LOSANTIVILLE

Cancel the Camp David Accords?

2012-01-31T07:17:00.003-05:00

Last year, the outbreak of the revolution now known as the "Arab Spring" was much celebrated by the West for it eliminate leaders such a Qadaffi. Even Hosni Mubarak, who took over as Egypt's president after the assassination of Anwar Sadat, was left to the rebels as his human rights abuses had become more than the West could ignore. However, you never know what you may get once the known is thrown out for the unknown"

"Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood will eventually cancel the Camp David Agreement, despite the group’s announcement that it respects international agreements Egypt has signed, said Amin al-Sayed Ibrahim, head of Hezbollah’s political council." Egypt Independent

The Camp David Accords were the result of 18 months of intense diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Israel, and the United States that began after Jimmy Carter became President. Efforts initially focused on a comprehensive resolution of disputes between Israel and the Arab countries, gradually evolved into a search for a bilateral agreement between Israel and Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood was formed originally in Egypt but has been outlawed since Sadat's administration. The Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed in most of the nations that underwent the Arab Spring. The Muslim Brotherhood wants to create a Muslim state meaning Sharia law would replace secular law. The US and Europe seem to be in denial of this potentiality.

In the meantime, Syria has declined Russian mediation in transferring power. Russian warships continue to be on-station off the shores of Syria making any military action by the West unlikely.

15 Days

2012-01-29T07:43:00.003-05:00

The "Arab Spring" began one year ago and unlike Northern Africa, its fire still burn unabated in Syria. Whereas the United States and European Union provided aircraft to help oust Qaddafi (and provided training and weapons to Egyptian rebels), both parties have remained out of Syria. Thus Bashar al-Assad has remained in power despite some of the most bloody confrontations with his own people. Thousands of Syrians have been killed by Assad forces. Bringing up the question, if the thug tactics of Qaddafi assured drones and bombers would be visiting his friendly skies, then why not Syria?

First, the Arab Spring started in Tunisia and spread east meaning revolutions started in Libya and Egypt before Syria. US and NATO forces, already thinly spread because of Iraq and Afghanistan, could only muster air strikes against Libya and covert support for Egypt. Placing ground forces in Libya would have guaranteed President Obama to be a one-term president. Sarkosy and Brown faced similar fates so they too resisted the use of ground forces.

Second, the United States also could not become so encumbered with Libya that it would be unable to strike at Iran. The Iranian nuclear program continues and should the US be in a position to strike, it will need much more firepower than it used in Libya. The US is quietly improving its Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) as tests indicate it sill may not be able to strike the deep underground facilities of Iran.

Third, the Russians took a stand against Western intervention in Syria. The Russians have never been fans of US and EU tactics against Iran but have always expressed their dissent through diplomatic means. In the case of Syria, the Russians sailed navy warships to the coast of Syria as an unequivocal answer to any western strikes.

The U.N. Security Council has come up with a draft Arab-European resolution on Syria. The draft resolution condemns "the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities," demands that the Syrian government immediately put an end to all human rights violations, and calls on both sides to end attacks and violence immediately.

The resolution then lays out a political roadmap that matches the Arab League initiative intended to pave the way for a transition "leading to a democratic, plural political system" through the formation of a national unity government, the handing over of all presidential authority to Assad's deputy for a transition period, and then the holding of free and fair elections with international supervision. Foreign Policy

The Russians and Chinese will most likely veto any such resolution. Russia and China vetoed European resolution on Syria last fall and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Friday that Russia would veto any resolution that seeks to remove Assad from power.

Iran-China trade soars to top $45 billion

2012-01-26T07:36:00.002-05:00

In physics, you learn nature abhors a vacuum. The United States and EU plan to levy economic sanctions against Iran means others could seize the opportunity to establish trade relations. Below is a link to an article on Crethi Plethi discussing the Chinese approach to a Iran's nuclear program. Instead of isolating Iran, China's approach is sort of trade for good behavior. That and the fact China's expanding economy needs oil and having Iran as an ally is important to their continued economic expansion. Sure, China's approach is self-serving but it has less chance of inciting a war compared to the West's. The recent take down of Somali pirates has to have been in part a message to Iran that President Obama won't back down. The gamesmanship is disconcerting. A nuclear armed Iran is being portrayed as equivalent of Armageddon. North Korea has had nuclear weapons for decades but the Korean peninsula remains intact. Pakistan, an alleged ally, has nuclear weapons primarily as a counter to India's nuclear weapons. The history between these two nations could have resulted in nuclear war but even with the Taliban, both sides have remained calm (at least from a nuclear standpoint). Given these examples, there is little evidence Iran would launch a first strike even with Ahmadinejad at the helm.

Breitbart

Crethi Plethi

UK ready to send more warships into Gulf in 'clear signal' to Tehran

2012-01-25T07:28:00.000-05:00

Apparently, whatever caused Iran to back down from the tough rhetoric with the US seems to be back full swing. Imagine how this must appear to the Arab world. A Middle Eastern oil producer (who has previously exploited by Britain for their oil) is protesting an European Union oil embargo. The result is European warships sailing to the region, looking all the world like a prelude to taking over the Iranian oil production. To those that might scoff, please note what is happening in Libya (which produces 2% of the world's oil). France is at the front seat of redistributing oil rights in Libya (assuming the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't take over the country).

The Independent

U.S. aircraft carrier enters Gulf without incident

2012-01-22T22:28:00.000-05:00

USS Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Straits of Hormuz without incident. Iran had back down on the tough rhetoric that had been the standard for weeks. Some think it may have been President Obama who was able to get through to Iran that he wasn't kidding. More likely, it was other OPEC members in the region that weren't interested in having their oil exports jeopardized by shutting down the straits. You also can't dismiss the fact the an Iranian nuclear scientist died or was assassinated. If Iran truly believes the US was behind this, Ahmadinejad may not have wanted to push his luck. Things are not likely to improve though with the EU pushing for economic sanctions against Iran.

Reuters

Iran Threatens U.S., Persian Gulf Cities with Missile Attacks

2012-01-19T07:37:00.000-05:00

First Iran accuses the US of assassinating one of their nuclear scientists. Then another Iranian is assassinated who was working in the US. Now two US Marines are killed for illegally crossing the Iranian border. All of these events occurred after the US steamed a aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz despite Iranian warnings that it would not tolerate the vessel crossing back. The rhetoric has never been more heated between the two countries. Ahmadinejad has even garnered the support of America's other favorite despot, Hugo Chavez. The relationship betweens these two cannot be under-estimated. Iran now controls OPEC and Venezuela is one of its members. Venezuela and Ecuador are the only members in the Western Hemisphere.

The most recent threat from Iran is that it will torpedo US war ships crossing the Straits. This year is a particularly tricky one for the Obama Administration. It can't seem weak on national defense with the Republican nominations in full swing. On the other hand, it can't risk getting into a full blown war with Iran one the eve of the Presidential elections. The unknown factor in all of this is Israel. They are closer and sense a far greater threat from a nuclear Iran than does the US. This may lead to a unilateral strike against Iran by Israel. Then the question becomes, what is the US prepared to do? Budget reductions are dropping troop levels and canceling weapon programs The F-22 fleet is grounded more often than not. The public is tired of the war on terror and wants our troops home. And let's not forget Kim Jong eun who is another unknown on the global stage. The US is facing one the scariest times since the Cuban missile crisis.

US News and World Report

Iran

2011-12-29T18:23:00.005-05:00

At its greatest extent, the Persian Empire included the modern territories of Iran, Turkey, parts of Central Asia, Pakistan, Thrace and Macedonia, much of the Black Sea coastal regions, Afghanistan, Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and all significant population centers of ancient Egypt as far west as Libya.

Persia, modern Iran, was undone by its decentralized form of government. Modern Iran suffers no such illusions. The reign of the ayatollahs being set into motion by a revolution against the US backed Shah.

While the US and the rest of the Western World worried about terrorists, Iran pursued a two-pronged course of becoming a major power. First is the much hyped Iranian nuclear weapons program. Ahmadinejad has pursued a nuclear weapons program as a way of Iranian self-realization (hence my references to the Persian Empire).

The second and more subtle approach has been becoming the chair of OPEC. Iran now sits at the head of one of the most i
influential organizations when it comes to national security and the economy.

Secretary Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and has, thus far, been unsuccessful in changing Ahmadinejad's mind. I suspected the announced US Navy drills in the region are another attempt to convince Iran that the US means business. However, Iran seems equally determined to tell the US to "piss off" and has allegedly found the US carrier battle group. To be sure, this is not that difficult. Moving that much metal around in the ocean creates all types of signatures.

Iran has not been just sitting around waiting for the Sec Def to send in the troops. First was the rumored recruitment of a Mexican drug cartel to help assassinate a Saudi Arabian diplomat in the US. Now comes a story about the US selling 84 X F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. While the $20 billion price tag was enticing to the US, the need for the Saudi family to have better fighter aircraft was paramount. After all, the Arabian and Persian empires were not exactly friends.

As though this weren't enough for the Obama Administration, now comes news of Patriot missiles that were on the way to China. The Patriot missiles were the darlings of the first Persian Gulf War. Patriots missiles protected coalition forces from the very real danger of chemically armed SCUD missiles. China possessing such technology, in light of the passing of North Korea's long-time leader, is not good news. Had the Finland doc workers been less vigilant, the US would be at a terrific disadvantage on the Korean peninsula.

I don't know what will happen in 2012, the Mayan calendar not withstanding. We have a presidential election, a troop downsizing, budget cuts, continued unemployment, a contentious relationship with Pakistan, a worse relationship with Iran, and now an unknown taking over the reigns in North Korea. It seems like the perfect storm.

Iran pinpoints US carrier

Patriot Missiles Seized

US to sell F-15s to Saudi Arabia

Does Airport Security Really Make Us Safer?

2011-12-23T11:31:00.000-05:00

Vanity Fair is not exactly where one would look for articles on homeland security. The article below does raise some of the same questions I've asked. Are we really safer for the amount of money we are spending? The author, Charles C. Mann, follows around the chief security officer for British Telecom (BT) as he points out many of the flaws associated with our airport security measures.

Even after teaching TSA personnel, I have some of the same concerns. Looking for what happened previously prevents a more fluid approach to looking for the unusual. Case in point, removing shoes. One moron tried it, didn't work, but we still look for shoes. This lead another moron to stuff liquid explosives in his underwear. It didn't work either but not because of our screening process but because of vigilant passengers.

The article also points out the greatest flaw, we are focusing our efforts almost exclusively on passengers. Support personnel and vendors, who work daily at the airport, can easily by-pass procedures or smuggle weapons on-board for other operatives to use.

I also believe if we want to down an airliner, there are multiple ways to do it that don't require the terrorist to ever set foot on an airport.

Do we still need TSA? Yes but not for any reasons the author wrote about. TSA provides a tremendous psychological deterrent to would-be terrorists. Much like the greeter at Wal-mart, TSA lets people know someone is watching. It also makes other travelers feel that something is being done to make them safer. You can't prove a negative, we really can't prove how many terrorists were stopped by TSA. But TSA doesn't just stop terrorists. They seize weapons, drugs and larges sums of cash daily. Most of these seizures result in arrests and convictions by law enforcement agencies.

Vanity Fair

North Korea's military to share power with Kim's heir

2011-12-22T07:18:00.000-05:00

The North Korean military wins the race to being able to directly influence Kim Jong-eun. Having the military with no civilian checks pretty much makes North Korea a junta. North Korea will be more inclined than ever to sell military technology to people or states the US doesn't want to have it. It also lessens the likelihood of a diplomatic solution to any disagreements North Korea may have.

Exclusive: North Korea's military to share power with Kim's heir | Reuters

North Korea

2011-12-19T21:57:00.004-05:00

So let's review the last 60 years on the Korean Peninsula. Japan occupied Korea through the end of WWII, after which the North was controlled by the Soviet Union. After the Korean War (1950-1953), Kim Il-Sung adopted a policy of "self-reliance" which set the stage for North Korea's isolation from the rest of the modern world. It also resulted in the longest cease-fire in history. The United States has maintained a heavy troop presence there ever since the war.

According to the CIA Factbook, North Korea "demonized the US as the ultimate threat to its social system through state-funded propaganda, and molded political, economic, and military policies around the core ideological objective of eventual unification of Korea under Pyongyang's control. "

KIM Il Sung's son, KIM Jong Il (who died of heart attack over the weekend), was officially designated as his father's successor in 1980, assuming a growing political and managerial role until the elder KIM's death in 1994.

Under Kim Jong Il, North Korea focused exclusively on becoming a nuclear power at the cost of starving its own people. A German documentary film maker recently gained access to North Korea. Kim Jon Il's obsession has turned the capital, Pyongyang, into a bizarre movie set. Traffic cops stand in intersections directing non-existent traffic. High rise buildings are empty facades with elevators that don't operate.

The nuclear program was no empty promise. North Korea seemed to take great delight in firing ballistic missiles over Japan or at the Hawaiian islands. The missiles were clearly capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

The cost has been millions of North Koreans starving. It has often been speculated that the North would revolt against Kim but he was fondly referred to as "Dear Leader". A North Korean newscaster broke down in tears while announcing the death of Kim Il-Jong.

Kim Il-Jong did realize he needed to set a succession plan in motion. Instead of the 70-year senior Kim, North Korea now has his inexperienced 28-year old son Kim Jong-eun. Much like when an established monarch would pass, Kim Jong-eun is not guaranteed to remain in power.

First, it has long been assumed the only thing preventing the reunification of the Korean peninsula was Kim Jong-Il. Rival North Korean generals and Workers’ party officials will jostle for positions. China may not support reunification efforts which would allow a US ally to be on its border.

Kim Il-eun was promoted by his father to four-star general (though he has never been in the military). He may feel it necessary to prove his "street creds" by escalating hostilities against South Korea or US forces stationed in the Pacific. Or some of the general staff may take advantage of the younger Kim's lack of experience to start aggression.

The one good signs seems to be shares on Seoul’s Kospi index closed down 3.4 per cent. China may not want an economic crisis on its borders. Foreign investors, already leery about the European economic crisis, may become skittish about Pacific markets. This may create an incentive for cooler heads to prevail.

The one area that should cause some concern is the history between Pakistan and North Korea. Pakistan sold Stinger missiles to North Korea back in the late 1980s. Pakistan and US relations have heated up over the recently killing of Pakistani soldiers by US forces. Kim Jong-eun may be drawn into escalating this tension. The US is not in a position to deal with this two-pronged attack and still be able to keep Iran in check.

Last flight home

2011-12-19T07:21:00.002-05:00

Sixty-two airmen and 55 soldiers assigned to Camp Adder, known to the Iraqis as the Imam Ali Base, on the outskirts of Nasiriyah in southern Iraq, boarded a C-17 from Travis AFB, Calif., on Dec. 17 for a flight back to Kuwait. It was the last flight from the last US military base on the last night of Operation New Dawn.

Satellite Takes Picture Of Chinese Carrier On The Move

2011-12-15T07:30:00.001-05:00

The Varyag is actually Russian bought by the Chinese. While the picture is dramatic, China is not able to launch or recover aircraft from it. We take for granted the ability to launch and recover large aircraft, such as F-18s, from floating runways. In fact, the US was the only major power able to develop the steam catapult system required to get high-performance aircraft up to the necessary speed on a very short field. The Soviets compensated by using a VTOL aircraft, the Yak-38. It was a Soviet knock-off of the Harrier jump jet. The Yak-38 kill more Soviet pilots due to its inferior design and under-powered engine. Aircraft carriers are expensive, complicated pieces of technology. The advent of unmanned aerial vehicles makes this technology is an expensive endeavor to look like a super power. Aircraft carriers are also large targets out on the open sea and need support groups (consisting of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines) to protect it. The picture shows China is determined to become a super power able to project its presence globally. However, it may be pursuing yesterday's technology.

Fox News

Major battle in Syria

2011-12-12T07:24:00.001-05:00

Nine months and 4,000 deaths later, Syria is still attacking its people without any signs of slowing down. Reports also indicates that many of the attacks in the south are being conducted by Hezbollah. While the West is nowhere to be seen, it should also be noted that NATO or US intervention does not necessarily an improvement. Libya was under Gaddafi for 41 years. The Arab Spring combined with NATO airstrikes forced him out and into the hands of an executioner. However, it appears an even more severe government will take over with the Muslim Brotherhood solidly in charge.

Reuters

Iran releases video of downed U.S. spy drone–looking intact

2011-12-08T21:59:00.002-05:00

In a rather "revoltin" development, Iran has now posted a video showing what looks like a RQ-170 Sentinel drone. I can't help but draw an analogy to the 1960 downing of a U-2 spy plane flown by CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers.

The United States thought the incredible high operating ceiling of the U-2 made it invulnerable to Soviet air defense systems. The CIA began overflying the Soviet Union in 1956 but it took the Soviets about four years of overflights to formulate a plan. The U-2s were based in Pakistan. Although the aircraft operate at extreme high altitude (80,000+), they are relatively slow moving. The U-2 is essential a jet powered glider.

By having spies in Pakistan, the Soviets were alerted when Powers' U-2 took off. This gave them enough time once the U-2 was picked up to fire three SA-2s missiles. One scored a hit, Powers was unable to activate the aircraft's self-destruct mechanism. The Soviets gained a tremendous asset in both the aircraft technology as well as the political embarrassment of having captured Powers alive. The whole affair directly contributed to the Soviets placing SA-5 missiles in Cuba leading to the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962.

