tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-100934242024-03-13T12:27:28.796-04:00NEW WARSMike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comBlogger3054125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-33273657857771202522008-05-27T11:16:00.004-04:002009-11-11T03:48:06.363-05:00We Have Moved!Please visit our new site at:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://newwars.wordpress.com/"><span style="font-size: 180%;">http://newwars.wordpress.com/</span></a><br />
</div><br />
Thanks again for your ongoing support and God Bless the Troops!Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-7202216514867576172008-05-27T08:00:00.000-04:002008-05-27T08:00:13.538-04:00Thoughts on WarfareThe type of arms (tanks, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers) the US military possesses are too costly for the Third World conflicts we <u>consistently</u> find ourselves fighting, and too vulnerable to modern precision weapons for the type of Great Power battles we prepare for.<br /><br />Replacing the tanks, jet fighters, and gun-armed warships of the last century are new robot weapons including precision guided bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.<br /><br />Expensive platforms like the Abrams Main Battle Tank, F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, and Nimitz class supercarriers are not required to carry the new robot weapons.<br /><br />The new capital ship at sea is the attack submarine. Of all the legacy warships developed around the turn of the 20th century: aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers, only the new U-boats possess the inherent stealthiness to survive in the cruise missiles age.<br /><br />With the "one shot, one kill" accuracy of modern missile weapons, has the gun itself become obsolete? Its very purpose was centered on the need to bracket a target with multiple shells to ensure a hit. The microchip has made the need for such wasteful expenditure of ammo unnecessary.<br /><br />Robot weapons have returned the initiative on land to the foot soldier, taken from him early in the 20th century by mass firepower and the tank. We saw this dawn in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, then vanish deceptively during the 1991 Gulf War, only to reemerge dramatically in the insurgent conflicts at the opening of the 21st Century.<br /><br />Man portable surface to air missiles (SAMs), and antitank guided missile (ATGM) have leveled the field between industrial age planes and tanks and the infantryman.<br /><br />The submarine is the only evolutionary warship, currently duplicating the missions of all major surface warships. It's cruise missiles make it an aircraft carrier, its torpedoes a destroyer, while stealthy eavesdropping abilities mimics the traditional role of cruisers from early last century.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-58814858201704404162008-05-26T12:00:00.001-04:002008-05-26T12:00:05.277-04:00Standing by the TroopsHere's a special message from Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.moveamericaforward.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:85%;">Move America Forward</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, the nation's largest pro-troop organization, has put together an effort </span><a href="http://www.thecampaignstore.com/store/default.asp?parentid=409" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:85%;">to send the largest number of care packages to U.S. troops in history</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. Between now and the 4th of July we are asking Americans to sponsor care packages that we will send to our heroic military men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need you to join us by sponsoring care packages and helping us reach this historic goal. </span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thecampaignstore.com/store/default.asp?parentid=409" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:85%;">** SPONSOR A CARE PACKAGE - CLICK HERE **</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">My son gave up his life for this country because he knew that the series of attacks against Americans by Islamic jihadists/terrorists had to be stopped. Our country could no longer look the other way and pretend that there wasn't an enemy that was determined to destroy our nation. So Marc volunteered to serve his nation, as an elite Navy Seal, and he and so many others joined our military knowing that they might have to sacrifice their own lives for the freedoms of our nation, for you, for me. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The United States of America is a great nation thanks in large part to all those in uniform who have shed blood and given their lives to ensure that this remains the shining city on a hill that President Ronald Reagan once spoke of -- a land of freedom, of liberty, of decency, of opportunity.<br />Let's use this day to show our military men and women currently serving overseas how much we appreciate them. Please, join me in this wonderful effort to send the largest shipment of care packages in history to our troops. </span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thecampaignstore.com/store/default.asp?parentid=409" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:85%;">** SPONSOR A CARE PACKAGE - CLICK HERE **</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-15716351723927446392008-05-26T08:00:00.005-04:002008-12-09T17:33:42.719-05:00For They Who Sacrifice<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI0bbtCMTomWNKIlxr9Hn7mlToEzW-NTvQINTp98TaHBrbBVFtgsTUyPmE3zigw9oFaS46Q1lT0Y9tWC63JSQe3CBUC0gyi1afNuBQrkTogX7xpeTQVn8JeOJuWUJuPGUdx51L/s1600-h/memorialday.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5204667454461502626" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI0bbtCMTomWNKIlxr9Hn7mlToEzW-NTvQINTp98TaHBrbBVFtgsTUyPmE3zigw9oFaS46Q1lT0Y9tWC63JSQe3CBUC0gyi1afNuBQrkTogX7xpeTQVn8JeOJuWUJuPGUdx51L/s400/memorialday.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>On this Memorial Day, here's to all those who stand guard through terrible ordeals far from home, just so we can sleep safely in our beds. From an article I wrote a while back title <a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20060821.html">Perseverance in War</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>By perseverance, the tiny Greek cities withstood the continents spanning Persian Empire, to lay the foundations of Western Civilization. Even after Athens itself was occupied and torched the Greeks stood firm, managing to defeat the Persian fleet at Salamis, cutting off the invader’s overwhelming army from naval support.<br /><br />Later the Romans persevered against Carthage’s greatest general, Hannibal, even after losing 50,000 legionnaires at Cannae. Earlier, an even greater force of 80,000 Roman sailors was lost at sea in a storm. The city stood firm against her enemies despite the numerous disasters she faced, saving Greco-Judean culture from Asian mysticism.