ongoing Operation Phantom Phoenix. Here's Bill Roggio:

Despite the recent success in reducing the violence in Iraq, the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shia extremist terror groups is not over. Coalition and Iraqi forces have launched Operation Phantom Phoenix, a new operation targeting the terror groups throughout Iraq. The scope of Phantom Phoenix is nationwide. The operation is "a series of joint Iraqi and Coalition division- and brigade-level operations to pursue and neutralize remaining al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist elements," Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq stated. "Phantom Phoenix will synchronize lethal and non-lethal effects to exploit recent security gains and disrupt terrorist support zones and enemy command and control."...

Phantom Phoenix may also target the Iranian-backed Special Groups, the Shia terror cells targeting Coalition and Iraqi security forces, Iraqi political leaders, and civilians.

You may have heard through the Media of a massive increase in airstrikes in Iraq, but this is only part of the story. You can find further info via links at the Weekly Standard blog.

In a related story-Gateway Pundit writes VICTORY!... In Kuwait Bush Claims Surge a Huge Success!

One year ago this week President Bush announced plans for a troop and civilian surge to move Iraq forward despite great criticism from his political opponents who thought the war in Iraq was lost. The plan was a huge success- one of the great military victories of our time.

Today President Bush congratulated General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker and the troops on their great success!!!!

Hallelujah!

The Army and Democracy

The world's two greatest democratic nations, American and Great Britain, have historically been mistrustful of large standing armies as a threat to freedom. This assumption has been born out countless times as continental nations with sizable military establishments such as France, Russia, Germany, and Spain, have often been under the mercy of tyrants chosen and buttressed by their powerful land armies.

An interesting contrast is of all the most stable countries in the Middle East are backed by very efficient Western-style armies. These include Turkey, Jordan, India, Pakistan, and now Iraq. Before you write off Pakistan, consider that it has been a hot-bed of terrorist activity since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the retreat of Al Qaeda into the country's mountains. It is a miracle that the Pakistani government hasn't fallen to the radicals long ago, mainly because of Musharraf and the army.

This gives some encouragement that the new Iraq, while seeming to falter as far as political progress goes, is standing up a very efficient and modern ground force, soon to be the best in the region. My prediction is that the Petraeus trained Iraqi army will continue to grow as a stabilizing force that will help the new government eventually find its legs.

The Surge Headed to Afghanistan?

One can only hope! Story from FoxNews:

A request has been made by top commanders in Afghanistan to send 3,000 Marines to the country, FOX News has learned.

The goal would be to have the Marines in the region by April, the time of year when offensive actions by the Taliban usually pick up after the Spring thaw...

Defense officials are not calling this a surge, rather a specific increase for more troops. Currently roughly 26,000 American troops are in Afghanistan, under NATO auspices. NATO commanders have asked for 7,500 more troops, but Gates has called on allies to contribute the additional forces.

This would be a shot in the arm to the NATO Forces in the ongoing struggle to tame the Taliban. Fresh from their victory in the Iraq Surge, such insurgency savvy warriors would likely spell doom to Al Qaeda-inspired guerrillas in the 6 year conflict.

Big Guns versus Smart Bombs

I am continually amazed that the armed service which gave us the New Warfare during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, with smart bombs, cruise missiles, and stealth aircraft, has become so resistant to the change, and backward in their thinking. In an opinion piece at the New York Times, a USAF officer is coming to the defense of our Cold War legacy weaponry, which we continue to cling to long after the demise of the Soviet Union. Here is Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr.:

Many analysts understandably attribute the success to our troops’ following the dictums of the Army’s lauded new counterinsurgency manual. While the manual is a vast improvement over its predecessors, it would be a huge mistake to take it as proof — as some in the press, academia and independent policy organizations have — that victory over insurgents is achievable by anything other than traditional military force.

Unfortunately, starry-eyed enthusiasts have misread the manual to say that defeating an insurgency is all about winning hearts and minds with teams of anthropologists, propagandists and civil-affairs officers armed with democracy-in-a-box kits and volleyball nets. They dismiss as passé killing or capturing insurgents.

To me this is an astonishing lack of understanding and appreciation of the sacrifice of our troops and the profound change in warfare as evidenced by the insurgency tactics we have neglected so long. Such close-minded thinking almost led us to disaster with 4 years in Iraq and the terrorists continuing to run roughshod over the Iraqi civilians, while we here at home came dangerously close to a premature and disgraceful cut-and-run in the face of the supreme threat of our times. The general continues:

And while the new counterinsurgency doctrine has an anti-technology flavor that seems to discourage the use of air power especially, savvy ground-force commanders in Iraq got the right results last year by discounting those admonitions. Few Americans are likely to be aware that there was a fivefold increase in airstrikes during 2007 as compared with the previous year, which went hand in hand with the rest of the surge strategy. Going high-tech once again proved to be highly successful.

Correct, and yet he fails to mention what was not utilized to bring about the highly successful strategy, that of the USAF’s dream aircraft, the F-22 Raptor, already in service since 2005, with no present plans to operate them in the Middle East. Air support in Iraq and Afghanistan has been mainly relegated to lo-tech fighters, such as the F-16 and A-10, plus the always dependable Eisenhower era B-52 bomber. Hi-tech super fighters like the F-15 Eagle has been forced out of the fight since it was never designed for the rigors of a war of attrition.


The Air Force leadership seems in denial that there is a war on. Imagine the American military of World War 2 without plans to deploy the P-51 Mustang over Berlin or the B-29 bomber against Imperial Japan, but saving them for some future, unspecified threat. Congress would likely have canceled such absurd planning before they left the drawing board, if such advanced weapons couldn’t be used against the immediate threat to our security.



To consider our winning the Battle of Iraq as the end of the War on Terror, is as ludicrous as of the Korean War of 1950-53 spelled the finale of the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe. In fact, it was just the beginning of our last “Long War”. Petraeus’s winning strategy is the correct one, that is finally achieving success against the terrorist who caught us asleep on 9/11, 2001. This is no time to return to our slumbers, but to continue the work begun by our brave and brilliant young men and women, who now have found away to beat Al Qaeda at its own game.