The United States called on Kelly Johnson (who had developed the U-2) to develop an aircraft that would not be vulnerable to Soviet air defense systems. That aircraft was of course the SR-71 which flew higher and faster than the U-2. It is interesting to note that not a single SR-71 was ever shot down.

If the Iranian video is real, then the United States faces a very similar situation (minus a pilot). The RQ-170 contains not only the latest surveillance technology in use by the United States, it also uses the latest stealth technology. It is also the most advance unmanned aerial vehicle in use. Iran may have gained one hell of a jump on the US and will now be able to design counter-measures to defeat our stealth and drone technology.

It also shows just how concerned the United States has become about Iran's nuclear program. Sending a state-of-the-art stealth drone may single to the Iranian government that the US or Israel are planning some type of military action. Unlike Iraq, Iran has no been waging a protracted war with the United States. Its military is at full-strength and may also posses a nuclear capability. The US military has been engaged in a ten year war on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan). A military conflict with Iran won't be easy and won't go quickly. The Obama Administration also needs to be concerned should they decide to attack Iran how Russia and China will respond.

Yahoo! News

Ex-leader: Khmer Rouge not 'bad people'

2011-12-05T07:23:00.001-05:00

Between 1975-79, Pol Pot lead Kampuchea through a social engineering experiment. He forced all of his urban residents into the country side to learn farming, in effect forced labor. Doctors, nurses, engineers, musicians, artists...basically anyone with education or training was forced to become a farmer. Those that did not comply were executed. It is estimated that from 2 million to as many as 5 million Cambodians were executed in the name of social engineering, placing Pol Pot on par with Hitler and somewhat below Stalin in the number of his own people killed. But apparently, they were not 'bad people' since it really was the Vietnamese (according to his second in charge).

Al Jazeera English

Iran Says It Shot Down Unmanned U.S. Plane

2011-12-04T20:50:00.001-05:00

Earlier today, Iran claimed to have shot down a unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) fly by the United States. The shoot down allegedly occurred near the border between Iran and Afghanistan. The drone that went down wasn't just any drone but the RQ-170 Sentinel which is a stealth aircraft able to avoid detection by enemy radars.

The attack was later denied by the US claiming while a drone did crash it was due to mechanical failure. An earlier report by Iran that they had shot down back in July proved false.

If the reports are true this time, it means the US has to rethink its stealth technology used in the RQ-170. More than likely, drones have been operating in Iranian airspace gathering intelligence on the potential nuclear weapons program bragged about by Ahmandinejad. The situation is eerily similar to when Francis Gary Powers U-2 was downed by the Soviet Union. The United States thought the U-2 flew high enough to avoid missiles but they were wrong. The presence of US drones in Iran indicates the level of concern Washington has about Iran's nuclear program.

The presence of the drones is likely to ignite further problems for the US after last week's attack in Pakistan that killed two dozen residents. Support for US forces in the region has waned and this latest situation more give more support to Iran.

WSJ.com

Sky News

Turkey announces sanctions against Syria

2011-11-30T21:51:00.001-05:00

"The sanctions by Turkey, one of Syria’s top trading partners, come as the Arab League and the European Union are enacting their own punitive measures — a triple blow that highlights the growing isolation of the Damascus government and that could significantly hurt Syria’s economy. In Washington, the White House commended the Turkish government for imposing the sanctions, which it said will “undoubtedly increase the pressure on the Syrian regime.”

Syria is one of the last holdouts from the Arab Spring which saw many longstanding North African and Middle Eastern governments falls to internal conflicts. Some such as Tunisia or Algeria occurred with little bloodshed while others like Egypt and Libya were violent conflicts last many months. The United States and NATO led the air campaign against Qaddafi's regime and aided the rebels in overturning his government. Many in both the Middle East and West saw the United States preparing to get involved in the Syrian crisis, perhaps as a prelude to an attack against Iran.

Bashar al-Assad was elected president of Syria in 2000 after the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad who had ruled Syria for 29 years until his death. While Syria has prospered under economic policies implemented by his father, Assad's reign has been plagued by charges of corruption, human rights violations, and economic collapse.

When opposition forces started to call for his resignation, Assad launched some of the most violent attacks seen during the Arab Spring. In one weekend alone, the Syrian military killed over 500 Syrian protestors. The violence is so extreme that the Arab League has called for Assad's resignation.

So why hasn't the United States started to drop GPS guided munitions all over Assad's palace? Well for two reasons. First, although some feared intervening in Syria would merely be a prelude for a US attack of Iran the risk of such of attack make it unlikely. The second reason was our friends the Russians are planning to send a battle group in response to the USS George H. Bush being on station off the shore of Syria.

Russia and China have both warned the United States not to become involved in the Syria crisis. The presence of Russian ships may be in response to US plans to expand a missile defense system into form Eastern Bloc countries or that Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia are being considered for membership in the EU.

Matters are getting worse. An airstrike earlier in the week by US forces resulted in two dozen Pakistanis being killed. Relations have deteriorated with our "ally" Pakistan. The attack could be used as a recruiting tool by radical Islamists in Syria. Turkey is after all a NATO member and their sanctions may be viewed as sponsored by the US.

We are going into the Christmas season with many Americans beginning their travels over the next few weeks. Terrorists may take this opportunity to attack Americans either abroad or at home.

The Washington Post

Russian Flotilla

AFP: Pentagon successfully tests hypersonic flying bomb

2011-11-18T07:09:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon tested a hypersonic vehicle that can strike a target anywhere in the world in an hour. While the Pentagon did not release the actual speed of the vehicle, a hypersonic vehicle by definition would be capable of speeds in excess of Mach 5. The new weapon is maneuverable unlike a ballistic missile meaning its flight path can be changed. I don't think the announcement of this test is no coincidence. Increased tensions with Iran makes this test especially important. Washington may hope this gives them the leverage to convince Ahmadinejad to back down.

AFP: Pentagon successfully tests hypersonic flying bomb

US officials worried about security at London 2012 Olympics

2011-11-14T08:10:00.000-05:00

There are many layers to this story. First the United Kingdom is no slouch when it comes to security and counter-terrorism. The Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS) have been used as models for other counter-terrorist groups (such as the US Delta Force). The UK government had to deal with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) bombings and assassinations for decades. New Scotland Yard has had to deal with a huge increase in criminal organizations that are as heavily armed as any American gang.

The United States complaints seem to have to deal with not enough security personnel by the UK. In response, the US is sending the FBI and diplomatic security. The response indicates the US government is much more concerned about retaliation either for the past Global War on Terror, the air campaign against Libya, or perhaps anticipated future hostilities with Iran. The choice of the FBI is intriguing. I understand the need for a law enforcement agency but I would have thought the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security would have been the preferred choice in this circumstance.

The United States is becoming more adept at straining relations with former allies. While I agree the 2012 Olympic Games pose some very grave concerns, embarrassing a long-standing ally does not make sense.

The Guardian

As Obama Talks Sanctions With Foreign Leaders, Lawmakers, Candidates Debate War On Iran | Fox News

2011-11-13T22:15:00.001-05:00

Okay, Leon Panetta is not one of my favorite beltway insiders. I think he rather uninspired thinker and as proof, recently named a Democratic Congressman to chair the investigations of the mortuary operations at Dover AFB only to have very same Congressman resign since he was already running for office! However, of late he has been making a lot of sense that President Obama chooses to ignore.

Secretary Panetta only three days ago warned that the proposed super committees recommendation to slash $1.2 trillion in the defense budget could result in aggression towards the United States. In Ohio alone (home to Wright-Patteson AFB), we could active duty military go from 8,000 to 1,000 (as though Ohio needs any more help with unemployment!). Panetta then sounded the alarm that any military action against Iran would at best slow their nuclear program by only about three years. Furthermore, the Sec Def feels (in my opinion correctly) that any strike against Iran would bring retaliation from the Persians (sorry, Iranians).

Given all of Panetta's calls for caution, it seems incredulous that President Obama would seek to continue to antagonize Iran with sanctions. Senator Lindsey Graham's words are just ridiculous. The United States does not need to go to war with Iran and does not need to condone Israeli strikes against Iranian targets. I entered the military at the height of the Cold War and spent most of my early years training how to defeat the Soviet threat. Iran does not pose that order of magnitude threat. And less we all forget, the only country to use nuclear weapons is the United States. If we did not drop the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, then the Soviet Union would not have felt compelled to pursue their nuclear weapons programs with such gusto (yes, I know how many lives are alleged to have been saved by dropping the atomic bombs). With the US and Soviet Union pursuing nuclear weapons, Britain and France followed suit along with North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and Israel (some say even South Africa and Germany). But the United States seems hellbent on stopping the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of the long term consequences.

Fox News

Panetta Iran Warning

Panetta Budget Cuts

Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions

2011-11-13T14:59:00.000-05:00

Ah, now here is a surprise (not!). Israel is not taking the threat of a nuclear Iran lightly. They most likely will be the first target of any Iranian nuclear attack. Therefore, Israel may just take out the Iranian nuclear program. Panetta and Obama want assurance that Israel won't do anything so rash. Needless to say, Israel is saying mind your own damn business. I don't see this situation improving at all.

Telegraph

Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base

2011-11-12T19:59:00.001-05:00

The photo above is not photo-shopped, that is a Grumman F-14 Tomcat painted with Iranian paint scheme. Once upon a time, Iran and the US were allies. Shah Pahlavi came to power after WWII and in partnership with the British created the Anglo-Persian Petroleum Oil Company (better known as BP today, minus the Persian part). The Shah was secular Muslim meaning he was very pro-West. The Muslim clerics was none too happy and opposed the Shah. The Shah maintained his power in no small part through his secret police (SAVAK). In keeping with other secret police agencies, SAVAK kidnapped, tortured and murdered any and all opponents to the Shah. The Iranian people grew tired of this crap and staged a revolution most notably by seizing the American embassy in Tehran. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The Shah fled into exile and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power re-establishing Iran as a theocracy.

The US and Iran relations have never been the same. The failed rescue attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) was a complete humiliation for US special operations (especially Delta Force) leaving a bad taste in President Reagan's mouth for Iran. He abandoned the former US ally in favor of one Saddam Hussein during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 (much as Hussein would almost a decade later with Kuwait). Iran regained much of the territory and for much of the war, Iran was on the offense. Hussein responded by using chemical weapons. Yes, dear children your read that correctly. The US was an ally of Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons. Now do you see why George W. thought in 2003 he would find weapons of mass destruction?

Meanwhile, Iranians were not that impressed with a theocratical form of government. The ayatollahs allowed the election of a secular president (who would take orders from them). The sixth and current president of Iran is of course Ahmadinejad. He is the least cooperative with the ayatollahs and is the most hellbent on creating a nuclear weapons capability for Iran. He idolizes the rich history of the Persian Empire and seeks to regain it through the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It is important to understand that the Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Therefore they are much more inclined to move unilaterally compared to an Arabian country.

Secretary Clinton recognizes this proclivity and has stated outright that the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran is unacceptable. Ahmadinejad counters by stating Iranian nuclear reactors are strictly for peaceful purposes. Israel is not buying it and has threatened a unilateral (read, non-US) airstrike to take the reactors out. Many (including myself) felt the air campaign against Libya was more of a cautionary tale for Iran than actually supporting Libyan rebels.

A few weeks ago, the US media was not buying a supposed plot uncovered by the Department of Homeland Security staring Iran (surprise!) sponsoring Mexican drug lords (another surprise!) to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US (who?). The plot was such a stretch that none of the cable news networks bought the story. It was quickly overcome by other stories and dropped.

Now the BBC is reporting this explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base. Perhaps I'm just jaded but I suspect we may find out US or Israeli special forces are responsible. Even if they are not, we may see Ahmadinejad claiming they were. May we live in interesting times.

BBC News

Prosecutors raid German arms maker Heckler & Koch’s offices over alleged bribes in Mexico

2011-11-11T12:11:00.000-05:00

While Eric Holder claims that the US Attorney General can't be expected to know about Operation Fast and Furious, one of Germany's arms maker seems to have followed suite. Heckler & Koch (H&K) produces some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world including the MP5, G3 and MK23. Their weapons are well made, heavy and the preferred choice of special operators around the world. The reputation and craftsmanship of H&K weapons are such that they command top dollar prices. A typical H&K USP in 9MM will run around $700 or more (a comparable Glock can be had for about $100 less).

It seems H&K executives may have provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels in part to drive up their overseas sales. The actions of both the US Attorney General and H&K are egregious but what is lacking is the outrage against these drug cartels. They are operating way above the law and thus far, the US has not called on the Mexican government to do more. The United States went to war over a single terrorist act but thus far, no outrage has followed the revelations about Fast & Furious. Yes, the BATF should be held accountable for their actions but what about the drug cartels themselves? How much longer are we going to tolerate this undeclared war?

The Washington Post

C-27J

2011-11-03T09:08:00.002-04:00

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told members of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday that he expects the Pentagon's strategic review to be complete by year's end. That review is likely to outline the fate of the Air National Guard's newest airlifter, the C-27J, which embarked on its first deployment to Afghanistan this summer. The service already has purchased 21 aircraft, with plans to purchase 17 more. However, that appears to be under debate as service leaders grapple with fiscal uncertainties. Schwartz said the "decision is not final" over whether to put the remaining C-27Js on the chopping block, but he added that such a move "would be extremely painful to me personally." He explained that he made a "commitment" to retired Gen. George Casey, former Army Chief of Staff, "that I would not do this deal with him and then back out." The C-27J was originally an Army program, but was later transferred to the Air Force. "That was two years ago, so I've got personal skin in this," said Schwartz. But, Schwartz also said that budget constraints are forcing the Air Force to look at reducing entire fleets, "not a few here and a few there.

The C-27J was procured to backfill the tactical airlift gap created by the culling of the C-130s from the Air National Guard. As Katrina proved, the ability of the Air National Guard to use C-130s to move materials into Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana was critical to restoring infrastructure and services. Despite this track record, the 2005 Base Re-Aslignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations was to cull most of the C-130Hs and C-130Js from ANG. The C-27J was a stop-gap to allow the National Guard some tactical airlift for contingency response and homeland security. Barely a year after the first C-27s were fielded, the remaining airframes are in jeopard of being slashed. Not only will these airframes never get purchased, there is no other option available to the states.

Ex-intel chief to Gaddafi wounded, raising more questions about handling of detainees

2011-10-27T23:29:00.000-04:00

The former intelligence chief to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi was seriously injured Tuesday while in the custody of the National Transitional Council, fueling concerns about the treatment of loyalists to the deposed government.

Just wait, this is only the beginning of the Islamic Jihad taking over in Libya and Egypt.

The Washington Post

Gilad Shalit freed in Israeli-Palestinian prisoner swap

2011-10-18T13:13:00.000-04:00

Israel has been known for some time as setting the standard for hostage negotiations and counter-terrorism. Therefore, the release of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners (many of whom were convicted of violent crimes) in exchange for one Israeli soldier seems completely contrary to their hardline stance. On the Israeli side, it will be seen by hardliners as appeasement and weakening of their position. To the Palestinians, it has to be a tremendous PR and political game-changer to have won such a large scale release of prisoners for a single Israeli soldier. The article does not make it clear why Israel was so interested in this prisoner or willing to release so many prisoners in exchange for his release. Secretary Clinton gives an oblique comment that she is happy Shalit's ordeal is over which begs the question, she isn't happy for the families of the Palestinians that were returned home?

I usually can come up with some rationale behind foreign policy or military decisions that are left out of the media. In this case, I am at quite a loss for a rational explanation. Sure Israel wants to get back their soldier but at such a steep price? He was only 19 when captured so it is unlikely he possessed some state secret Israel wanted to prevent from being revealed. He has also been in captivity since 2006, meaning he has divulged any secrets by now. It seems beyond reason that the Palestinians could have found some bargaining chip that would allow them to trade one prisoner for 1,000 but it appears that this may have been exactly what occurred.

The only clue may be that this deal was brokered by Egypt, the only Muslim nation to have normal relations with Israel. Israel and Egypt have not been getting along as well since the removal of Mubarak and the Arab Spring. The exchange may been more about appeasing Egypt than Palestine. If so, we may need to be more worried that the Egyptian Islamic Jihad may making a marked return to power in the land of the Pharaohs.

Gilad Shalit freed in Israeli-Palestinian prisoner swap

U.S. Accusations of Iran Plot Face Skepticism

2011-10-13T08:34:00.000-04:00

When this story first broke on Tuesday, it sounded very much like a major terror attack against the US had be thwarted. As the story developed, the story became the US thwarted an attempt by Iranians (contracted through a Mexican drug dealer) to attempt an assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US. The plot supposedly involved the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Coprs (Quds Force, an elite unit contained within), which would be like the SEALs or Delta Force plotting an assassination but getting arrested after arriving at the airport. The attempt was amateurish and not indicative of the Quds Force. The question of course is why?

The US and Iranian relations have been strained ever since the Tehran embassy was stormed and American hostages seized in 1979. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The Shah was deposed and the Ayatollah Khoemeni returned from exile to establish a theocratical government. Prior to these events, Iran was one of the main allies of the United States in the region. To this day, Iran still flies F-14s sold to them by the US. The US was so enamored with Iran that the CIA staged the coup allowing the Shah to assume power.