<br /><br />After the Fall of Rome in 410 AD, the torch passed to Byzantium as Defenders of the West. For a thousand years the City on the Golden Horn withstood waves of barbarians including Huns, Muslims, and Vikings, that overwhelmed the rest of the world, thus buying time for the youthful German kingdoms in Europe to create the Modern World.<br /><br />By perseverance, the least of the new kingdoms, England, outfought more powerful land powers, including Spain, the Dutch, and France, to become Mistress of the Seas. Rather than a European dictatorship controlling the world’s sea-lanes, a benevolent democracy spread its culture of free trade and human rights around the world.<br /><br />George Washington, leading the newborn American colonies, had the audacity to defy this great superpower when they no longer were treated as Englishmen. Without a navy and only a rag-tag militia for an army, Washington kept his forces in being for 13 years, until the British wearied of the conflict and granted her colonies freedom.<br /><br />In 1863, Ulysses S. Grant suffered derision from his fellow generals, the press, and from Washington, not to mention the Confederate enemy besieged at Vicksburg. After enduring months of defeat and criticism, he persevered to conquer the city, thus splitting the Confederacy in two and assuring Union victory in the Civil War.<br /><br />Winston Churchill and his beleaguered nation persevered alone after the Fall of France in 1940, before the onslaught of the German Luftwaffe. Though the world gave the tiny island little hope to survive, England persevered to stand beside Russia and America in the final defeat of the Axis powers, thus saving democracy from a new barbarism.<br /><br />Ronald Reagan ignored those of his fellow countrymen who resigned to live with communism, and declared its demise in his lifetime. Reagan was right, and the critics were wrong. Thus was democracy given a new chance that it almost lost in the aftermath of World War 2.<br /><br />On and on the story goes, how men and women defied the odds and stood up to bullies and critics to save nations and transform societies. They endured pain and hunger in the field with their troops, suffered ostracizing from their peers and abandoned by friends, made laughing stocks in the media, and endured the threats of enemies. They persevered through all this to give us all a better world.</em></span></div>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-72695944596763236602008-05-25T15:49:00.004-04:002008-05-25T18:54:01.129-04:00Dems admit lying to win the electionThis is Democrat <a href="http://www.pagop.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1472">Rep. Paul Kanjorski</a> who said:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when<br />I say we . . . the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of<br />the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional<br />elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government<br />would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back<br />the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts . . . and people ate it up.</span></blockquote></span><br />And if you don't believe me, here's the video:<br /><br /><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nc5lHXkrdQ8&hl=en"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nc5lHXkrdQ8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-88536245193951333772008-05-25T08:00:00.000-04:002008-05-25T08:35:35.612-04:00More Calls for a Million Man ArmyOr million person army. Whatever, lets get it done. Here's Thomas Donnelly and Fred Kagan in the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150032042415833.html?mod=rss_opinion_main">Wall Street Journal</a>:<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Unfortunately, the Bush administration's program – to grow the<br />active Army and Marine Corps from the current 700,000 to about 750,000 in the<br />next five years – is a Rumsfeld legacy and entirely inadequate. Regardless of<br />the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will need a total active land<br />force of something like one million soldiers and Marines.<br />The active duty<br />portion of the U.S. Army needs to grow to about 800,000 soldiers. That's the<br />size maintained during the 1980s and into the early 1990s, and it is a bare<br />minimum for success in the many and varied missions that will be required in the<br />future – missions that have ranged from "building partnership capacity" in West<br />Africa to tracking down terrorists in Southeast Asia, as well as large-scale<br />invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan...</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Repairing and reshaping the active Army is also key to<br />restoring the Marine Corps to its traditional and still essential role as a<br />sea-based contingency force. And it is critical in order to return the Army<br />National Guard to a proper place as a national strategic reserve, and an<br />operational force with state responsibilities. The Army is the keystone in the<br />arch of America's land-force structure.</span><br /></blockquote></span><br /><br />And how would America pay for this essential new role for her land forces? A simple change in budget applications with a 50%-25%-25% split in the Amy's favor. The Navy could go to an all submarine/gunboat force while the USAF would concentrate on essentials such as close air support, perhaps like the Israeli Air Force, building an all-fighter fleet.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-52398141090239638702008-05-24T08:00:00.000-04:002008-12-09T17:33:42.735-05:00Sea Links<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTvRJqmafHI8_sqjfajV1OCurEvuIUpypRmV8WFZU4wenRgLTKs8n4YhAS8wl40W-dXr5A-UFLRPpoI9Y-XDjpGWqon88XiDA7WvBCM3h_OmJg9VF8_BuRtcmUbhKr18uaTOGb/s1600-h/fleetweek.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5203613091529942162" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTvRJqmafHI8_sqjfajV1OCurEvuIUpypRmV8WFZU4wenRgLTKs8n4YhAS8wl40W-dXr5A-UFLRPpoI9Y-XDjpGWqon88XiDA7WvBCM3h_OmJg9VF8_BuRtcmUbhKr18uaTOGb/s400/fleetweek.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> The guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) steams up the Hudson River during the parade of ships for the 21st Fleet Week New York 2008. US Navy Photo</span><br /></div>Is China Building <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004195.html">Aircraft Carriers</a>?<br /><br />Russian Navy to return <a href="http://steeljawscribe.com/2008/05/22/red-star-thursday-кÑаÑнаÑ-звезда-в-ÑеÑвеÑг">Kirov CGN</a> to Service.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37357">Riverine Squadron</a> 2 Returns Home.<br /><br /><a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=02A5E9A4-3048-5C12-00C794BCC6725890">Navy destroyer</a> caught in funding battle.<br /><br />Unmanned <a href="http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMVII/2008may00195.html">ASW Vehicle</a> for Littoral Ships.<br /><br />Britain gives go-ahead for<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080520-0507-britain-carriers-.html"> new aircraft carriers</a>.<br /><br />Canada's <a href="http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-joint-support-ship-project.aspx">Joint Support Ship</a> in Trouble.<br /><br />Fish Hawk <a href="http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/navy/Advanced_Anti-Submarine_Demonstrating_Capability_with_Successful_Flight_Test120015781.php">Advanced ASW Weapon</a> Tested.<br /><br />More on <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20080520.aspx">Fish Hawk</a> Glide Torpedo.<br /><br /><a id="postTitle" href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aeee080e5-542c-4623-acb9-66973550656f">Skjold-class Littoral Combat Craft</a> are now "Corvettes".<br /><br />House considers putting <a href="http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=62182&archive=true">carriers Kennedy, Kitty Hawk </a>back into service.<br /><br />Congress Funds a <a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/05/navy_seapower_051408/">Bigger Fleet</a>.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-9426059364166494392008-05-23T08:00:00.000-04:002008-05-23T08:00:03.345-04:00In the News...Applying the Media's defense of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright to justify President Bush's <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/15/news/Bush-Mideast-Text.php">speech to the Israeli Knesset</a>: The MSM used a single sound-bite (specifically the word "Appeasement"), took it out of context without reading the entire speech and launched their partisan attack on the President. Also, Bush has made hundreds of speeches without ever mentioning "appeasement", so he couldn't have been talking about Obama. See, it works both ways!<br /><br />After watching so many Republicans join Democrats in <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-farmbill22-2008may22,0,7191877.story">overriding the President's veto </a>of the swollen Farm Bill, John McCain is making a lot of sense these days. With liberals and conservatives hell-bent on bankrupting the country with earmarks and bailouts, the time is ripe for a fiscally responsible candidate like the "Maverick".<br /><br />Despite calls from the Right for John McCain to accept a younger, more conservative Vice President to appeal to his base, it appears his running mate for the 2008 nomination might be Senator Joe Lieberman, or at lease should be. Both have become mavericks within their own parties, and concerning the fight against Radical Islam, share a like and clear vision.<br /><br />John Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton today are living proof on how not to run a campaign for President. Each started off with a moderate view on the war, then quickly flip-flopped when faced with criticism by a more liberal antiwar candidate (Howard Dean vs. Kerry, Obama vs. Hillary). Then too little too late they were forced back to the center when reality set in, that they must also appeal to moderates and independents to win the election, especially in this Age of Terrorism. By then the damage has been done. John McCain is sitting pretty.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-82356061494998272562008-05-22T18:00:00.001-04:002008-05-22T18:00:01.501-04:00Petraeus: Troops in Iraq Counters Iran InfluenceI have contended for some time (see <a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20060906.html">here </a>and <a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20061211.html">here</a>) that the worse thing we can do to Iran is to create a free and democratic Iraq. Here's soon to be head of CentCom General David Petraeus on <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVNY5z3FxKGucttOScUSY2M2wcSAD90Q92E00">the same subject</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is to assume control of U.S. forces<br />in the Middle East, says that a continued U.S. presence in Iraq is more likely<br />to blunt, rather than inflame, Iran's growing influence in the region.<br />In a<br />46-page question-and-answer document submitted in advance of his confirmation<br />hearing on Thursday, Petraeus says the U.S. must work on developing more<br />leverage — primarily diplomatic or economic — to pressure Tehran to abandon its<br />nuclear program. But, he notes, the U.S. must retain military strike options as<br />a "last resort."</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">When asked by the Senate panel whether a lengthy deployment in Iraq<br />only strengthens Iran's influence in the region, Petraeus responded that the<br />opposite was true. It "has the potential to counter malign Iranian influence<br />against the government of Iraq, build common cause in the region and expose the<br />extent of malign Iranian activities to the world," he wrote.</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />I fear that many of the American Left actually want us to attack Iran. How can this be from a so-called Peace movement, you ask? We need only look to the Vietnam War, and President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia for the answer. While this attempt to sever North Vietnamese supply lines entering into the South gave the US Troops a short term tactical advantage, it so <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign#Repercussions">embolden the cause of the Anti-War Movement</a> in the US that we were were soon forced completely out of the war by a weary and indignant public.<br /><br />There is a rule in warfare of the dangers of over-extending a victorious army, examples being Hitler invading Russia in 1941, the Japanese attack on Midway in 1942, and MacArthur marching too close to the Chinese border after the victorious Inchon landing in 1950. Thankfully, President Bush understands the lessons of history, and what some may criticize as his stubbornness in many cases, at least on this issue he is exactly right to hold back.