The 1990s did little to improve US/Iranian relations (remember Reagan was elected in large part because of Carter's inability to get the hostages release). The Bush Administration, hellbent on waging the Global War On Terror (GWOT), saw Iran as part of the axis of evil. Relations became even more strained as the GWOT hunted weapons of mass destruction, Iran's past dabbling with nuclear reactors became a major focus.

President Obama ran on a campaign on bringing the troops home and by implication, end the war on terror. The first signs he was going to keep his promise was when he reduced the troop strength in Iraq...only to immediately increase the troop strength in Afghanistan! Okay, fair enough as the Afghani campaign had been, in the minds of many experts, ignored. But then Secretary Clinton started to make statements about how unacceptable it was that Iran (now being run by Ahmadinejad) was pursuing a policy of acquiring nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad countered that US imperialism was cause for his country to be concerned and take appropriate measures.

If it seemed a stretch that the US would go to war with Iran, when Odyssey Dawn (the air campaign against Libya's Gaddafi) was launched it seemed more like a prelude to attacking Iran than supporting Libyan rebels (another country who used to a US ally in the 1960s). Syria, which benefits from its relationship with Iran, has been going through its own Arab Spring with Assad worried about his future. Unlike Libya, no air support means the rebels have not had as much success. Syria could be prove to be the catalyst to a much broader conflict between the US and Iran.

The attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador seems to be either a clumsy attempt by Iran to incite a conflict or the US looking for zebras whenever they hear hoof beats.

U.S. Accusations of Iran Plot Face Skepticism - NYTimes.com

‘Time short’ for eurozone

2011-10-10T08:09:00.000-04:00

"Time short" for eurozone according to David Cameron. The European Union was first formed in 1958 by six member countries. What we think of today as the European Union was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Today the EU consists of 27 countries.

What I've always found fascinating was the very concept of the EU is contrary to the history of Europe. The continent of Europe consists of some 50 countries which is a rather huge number given the land mass of Europe in comparison to Africa or Asia. Why so many countries? In short, because the various kingdoms and duchies did not trust one another. The lack of trust lead to the agreements that triggered the First World War. France and England did not trust Germany (which did not trust the former) which ultimately lead to World War II.

National pride has always been at the heart of Europeans. Don't believe it? Go watch Germans or Spaniards cheer on their favorite football (soccer to us) team. Pittsburgh Steeler fans don't even come close! Why then try to create an institution of transnationalism pretending that everyone likes and trusts one another?

The Greek economy has failed in a spectacular way and the EU is demanding Germany and France bail out the Greeks. Wars have been started over less and I think the Greek bailout (which would also lead to bailouts of Ireland, Spain and Portugal) would start more riots in Europe. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark that did not join the EU are dealing with declining economies as demand for their goods declines due to the drop of EU based economies. Increased shipping costs are also helping to reduce profits for the Europeans.

Americans know we have nothing to be smug about. Our jobs continue to decline despite huge injections of cash by the Obama Administration to create new jobs. The problem in the United States is not a jobs problem but stagnant growth. Companies will add jobs if there is more demand for their goods or services. However, to simply mandate the creation of new jobs is forcing more of employers to shut down or relocate. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue to offset the cost of two wars that have been waging for a decade. Now we see groups like Occupy Wall Street beginning to surface. They don't know what they want but they know what they don't like. Sounds like a recipe for riots to me.

FT.com

Libya, Egypt, Syria

2011-10-09T22:32:00.000-04:00

You get distracted by issues at work and things are both but much worse after the Arab Spring.

Seven months later, Gaddafi has been run out of town and rebels are have created a Transitional National Council. NATO has spent "hundreds of millions," according to a state from NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral Stavridis back in June. Despite an intense air campaign, it took rebel forces many months to route Gaddafi forces. We may see and even more dictatorial regime emerge as opposition forces look to oppress former Gaddafi sympathizers.

Egyptians threw out Hosni Mubarak during the Arab Spring but again with no real plan as to what to do once he was gone. A good study might be to ask why the United States stood around while the successor to Anwar Sadat and the leader of the only Arabic country to get along with Israel was ousted. Well one would have to look a little practice called rendition used by many countries but most recently the United States. Rendition means moving a suspect (usually a terrorist suspect) to a third country where other means of persuasion can be applied. Egypt was the preferred destination for those that the US wanted interrogated. If you think about that for a minute, a country that could interrogate (read, torture) other suspects might have acquired those skills by first using them on their own people.

Oh, Egypt was doing us a favor either. Most of those that were sent their through rendition were early al-Qaeda operatives (you know, back when we gave Osama bin Laden Stinger missiles to use against the Soviet Union?). Now the latest is 19 dead in clashes with the government that has taken over in Egypt. Unlike Libya and Syria, at least 10 percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians and are quite concerned that an ultra conservative Islamic government could take over.

Syrian leader Assad has been fending off rebels almost as long as in Libya but with different results. While former Libyan leader Gaddafi is on the run, Assad is still very much in control of Syria. Syria has warned against recognizing the rebels. Fighting has been intense but unlike Libya, Syrian rebels don't have the benefit of NATO air cover. Syria receives support and weapons from Iran which could be another reason the West has treaded much more lightly with this outbreak of the "Arab Spring".

What does the world get for all of the violence? It is difficult to say. It looks like France may have secured itself a choice seat at the table to discuss Libya's oil (which is around 2 percent of the world's production). If Egypt becomes more conservative, it means heightened tensions with Israel (security officers on both sides have been killed). Turmoil in Syria might mean some type of intervention by Iran (either overtly or covertly). Syria and Turkey have also been exchanging fire.

Secret panel can put Americans on kill list'

2011-10-07T06:52:00.000-04:00

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

Reuters

Was it legal?

2011-10-07T06:41:00.001-04:00

From the Palm Beach Post:

The killing of the U.S.-born Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki on Friday along with another U.S. citizen and two other Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen is likely to fuel the international controversy over the legality and wisdom of the Obama administration's dramatically increased use of drone attacks.

For several years, U.S. allies have made no public comment, even as U.S. drone strikes have killed twice as many suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban members than were ever imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. But that acquiescence may change, as human rights groups and the media debate the legality and collateral damage of drone attacks. The U.S. drone program has been highly effective in killing senior Al-Qaeda leaders, but the administration needs to better explain and defend its use of drones to avoid losing international support and potentially exposing administration officials to legal liability

The U.S. position, under the Bush and Obama administrations, has been that drone strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are permitted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, which empowered the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations, organizations or persons who planned, committed or aided the Sept. 11 attacks. The United States also believes that drone strikes are permitted under international law and the United Nations Charter as actions in self-defense, with or without the consent of the country where the strike takes place.

Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

2011-10-04T13:11:00.000-04:00

I don't necessarily disagree with what Ron Paul is saying here. The killing of thousands in the name of the Global War of Terrorism has not made the world safer. The Obama Administration dropped the term "GWOT" from their lexicon, then promptly sent in SEAL Team Six to execute Osama bin Laden. Make no mistake, the unclassified information shows that we knew where UBL (the Bush Administration short-hand) was for long enough plan a raid. We should have captured UBL and prosecuted him, instead he became a bullet-stop and was buried at sea. Historians will be analyzing and debating that for a long time. The case of al-Awlaki adds another component; no matter what he did or helped inspire others to do he was an American citizen. Are we watching the Obama Administration become the trigger-happy vigilantes they accused the Bush Administration of being?

POLITICO.com

Protests

2011-10-03T08:55:00.000-04:00

Back in May 2010, the Greeks started demonstrations and protests against austerity measures implemented to counter the debt crisis. The bailout of the Greek economy created more demonstrations and protests and none have so far created the desired result.

France has strikes and protests on a fairly regular basis. The French followed suite with the Greeks (plus the Irish, Belgians and Spanish) in protest of exploding deficits created by European Union (EU) policies. Unlike their non-Gaul friends, the French took protests to a new level. French rail and airway workers struck shutting down the country for several days. Like Greece, French workers have threatened rolling strikes to keep the pressure on the government and EU.

Not to be outdone by their Norman neighbors, the British most recently rioted in August when police fatally shot Mark Duggan in North London. Originally the impetus of this riot was poor relations between police and the local community but as the riot quickly spread, the economic impact became quite evident. The rioters were looting communities and organized crime had figured out that through social media, they could recruit thugs to help them out. The police simply could not respond fast enough to a flash mob striking multiple businesses at one time.

Most white Americans are descendants of the same European nations that have experienced riots and protests in the last few years that it seemed the United States (which was founded by a revolution after all) would eventually see some type of protest. We did not have to wait all that long.

While the news media followed a hunk of space debris falling from the sky, a group called Occupy Wall Street started to stage protests in the financial district. A core group of around 200 protestors has been able to orchestra demonstrations consisting of thousands of people. Over 700 were arrested this weekend when the protestors staged a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Protestors have assembled in as divergent areas as Albuquerque, Boston and Los Angeles in support of the core movement in New York. While exact demands remain vague, interviews indicate people are protesting over financial policies that are leaving more and more Americans in debt. Two weeks into the protests and the movement shows no signs of abating.

While terrorism takes the front page (see al-Awlaki, while an influential cleric he never did pose a direct threat), the Occupy Wall Street poses a far different problem. What happens when hundred or even thousands of protestors all organize and demonstrate at the same time? There aren't enough law enforcement officers in the country to handle such a situation. Even if there were, where would they process or lock-up all of the demonstrators? We may be seeing a similar situation developing here in the US that has been going in Europe for the last few years. Unlike Europe, we have a much larger population which is connected virtually.

Deaths in Yemen protest march

2011-09-19T07:39:00.000-04:00

Yemen, the site of the USS Cole bombing and training ground for Abdulmuttalab, continues to use violence against its own people. News coverage of Egypt, Yemen and Syria do not reflect the level of violence that continues. The Arab Spring was scene as a way of certain leaders, such as Gaddafi, to be ousted in the short-term. However in many countries the new governments are proving to be as oppressive as the previous regimes. Even where there has been no change, the protestors are meeting with increasing violence.

BBC News - 'They shot at him' - Deaths in Yemen protest march

Libya the day after

2011-09-15T08:44:00.000-04:00

The commander of US African Command, Gen Ham, has three fears as a result of Libya. First, Libya has a large stock pile of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Second is the large quantities of ammunition. Third, Libya has many of the components to make chemical weapons (even though Libya does not have chemical weapons).

When the Soviet Union fell, the stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons became available to terrorists and the black market. Inventory records either were destroyed or never existed so no one really knows what weapons may have found their way out of the former Soviet Union.

Gen Ham's concerns are another example of jumping into a conflict without a clear understanding of the implications. We do know who will follow Gaddafi as the new leader of Libya. Whoever that turns out to be will most likely be ousted as they will little traction. Now analysts are beginning to realize that no Gaddafi means no one is around tending to the store. The new regime is going to need funds to rebuild after the NATO air campaign. Selling the missiles and munitions could provide ready cash.

Shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles are low-cost and effective. You don't need to sneak in operatives and have them take flying lessons. Now a single operative, who could already be in-country, can now take a shoulder-launched SAM and down an airliner.

The general is concerned the cache of munitions could be turned into improvised explosive devices (IED). The munitions could be used as is to attack soft targets in the United States or embassies abroad.

Finally the components to make chemical weapons means rogue nations could find a ready supply. Chemical weapons are very difficult to deploy for small cell terrorist groups. Unless the weapons are manufactured by a qualified maker, the terrorists are at greater risk of being exposed to the weapon than the intended target.

All three of the general's fears are correct. Imagine had another course of action been pursued (like leaving things alone), this new threat to our security would be less or even non-existent.

The Ragged Ede

2011-09-13T09:55:00.001-04:00

Air Force isflying "at the ragged edge." The Marine Corps is not equipped tohandle a contingency if it were to arise in the Pacific theater. And, the Armydoesn't even have enough resources to fulfill some of its "most basicneeds," warned Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), House Armed Services Committeechairman.

Yet a newly formedcommittee has until Thanksgiving to come up with $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillionin savings or an automatic cut will kick in that will decimate the US military,said McKeon. "Fifty percent of the mandatory cuts associated with the[automatic] trigger are from the Defense Department. Fifty percent. That's adeeply unbalanced number with defense accounting for less than 20 percent offederal spending,"

While I admire the Congressman's frankness, he doesn't list some big ticket programs that could be a huge step in reducing DoD spending. The F-35 is the most expensive acquisition program in the history of the U.S. armed forces. According to the Daily Tech, the program is pegged at somewhere in the $380 billion range and the costs keep moving upward.

The tanker replacement program to find a new air refueler will cost at least $25 billion just in the first phase. There has already been on very costly scandal involved in finding a replacement tanker. I have no reason to believe this version won't have cost overruns as well.

Why am I picking on the USAF? Because the F-35 and KC-46 programs are a legacy from the days when manned aircraft were how we fought air wars. The 21st Century has shown us the efficiencies of unmanned aerial vehicles. They cost less to operate than manned aircraft, they can remain on station for much longer periods of time, they don't risk the lives of pilots, they can operate from the most austere locations, and they don't require air refueling.

Instead of looking to cut manned aircraft programs (while increasing drones), Secretary of Defense Panetta wants to restructure military retirements.

In contrast to what both the Secretary Clinton and Panetta have said about China, Rep McKeon said the Pentagon's recent report toCongress on China's growing military was "face whitening." The report"outlined a country that is emboldened with a new-found military might anddrunk with economic power," said Rep. Buck McKeon, "For thefirst time in history, Beijing believes that they can achieve military paritywith the United States."

China has the production capacity to far out produce the US military industrial complex. Trying to match their capacity is a game we will lose. Ah but we have the technological advantage some may argue.

In our pursuit of reducing costs, we have outsourced much of technology to overseas companies. The risks of this practice are only now being realized by cyber analysts who point out malicious hardware and codes could be built into our cellphones and other electronic equipment. Our imagined technological advantaged could be zeroed out by the push of a button.

The US has been at war for ten years and both the troops and the civilians are growing tired. China on the other hand hasn't had to devout serious amounts of resources to a war since World War II.

The Obama Administration needs to realize the rest of the world is not impressed with us. We have lost whatever competitive edge we enjoyed. The drop in the S&P bond rating and squabbling over the budget have show just how tenuous our economy is to the rest of the world.

If the military gets hacked down to pre-9/11 levels, we won't have the time to ramp back up if we are attacked. Reducing the budgets needs to include a plan that recognizes that our next conflict could be the last.

Swedish Police Arrest Four Terror Suspects

2011-09-12T08:16:00.000-04:00

Sweden arrested four terrorist suspects on the eve of 9/11. Their intended target was an old heating plant that had been converted to an arts center. Sweden has been focused on radicalized Muslim terrorism but with the advent of Anders Breivik (the Norwegian right wing terrorist/mass murderer), experts started to look out for similar groups. The Swedish government has released few details about the four suspects. The attack may have been related a Swedish cartoonist who in 2007 drew the prophet Mohammed.

According to Fox News, this wasn't the first attack by a Muslim suspect. In December, suicide bomber Taimour Abdulwahab blew himself up in downtown Stockholm among panicked Christmas shoppers, injuring two people.

The latest case from Sweden shows that terrorists are opportunists and will attack targets they perceive to be "soft". It also shows that attacks can be thwarted without resulting in the country becoming a police state.

Fox News

Economics

2011-09-10T08:54:00.003-04:00

You don't have to blow anything up to be a terrorist. By just threatening to attack, you can force your target to spends millions, and even billions, on counter-measures.

Transit authority police are patrolling Penn Station in New York armed with assault rifles. Wow, they must be preparing for an invasion along the lines of "Independence Day" or "Battle Los Angeles". Then I read this on MyWay:

Late Wednesday, U.S. officials received information about a threat that included details they considered specific: It involved up to three people, either in the U.S. or who were traveling to the country; a plan concocted with the help of al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri; a car bomb as a possible weapon and New York or Washington as potential targets.

New York City has mobilized a brigade-sized force to intercept three terrorists that may be armed with a car bomb. I saw the terrorists are winning just on economics. Yes, I agree NYC and Washington DC need to protect their citizens and visitors but the reaction is too cumbersome. The footprint is too obvious and goes beyond a show of force. We need a nimble response that can easily flow from one type of threat to another, one that doesn't cost the equivalent of the GDP of Mozambique.

Some future historian will write about the Global War on Terror and wonder why the United States spent billions of dollars to ostensibly hunt down one man. It took ten years to find him and then he was essentially shot on sight. If that was the goal all along, why was it necessary to mobilize the entire US military at the cost of thousands of lives?

I'm not that future historian. I'm trying to figure out if we aren't being snookered by a very small group into providing a huge response and costly response. What if the attackers are heading to Chicago? Detroit is right across from Windsor, Canada and has one of the largest Arabic populations in the United States. Detroit is only a few hours by car from Chicago which happens to be the hometown of President Obama.

Or what about LA? Los Angeles has Hollywood, a symbol of Western influence abroad. Los Angeles also has fewer police per capita than New York City (the most recent numbers I could find were from 1998; 55 per capita in NYC versus 26 per capita in LA). The weather is far milder and the border with Mexico provides a means of ingress or egress for the attack.

Analysts can sometimes over analyze the past and create an assessment that looks like the terrorists will repeat the same behaviors. Perhaps they will try to attack NYC or Washington DC but why? Those targets have already been hit. Even a moderately successfully attack on another city would create a far greater psychological impact.