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-46445449091436360542008-05-22T12:00:00.003-04:002008-05-22T16:32:27.587-04:00Headlines You Might Have MissedThe MSM have gone strangely quiet on the Iraq War news of late. Could it be because of this:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357084,00.html">Commander: Al Qaeda in Iraq Is at Its Weakest</a>-FoxNews<br /><br /><a href="http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/end-of-act-approaches-in-iraq.html">The End of an Act Approaches in Iraq</a> -Information Dissemination<br /><br /><a href="http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/05/fascinating-jihadists-admit-defeat-in.html">The Jihadists Admit Defeat in Iraq</a> -Talisman Gate<br /><br /><a href="http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA">B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data</a>-Canadian Press<br /><br /><a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVNY5z3FxKGucttOScUSY2M2wcSAD90Q92E00">Petraeus: Troops in Iraq help blunt Iran threat</a>-Associated Press<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052101831.html">Sadr City calm after Iraqi troop move</a>-Washington PostMike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-17556245607325277972008-05-22T09:13:00.002-04:002008-05-22T09:20:52.231-04:00What's behind High Gas Prices?Here's a response by John Hofmeister, CEO of Shell Oil to Congress <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052108/content/01125107.guest.html">yesterday</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"In the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has<br />been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from<br />exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people. It is<br />not a free market. According to the Department of the Interior, 62% of all<br />on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with<br />restrictions applying to 92% of all federal lands. The Argonne National<br />Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas<br />that halt, limit, delay, or restrict natural gas projects. The problem of access<br />can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it.<br />Congress could have chose to lift some or all of the current restrictions on<br />exploration and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national<br />policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource<br />development."</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />But Washington would tell us its our "obsession" with oil. And because Congress refuses to allow opening up new oil fields, we are forced to defend the terrorist breeding grounds of the Middle East from radicals who wish to stop the flow. In other words, no dependence on foreign oil, no reason for us to fight in the Middle East!<br /><br />H/T to Blogs for VictoryMike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-79605026175616757172008-05-22T08:00:00.002-04:002008-12-09T17:33:42.954-05:00The Tank Meets the Mule-Updated<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwTz9YXUKYd15F8UlxnFMy0pl9jle7Q211h6V_ehcC3Qp2wJegvJe8xJ0PKbCH1C3ZuZiMshNG0PsJmqHt_8Lh3ORjsew6gK9uE56W3xupwp30kskURo6JJREfl8DruFDPeDG0/s1600-h/Mules.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202445519518402530" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwTz9YXUKYd15F8UlxnFMy0pl9jle7Q211h6V_ehcC3Qp2wJegvJe8xJ0PKbCH1C3ZuZiMshNG0PsJmqHt_8Lh3ORjsew6gK9uE56W3xupwp30kskURo6JJREfl8DruFDPeDG0/s200/Mules.jpg" border="0" /></a> <strong>Updated and Bumped</strong>. See below.<br /><br />I don't buy into the notion that because the Canadians have decided to purchase <a href="http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/">100 used Leopard 2 tanks </a>from Holland, rather than update their armored forces with new-build Strykers, that the Main Battle Tank (MBT) still is King of the Battlefield. Certain types of track vehicles might always be required for specialized operations in difficult terrain, but with no one in the West currently building new MBTs, save for updating older models, how long will even these tired warriors be in frontline service?<br /><br />The fact is the enemies of the MBT has made the giant behemoth so costly to defend that it has <a href="http://newwars.blogspot.com/2008/03/tanks-but-no-tanks.html">outlived its usefulness </a>in this age of precision guided weapons. As we have discovered in recent years, fast and easy to produce armored cars like the Stryker and even new MRAP vehicles can perform many of the missions once thought the domain of the tank at far less the expense.<br /><br />During World War 2, after Britain and America had completely mechanized their armies, it was soon discovered that over tough, mountainous terrain, the recently disposed of cavalry might still be useful. Especially during the Italian Campaign, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/limeydvr/italypage.html">army mules were considered vital </a>to load ammo and essential supplies before the Allies could seize more favorable ground for the armored divisions. This strategy brought its own set of difficulties as "each division needed 300-500 mules, also, the food, shoes, nails, packs, etc, for them. This in turn led to frantic searches for veterinarians, harness makers, blacksmiths and mule skinners to manage the beasts!"<br /><br /><br />In certain limited conditions then, the tank still is essential, especially against any Third World adversary,as we have seen since 1991. On roadless landscape, as we may find in Afghanistan where the Taliban reside, or in undeveloped nations as in Africa, the archaic giants are still intimidating and effective. Yet, against such poorly armed foes do we still need to sink our national treasure into developing $150 billion Future Combat Systems, or will older models as the Canadians are using be good enough?<br /><br /><br />Against any future peer antagonist, in which <a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20080310.html">precision weapons are involved</a>, today's most powerful land ships are no more useful than the Japanese battleships at the Battle of Midway. Such weapons have returned the initiative in land war to the "poor bloody infantry". As for armored vehicles, all that is required of them today is as "battle taxis", providing the foot soldier with a ride where his new arsenal of portable anti-tank missiles plus his ability to reign down fire from above by calling on precision air or guided artillery support has effectively doomed the Main Battle Tank.<br /><br /><strong>Update</strong>-Just came across this editorial in the <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/05/19/pf-5608476.html">Toronto Sun </a>by Peter Worthington, concerning the new Canadian Leopards which adds validity to my thoughts above:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">My problem is that having been to Afghanistan and seen some of<br />the ravages of war, what stands out in memory is the countryside littered with<br />burned and destroyed Soviet tanks. My question: If Russian armour was vulnerable<br />and destroyable in Afghanistan, why is Canadian armour considered invulnerable<br />and effective? Or is it?<br />I know the Americans' mighty 70-ton Abrams tanks<br />and Bradley fighting vehicles have proved somewhat of a mixed blessing in the<br />mountains. The big guns in the tanks have limited elevation and in mountains<br />cannot shoot at high ridges where the enemy lurks. Nor is the Abrams<br />satisfactory in urban guerrilla warfare in Iraq, where it is vulnerable to<br />ambush -- especially with anti-tank weaponry coming from Iran. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The same applies to 60-ton Canadian Leopards in<br />Afghanistan, where roadside explosives devices are lethal. In flat country,<br />these tanks with the 122-mm and 120-mm guns can be devastating at routing the<br />enemy.<br />Wheeled armoured vehicles are vulnerable to powerful roadside<br />explosive devices; 25-mm guns are not as lethal as tank guns. Increasingly<br />mine-resistance ambush- protected vehicles (MRAPs) are necessary, with special<br />armour and V-shaped hulls to deflect explosions. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I remember being in Eritrea in 1988 when fighters of the<br />Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) ambushed an Ethiopian armoured brigade<br />on a mountain road. The Eritreans knocked out the lead tank and the last tank,<br />thus trapping the whole brigade, and then picked off those in the middle at<br />leisure. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.<br />So helpless were the<br />Ethiopians that their own air force bombed the trapped brigade to destroy their<br />own equipment and ensure the Eritreans couldn't use it. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Without incurring one casualty, the EPLF annihilated the<br />brigade, and then went on to destroy a division, subsequently winning the war<br />and their own independence. (At the time I took photos of Canadian wheat flour<br />intended for refugees, being used in army kitchens -- which CIDA ignored or<br />denied when this eyewitness account was published).<br />Eritrea was a country of<br />three million that, with little outside military aid, defeated a country of 44<br />million that (excluding South Africa) boasted the most modern army in Africa,<br />supplied by the U.S. and then the Soviets. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">So perhaps it's understandable why I and others are uneasy<br />about the use of tanks in a mountainous country like Afghanistan, where a<br />resourceful "enemy" is nervy and adept at innovation.<br />There's no reason to<br />suppose they can't, or won't, do to our precious tanks what they did to Soviet<br />tanks.</span><br /></blockquote></span><br /><br />Thought this very interesting and relevent, especially coming from someone who's actually been to the warzone, observing the environment there first hand.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-39799714928793674402008-05-21T15:12:00.003-04:002008-05-21T20:03:04.764-04:00Democrats at the Crossroads<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries">Senator Joe Lieberman</a> pleads with his fellow Democrats to awake from their fallen state:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President<br />Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it<br />was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the<br />Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted<br />the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party<br />about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace<br />the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own,<br />because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders<br />made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of<br />partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.<br />By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but<br />Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to<br />the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.</span><br /></blockquote></span><br /><br />And with a warning to Barack Obama:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the<br />footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never<br />met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting<br />down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />I think the Dems must wake up or fade into irrelevance. If the latter happens, here's hoping they don't take the country down with them. But I just can't figure why my fellow countrymen fight so hard those who fight against the terrorists.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-84575350044786548012008-05-21T14:00:00.000-04:002008-05-21T14:00:02.564-04:00UN InhumanityUgh. Via <a href="http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/05/21/family-wiped-out-starving-dont-worry-the-un-is-here-to-help/">Blogs For Victory</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms<br />into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to<br />contraceptives, a UN official says.<br />So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)<br />said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family<br />planning after the storm hit in early May.</span> </blockquote></span><br /><br />I agree with Mark here-"Close it down. Implode it. Sow the ground with salt"!Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-3891263863706643252008-05-21T12:00:00.002-04:002008-05-21T12:00:18.312-04:00The Stagnation of Warfare Pt. 3Hate to say <a href="http://newwars.blogspot.com/2008/03/stagnation-of-warfare.html">I told you so </a>but...from <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20080521.aspx">Strategypage</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">The U.S. Secretary of Defense has ordered the service chiefs and<br />their subordinates to cut back on developing weapons and tactics for the next<br />war (wherever and whatever it might be), and concentrate on the current ones.<br />This directive is based on the assumption that the U.S. military can already<br />defeat any potential foe, and the near future appears to include more irregular<br />fighters and terrorists, than masses of tanks, modern aircraft and high tech<br />warships...<br /><br />The Department of Defense wants the troops to become more<br />effective at dealing with irregulars and terrorists. The current war is giving<br />the ground troops invaluable combat experience, making American ground forces<br />the most capable on the planet. The idea is to capitalize on that, not new,<br />untried and very expensive technology.<br /></span></blockquote></span><br />I am convinced that it is not so much our high tech wonder weapons that has given the US its wave of victories in the post-Cold War era, but how it schools its troops in warfare (train as you would fight). Only this can explain our ability to fight 2 simultaneous conflicts since 2001, while keeping watch on China, North Korea, and Iran, despite suffering in the Clinton Era the largest defense cuts since after World War 2.<br /><br />Therefore, I believe the US can safely endure a "weapons holiday" with a freeze on building Big Ships, while bolstering our littoral fleet to fight pirate insurgents. We could also hold off plans for reequipping the USAF with hi-tech fighters and concentrate on close air support planes, plus late model fighters like the F-16 or Super Hornet to keep numbers up. The Army already seems to be doing everything right. As mentioned in the article they are backing off some on the Future Combat System while <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/05/military_army_mraps_051408w/">beefing up its forces</a> with off-the-shelf equipment like Strykers and armored cars, armor for the troops, and new build helicopters.