A "specific, credible but unconfirmed threat"

2011-09-09T10:02:00.001-04:00

Dilemma, Catch-22, Hobson's Choice, Morton's Fork, double bind...all of these terms apply to the latest warnings from DHS and the White House about an al-Qaeda threat to New York City or Washington D.C. on eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The fact there is a threat should come as no surprise to anyone. People are fascinated by anniversaries that are a factor of 5, so the 10th is much poignant than say the 9th or 12th. All any would-be terrorist needs to do is come up with some detailed plan and leak it to the authorities. Bam! You know put the authorities into the classic dilemma of damned if you do or damned if you don't.

The authorities know that there is little real chance of an another 9/11 scale attack against NYC or DC. There are just too many resources focused on there now to make any attack successful. However, they can't afford to become lax and thus allow an otherwise ineffective effort to become successful. A threat to one of those cities could also be a feint and the real attack could happen elsewhere. There are many targets that do not have New York or Washington zip codes.

A number of events earlier this year have come together to make the 10th anniversary of 9/11 an especially intriguing date. Osama bin Laden was killed, Gaddafi was ousted and Libya bombed, the Arab Spring, Syria/Turkey/Israel/Egypt all shooting at each other, and the falling of the US bond rating are all rallying points for a terrorist cell to attack.

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who killed 69 people, identified himself as a Christian and slaughtered his fellow Norwegians because his country had become too liberal towards Muslims. The attack should have served as a reminder to analysts that it doesn't take a radicalized Muslim to become a terrorist.

Eric Robert Rudolph committed a series of bombings throughout the South from 1996-1998 ending in the Olympic Park bombing that killed two and injured 150. His motivations for such crimes? Abortion.

The real target of any terrorist attack is not the victim but the survivor. More people die each year in the United States from the flu then did in the WTC bombings. But which group gets a memorial? That's the point of a terrorist attack.

The other part is to cause the government to spend money and resources in reaction. New York City is spending huge amounts of its budget to add additional patrols (including air and maritime) to prevent an attack. Imagine what a fraction of that money could do for public works or social services! The terrorists are driving our priorities.

As the 10th anniversary draws near, we need to keep things in balance. While NYC and the Pentagon were in a state of chaos, the sun still rose and many people went to work on Sep 12th just like any other day. Be careful out there but don't let the potential threat cause you to make drastic changes. After all, you are at a far greater risk of being killed by a drunk driver than being a victim of a terrorist attack yet you are still driving. Keep it in perspective.

Fox News

Turkey

2011-09-06T07:54:00.002-04:00

Want to know why relations between Turkey and Israel are strained?

In May last year eight Turkish nationals and an American of Turkish descent died on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the six-vessel convoy taking aid to the Palestinian territory of Gaza, in a raid by Israeli special forces in international waters. The U.N. reports did nothing to diffuse the situation by on one hand criticizing Israel for excessive force but then saying it Israel was right to impose a naval blockade to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. Turkey has not blacklisted Hamas as a terrorist group (Europe has making Turkey's attempts to join the EU difficult). Last week, Turkey announced that Israeli ambassador Gaby Levy was being expelled and all bilateral military agreements were suspended as it angrily rejected the findings of a United Nations probe into the deadly flotilla raid (source: Sydney Morning Herald). Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced a total freeze of military and trade ties with Israel and threatened to visit Gaza as the one-time allies' diplomatic spat intensified.

Want to know why the United States has been silent on the issue?

The State Department last week announced that Turkey will host a ballistic missile defense radar in support of NATO's efforts to defend its European member states from attack. "The United States welcomes Turkey's decision," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a Sept. 2 release. Stars and Stripes reported that the United States hopes to set up the AN/TPY-2 transportable X-band phased-array surveillance radar at an undisclosed Turkish military site by year's end. The radar will link to Navy's BMD-capable Aegis ships that will operate in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the US Phased Adaptive Approach BMD architecture that will help protect Europe. Both Poland and Romania already have agreed to host US missile interceptor sites later this decade as part of the PAA. AFA Magazine

Forward-based radars enhance the missile defense system’s capability by adding precision in tracking and cueing interceptors against incoming missiles. Radars are capable of detecting ballistic missiles early in their flight and will provide precise tracking information for use by the missile defense system. This approach provides overlapping sensor coverage, the potential to extend ballistic missile defense system battle space, and to complicate enemy's ability to penetrate defense system.

The United States and NATO cannot create a ballistic missile shield without a presence in Turkey. Dealing with Turkey whenever its interests diverge from US policies becomes difficult. It is far easier to just ignore our Eastern ally and hope they can peacefully settle things on their own. Of course, that was before the Syrian government crackdown that is driving thousands of Syrians into Turkey.

Jihadists plot to take over Libya

2011-09-05T09:04:00.000-04:00

Back in February, we had only begun to think about the "Arab Spring". I wrote a blog about pan Islamism and with Gadhafi out of the way, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) may be trying to make it a reality.

U.S. officials said spy agencies are stepping up surveillance of Islamist-oriented elements among Libyan rebels. A government report circulated Tuesday said extremists were observed “strategizing” on Internet forums about how to set up an Islamist state in Libya after the regime of Col. Gadhafi is defeated.

I've wondered who would replace Gadhafi and what the government would look like. Western governments felt the transitional government would be superior to Gadhafi's regime. Of course, since Gadhafi has so successfully crush any opposition that likelihood of it succeeding is low. It simply does not have the infrastructure and history to keep itself in power. So the question becomes, what follows? It appears the LIFG (which according to the Washington Times has ties to LA Qeada), is thinking about creating an Islamist state. Even just the discussion of such a government could embolden efforts in other countries such as Egypt.

Some future historian or foreign affairs analyst will be able to answer, what was the point of taking out Gadhafi? Especially since neither the United States or the European Union had a plan beyond getting oil rights.
Washington Times

Scott AFB

2011-09-02T08:58:00.003-04:00

Officials are still trying to figure out why two US postal workers and an airman became sick while handling mail early Wednesday at Scott AFB, Ill. All three were sent to the hospital and later released after "experiencing adverse reactions to handling mail," according to a base release. Fourteen others were decontaminated on site. The postal center, education center, bowling alley, information tickets and tours office, and the airman family readiness center all were evacuated. As of Thursday afternoon, the postal center remained closed; however, officials had reopened the surrounded buildings. Bio-environmental specialists at Scott and explosive ordnance disposal technicians "found nothing of significance at the official mail center," although US postal inspectors continue to investigate. "Our personnel are safe and the buildings in which they work have been declared safe and we will proceed with normal business tomorrow," said base commander Col. Michael Hornitschek. He added, "We view this as an isolated incident that could have happened any particular day in any particular mail center" in the Air Force.

I was stationed at Scott AFB during the mid to late 80s. Even today, it still sits out in the middle of a corn field. Unlike say Andrews AFB (which is basically on the beltway in DC), the area around Scott is rural. The incident should serve as a reminder that incidents can occur anywhere.

US Troops Will Pull Out By Year's End

2011-09-01T08:47:00.001-04:00

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said his country has no intention of asking the United States to extend its military presence in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline to withdraw all 46,000 remaining US troops, reported Agence France Presse. "The agreement on the withdrawal of American forces will be implemented on schedule by the end of the year, and there will not be any bases for US forces here," Maliki told Al-Ittijah TV channel in an interview, according to AFP. The United States will still continue to work with the Iraqi military under a post-2011 training mission that leaders of both nations have approved, although no details have publicly surfaced yet. AFA Magazine

Fungible

2011-08-31T09:34:00.001-04:00

fungible: adj; being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation.

That's how Adm McRaven describes special operations forces and more importantly, the decision to use the counter-terrorism SEAL Team Six to back up the Rangers last month. The result was the deaths of 17 members of the elite Navy Seals, 5 members of a Naval Special Warfare unit that supports the Seals team, 3 members of an Air Force Special Operations unit, 5 members of an Army helicopter crew, 7 Afghan commandos and a civilian Afghan interpreter.

The new commander of Special Operations Command is facing criticisms from both special operators and military strategists about last months raid. Admiral McRaven is holding to "fungible" as justification for putting an elite team as back-up. Yes, the SEALs can do this but is this the best use of their skills? The questions McRaven is dodging is when the mission was being planned, why did the planners go with an elite team to back-up the Rangers? There are many other units (with more firepower), as well as artillery units, that should have been in the planning process. Perhaps a limiting factor was no other units were available to back-up the Rangers. If so, why send them in to what appears more and more to have been an ambush.

In addition to the 38 lives that were lost, the US Special Forces community lost many seasoned operators. You can't just run out and replace that kind of skill set.

I also wonder if the planners did not get snookered into thinking the Rangers would be meeting a much less lethal force. Gen Custer is remembered for the Battle of Little Bighorn. Most high school students, if they study the battle at all, will simply say Custer and his forces were annihilated. What they don't realize is that Custer was a veteran of the Civil War and Indian Wars. He was a West Point graduate, a good strategist and field officer. There were numerous errors but it came down to under-estimating the threat. Custer split his forces up and failed to consider the superior numbers and firepower of his enemy (the Cheyenne and Lakota Sioux had Henry repeating rifles. The soldiers had single shot carbines).

President Carter learned the risks associated with using helicopters to attempt an infiltration of special operators to rescue the American hostages in Tehran. Eight helicopters came in from the USS Nimitz. The fine sand caused one to crash and another to turn back. Six helicopters reached therendezvous point. The decision was made to abort the mission. A hot refueling (engines running) on the ground (very dangerous!) was attempted between the C-130 refueler and one of the helicopters. A combination of wind and sand caused the helicopter to crash into the C-130. Both aircraft were lost and 8 Americans were killed. The remaining helicopters were now stranded without fuel.

Military officers and senior NCOs study these events and yet we continue to repeat the same mistakes. Inserting or extracting troops with helicopters is always risky. Helicopters transition from "aircraft" to "ground target" quickly. It is at those times the mission is at greatest risk to mortar or artillery fire. Bombard the landing zone with artillery and mortar fire and you may score a hit. The Chinook in this case fell victim to that other weapon, the shoulder launch surface-to-air (SAM) missile. The same tactic that brought down Soviet Mi-24s in the Afghanistan and US Blackhawks in Somalia. It will continue to be an effective tactic for the foreseeable future.

Admiral Defends Use of Navy Seals Unit in Fatal Raid - NYTimes.com

Russia, China resist U.N. Syria sanctions

2011-08-27T08:47:00.002-04:00

"Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa have repeatedly complained that the NATO intervention in Libya has gone far beyond the U.N. mandate approved by the council in March to protect civilians from violence by the government. They say they do not want the same thing to happen in Syria."

There are many more things at play here than Syria. Russia sees US influence on world affairs weakening. The Russians are going to continue to strike down US/European proposals in the future. It also doesn't hurt that Syria is a major buyer of Russian arms.

China continues to be a surging economic threat to the US and with the downgrade of the US bond market, China sees no reason to support a weakening superpower. The Chinese are also building their first true aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, and anti-shipping missiles. The United States debt prevents any real discussion of building weapon systems to counter these threats.

Finally, while France and the US may have no use for Gaddafi the rest of world sees the UN intervening in another country's affairs. We really have no idea what Libya is going to look like in a few years but whatever happens, it will be because of US/NATO intervention. The rest of the world is growing weary of such actions with Russia and China being in the best positions to do something about it.

Reuters

China Update

2011-08-25T08:07:00.001-04:00

"The People's Liberation Army is on track to build a completely modernized force by 2020, according to the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on military and security developments in China, released Wednesday. As such, its air force continues to use the US and Russian air forces as a model to transition from a limited territorial defense to a more agile and flexible force capable of operating in both offensive and defensive roles offshore, according to the report. It says that the January flight test of the J-20 "highlights China's ambition to produce a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes, advanced avionics, and super-cruise capable engines over the next several years." The PLA also is upgrading its B-6 bomber fleet, originally adapted from the Soviet Tu-16, with a longer-range variant armed with a new long-range cruise missile. In addition, China possesses "one of the largest" forces of long-range SAM systems in the world, thanks the acquisition of multiple SA-20 PMU2 battalions over the last five years and the intruduction of the HQ-9. Moreover, Chinese industry is designing "several types" of AWACS aircraft, including the KJ-200, based on the Y-8 airframe, and the KJ-2000, based on a modified Russian IL-76 airframe. "

From Air Force Association Daily Update

France and the new deal

2011-08-24T07:45:00.002-04:00

Reuters is reporting "France and its partners at the United Nations are working on a draft resolution that would enable Libyan assets to be unfrozen and sanctions to be unlocked, a French diplomatic source said on Wednesday.

So European colonial powers (albeit former) are still dictating what happens in North Africa and the Middle East. Perhaps I'm wrong but the European Union has not demonstrated the ability to tell anyone what to do.

Reuters

Libyan numbers

2011-08-24T07:08:00.002-04:00

I had been using the number of 1,300 killed and 20,000 injured the siege of Tripoli. However, Breitbart is reporting;

"Four hundred people were killed and 2,000 wounded in three days of fighting between rebels and forces loyal to Moamer Kadhafi in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the head of the rebel council said Wednesday."

These number seem low given the use of airpower to support the rebels. I suspect this may be a downplay on the actual carnage.

Turkish bombing campaign against PKK signals shift in strategy

2011-08-23T19:57:00.001-04:00

I just finished my last post about Libya and mentioned Turkey when this story caught my eye.

The Kurds occupy an area consisting of Northern Iraq, Southern Turkey, Western Iran and parts of Armenia and Georgia. The Kurds are not Arabic (they have their own language) and really have no place to call home. The governments of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Armenia basically have no use for the Kurds. After Desert Storm, Turkey and Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) agreed on Kurdish problem. Iraq would move their artillery up to the 38th parallel (the star of the northern no-fly zone) and shell Kurdish villages. The Kurds would be driven back into Turkey who had a hot-pursuit agreement with Iraq and could fly into Northern Iraq to strike the PKK. Oh, and the US was part of OPERATION PROVIDE COMFORT which was supposed to protect the Kurds (except for the Turks who were letting coalition forces stage at Incirlik).

Now 20 years later, the Turks and the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) and having more disagreements. As you can see from the map, the Kurdish problem could create an interesting cooperation between Turkey, Iran and Iraq. The presence of Turkey in NATO raises the ugly question, does an attack by the PKK on Turkey constitute an attack on NATO? If so, what will NATO's response be?

CSMonitor.com

Thoughts about Libya and Syria

2011-08-23T19:26:00.004-04:00

In our race to liberate Libya from Gaddafi, some Western leaders forgot that Libya (as the rest of North Africa) really doesn't look or act like a Western democracy. Most of the countries of Africa have borders formed not be tribal or ethnic boundaries but by former European powers. Many different groups are confined within these national boundaries (often still harboring decades or centuries old grudges).

Gaddafi and Hussein were brutal in part because they had to get these divergent groups to work together. Iraq consists of three different groups; Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. It was easier to terrorize all equally than to workout out some type of compromise. Gaddafi successfully ran Libya that way for 40 years. Getting rid of Gaddafi does not mean Libya is going to become a democratic utopia in North Africa. Quite the contrary, the factions that were squabbling with Gaddafi will start to squabble with each other.

One of Gaddafi's sons stands to become either the next ruler of LIbya or leader of the revolutionary faction that will topple whoever follows Gaddafi into power. Nothing has really changed and actually Libya may follow Iraq into a destabilized, squabbling mirror of its former self.

Ambassador Rice is now taking Syria to task and wagging her finger at them as is to say, see what happened in Libya? It can happen to you! But there is a difference that the secretary seems to be ignoring. Gaddafi was very much a lone wolf in North Africa subsidizing his regime through supporting international terrorist groups (such as the Provisional IRA). In contrast, Syria is not a lone wolf and very much is under the influence of Iran (which provides funding and arms). Unlike Libya, Syria can deflect at any time its own domestic problems by starting a war with Israel. Israel is already experiencing problems with Egypt and having to deal with issues on two different fronts would be challenging even for the Israelis. Or Syria can pick a fight with Turkey and watch other Middle Eastern nations rise up against NATO.

Change is not always a good thing. Sometimes things change for the worse.

US Military Intervention in Libya Cost At Least $896 Million

2011-08-23T08:22:00.000-04:00

At least according to ABC News' Luis Martinez, $896 million is the cost of US operations in Libya. The U.S. has also promised $25 million in non-lethal aid to the Libyan Transitional National Council. And what has the US purchased for this? Two elder sons who are in custody (one of which may have been promoted to celebrity status as a result of his incarceration), Gaddafi is still at large, and at least 1,300 dead in Tripoli. The actions have done nothing to stabilize the post Arab Spring movements in Egypt and Syria. Yet Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is carping about how expensive it is to run military retirements. I wonder how many retirements could have been covered for the $896 million it has cost thus far for Libya?

ABC News

Libya

2011-08-22T09:02:00.003-04:00

At least 1,300 people have died as rebel forces invaded Tripoli. Another estimated 20,000 have been wounded. Gaddafi's two eldest sons are in custody. President Obama is now calling for Gaddafi to step down. The President has been referring to this as a new age for Libya.

Gaddafi has ruled Libya for 42 years. Ruthless and intolerant of opposition, he also has modernized Libya. Rebel forces (backed by the US and France) decide to overthrow the Libyan government as part of the Arab Spring back in March. This lead to the United States providing air support but the lack of support at home lead to NATO taking over the lead.

So what do we get for all of this? We have yet to hear who will replace Gaddafi. For those who may be too young to remember, the US backed another regime change in Iran resulting in the Shah taking over. This was such a popular decision that the Iranian people, who had grown tired of being tortured and killed by a US puppet, that they stormed the American embassy. The Shah was thrown out and Ayatollah Khoemeni took over setting the stage for a far more belligerent Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Gaddafi was no friend of the US but had certainly mellowed since 9/11. Whoever takes over in Libya will be seen as a puppet of the US and Europe. Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess. Iran has become a theocracy with a decided bent towards nuclear weapons. Syria has warned against any outside military intervention as it deals with its post Arab Spring situation.

I just don't see where replacing Gaddafi by backing the rebels was a prudent idea that will produce any strategic gains.

Al Jazeera

Egypt and Israel Back Away From Diplomatic Crisis

2011-08-21T08:11:00.001-04:00

As many as three Egyptian security officers may have been killed by Israeli warplanes. The incident follows exchanges of fire in the Gaza strip. Egypt and Israel maintained peace between their countries as a result of Anwar Sadat and the Hosni Mubarak who took over following the former's assassination. Just because Mubarak got along with Israel did not reflect his domestic policies. Mubarak was forced out and now facing charges. The Egyptian movement that forced out Mubarak wants to change all of his policies including his stance with Israel. The situation escalating and along with the potential fall of Gaddafi could become a flashpoint for even more violence.

NYTimes.com

Assailants launch multiple attacks in Israel

2011-08-18T09:10:00.000-04:00

The story is still developing as I write this so the long range implications are hard to predict. Israel was originally 7,000 sq miles until after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War at which time the territory expanded to its current 20,000 sq miles. At heart, this is what has driven much of the conflict. The territory acquired by Israel in 1967 is considered to be part of Jordan by most of the Arab world. As Israel was at war with Egypt, today's attack has profound symbolic roots for both sides.

The Associated Press

Radical overhaul of military retirement eyed

2011-08-17T09:01:00.002-04:00

No one gets rich in the military. In an all-volunteer force, the point is to serve your country. Of course military troops have to eat and have a roof over their heads so they get paid. Before we start looking to cut retirements (50 percent of the highest base pay received while on active duty), it might be a little illuminating to understand how little troops are paid in the first place.

Since the SEALs have been making the news, let's at the pay of an E-6, Petty Officer 1st Class (PO1). He had to have been in the Navy for at least three years in order to tryout for BUDs (25 weeks), this in addition to recruit training (8 weeks) and skills training (2-4 months). Some sailors such as medics will receive advance training of another 3-6 months depending on the school.

The physical requirements to be a SEAL are well documented. Consider this though, what would an Olympic caliber athlete, sharpshooter and parachutist earn? Using the 2011 pay charts and our example of a PO1, base pay would be $3,192. If he is married he gets another $888. He gets $250 extra for being on jump status plus $340 for dive status. A petty office 1st class SEAL then receives, for all of the training and skills, around $56,000 a year.

Compare the PO1 salary with Ryan Mundy who was a safety with the 2009-2010 Pittsburgh Steelers. He was one of the lowest paid Steelers an received $310,00 per year. A professional athlete, playing a game in which he certainly could be hurt but is not facing enemy fire is paid nearly six times what an elite Navy SEAL is paid.

Unlike most professional athletes, SEALs are expected to have a 20 year career (it takes almost 10 years before a regular SEAL is ready for SEAL TEAM Six). How many professional athletes have a career that spans that long?

My example focused on a Navy SEAL that qualifies for the maximum in incentive pay. You basic troop at the same rank does not get jump or dive pay. Their annual salary is around $48,000 for defending their country.

Patriotism can overcome only so many injuries and separations from family and friends. Earning that military retirement (a guarantee for the military member and 55% for their spouse in the event of the retiree's death) is the one incentive that keeps troops training and re-enlisting when in other careers people would have left to write their memoirs.

The government and Pentagon needs to leave the retirement alone, otherwise they can forget about retaining troops past their first or second enlistment. If they go to a 401K type system, the government will still end up spending money in increasingly larger signing bonuses and other incentives to keep troops in. Come on Leon, you can do better than this.

CBS News

What's going on in the world?

2011-08-16T22:06:00.002-04:00

I attended a beer tasting event last week put on by Hoperatives. After a couple of porters, a fellow attendee admitted she was not able to keep on what was going on in the world through our local fishwrap. In particular, she asked if we were still involved in Libya.

First the US and then NATO has convinced themselves that a country of 679,362 square miles (source: National Geographic) can be tackled with merely airpower. Even in the 21st Century, aircraft are not a persistent presence and minus that regime change is difficult. Add the large land mass of Libya and airpower alone will not win the conflict.

Libyans have a saying, "mia, mia" which literally translates to "100 percent". They are found of saying that now indicating more of a "everything is just fine" even after months of bombardment to target one man. NATO is claiming "significant advances" according to a CNN article that you can find at the end of this entry.

Pro-Ghadaffi forces have been hammered (along with innocent bystanders) for months. NATO does not have the long logistical tail of the United States and can't keep bombing Libya indefinitely. Victory has to be declared before NATO forces run out of bombs (the British have come dangerously close to running out of cruise missiles). NATO may be wanting to call it a day more than any real gains through its air campaign.

The question still remains who wanted regime change? By all accounts, Gaddafi has done a fantastic job over the last 40 years in preventing even the merest hint of opposition. If Gaddafi is asked to step down, then who has the political infrastructure and savvy to takeover?

Elsewhere as the American press continues to inundate us with pictures of President Obama's bus tour, another Middle Easter nation continues to rip its own throat out. Anti-government protestors have been fired upon by Syrian authorities. Several videos have been put up by CNN showing the attacks and a horrifying image of a young girl killed by a bullet through her eye. If Gaddafi is worthy of a sustained air campaign, certainly Syria is worthy of some kind of military intervention? I've posted a link to Al Jazeera that details the violence from a Middle Eastern perspective. Syria and Turkey are also shooting at each other and the last time I checked, Turkey is still a member of NATO. What happens when the alliance (NATO in this case) gets attacked? Perhaps this is why NATO is trying to quickly declare victory in Libya.

The S&P dropping of the US from AAA to AA+ bond rating caused most news outlets to ignore a truly amazing story. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell on Wednesday accepted responsibility for two devastating oil spills in the Niger Delta which lawyers say have destroyed the livelihoods of a fishing community. (Source: Yahoo News).

Americans watched in horror as the Deep Water Horizon spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. What most Americans don't know is in 2008 and 2009 there were oil spills off the coast of Nigeria that made ours look like a picnic. Nigeria produces 2.2 million barrels a day (source: CIA Factbook) ranking it as the 14th oil producer in the world. Despite that production, less than 20 percent of the profits produced from oil is received by Nigeria. Most of the profits go right to Royal Dutch Shell.

While looking up data on Nigeria, I discovered the the world leader in oil production is....not a Middle Eastern country (or even Venezuela). The world leader in barrels per day of oil is Russia. A little known story is the amount of oil that is produce in Azerbaijan. In 1898, the Azerbaijani oil industry exceeded the U.S. oil production level. At that time, approximately 8 million tons were being produced. In 1901, Baku produced more than half of the world's oil (11 million tons), and 95 percent of all Russian oil.

This long history may explain why Putin has decided to pursue a Eurasian economic union. Basically it is a re-imagined Soviet Union based on capitalism. There are good to be traded and Putin is rightly concerned, in my opinion, about the emerging Chinese economic juggernaut. The American and European economies are stalling and Putin knows he has the one thing China needs, oil. Creating a Eurasian economic union is the only way to keep Russia relevant economically relevant in the future.

Libya

Syria

Nigeria

Russia

Pakistan lets China see US helicopter

2011-08-15T08:10:00.001-04:00

The Financial Times is reporting that Pakistan has shared the tail section of the stealth helicopter used on the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.

The SEALs smashed the avionics and used explosives to destroy the fuselage but according to the FT, the tail section landed outside the compound. It was this act that has fueled all manner of speculation to the type of helicopter used and whether the team on board may have been killed.

The report illustrates the relationship with Beijing is much stronger than with Washington. For some reason, both the US government and media try to portray a positive relationship with Pakistan. History does not support this. During the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the CIA sold sniper rifles and Stinger missiles to mujahaieen. After the Soviets left, Pakistan showed North Korea the Stinger missiles and traded the sniper rifles for new batteries to power the missiles.

Islamabad has been portraying the US military of late as a secretive, uncooperative tenant that indiscriminately kills Paksitani citizens. The US can't fight the Taliban with ground forces unless it maintains a presence in Pakistan. By sharing the helicopter section, Pakistan shows the relationships have gone from cold to strained. The US may have to end operations in Afghanistan not because the Taliban has been defeated but the relationship with Pakistan is too complicated.

FT.com

Britain burns the colour of ‘A Clockwork Orange’

2011-08-13T09:43:00.001-04:00

Guatam Malkani takes a unique approach to understanding the riots in London. The London riots have been attributed to either rage against the establishment (held by the left) or the result of hip-hop culture (held by the right).

These two uninspired rationales look at the world as though political motivations explain everything. The UK has started to cut social services as a means of balancing their budget. To the left, this was the reason for people to riot as an expression of protest against reduced services. The argument loses credibility when you see the rioters are plundering their own neighborhoods and not destroying the more affluent neighborhoods. The alienated attacking the disenfranchised makes no sense as a political protest.

The right saw all of the use of words such as "feds", "see a fed, shot a fed", "5-0", and other texts as proof American hip-hop culture had ruined British youth. The language in London is a mish-mash of British, American and Jamaican colloquialisms. Most of the colloquialisms have nothing to do with hip-hop and more to do with sounding cool or using a slang term from one's background. Hip-hop is a convenient way for the right to demonize something into a sound byte. It is also easier politically to blame hip-hop then it is materialism (which much closer to what we saw in the news videos).

Malkani compares the riots to "A Clockwork Orange" in which bored young people engaged in the most decadent violence not out of political protest but because they were bored. Both the UK and US have an astounding level of wealth even for those that are considered impoverished. Don't believe it? Western definitions of homeless mean people who don't have a permit residence but thanks to social services can still receive some subsistence. In parts of Africa and Asia, everyone is homeless in the sense they lack a permanent residence but they receive NO subsistence from the government. Citizens of those countries are too busy trying to survive to become bored. Western citizens can receive welfare or steal what they lack from their neighbors.

The number of bored young people in the United States is not known but we can assume quite large. It is this boredom and lack of purpose that leads to the violence we see in London and see in snippets here in the US. There is little empathy and much apathy. Flash mobs can easily become mobs as they both take advantage of people feeling anonymous (until they replay the video). Philadelphia has already had to establish a curfew to deal with mobs attacking people. The Wisconsin state fair suffered a similar situation with flash mobs of apparently African-American youths attacking fair goers.

Technology allows these alienated (to use a Marxist term) youth to connect quickly and plan a mob before law enforcement can react. The London riots have been on the news and will inspire others to copy their tactics. The US with a drop in bond ratings is prime for more of these flash mobs to turn into full blown riots.

FT.com

Philly curfew

Riots and Social Media

2011-08-10T09:38:00.000-04:00

The L.A. Riots. The 2001 Cincinnati Riots. The riots following Hurricane Katrina. Now the 2011 riots of London.

According to Webster's on-line, a riot is "a violent public disorder; specifically: a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with common intent". In all four cases, there was widespread violence by large groups of "persons" intent on looting and destruction.

Riots usually start with a singular event. In the case of L.A, Cincinnati and London it was police violence. Hurricane Katrina left its own swath of destruction taking out public safety agencies as well. Rioters in all cases were originally "outraged" over the response (in the case of the first three) or lack of response (in Katrina) by authorities.

The beating of Rodney King being caught on video tape and shown on cable TV lead more to the riots than the actual incident itself. Millions saw and reacted to L.A. police officers repeated striking Mr. King with batons. Some people who were legitimately outraged took the streets in protest. However, the majority of rioters had no idea what had happened and seized on the opportunity to loot and destroy neighborhoods. The part technology played in these riots was only the beginning. Law enforcement agencies had to take into consideration the proliferation of video cameras and how quickly videos could get on the local news.

The fatal shooting of Timothy Thomas by Cincinnati Police in 2001 set off four days of rioting. The Cincinnati riots exploded due the presence of rioters from outside the city who used cell phones and radios to coordinate their actions. Mobile communications combined with the aforementioned video cameras made Cincinnati the poster child for what happens when race relations are ignored. (Note, the lessons learned from those riots turned things around to where Cincinnati successfully hosted the NAACP national convention, the LULAC national convention, the Elks and the Prince Hall Shriners.)

Hurricane Katrina makes land in 2005 and basically shuts the city of New Orleans down. Hurricanes do not discriminate. They will destroy the homes of police and doctors just as fast as someone who is unemployed. New Orleans police suffered the same fate as their fellow citizens. Their homes were flooded and destroyed. The police stations were flooded. The radios did not work because all of the power was out throughout the city. Looters quickly figured out that alarm systems as well as the police were down for the count. The news showed images of people pushing shopping carts with filled withe high-end electronics (apparently the lack of power did not diminish the desire for big screen TVs). Unlike L.A. and Cincinnati, the lack of power and cellular services prevented looters from better coordination.

Now London is making headlines for another police shooting resulting in a fatality. Like L.A. and Cincinnati, the incident was in a poorer neighborhood where relations with the police are already strained. The reaction was to riot (not an uncommon practice in London). What is unique about these riots is the use of social media (Facebook and Twitter) to recruit hoodlums to areas for looting. This should come as no surprise given that social media creates "flash mobs". Most of these are the silly ones with people breaking out in dance in the middle of a mall or train station. But it does take much to use the same principle to recruit a mob for a nefarious purpose.

The AP article makes much about the economic crisis facing Britain and the cuts to social programs may be part of the reason for the widespread looting and violence. I submit that might be the excuse but in reality there is always those that are looking for an excuse to join in a group and engage in anonymous behavior. They lack the courage or wit to act alone but will follow a group right off the proverbial cliff.

There will be a outcry for regulating social media but those demands miss the flip side to what is going on in London. Many law abiding citizens are using Facebook and Twitter to help law enforcement pinpoint where the next riots are likely to breakout. Social media is like any other tool, it has no inherent "good" or "bad". It comes down to the intent of the users.

News from The Associated Press

Seemingly unrelated

2011-08-09T09:40:00.003-04:00

First, the Navy SEALs and Colorado National Guard are mourning their losses after a Chinook was shot down in Afghanistan this weekend. It frustrates me to learn that the SEALs were part of SEAL Team Six and were being exfiltrated after assisting a Ranger unit. This same scenario happened in Somalia in 1993. Why was a very high-value asset like SEAL Team Six being used to back up the Rangers? We have close air support, attack helicopters, Reapers, Predators, and good old fashioned artillery. We won't know the real details but on the surface we used to wrong asset for the wrong job and a bunch of special operators got killed.

Helicopter air assault hasn't changed much since Vietnam. On the inbound or infiltration you may get in fast enough that the enemy doesn't have time to coordinate an attack. On the exit or exfiltration you run the risk that the enemy knows a team is on the ground and is looking for the helicopters. They can radio each other to set-up a quick cross-fire with RPGs, shoulder launched SAMs or simply automatic rifles. A helicopter lifting off is easy to hit and with concentrated firepower you can bring it down (see Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Somalia in 1993, and most recently the helicopter extracting the SEAL team to hit Osama bin Laden).

SEAL Team Six has been well documented since killing Osama bin Laden. It takes years of training to ready for that team. We lost the lives of some of the most highly trained men in the world. In addition to the loss to their family and friends, the US lost 20 of the most highly trained special operators in the world. Their use in this mission suggests either desperation or a complete lack of understanding of how to use Special Operations. In either event. this is not going unnoticed by the enemy.

At the same time, a seemingly unconnected event occurred this weekend. The US lost its AAA rating in the S&P for the first time in history. That means the US has a lower rating (AA+) than Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

In another spectacular move of either ignorance or desperation, President Obama keeps Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. No, the lower rating in the S&P was not Geithner fault however keeping him (when he was talking about leaving) means President Obama does not see anything wrong with US economic policies.

The Tea Party is blaming the President and Democrats. The President is blaming the Tea Part and Republicans. We are now in crisis mode, the question is not how we got here but how are we going to get back to a AAA rating. Keeping Geithner is symbolic in that the US does not see where it had made an errors. Geithner is already calling S&P essentially ignorant in their downgrading of the US.

So how are these two events connected? Both the downing of the Chinook and US bond rating show the rest of world that the US is vulnerable. We are militarily vulnerable as 10 years of continuous operations has stressed our forces and reduced the lifecycles of our weapons systems. The new F-22s have been grounded so long that pilots have lost their proficiency (MR) and to recertify. The bond market shows a decided lack of confidence in the US economy contrary to what President Obama may say. China has already suggested that other countries dump the dollar. The Chinese economy continues to be a juggernaut that is now set to become the largest world economy by 2016!

Russia is watching the US continue to slip in its influence with China ascending to dominancy. Putin does not Russia to take a backseat but has been unable to turn his oil fields into the gold equivalent to the Middle East. Iraq has demanded the US completely remove forces by the end of 2011.