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-26857107512384311332008-05-21T08:00:00.002-04:002008-05-21T08:00:03.648-04:00Reforming the Industrial Age NavyYour enthusiastic response, both pro and con, for our recent posting titled "<a href="http://newwars.blogspot.com/2008/05/questioning-need-for-gator-navy.html">Questioning the Need for a Gator Navy</a>" inspired us to publish parts as an <a href="http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20080519.html">editorial</a>. This article ended up in the Navy News Clips emailed by the Office of Information. We appreciate our readers and the US Navy for its open mindedness in publishing this little piece of constructive criticism.<br /><br />Our main purpose in writing such articles is in hopes of salvaging the supremacy of the US Fleet, which is down to 279 ships in commission and no end of this decline in sight. None of the potential presidential contenders, whether Republican or Democrat offers any hope of a major expansion in shipbuilding funds for the near future, an obvious requirement of the stated goal of a <a href="http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/april/plans.htm">313 ship navy</a>.<br /><br />Yet, the USN insists on constructing a traditional industrial age force structure consisting of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines, and amphibious assault ships. Continuing down this course in the age of digital weapons is not only folly in our view, but very unnecessary.<br /><br />Concerning the amphibious ships, we part company from <a href="http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/time-has-come-for-amphibious-forces.html">Galrahn</a> who offers a good argument on what the Gator Navy <em>should </em>be doing, and therein lies the problem. They do seem to be everywhere, showing the flag, threatening Iran, providing disaster relief; all very well, except these very complicated and highly expensive warships were designed for a Inchon/Falklands style forcible entry onto a hostile shore.<br /><br />Instead we use them in the role of gunboats, which Galrahn concedes is the right role for such massive ships(?) in the Post Cold War:<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">If we consider a moment that the challenge regions emerging in<br />the expeditionary era are what Thomas Barnett calls the </span><a href="http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/glossary.htm#Non-Integrating_Gap"><span style="font-size:85%;">Non-Integrated Gaps</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, the regions from South<br />America to Africa to Southeast Asia, and we believe it is likely this is where<br />extremism is likely to breed and disruption to the global system is most likely<br />to occur, we first observe there is a serious lack of military basing in those<br />regions. This means the US military is going to require a force shaped for<br />gaining access and sustaining operations to remote regions far away from<br />sustained ground support presence.</span><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Yet again we must point to the threat of cruise missiles, inexpensive naval mines, speed boats loaded with dynamite in the hands of radicals prepared to blow a hole in our obsession with the Big Ship Navy.<br /><br />What is a post Industrial Age Amphib fleet? Of far greater importance than the stagnate Marine Force off the Iraq Coast during Desert Storm One, was prepositioned vessels. All these warships forward deployed in nearby Diego Garcia contained all the Marine Divisions taking part in the Liberation of Kuwait needed. Looking again to the Falklands, we are reminded of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Elizabeth_2#Service_history">Queen Elizabeth 2</a> ferrying some 3000 British Troops to the Falklands in 1982, in an example of fast sealift, or about half of the entire Fleet Marine Force. If the Marines continue to be a land adjunct to the Army, this is the type of ship it needs. Even Galrahn concedes this, stating:<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">When the 24th MEU deployed to Afghanistan, </span><a href="http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2008/March/algol.htm"><span style="font-size:85%;">they<br />took a FSS</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> not amphibious ships, the reason being<br />the FSS could actually take all the MEU equipment while the amphibious ships<br />could not. </span></blockquote></span>If the Marines would return to their roots as a light intervention force, then place them back on the warships, especially these fast ferries with their spacious cargo hulls. Also place them onboard our invisible submarine fleet in homage to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Raiders">Carlson's Raiders</a>, or on the new littoral ships if they ever make it into service.<br /></span><br />Yet, he bemoans the dearth of amphibious shipping, and we sympathize with him. The fact is, as long as the Navy continues to build battleforce ships that often duplicate each others missions (i.e., 2 types of carriers, 3 types of surface warships, 3 classes of submarines) we will have to be content with an ever decreasing fleet that can do a little of every type of mission, and much of nothing.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-35372093810356354982008-05-20T18:34:00.000-04:002008-05-20T18:34:01.635-04:00Obama Says Would Meet With Iran President<p><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KQ2yJqWguCU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object></p><p>The You Tube evidence. </p>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-7635170559922551732008-05-20T15:18:00.003-04:002008-05-20T15:28:45.773-04:00White House Holds NBC to the Fire for Bias ViewsNBC News, also known as the Obama Election Headquarters, is being called to task after a recent edited and disparaging interview with President Bush by the network. First this from <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356753,00.html">Fox News</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">The network rattled the White House in November 2006 when it called<br />the conflict in Iraq a “civil war.” On Monday, White House Counselor Ed<br />Gillespie wrote a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, looking in part for<br />an explanation of how NBC News now views the war.<br />White House press secretary<br />Dana Perino said Tuesday the administration is “fed up” with the way NBC News is<br />treating the Iraq war.<br />"I remember very distinctly, how there was a quite the<br />pomp and circumstance when NBC, on The Today Show, decided to declare that they<br />were declaring Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things<br />certainly have improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to<br />say that Iraq is not in a civil war. We're just curious to find out what they<br />believe," she said.