I really don't subscribe to the theory that 2012 is the end of the world. However, I do recognize that with a bond rating that has dropped, a depleted military, and problems such as riots in London, many will believe the world is ending and will act accordingly.

Iran revolutionary guards commander becomes new president of Opec

2011-08-04T09:06:00.000-04:00

While the world watched a lone gunmen murdered over 60 people, other developments continued unfettered. Iran taking over as president of OPEC at a time with relations with US at an all-time low does not bode well for the price of oil. The US narrowly missed defaulting for the first time in history just a few days ago. The markets are still quite skittish and consumer confidence is not where President Obama needs it. Even a small increase in the price of oil could have a devastating impact on the US economy. The relations between the US and Iran has been hot for last few years and if cooler heads do not prevail, we could see a conflict over oil.

Egypt and Libya are still unresolved. If you read something other than Western media, you will see a different take on the events in Libya. It makes you wonder if NATO will be able to bring about a regime change through aerial bombardment (and by the way, who really asked for Gaddafi to step down?). On a related note, the Pentagon is trying to cut its budget (again) which means fewer troops and weapons in the future. The US State Department has quietly been pursuing a private security force in what seems to be an attempt to offset the reductions at the Department of Defense.

If the State Department does pursue private contractors (mercenaries), then we can see further deterioration of relations with the Middle East. Unlike the DoD, the State Department does not fall under the War Powers act. Private forces could be use and would be subject to any of the restrictions imposed on our military.

guardian.co.uk

U.S. Military Serviceman Arrested in Alleged Attack on Fort Hood

2011-07-28T10:23:00.001-04:00

One AWOL soldier (and perhaps more later) has been arrested in Killeen, TX outside of Ft Hood. Details at this point are unclear if this was a legitimate plan or the rantings of a disgruntled soldier. Ft Hood was the site of an attack by Nidal Nissan who killed 13 and wounded 30 back in 2009. Ft Hood is home of First Arm West and the First Armored Cavalry Division amongst other brigades and regiments. Ft Hood is a large base and has a huge on base population of soldiers, civilians, and contractors.

Security on any given military facility starts outside the wire with passive detections systems alerting military police of approaching threats. At the gates, military police or contract security personnel check IDs. Depending on threat levels, vehicles may be physically searched before they are allowed on base.

Once past the security perimeter, things look much a city with roving military police patrols. Other than MPs, no one else on base is permitted to be armed. Someone like Nissan could have brought a weapon on legally to fire at the range. Once inside the perimeter, he could then start shooting people.

The latest incident at Ft Hood raises some questions for the military. The most obvious source of problems is the stress brought on by many years of deployments. Soldiers are taken away from their families and friends for a year at a time where they are exposed to danger and violence. Upon returning home, a difficult supervisor or bad appraisal could be all it takes to set in motion a violent attack.

The military tends to look out very well but looking back inside is still overlooked. Our surveillance systems are top notch and are designed to look at what's coming. We have very little capability to look back at what might already be here.

The last ten years have been grueling on all branches but the Army and Marines the most since they engage in close quarter combat. I don't think we truly understand what repeated deployments has done to our service members. I still maintain we know even less about the effects on female military members who have been in combat.

The other problem is what we just saw in Norway. Andres Breivik committed the greatest mass murder in the history of modern Norway. He posted several pictures of himself as a commando and decorated military officer. According to everything I've been able to research, Breivik was never in the military and actually had an exemption from military service. The pictures then show a "wanna-be" who fancied himself as a military here to legitimize his self-esteem.

Even in the US military, we have the wanna-be who never deployed or was never in combat (you vets know who I mean, the guy that claimed he went to the Q-course but can only score a 180 on his AFPT). These are the ones the military tends to forget about. The returning soldier from a combat area is screened and their battle-buddies (or wingman in the USAF) helps support and look out for them.

The wanna-be is left feeling jealous of the real combat veterans. They may invent some ridiculous fantasy about their record. For the most part, that's where it ends. Others however start to deteriorate more as teh gap widens between their fantasy world and reality.

The wanna-be exists outside the military as well. The guy who pretends to part of the local SWAT team or who has been secretly trained in the lost ninja arts. For the most part, we can safely ignore these people. However, every once in a while the wanna-be isn't satisfied with mere fantasy and we get the Andres Breivik reaction.

I'm sure neighbors and friends would describe Breivik as a nice guy. Translated, he didn't say much and kept his grass cut. We don't need to start getting paranoid of one another but in these times, if someone makes you feel uncomfortable you may want to pay a little more attention.

FoxNews.com

Conservatie extremism

2011-07-25T10:08:00.001-04:00

Sometime towards the end of the Cold War, the term "narco-terrorist" was coined to link the drug cartels with terrorists (Marxist/Lennist groups lost a major sponsor when the Soviet Union fell). Somewhere between the Pam Am 103 bombing and 9/11, we started to hear of radicalized Islamists who were Muslims with a tendency to commit violent acts against the West.

Labels make it easier to identify groups with similar behaviors and to direct intelligence activities. The shortfall is when you are looking for "radicalized Islamists" you tend to overlook activities that do not fit into that label. To further exacerbate this weakness, funding is often tied to the label so activities that aren't related to say "radicalized Islamists" don't get funded.

Now there already is a new term, conservative extremists which is different (according to the Financial TImes) from radical right-wing terrorism. Radical right-wing terrorism is primarily a political ideology represented by groups such as neo-Nazis. Conservative extremists are motivated by theology (conservative Christianity) as well as political ideology (pro-Israel). The combination of religious and political ideology sets this new groups to be diametrically opposed to Islam.

"Conservative extremism" explains why Breivik is from a Scandinavian country. According to the Financial Times article (linked at the bottom), "In addition to Norway’s Progress party – of which Mr Breivik was a member – the anti-immigrant Danish Peoples’ party, the rehabilitated neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats, the True Finns, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and France’s National Front have become electoral forces in recent years.
Norway and the Nordic countries have in the past had relatively large neo-Nazi movements. While the Sweden Democrats have been able to enter national politics, most other groups have faded over time."

Breivik wrote a 1,500 page manifesto which borrows heavily from Ted Kaczynski's manifesto (the Unabomber). He seems to be trying to link his motives to other groups yet most of the conservative Scandinavian groups have disavowed him.

Right wing violence is nothing new to Europe but Scandinavia has managed to keep activities primarily as political. Breivik may come to symbolize the current generation that are not satisfied with projected means of resolution, they want their iPad 2 now! Whatever his political leanings, it is obvious that Breivik felt the political route was too long and cumbersome and turned to the more expedient route of violence.

In one sense, he was correct. We may never have heard of political activist Breivik outside of Norway. The whole world has heard of Breivik the terrorist.

FT.com

Norway attacker was a political Terminator

2011-07-24T14:58:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Quimbob for sending me this link. As often happens, we want to focus on the terrorist and lose focus on what might else have been at work. In this case, the Utoya camp was not so much a summer camp as a political training camp. At least one witness mentioned in a CNN interview that he only became politically active after attending this camp.

Eighty-two of Norway's future political activists have been killed. The media will make this out to be a lone gunman without considering the political motivations for his actions. This is not excusing it, just adding more dimension to what will inevitably will become a cliched terrorist in the minds of the media.

The picture of him in Masonic dress is also misleading. He may have been a Mason at one time but we don't know if he is still in good standing or may even have been expelled. Unlike in the US where Masonic lodges follow either Scottish or York rite, Norway follows Swedish Rite. The Swedish Rite demands members be Christian and not just that they believe in a supreme being. That is consistent with reports that he is a fundamentalist Christian.

Daily Kos

Police aren't ruling out more suspects in Norway attacks

2011-07-24T08:28:00.000-04:00

CNN is reporting that the police are not ruling out more suspects in the bombing. One of the reports about the incident referred to Anders Behring Breivik as a "lone nut". The media and conspiracy theorists have never been satisfied with the lone gunman theory dated back to the Kennedy assassination. It doesn't mean it isn't possible, just that we have a hard time accepting a lone perpetuator of mass violence (although TV and movies portray this very scenario all of the time).

In the same manner, security experts and intelligence analysts are looking for the Islamic connection. You just can't be a terrorist these days without being part of Al Qaeda or some other radicalized Islamic group, don't you know. Of course if comes to pass that Breivik is not part of an Islamic movement, he can always be cast part of the right-wing extremist movement.

The Internet is flooded with a picture of Breivik in Masonic regalia. The conspiracy theorists are salivating at this "proof" of a Masonic/Illuminati connection. We don't even know at this point if Breivik was really a Mason or if he just posed in Masonic regalia. One report claimed that all of Breivik's photos on his Facebook account (and I'm assuming the Masonic picture as well) were all uploaded only a week before the bombing.

The Norway bombing and massacre now has the rest of the world thinking that it isn't just radicalized Islamic terrorist groups you have to worry about, now anyone could be a terrorist. And after all, isn't that what all terrorists want us to worry about?

CNN.com

The New Face of Terrorism?

2011-07-23T10:07:00.004-04:00

CNN is running this picture of a suspect in the Norway bombing and shootings. As of now, 91 are dead in the Norway attacks. One of the targets was a youth camp where around 600 were attending. The suspect dressed as a policeman opened fire and killed 84 campers in a shooting spree that witnesses say lasted nearly two hours.

Norway has been throughout most of the 20th and 21st centuries are neutral country more known for its fiords than for invading countries or persecuting minorities. Like much of Scandinavia, Norway is a progressive country with very liberal policies towards immigration. The openness towards immigrants may have be the motive behind the attacks.

The last time Norway had been at war was during the Nazi occupation. Since then, Norway has been a very peaceful place to visit and live. The attack had the kind of success most terrorists can only dream of; an almost paradise wrecked by violence against children. The media and governments will be pontificating about the events for weeks.

The attack comes less than two months from the ten year anniversary of 9/11. It seems ominously coincidently and will have both security professionals as well as conspiracy theorists conjecturing on the timing. Gun control advocates will be beating their drums for disarmament and the NRA loyalists will be launching counter-attacks. DHS will be revamping screening procedures and will be asking for more money to purchase high-tech equipment to detect future attacks.

At the end of the day, none of that would have mattered. At least one person (perhaps more) attack a soft target and was successful. We cannot fortify every single summer camp, little league baseball game or high school football game. If someone wants to commit violence, they will find a way.

The Norway attack stands as a stark reminder that even in Utopia, violence can strike. Oh and it doesn't take a radicalized Muslim either!

Terror Warning Warns of Insider Threat to Infrastructure

2011-07-22T08:20:00.001-04:00

"A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks." ABC News

On one hand, it really is no surprise that Al Qaeda may already have operatives here in country. It was the same way 10 years ago. The targets mentioned in the ABC article are also no surprise. Water system have the potential of effecting the largest number of people. Nuclear power plants have been in the news lately since the Fukishima disaster. Their safety records and reports of violations make them even likelier targets for attack.

What is surprising about this report is since her appointment, Secretary Napolitano has been stressing border security. This then raises the question of how effective was her efforts to secure the border? The Obama Administration seems schizophrenic on this issue having DHS on one hand stress the need to secure the borders but the rest of the administration fighting for less strict immigration policies. You can pursuit both without essentially neutralizing both.

We are less than two months away from the tenth anniversary of 9/11, more reports will surely surface claiming another plot. The challenge is going to be remaining vigilant without becoming panicked or cynical.

ABC News

British force in Afghanistan was 'unacceptably' weak: report

2011-07-18T10:35:00.001-04:00

As I've said before, military officers and NCOs in the US armed forces are required to attend and graduate various professional military education requirements throughout their careers. Over and over, officers and NCOs hear how battles were lost because the political leadership would not support going in with more troops. The incidents portrayed in "Blackhawk Down" were the result of the Clinton administration refusing to send in armor to support the ground forces. Vietnam holds multiple examples of civilian leaders in Washington D.C. selecting targets for the military in theater. The Bush Administration sent Marines into Iraq hundreds of kilometers beyond their doctrine and logistical lines could support (fortunately the Iraqi military did not present much resistance).

Now this report shows the British were sent in too light to handle Afghanistan. The results were high casualties.

Colin Powell believes you should only send in the military when all other options have been exhausted. Once you decide to send in the troops, you need to send them in so overwhelmingly that not only is victory assured but your enemy will regret ever resorting to war. Waging war on the cheap, or trying to minimize the presence of forces, only results in troops needless dying for no gain.

Yahoo! News

Not Our Problem

2011-07-18T08:11:00.003-04:00

Ever wonder how the Department of Defense ends up spending millions or even billions of dollars over the original plan? Read on;

Not Our Problem: Boeing's decision to aggressively price its KC-46A tanker proposal—to the extent that the company expects to lose money in developing the aircraft for the Air Force—is not disconcerting to the Defense Department, said Pentagon acquisition executive Ash Carter. "It's not our problem because it's a fixed-price contract and it was written with the protections for the taxpayer," stated Carter last week during a Brookings Institution-sponsored symposium on the defense budget in Washington, D.C. Boeing is under a $4.9 billion fixed-price incentive firm contract to develop the KC-46A tanker and deliver the first airplanes by 2017. The company is liable for all costs above the $4.9 billion ceiling. Carter said the fixed-price contract mechanism means that the Pentagon is not left "open-endedly liable" if the costs do exceed the ceiling. Thus, Boeing's strategy of losing money in development "in the hopes of making money in the production phase" is "not a problem from the department's point of view." Carter gave the keynote address during the July 15 event.

Does someone who holds degrees from Yale and Oxford, as Dr. Carter does, really believe the DoD isn't going to pay for this underbid later in systems upgrades and modifications?

TSA warns of surgically implanted bombs

2011-07-06T22:25:00.000-04:00

TSA efforts seem to always focus on some type of explosive. First we had the shoe bomber and then the liquid explosives scare with Abdulmuttalab providing the exception that proves the rule.

I'm not certain how likely inserting explosives under the skin is in reality. It seems like a great way to kill a would be terrorist by messing up the procedure. Even if the procedure works, you still risk the human bomb prematurely detonating.

A far more likely scenario, and one TSA is not able to detect, would be a terrorist who has been intentionally infected with small pox. The individual could fly into say Chicago O'Hare and then proceed to touch as many passengers transiting through the terminals as possible. Passengers would not show signs until much later by which time numerous others would have been exposed. No risk of the bomb going off too soon. Zero chance of being detected by TSA.

UPI.com

Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities

2011-07-05T09:53:00.000-04:00

A quick history lesson seems in order.

World War II was the inevitable result of the First World War. The result of WWII was the Cold War. The United States set itself up as one superpower when it ended the war with Japan by dropping two atomic bombs. The USSR was diametrically opposed and escalated its own nuclear weapons program. The two former Allies would now become opponents in a non-shooting war that would last over 4 decades.

The Cold War came very close to becoming hot in 1962 during the Cuban Missile crisis. Otherwise, nuclear weapons were built to intimidate the other side into not using theirs. The Cuban Missile crisis lead in part to President Kennedy's support and use of special forces. Special forces can be used quickly and inexpensively compared to conventional forces. Inserting a few teams runs a much lower risk of inciting a full blown war.

The Cold War can be called an arms race but it wasn't until President Reagan that this strategy could be masted. President Reagan struck on a bold strategy of breaking the Soviet economy by forcing them to spend more and more of their capital on weapons and personnel. His "Star Wars" strategy was more about getting the Soviets to believe then to field any weapons. The Soviets bought into "Star Wars" and spent money they really didn't have in trying to counter it. Eventually, the Soviet Union goes bust in 1991.

Nature abhors a vacuum so the Cold War gets replaced by the global war on terrorism. Unlike the Cold War, the Global War on Terrorism lacks two opposing superpowers. No superpowers, no arms race or at least so it first appeared.

The United States led the way technologically, much as it did in WWII, this time using drones. Drones take the same elements of special forces (quick, inexpensive, and low risk) and add the elements of airpower. Having an unmanned aircraft on high altitude orbit with precision guided munitions is a very intimidating platform. As no troops are involved, politicians and Constitutional scholars will be locked in arguments as to whether or not the President needs Congressional approval to launch a drone strike.

The US has been unwilling to sell armed drones or the technology to anyone other than their closest allies. Drones are affordable for most nations to develop. China, India, Russia, to name a few, see the market potential are beginning to fielding armed drones.

The Washington Post article points out a potential of this new arms race. Unmanned drones makes it much easier to start shooting at someone without committing troops. Without troops, is it really a war?

Drones can be launched without risking the loss of troops meaning public outrage will be low to non-existent. An unmanned drone, unless it gets shot down, will be hard to identify the country of origin. Even if found, did the Chinese really use it or simply another country that bought the technology?

Drones introduce another problem. Manned aircraft need to operate from airfields or carriers. This means radars and satellites have time to detect the flight path. Drones can be launched from almost anywhere and can fly under most radars near the ground clutter. Satellites can only see the drone if they are looking at that particular part of the earth and may not have enough time to pick it out amongst ground clutter. A series of small drones launched against a major city could be devastating.

Star Wars showed drones as clumsy walking robots that could not hit the broad side of a barn with automatic fire. Real drones are flying weapons platforms that can strike anywhere, anytime.

The Washington Post

Boarding Pass Arrest: Nigerian Who Slipped by Airport Security a 'Storyteller'

2011-07-02T11:37:00.000-04:00

ABC reported this story on Thursday. TSA protocols are at best a one size fits all strategy to detecting potential threats. Since 9/11, the concern has been to prevent another hijacking involving the use of explosives. The emphasis allows other threats to slip by such as fake credentials. TSA screeners are more focused on what the passenger is carrying versus their intentions, demeanor or even apparently their credentials. The focus on content versus intent has lead to the embarrassing reports of children being patted down or elderly women being humiliated. The passengers were not cooperating in revealing their contents or submitting to a search. There appeared to be at no time realization by the screener or supervisor that there was no intent by these passengers.

Watch police officers who walk a beat. They are able to dismiss background noise from people on the street and focus in on those that are or have committed crimes. The TSA scanners need to learn this street cop approach. Gaddafi is threatening attacks in Europe but the United States could just as easily be attacked. In Butler county (just to the north of Cincinnati), there was an arrest of a teenager thought to be part of an international cyber terrorist network.

There are threats out there but I'm not certain if current TSA protocols are nimble enough to stop them.

ABC News

Air Force and Navy flying thousands of missions over Libya as Obama says U.S. is only playing a limited role

2011-07-02T10:03:00.001-04:00

First, a correction. I've been referring to the air operation over Libya as "Odyssey Dawn" but since NATO has taken over the correct title is "OPERATION Unified Protector". Odd how after weeks of reading about Libya this was the first article (at least that I've read) that made a point of using the correct name.

According to the Mail Online, 'Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.'

The Obama administration will take great pains to point out how few were actually strike sorties. What will get overlooked is the cost associated with maintaining that kind of OPSTEMPO (while still maintaining air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plus all of the air refueling missions to support aircraft transiting between the states and the AOR). The numbers also show that with the United States, NATO has some serious gaps in their ability to perform air suppression and ISR missions. Air suppression requires specialized aircraft and munitions so these relatively low numbers may in fact be much more expensive. The ISR or intelligence-surveillance-reconaissance missions are primarily flow by drones but the US has only a limited number of these aircraft. Most are deployed in Afghanistan. Being unmanned does not mean these are inexpensive to operate. The sensors and downlinks are quite expensive to operate and maintain. Having a drone auger into the ground is a very costly risk, especially for a non-US operation.

The taxpayer may never know the true cost of "Unified Protector" but as the old saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Mail Online

Defiant Gaddafi threatens Europe

2011-07-01T20:04:00.000-04:00

Gaddafi's manic behavior and various costumes make it easy to dismiss him as a nut. He has remained in power for over 40 years and as the Al Jazeera article points out, his troops have withstood 15 weeks of NATO airstrikes.

Well he must surely be full of himself if he thinks he can attack the European continent, right? During the early 1980s, Gaddafi was looking for anyone who can teach his operatives about radio controlled bombs and found the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). In exchange for teaching Libyan terrorists about radio detonated bombs, the PIRA got access to Libyan training grounds. It is hard to imagine that over the years Gaddafi let his European contacts fall to neglect. His threats should be taken very seriously.

Al Jazeera English

U.S. drone targets two leaders of Somali group allied with al-Qaeda

2011-06-30T09:09:00.001-04:00

OPERATION RESTORE HOPE began on December 8, 1992 with the Unified Task Force (UNITAF). UNITAF included U.S. and allied troops working together in one task force, but under U.S. and not UN direction. RESTORE HOPE tried to establish peace between the two warring Somali warlords General Muhammed Farah Aideed of the Habr Gidr subclan and Ali Mahdi Mohamed of the Abgal subclan in Mogadishu.

The failure of this operation was depicted in the movie "Blackhawk Down". There is one part in the movie about a third of the way through were the Somalis take out a US Blackhawk with a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) shot to the tail rotor. The movie does not explain the real significance of this tactic.

US Blackhawk helicopters are amazing aircraft but for all of their ability, they are not armored. Why then did the Somalis shoot at the tail rotor rather than the much larger fuselage?

In the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Soviets brought a weapon the battle-hardened Afghanis had never had to face; the Mi-24 helicopter. This is a huge gun ship and it is heavily armored. The rifles the Afghanis had would not stop the Mi-24 which lead Osama bin Laden to obtain Stinger missiles from the US through the CIA. The Afghanis learned firing the missiles or RPGs at the tail rotor had the highest probability of downing the helicopter. A helicopter becomes aerodynamically unstable without the tail rotor.

The events in "Blackhawk Down" therefore show a tactic that was developed by the mujahideen (the pre-cursor to al Qaeda) being used in Somalia. The following quote from today's Washington Post should therefore come as no surprise:

"The airstrike makes Somalia at least the sixth country where the United States is using drone aircraft to conduct lethal attacks, joining Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. And it comes as the CIA is expected to begin flying armed drones over Yemen in its hunt for al-Qaeda operatives."

Targeting terrorists from the air versus the ground was favored by the Clinton Administration. On Aug. 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured.

In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Both targets were believed to have been financed by wealthy Islamic radical Osama bin Laden, who was allegedly behind the embassy bombings as well as an international terrorism network targeting the United States. (source: Info Please database).

Unlike President Clinton, President Obama does not have to rely on cruise missiles that introduce the possibility of striking civilians (often referred to as "collateral damage"). President Obama can rely on a much more accurate weapon, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The picture at the top is of the current MQ-9 Reaper that is replacing the earlier Predator model. The Reaper was intended from the start to be a hunter/killer unlike the Predator. It can stay on station longer with more ordnance at higher altitudes. UAVs also means a President can skirt the political hot potato of the War Powers Act. A limited military operation (i.e. using drones) seems to fall outside the purview of Congressional approval (at least according to the politicians). Drones, like cruise missiles before, provides the ability to conduct strikes at targets without risking the lives of US troops (as well as risking a President's ability to get re-elected).

As the Washington Post points out, we are now shooting targets in six different countries. With the exception of Pakistan, none of the others have nuclear weapons. We are also supposedly partnered with Pakistan, although striking ground targets with drones is probably a quick way to wear out a welcome.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration starts to use drones in other scenarios such as Syria or Iran.

The Washington Post

How much will our wars cost?

2011-06-30T00:12:00.001-04:00

A new report out of Brown University estimates that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--together with the counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan--will, all told, cost $4 trillion and leave 225,000 dead, both civilians and soldiers.

Basically the population of Reno, Nevada has been killed in the wars. Despite much posturing by the Obama Administration, the wars aren't going to end anytime soon. Plus we now have Libya and potentially Iran.

Yahoo! News

Iranian Situation

2011-06-29T10:44:00.005-04:00

Syria and Egypt continue to experience violence between the government and citizens creating potential flash points in either country.

In the meantime, Iran presents the most destablizing scenario of any Middle Eastern country. President Ahmedinajad, through a series of political missteps, faces the very real possibility of being forced to step down. Nepotism and narcism have left the President in a untenable position opposite the powerful Ayatollah. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been the only Middle Easter countries to thus far avoid any of the turmoil from the Arab spring (although Iran is not an Arab state, they are of course Persians).

Ahmedinajad stepping down should in theory reduce tensions with the United States. However, any number of his potential successors can take an ever harder stance against the West. Now comes the news that Iran has secretly been testing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Hague has declared this a violation of UN Resolution 1929 which means with the political turmoil in Tehran, tensions could escalate into hostilities.

Ahmedinajad

Iranian Nuclear Missile Test

Ex-cons busted for alleged plot to blow up Seattle military recruiting station

2011-06-24T11:44:00.000-04:00

The headlines caught my attention because of the first two words, "ex-cons". If there is a built-in network to recruit and train domestic terrorists it is our prison system. Gangs have been using the prisons as a way of recruiting new members and expanding their networks for years. MS-13 is perhaps is the best know example. Originally started by El Salvadorians in East Los Angeles (in response to Mexican gang threats), MS-13 can be found on both coasts. The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) used the technique at the Maze. The attempted attack of the military recruiting station should be taken as a sign that more terrorists are coming out of our prisons. Sociopaths fueled by a religious or political zeal make for an especially dangerous combination.

NY Daily News

Air breathing platforms

2011-06-22T08:47:00.003-04:00

Prior to Desert Storm, the USAF was moving away from air breathing platforms citing their high costs and the advancement in satellites. Desert Storm proved the continued need for surveillance assets that could be directed by the theater commander. Desert was much too short to keep the pressure off so air breathing platforms (the RF-4C for example) were retired with no follow on system.

Iraqi Freedom demanded air breathing platforms with longer duration that the Predator. Thus Global Hawk was born but again without thoroughly thinking through the needs of the theater level commander. Global Hawk is an amazing, but increasingly expensive, platform. Yet even in the 21st Century, commanders and analysts still rely on wet film imagery.

U-2 and Global Hawk: Le Bourget, France—For years, the Air Force has known it will give up some intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance capability when it retires the U-2 fleet. The U-2 can carry heavier sensors than the RQ-4 Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft and has a still-in-demand wet film capability. Now USAF is involved in an analysis of alternatives to consider what sensors it wants on the Global Hawk going forward, said officials with Global Hawk prime contractor Northrop Grumman here Monday at the Paris Air Show. Ed Walby, company executive, said Air Force officials have told him that they expect to complete phase one of the AOA by the end of the summer. The Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft configuration is "full," said Walby; if USAF wants to change out sensors in a modular way, though, it should be able to, he said. "The reason for the Block 30 was to do what the U-2 can't," he added, noting that the RQ-4 can collect electronic intelligence and communications intelligence simultaneously, something the U-2 cannot. He acknowledged that "some of the U-2 sensors can see further than ours," but that this shortcoming is made up for by the Global Hawk's three-to-one advantage in loiter time. Moreover, some of the Global Hawk's sensors can be changed simply by modifying the software, he said.

Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

2011-06-22T08:39:00.001-04:00

The pullout raises some questions. If the original purpose of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM was to hunt down Osam bin Laden, then the mission was completed once he was killed. Why continue the military presence? Unlike Iraq which had its government destroyed by the US invasion, Afghanistan has a government in place. Continuing our military presence in Afghanistan invites escalation as Taliban forces or Al Qaeda plot revenge. Pakistan is an unpredictable environment and raises additional potential of escalation.

The other question is, are these troops needed elsewhere? The obvious is Libya but with Syria and Turkey having skirmishes, could the Obama administration be concerned about hostilities in the Middle East? Iran remains committed to their pursuit of nuclear weapons, however with now Germany, France, China and Russia all condemning the initiative the United States may feel it can deal with Iran on a more unilateral basis. Therefore, the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan becomes even more crucial.

The bump in poll numbers President Obama received as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden seems to have faded. The elections are still a long way off and pulling troops out of Afghanistan, regardless of their eventual use, could be a way for the President to still make good on one of his campaign promises.

The Guardian

NATO Admits Missile Hit a Civilian Home in Tripoli

2011-06-19T18:14:00.002-04:00

NYTimes.com

Syrian forces 'storm town near Turkey border'

2011-06-18T17:16:00.002-04:00

Syrian forces attacking a Turkish border town. Unlike other attacks during the "Arab Spring", this attack in upon a NATO ally. If Turkey and Syria declare war, NATO and the United States are placed at the brink. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton tries to appease the Taliban in hopes they will break from Al Qaeda.

Al Jazeera English

Hotels Warned Of Potential Terror Threats

2011-06-17T08:25:00.000-04:00

In November 2008, 10 gunmen launched a "commando-style" raid on hotels and cafes in Mumbai, India. The attack spanned three days, killing 174 people and wounding more than 300 others.

Contrary to the movies and books, an effective terrorist attacks does not require high-tech weapons of mass destruction. A well trained, small unit armed with rifles can inflict a high number of casualties. In the Mumbai attack, the terrorist came in on rubber rafts. They then fired on the crowd and moved, staying in contact via radio. Their tactics thwarted the police and allowed the terrorists to kill 174.

Now reports are coming that their could be a similar attack at the Ritz Carlton in London. London is more densely populated than Mumbai and even with Scotland Yard and the British SAS vigilant, an attack could swiftly kill many civilians before authorities could neutralize the attackers.

The United States presents an even better target. We have so many large cities with multiple targets it is almost impossible to protect all against a well coordinated attack. As we go into summer, there are countless street festivals and concerts with thousands of unprotect civilians milling around. A Mumbai type of attack would have devastating results.

While the press focuses on the uses suspects of Pakistan and Somalia, we need to be aware of lesser know groups. One of my students did an excellent presentation on the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria. While very active in Algeria, this group has not been known to operate outside of Algeria. However, reports indicate at least one cell is here in the United States (albeit inactive). There are other groups that we have not heard of as well as domestic terrorist groups. This is the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and we should be alert to potential threats.

Fox News

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid

2011-06-15T08:39:00.001-04:00

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange. --NY Times

Where to begin, where to begin? The relationship between Pakistan and the United States is a study of illusion and political posturing. If we go back to the 1980s, we meet a young Osama bin Laden fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The United States felt a little payback was in order for all of the support the Soviet Union gave North Vietnam. The CIA began supplying the Mujahadeen (freedom fighters) Stinger missiles since the Afghanis were getting decimated by Soviet Mi-24 helicopters.

The recipient of these Stinger missiles was our then friend, and future most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The missiles took out the Mi-24s, and many feel, led to the Soviet withdrawal. So why then did Osama bin Laden attack the US? The Reagan administration, especially the CIA, assumed Osama bin Laden was an ally since he was fighting a common enemy. However, the whole reason the Saudi was in Afghanistan in the first place was because of his extreme Islamic beliefs. Osama bin Laden felt the United States had no more business being in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union.

Osama bin Laden fought in Afghanistan but was actually based in Pakistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, the Pakistanis gave the remaining Stingers to North Korea in the hopes the special batteries could be reverse engineered. You have to wonder what Pakistan received in return for those missiles (and sniper rifles).

Flash forward to earlier this year when a CIA "contractor" killed two ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) agents. The killings marked the previous months of bombings by US forces based in Afghanistan on tribal areas in Pakistan. The Pakistanis were not pleased.

Given the history of Osama bin Laden operating from Pakistan during the Soviet invasion, it is not so surprising to discover he was hiding out in Pakistan before the SEALs came knocking. The killing of Osama bin Laden publicly raised the question of just how committed Pakistan is to fighting Al Qaeda. There are public reports that Al Qaeda may have placed operatives in the Pakistani military.

Now Pakistan has arrested the CIA informants and in the media it looks like a surprise. In reality, this is a continuation of what has been developing between the United States and Pakistan going on 30 years. The real problem for the United States is Pakistan may not allow armed drones to be flown out of their bases forcing the US to relocated the drones to Afghanistan.

A story that seems to have already been forgotten is China's announcement several weeks ago that it will not tolerate any military action by the US in Pakistan.

The story of the United States and Pakistan is far from over and will not get resolved before the 2012 election.

NYTimes.com

Six powers push defiant Iran to address nuclear fears

2011-06-13T09:07:00.000-04:00

VIENNA (Reuters) - Russia and China joined Western powers Thursday in telling Iran its "consistent failure" to comply with U.N. resolutions "deepened concerns" about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program.

The United States, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China issued the statement a day after Iran said it would triple production of high-grade uranium and shift it to an underground bunker which would be protected from possible U.S. or Israeli air strikes.

Russia and China have in the past been less inclined to try to isolate Iran over its uranium enrichment which Tehran says is solely to generate electricity. Western nations suspect the Islamic Republic wants to enrich uranium to a higher level so as to be able to make nuclear weapons if it chooses.

Let's see what we can learn from this article. The United States helped place Mohammad Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran. His subsequent human rights abuses by the the SAVAK (secret police) led to the revolution and the 1980 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. US-Iranian relations have been tense ever since (leading the US to support Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war).

The British colonized much of the Middle East. BP or British Petroleum was originally the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). In the 1950s, Iran voted unanimously to nationalize its oil production. Britain contested in the World Court but its complaint was dismissed.

On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister Mossadeq was forced from office with CIA support, involving the Shah and the Iranian military, and known by its codename, Operation Ajax. Mossadeq was replaced by pro-Western general Fazlollah Zahedi. After the coup, Mossadeq's National Iranian Oil Company became an international consortium, and AIOC resumed operations in Iran as a member of it.

The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50–50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors. The AIOC would become BP in 1954.

Germany is not interested in seeing an unstable Middle East with the potential of increased oil prices since it is shutting down its nuclear power plants. Until Germany arrives at a cost-effective means of replacing her nuclear power plants, oil will remain an important means of producing energy.

France has no intentions of abandoning nuclear power at this point, however they still require a steady flow of cheap oil for their economy as well.

Russia still remembers its last war with the Persian empire in 1828 and views the Iranian nuclear program as a threat. Unlike the US, Russia does not dismiss Persian aggression lightly and knows that as a modern country Iran is not to be ignored. A nuclear Iran could pose problems even for the Russians.

China is perhaps the only country of the six that does not have a direct interest in the state of Iran's nuclear program. The only interest seems to be having the other five countries engaged with Iran leaving China alone to pursue its policies unfettered.

Yahoo! News

Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance

2011-06-10T13:06:00.001-04:00

Gates' comments only reinforce what has been know for sometime. NATO is nothing without the US military. The sham of "NATO" commanding Odyssey Dawn is only as good as the US carriers and drones supporting the operation.

NATO is a self-protection pact formed after WWII to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. At that time, NATO consisted of 16 countries and relied heavily on US military bases for defense. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's role was in question but despite an ambiguous future its membership climed to 28 including former Warsaw Pact nations.