</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />And concerning the recent interview:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">As it appeared on “Nightly News” Sunday and "Today" Monday, Bush’s<br />response was: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the<br />political calendar has … And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they<br />want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously.”<br />The White<br />House said NBC edited out the following words that Bush said between those two<br />sentences:<br />“People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right,<br />either. What I said was that we need to take the words of people<br />seriously.”</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />This all started with Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset warning the Free World of the danger of appeasement, much as other politicians in the past when the West had become complacent, including Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. Sadly, most of these great men received their share of scorn from the elite establishment, only to be justified later on.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-57740328932491687382008-05-19T19:58:00.003-04:002008-05-19T20:04:52.862-04:00Jimmy Carter's Second TermDemocrats claim that a John McCain presidency will be like George Bush's third term. <a href="http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/05/19/if-john-mccain-will-be-president-bushs-third-term-then/">Mark Noonan</a> contends Barack Obama will fulfill Jimmy Carter's second:<br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">While Jimmy Carter was wringing his hands and lecturing the<br />American people about taking the bus and obeying the speed limit, Ronald Reagan<br />was plotting a reborn American economy which would have the freedom from<br />government regulation and taxation required to adjust to the new energy<br />realities…and as we still live in the economic house Reagan built, even the<br />monstrous increases in oil prices - prices which killed the US economy under<br />Carter - have failed to push us over into a Carteresque “stagflation”<br />recession…Obama proposes more handwringing; and John McCain? He proposes<br />actually doing something about it…increasing our energy supplies, including the<br />construction of 20 nuclear power plants. McCain = Do Things. Obama = Worry About Things.</span><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Actually a third Bush term might not be too bad. Winning the War on Terror, a pretty good economy considering we have been a war for 7 years, plus continually frustrating the Mainstream Media on why they can't influence national policy, as they will definitely do if their chosen candidate Obama is elected.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-41775904826660600202008-05-19T08:00:00.001-04:002008-05-19T09:28:28.353-04:00(Not interested in) Fixing the MilitaryThis <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin">New York Times editoria</a>l with the above title minus that in parenthesis, falls flat on offering any solutions of what our post-Iraq military should look like. It mainly repeats extreme liberal talking points that suggest there is little hope of ever fixing the myriad challenges our great armed forces face.<br /><br />For instance, there is the usual complaint about the Iraq War from the Left:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"the war of necessity in Afghanistan and President Bush’s<br />disastrous war of choice in Iraq "</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />As well as the repetative comment that the military is too worn out from the war to fight:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"So alarming is the deterioration that many military commanders say<br />the country is unable to sustain the current operation in Iraq let alone face<br />down future threats. "</span></blockquote></span><br /><br />Though most experts concede the military is strained, no one, including our Defense Secretary has any doubts we couldn't protect ourselves if need be, since the bulk of the Air Force and Navy isn't engaged in the Middle East fight.<br /><br />There is the tired lament that the Wars since 9/11 "have made the world more dangerous", which has little basis in fact unless the Times can point to a specific incident outside the Middle east on the scale of the 2001 attacks on US soil. They never can, since facts are out of place in their criticism of our commander in chief.<br /><br />The Grey Lady does concede, as this blog often argues, what "the country does not need is a military ready to refight the cold war", but doesn't offer any basics. When it says the country should cancel "expensive programs that do not meet today’s threats or tomorrow’s", which pet project does it suggest we cut out of which liberal or conservative politician's district?<br /><br />The paper then goes into an extended list of the military's woes, without conceding the recent good news of progress on the ground, as Democrat and Republicans have all noticed, including most recently <a href="http://newwars.blogspot.com/2008/05/pelosi-sees-success-in-surge.html">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi</a> having seenthe change for herself.<br /><br />As a helpful discussion on the Future Force, this article is not. As a partisan attack showing the liberal media's continued bias against our military and President Bush, with no interest in seeing Democracy in the Middle East or preventing a second terrorist attack on the nation, this fits in perfectly.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-11311881764960796772008-05-18T09:50:00.001-04:002008-05-18T09:51:48.409-04:00John McCain on SNL<embed id="W4830346477313a5f" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4830346477313a5f" width="384" height="283" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" wmode="transparent"></embed>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-30699033562523744882008-05-18T09:41:00.004-04:002008-05-18T09:46:30.920-04:00Pelosi Sees Success in SurgeThe Democrat Speaker of the House in last weeks visit to Iraq can't doubt the evidence of her eyes. Here's Paul at <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020541.php">Powerline</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">According to AP, the Speaker, who made a surprise visit to<br />Iraq, "expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote<br />national reconciliation." She also "welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget<br />as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial<br />elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power<br />among local officials."