NATO assumed a more expeditionary war during the global war on terror. Most of the Eurpean nations were against sending forces outside the continent. However, pressure from Washington and London resulted in NATO troops being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also shows how the US has come to depend on NATO to provide the illusion of broad support when in reality it is just another US military operation.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and advent of the European Union, does there still need to be a NATO instead of a European defense force?

FoxNews.com

BBC News - Aircraft carrier symbol of China's naval ambitions

2011-06-08T22:57:00.000-04:00

But I thought China wasn't a threat? Granted, a single carrier does not make a true threat but why build them in the first place? They can fight the Russians without a carrier as well as the Indians. That can only leave one other power-projecting, blue water navy.

BBC News - Aircraft carrier symbol of China's naval ambitions

Narco-terrorism or the war on drugs

2011-06-07T07:42:00.003-04:00

The news has been flooded with corrupt US politicians of late, from Arnie to Weiner (the latter being just too easy to lampoon). In the midst of these political imbroglios, it is easy miss some bigger issues that don't quite make the headlines.

A report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy is calling for the legalization of some drugs. The report recommends instead of punishing users (and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars), governments should seek models to legalize drugs and undermine the drug cartels.

BBC World News

The war on drugs (now more commonly called war on narco-terrorism to reconcile the two campaigns) has not dented opiate production. According to the Global Commission's report, the UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%. The war on drugs seems to have had little impact on production which also means usage increased or at least remained consistent.

Opium is produced from poppies grown in Afghanistan. The Taliban (al Qaeda) control opium production and one can't but wonder if the US military presence wasn't in part to try to curtail opium production. If a terrorist group controls the production of drugs, then it is easy to conclude drug money funds terrorism. Nothing new here really as most terrorist groups active during the 1980s had to find a new funding source once the Soviet Union folded.

The al Qaeda now is active in Honduras. The United States history in Central America is abysmal. From the United Fruit Company to the Sandinistas, the United States has backed some of the most violent groups in the region. As a result, Honduras has a very weak economy. Al Qaeda has money and trafficking opium through Honduras offers both advantages. Honduras can receive some badly needed money and Al Qaeda gets closed to targets in the United States.

My original inclination was to right a cautionary piece about Al Qaeda renewing its efforts but then I read where US military construction in Central and South American has doubled in the last two years (source: "Pentagon Using Drug Wars as an Excuse to Build Bases in Latin America", News America Media Jun 3, 2011).

"Congress approved a $25 million expansion of barracks for enlisted troops at the U.S. base in Soto Cano, Honduras, located 50 miles north of the capital in Tegucigalpa. The base houses about 500 U.S. troops, as well as support personnel, and served as a way-station for the aircraft that whisked President Manuel Zelaya out of Honduras during the June 2009 military coup, according to Zelaya and a leaked State Department cable. Zelaya had proposed making the base intro a commercial airport in 2008. Now, a new operating center for U.S. Special Forces troops is being built on the base. "

News America Media

Most Americans think US bases overseas have drawn down. That is because most think of overseas bases as those in Europe where the US presence has drastically reduced over the last 20 years. However, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq created a boom in overseas constructions through Southwest Asia (Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bahrain). US military are often based on existing military bases so those in Colombia and now Central America don't show up on a list of bases since those facilities are not owned by the United States.

The United States continue to spend money on bases and policies that have not produced results (especially in regards to drugs). The building of bases in Central America seems to only increase the likelihood of Al Qaeda spending more money in the region. The Southwest border is extremely porous despite efforts to the contrary. The drug wars in Mexico seem like the perfect compliment to Al Qaeda operations.

We need to refocus on these issues no matter how much fun it is to read about a politician's self-destruction.

Cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn

2011-06-06T07:43:00.003-04:00

According to the Air Force Association Daily Report, the USAF has spent $270 million on air operations in Libya (as of May 22nd). Officials are still trying to figure out how to pay for all of this. For the time being, "Libya operations are being cash-flowed internally,"Air Force spokesman Andre Kok told the Daily Report. At the same time, the Department of Defense intends to cut $400 billion over the next 12 fiscal years. The need to reduce government spending would seem to argue against continuing operations in Libya, especially since this is a NATO operation. The United States flew 1,206 of the 1,990 sorties during Operation Odyssey Dawn—the term for the air operation before NATO took control on March 31. However, US forces (both Navy and USAF) continue to support operations. As of mid May, total costs for Odyssey Dawn to the United States is $750 million.

Cautioning that federal spending had a way of getting out of control, Senator Dirksen observed, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

The 101st is returning from Afghanistan and commanders are struggling with their troops doubts (and their own) if their sacrifices made any difference. Their poignant introspection seems to apply equally to Libya. What did we get for the $750 million? Even if Qaddafi steps down or is killed, who takes over? What does the change in Libyan leadership mean for the US and rest of the world?

World Health Organization Says Virulent E. Coli Strain Was Previously Unknown

2011-06-02T07:54:00.001-04:00

The World Health Organization said on Thursday that an unusually lethal strain of E. coli, which has infected more than 1,500 people in Germany, mystified public health officials and threatened to touch off panic in Europe, was a previously unknown variant of the bacteria, raising new concerns about the extent and severity of the contagion.

The story continues to take a sinister turn and with a previously unknown variant could indicate a biological attack. Germany recently crossed Iran by voting to extend economic sanctions over the failed nuclear weapons talks. There is also the potential that the Spanish economy needing a bailout from Germany could have lead to a terrorist attack, either to humiliate the Germans or Spanish governments. Al Qaeda has cells in both Spain and Germany and could be using the cover of these state of affairs between Germany and Iran or Spain to deflect attention away from themselves.

The German government is most likely reluctant to declare this a terrorist attack without overwhelming proof. The economic damage if this proves to be an attack is immeasurable

NYTimes.com

Merkel's flight denied permission

2011-05-31T14:33:00.003-04:00

Angela Merkel's flight to India was delayed as her flight was denied overflight of Iranian airspace. It appears this was in retaliation for the European Union's (EU) extension of economic sanctions against Iran for failing to continue talks about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. According to Fox News, Chancellor Merkel said "this action shows a disrespect for Germany and we will not accept it".

The whole incident was only reported as a ticker item on Fox News. However, the emotion of both Iran and Germany can spell further deteriorations in that region. We have two very proud cultures snipping at other. First, we have the Persians (now known as Iran) re-asserting itself as a world player only to be smacked down by the upstart Europeans and Americans. Second, Germany is a proud race of warriors who seem to be re-emerging on the world front. In the past, Germany was reluctant to send combat forces into conflicts. That reluctance seems to be diminishing opening the door for two proud cultures to start staring at one another with more than diplomatic actions in mind.

Update, here is an article on the report.
Breitbart

Pentagon: Cyber Attacks Can Count as Act of War - FoxNews.com

2011-05-31T09:04:00.003-04:00

Cyberwarfare units were just standing up as I was retiring in 2007. The question always seemed to be was "cyber" a war in the same way as tanks and bombs? In one sense, absolutely as the Stuxnet showed you can attack a country's entire power grid and cripple their economy. Through cyber you can shutdown the cooling systems of a nuclear power plant creating a Chernobyl or Fukushima scenario via proxy. If "cyber" can be a war then what response is justified? Even a cyber counter attack against the host nation may be too much. For example, what if the hacker resides in France but his allegiance is to Al Qaeda?

Now apparently the Pentagon wants to do what it does best; blow stuff up and kill people in retaliation for cyber attacks. The first problem is what do you bomb? If they attack our nuclear power plants but have none of their own, do go after their crops? Let's pretend the terrorist is a member of the Islamic Brotherhood and is from Egypt. He is living in Indonesia and launches his attack from there using a code designed in part by Iran. The answer to the question is not clear cut and can rapidly lead to escalation. It also means we may have to rethink the traditional terms like "enemy" and realize a few hackers could successfully attack a whole country.

FoxNews.com

14 dead in Germany as cucumber crisis grows

2011-05-31T07:53:00.001-04:00

More than two weeks after the food poisoning outbreak was first reported in northern Germany, the number of confirmed and suspected cases has reached 1,200, according to media reports.

The magnitude of this outbreak seems excessive to be simply an accident of poor hygiene. Yet no one seems to be talking about the possibility of this being a terrorist attack of some kind. Food supplies afford a terrorist a double strike. First of course is the fear of the food supply being contaminated with something that could make your very sick or kill you. The second strike is the impact to the economy as farmers and grocers are left with unsold produce.

Holland, Spain and Germany are still very much agrarian economies and the impact will be severe. Our food systems are still one of the easiest to target. Produce especially can be contaminated along many different points along the transportation route to the store. Governments do not have the resources and infrastructure to protect all of the produce coming out of countries such as the United States. Buying local or growing your own greatly reduces the possibility of contamination but restaurant chains still will buy bulk produce from outside the local area. More outbreaks will occur with the increase volatility in the Middle East. This is not to say Middle Eastern or Islamic groups are responsible but unrest in that region provides the perfect cover for other groups such as domestic terrorists.

Yahoo! News

Israel Minister: Strike on Iran Could Be Necessary - FoxNews.com

2011-05-30T21:30:00.000-04:00

Let's review; as a result of the 1967 war Israel nearly tripled its territory. As the United States discovered with Native Americans, placing indigenous people on reservations or encampments creates resentment. This is not to excuse the tactics of Palestinian terrorists. On the contrary, their tactics are as much a reason why they are still a displaced people as any Israeli policy. My point was to put their actions into context.

Presiden Obama stated two weeks ago that the pre-1967 borders are the starting point for negotiations. His comments were not embraced by Israel or American Jews. Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared before Congress to basically say the Israeli borders are staying right where they are at.

Now with Iran taking over as the head of OPEC comes the news of the need for a strike. Iran has not overtly threatened the United States but the Secretary of State has consider the potentiality of nuclear weapons in Iran to be unacceptable. It now begs the question if the United States and Israel are collaborating in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program?

FoxNews.com

Obama nominates Dempsey to chair Joint Chiefs

2011-05-30T10:57:00.000-04:00

It will be interesting to see the direction of the war in Afghanistan with an Army general taking over as the Chief of the JCS and Leon Panetta becoming the Sec Def. I'm not hopeful this means a swift end to combat operations.

Obama nominates Dempsey to chair Joint Chiefs

Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya

2011-05-29T08:30:00.003-04:00

The US troop withdrawal from Iraq created a corresponding increase in violence. The killing of Osama bin Laden has generated a similar increase with reports of a bomb blast killing 7 US troops. Earlier this week, China stated that it would not tolerate any US military action in Pakistan. At the same time, China and North Korea renewed their vow to maintain their support for one another even as leaders change in future years.

While the Untied States continues to remain silent about the future of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), the rest of the Middle East continues to rather violently reinvent itself. Yemen is the latest for the Day of Rage. Islamic militants have seized a coastal city and Yemen appears to be the latest to have a major change of government led by rebels.

The French are helping to lead change in Libya by bombing Qaddafi's compound. British, French and other Nato forces were on Saturday night preparing a two-pronged blitz to try to finish off Col Gaddafi as already slender hopes for a peaceful resolution to the Libyan crisis faded. All the while, NATO and the US really has no idea who will take over after Qaddafi. The US and European track record for selecting and installing new leaders in the range is less than impressive.

September will mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11. For some reason, the tenth is more poignant than the ninth much as the 25th will be more poignant than the 24th. Given that, this is the year that we could see a renewed effort to execute a major terrorist attack in US soil. The Middle East is now more unified (despite the violence) than it ever has been and along with the US killing of Osama bin Laden, an attack seems more likely than ever.

According to Osam bin Laden's files, he was plotting an attack on our railroads. Anything from passenger rail to freight carrying hazardous chemicals or nuclear fuel rods could be a target.

Less we forget, several politician (including Arnie) have demonstrated a complete contempt for their responsibilities while in office. Gov Schwarzenegger's policies have led over 37,000 prisoners to be set free from prisons. Corrupt politicians are always a good motivation for protest and rebellion. We need to also be concerned about an attack from a domestic group fed up with the state of US politics.

Middle East & North Africa - Iran sets stage for tense Opec meeting

2011-05-19T07:29:00.000-04:00

Ah, the plot thickens; Iran's Ahmademijad is the first head of state to run OPEC since he temporarily place himself as oil minster. OPEC has a rotating presidency and it is now Iran's turn. Saudi Arabia has increased production to offset the drop from Libya but the Saudis are skittish. Crude oil price rose to $125 a barrel in April but dropped to $112 on Wednesday. The fall is the biggest on record. Given the US military involvement and less than warm relations with Iran makes this meeting especially critical to US energy needs.

FT.com

US alarmed by David Cameron's push for early Afghanistan withdrawal

2011-05-17T09:30:00.001-04:00

Killing Osama bin Laden will have many effects on the future for both the US and al Qaeda. If the United States reason for invading Afghanistan was to battle the Taliban who were protecting Osama bin Laden, then the his death conceivably means there is no more reason to have troops there. Simplistic perhaps but follow the logic for a moment.

David Cameron wants to bring UK troops home now. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been politically disastrous for British prime ministers. A report last year had estimated combat operations in Afghanistan cost the UK approximately 20 billion British pounds (roughly $32 billion at today's exchange rate). There have been over 350 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Part of the reason NATO troops were brought in was the UK desire to draw down forces as far back as 2004. British forces are also committed to Odyssey Dawn, the no-fly zone in Libya. Cameron knows his political life depends on making good on his promise to bring UK troops home and with Osama bin Laden dead, there is little incentive to stay.

For the US, this means a split with a major ally at a time when al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are renewing their efforts for attack. A split could be seen as an opportunity to strike at over-committed US forces. The recent scandal of IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has most of Europe suspecting a US conspiracy to discredit DSK and thus pullout of the IMF. The US is losing much of its European support. The loss of support may embolden a terrorist attack.

Politically for both the UK and US maintaining troops in Afghanistan has become a hard sell. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the potential for Taliban operatives to gain control is an unacceptable option for those in the Beltway. The average American is much more concerned about why gas prices remain high despite a drop in crude oil. The turmoil in Syria could renew the 1967 war with Israel. If a conflict erupts, the US may have to go in alone to support Israel and that could be exactly the move pan-Islamist have been needing.

Telegraph

Violence, Syria, and Nakba Day

2011-05-16T08:22:00.002-04:00

Israeli troops today clashed with Arab protesters along three hostile borders, including the frontier with Syria, leaving 16 people dead and dozens more wounded in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations marking a Palestinian day of mourning for their defeat at Israel's hands in 1948.

Along Israel's border with Syria, thousands of protesters stormed the fence and hundreds burst through, pelting soldiers with stones, the military said. Soldiers guarding the border opened fire to stop them. Dozens were wounded and four were reported killed. -- Daily Mail Online

Nakba ("the catastrophe") Day is an annual day of commemoration for the Palestinian people of the displacement that accompanied the creation of Israel in 1948. The prior unrest in the Middle East has marked this year's commemoration with a high level of violence. The violence may be one of the reason Osama bin Laden was killed even though by some accounts the US knew about his whereabouts for over a year. The unrest in Syria would eventually create a threat to Israel. Syria receives support and funding from Iran. Israel could retaliate with a strikes on either country (or perhaps both). The US may now need to shift focus away from Libya to the border region between Israel and Syria. Unlike Libya, establishing a no-fly zone will not be the answer.

The United States could not justify having three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) all going at the same time. Iraq has had a cessation of combat operations (but apparently rebel forces did not get the memo). Libya continues to show that airpower alone does not win conflicts, Desert Storm not withstanding. Any US involvement will risks re-igniting accusations that Israel controls US interests in the Middle East. The al Qaeda can use this to re-energize their efforts perhaps leading to attacks on US soil.

Mail Online

War Powers Act

2011-05-15T07:40:00.002-04:00

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.-- N.Y. Times

Libya is the latest example of a President ignoring the War Powers Act. Turning command of Odyssey Dawn over to NATO seemed to imply US forces would be pulling out. Now National Security Advisor Tom Donilon has stated that US will continue military operations so long as Qaddafi continues attacking his own people. The statement does not even try to pretend the US is in a supporting role, it makes very clear the US is leading the way. It is almost as though killing Osama bin Laden has fueled the Obama Administration's desire to take out another terrorist leader (albeit one who also happens to be the rightful leader of a Muslim nation).

The problem is what happens after Qaddafi is either killed or steps down? We see with al Qaeda an almost renewed zeal in their commitment to attack the United States. We discover later that killing Osama bin Laden only solidified al Zawahiri's position as the undisputed leader. Getting rid of Qaddafi may allow an ever more despicable despot to have access to Libya's oil and wealth. The US track record for picking and supporting new regime leaders is unimpressive at best. From the Shah of Iran (backed by the US and implementer of the SAVAK) to the ineffectual Hamid Karzai, the US seems unable to understand the situation and find the right leader. Many would argue that is because the US is more concerned with how they will get along with the leader versus his domestic policies. No, that wasn't a politically incorrect statement. The US has not backed any female leaders of countries to replace ousted despots (at least not that I know. If you know of one, please post a comment about it).

The War Powers Act was in response to Nixon and his execution of the Vietnam War. In short, the WPA is an attempt to curb the President's ability to leave forces engaged in combat for extended periods of time costing the taxpayers money and using up critical military resources that may be desperately needed elsewhere.