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">As </span><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/6701"><span style="font-size:85%;">Abe Greenwald</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> points out, in February Pelosi said<br />that “the purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of<br />Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq; they have not<br />done that." Since she now finds the government is making the changes that will<br />promote reconciliation, </span><br /></blockquote></span><span style="font-size:85%;">it should follow that, in her estimation, the surge is well on its way to accomplishing its purpose.</span><br /><br />This is good news, though I have to think that even though America is safer since President Bush decided to take the war to the Islamists rather than waiting for another attack, the Left will still continue to call this an "unnecessary war", even as they shelter under our new-found security. Of course they haven't apologized to Reagan yet.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-34608936786195769132008-05-18T08:33:00.005-04:002008-05-18T09:34:23.478-04:00Back to the 1976 ElectionIt now appears inevitable that Democrats will nominate Senator Barack Obama as their candidate for the White House, instead of the early favorite and once-thought inevitable Senator Hillary Clinton. Too bad they have chosen an anti-war <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020542.php">appeaser</a> as their nominee in this Age of Terror, though this is good for conservatives.<br /><br />During the 1976 Elections, liberals voted in an eerily similar candidate, Jimmy Carter, a so-called man of peace at a time of Détente with the communist Soviet Union. Carter's peace plan actually caused more wars than it stopped, with the rise of Islamic radicalism in Iran, Marxist wars of revolution spreading unchecked, plus the surprising (to our Democrat President) Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Also, while the US was disarming, the communists were rapidly exploiting our naiveté to create the largest military forces in all history, surpassing the US in most weapons systems.<br /><br />Obama as Carter, and the ongoing threats facing our nation isn't the only comparison we can garner from this Era. In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1976#Republican_Party_nomination">Republican battles for the White House</a>, between incumbent President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan we can view a glimmer of the Obama/Hillary contest. That year, the hard-line Cold Warrior Reagan gave the more moderate Ford a tough struggle, though the latter won his Party's nomination, it was such a close race that eventually the he lost the Election in November to Carter. Reagan, with his realist vision of the Cold War, turned so many conservatives and independents against the naive advocates of Détente, he paved the way for his own victory in 1980, while hurting our chances in 1976.<br /><br />Clinton appears as the insurgent candidate this year, playing the role of Reagan 32 years later, though hardly with the Great Communicator's worldview. Though she may be on the losing side this election cycle, her impressive run and stubborn refusal to quit has impressed even her many critics on the Right. Meanwhile, her more moderate views (compared to Barack Obama's) are more acceptable to the majority of Americans still wary of the terrorist threat we have faced since 9/11.<br /><br />Fortunately, in the "Carter role", prepared to take advantage of the chaos in the other Party is Republican Senator John McCain. Only in this can he be compared to the disastrous Carter, who proved woefully incapable of contending with the rise of Radical Islam in Iran, or the resurgent Soviets. In contrast, the Maverick is for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, and most importantly, prepared to take the fight to our nation's enemies for as long as it takes.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-16142884579047696382008-05-17T14:51:00.002-04:002008-05-17T14:55:48.975-04:00More on Branchville Tornado Recovery<a href="http://journals.aol.com/eedyedgar/WONDERINGSABOUTMYWANDERINGS/entries/2008/05/16/branch-junction-in-transition-after-tornado----branchville-south-carolina/445">Eddy Hightower</a> has some excellent new photos of ongoing recovery efforts in Branchville, slightly over 2 months after the SC town was struck by an EF-3 tornado. Check them out! Also, the <a href="http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2008/05/15/news/doc482ba6e59d5d8315401957.txt">Orangeburg Times and Democrat </a>had an interesting interview with Branchville's mayor on the same subject.Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10093424.post-26579097922443970802008-05-17T08:00:00.002-04:002008-12-09T17:33:43.663-05:00Sea Links<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg73gT6tN6zz3K1KhvW4idtCcJQeyPZGxIf6EMKdCFHqIYaJ5u_3zLUQ6vCu6uWRMiG-4zniM7tu_uafFc14RdpVuSLPxZVDocyxEtlfCB3sBdI1hL69Pp_IW5ucs5CF1LfS4nm/s1600-h/missouri.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201324494399440850" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg73gT6tN6zz3K1KhvW4idtCcJQeyPZGxIf6EMKdCFHqIYaJ5u_3zLUQ6vCu6uWRMiG-4zniM7tu_uafFc14RdpVuSLPxZVDocyxEtlfCB3sBdI1hL69Pp_IW5ucs5CF1LfS4nm/s400/missouri.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:78%;">The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Hopper (DDG 70) passes the Battleship Missouri Memorial as she makes her way pier side at Naval Station Pearl Harbor after a six-month deployment. US Navy Photo</span></div><br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyE0w17JYbVn8-PhG59heon1geSooq04K0aIkbQm0G9KWni2apPga8oFDQNlr0ifqEf9BNj92_dkDwXO7VuUyRK18cR4Shi1uExex08n_3Jyfvp558wgi1dfFSd_rTif9phc1b/s1600-h/connie.jpg"></a>House considers putting <a href="http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=54834">Kennedy, Kitty Hawk back into service</a> in five years.<br /><br /><div>Fish Hawk <a href="http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/navy/Advanced_Anti-Submarine_Demonstrating_Capability_with_Successful_Flight_Test120015781.php">Advanced ASW Weapon </a>Demonstrating Capability with Successful Flight Test.</div><br /><div>Congress Funds <a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/05/navy_seapower_051408/">a Bigger Fleet</a>.</div><br /><div>Super Hornets for <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=43bdb928-53fb-4198-89ee-05c0330acdb2&&Headline=Now+Navy+wants+Super+Hornets+too">Indian Carrier</a>.</div><br /><div>Britain To Proceed With <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3526553&c=EUR&s=SEA">Carrier Program</a>.</div><br /><div><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN08377513">US Navy moves ships</a> toward Myanmar, offers aid.</div><br /><div>Maine shipyard christens <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_re_us/stockdale_christening;_ylt=A0WTcUqdBiZIbi0ABROs0NUE">destroyer named for Vietnam POW</a>.</div><br /><div>India Plans <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080049411&ch=5/10/2008%2011:21:00%20AM">6 New Submarines</a>.</div><div> </div></div>Mike Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.com