A brief history of Africa and US Involvement

I wrote my previous blog in response to the Boko Haram kidnapping and focused my analysis on that particular group and Nigeria.  However, it is becoming apparent to me the more that  I read that this is much more than just about oil and Washington power games.  What is happening in Nigeria is a microcosm of African history.

The modern map of Africa is the legacy of European colonization beginning in the 15th Century by the Spanish and Portuguese.  Both of these European colonial powers started with the coastal areas of the African continent looking to expand their trade routes.

War with the English and French weakened the Spanish and Portuguese empires.  By the 17th Century, the Dutch, English and French had increased the colonization of Africa.  The Ottomans, Germans and Belgians would also colonize parts of Africa as each European power sought to have a stake in Africa's natural resources and slave trade.

World War I disrupted much of the European power base that had colonized the African continent.  After World War II, the European empires had been replaced by the United States and Soviet Union.  The new superpowers were even more dependent on the natural resources of Africa (strategic minerals were even more rarer and valuable than diamonds and gold).  Unlike the European empires though, the United States and Soviet Union used their allies (proxies) to protect their interests in Africa.  As African nations "won" independence from their European colonial powers, the governments were often puppets of either the US or Soviet Union.  Often though the emancipation of a particular African country meant little as a European corporation (such as Royal Dutch Shell) continue to own or control all of the mineral rights of the former colony.

More recently, the so-called "Arab Spring" was widely supported by the United States and Europe and saw many long-standing governments overthrown by pro-Western (or at least that's what the West hoped) opposition governments.  Let's look at just two examples.

Libya was ruled by Muammar Qaddafi for 41 years.  By all accounts, he was an absolute tyrant, mass murderer, rapist and terrorist.  Yet even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Libya was a former Italian colony and under Qaddafi the country became wealthy.  At its height, it produced over 2% of the worlds oil production (which Qaddafi insured no outside powers controlled).  He used to wealth from nationalized oil to improve social programs in Libya.  We hear about the negatives from the Western press but to many in Libya and North Africans, Qaddafi was the epitome of an anti-imperialist throwing off the shackles of the European colonial powers.  This last point is particularly important as the military operation against Libya was carried out by Europe (!) with France (?) taking the lead.  Former French President Sarkozy was not about to be left without France having a cut of Libya's vast oil.

The other case to look at is Egypt.  Former Egyptian President Mubarak became president after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.  In a sense, he was the legacy of the Camp David Peace Accords.  As such, he maintained the peace between Israel and Egypt and was a stabilizing force in the region.  As Sadat's heir, he was also a great ally of the United States making him of of the few pro-West Arab leaders.

Mubarak though also had his dark side and like Qaddafi, committed many atrocities (torture, rape, murder) on any Egyptian that opposed him or his policies.  The US turned a blind eye to these abuses because Mubarak was pro-West at a time when the US was becoming more actively involved (Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom although Mubarak was against the latter).  The State Security Investigations Service (SSI) or secret police, were perhaps what the US found most valuable in the war on terror.  Egypt was were the US sent suspected terrorists under the "extraordinary rendition" practice of the Bush and Obama administration.  As the American public grew increasingly uncomfortable with US "interrogation techniques", the Bush Administration decided to basically use a third-party to carry our interrogations.  The same techniques the the SSI used on terrorists are what ultimately caused the Arab Spring to spread to Egypt.

Although neither Qaddafi or Mubarak were saints, they did represent stability in their respective countries.  Once they were ousted, both countries were plunged into civil chaos.  In North Africa and the Middle East, the answer to civil chaos is almost always more atrocities and human rights abuses.

Africans view US and European involvement as part of the problem, not the solution.  Take Somalia as an example.

In 1992, the US lead United Task Force (UNITAF) was charged with carrying out United Nations Security Council Resolution 794 to create a protected environment for conducting humanitarian operations in the southern half of the country.  This was followed in March 1993 by UN Security Council Resolution 819 (United Nations Operation in Somalia II  or UNOSOM II) to extend intervention in Somalia.  UNOSOM II was supposed to, as did UNOSOM I, were to create a secure environment in an increasingly lawless area so that humanitarian operations could be conducted.

Mohamed Farrah Aidid, along with other armed opposition groups, drove out former President Mohamed Siad Barre's regime from Somalia's capital Mogadishu during the Somali Civil War that broke out in the early 1990s.  Thus was launched Operation Gothic Serpent was an operation conducted by the US Army Rangers and Delta Force with the primary mission of capturing Aidid and two of his lieutenants.  This would lead to the Battle of Mogadishu, also know as Blackhawk Down.

Some 20 plus years afterwards, Somalia is still run by warlords and has no government.  To Africans, this is the result of failed European colonial policies as well as US intervention.  Critics of the US involvement in Somalia say it was more about protecting corporate interests in the region than about promoting humanitarian relief.  

I think it shows more how the US and Europe fail to grasp the long-term consequences of their actions. But it has also underlined the limits of U.S. influence and fed the narrative, common in Africa, that Washington only cares about Africa in times of crisis or insecurity.

Most know that the Global War on Terror was primarily focused on Iraq and Afghanistan.  What many don't realize is the US also has based Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) out of Camp Lemonnier (home to around 4,000 troops), Djibouti since 2003.  After negotiations between March and May 2001, the Djiboutian government allowed for the base's use by the U.S., providing for demining, humanitarian, and counter-terrorism efforts, and it now serves as the location from which U.S. and Coalition forces are operating in the Horn of Africa. On May 5th it was announced that the United States and Djibouti have signed a new 10-year lease on "a U.S. military base in the Horn of Africa nation" (Camp Lemonnier) that the White House called a critical part in fighting terrorism. (Voice of America)

In the event the US were to conduct major operations in African, it would need a theater command to direct its military forces.  In 2006, US Africa Command (USAFRICOM) was established.  It is headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. It is responsible for U.S. military operations and military relations with 53 African nations – an area of responsibility (AOR) covering all of Africa except Egypt, which is within the area of responsibility of theUnited States Central Command.  Yes, a major command responsible for Africa based out of Europe and one of the former colonial powers.  You can't make this stuff up.

In a Twitter discussion, Secretary of State John Kerry was admonished that “In choosing security over democracy in Ethiopia, U.S. will get neither”.  That perhaps best sums ups the US involvement in Africa.  The Washington Post goes on further;

"There is little doubt that America is increasingly concerned about the security climate in Africa. Two decades after Osama bin Laden left Sudan, ethnic conflicts and security vacuums are multiplying
in the region. Insurrections in Mali, Libya, Algeria and the Central African Republic, among other places, have sown worry that al-Qaeda affiliates or others bent on harm to Americans will be able to use Africa as a base.

In response, the Obama administration has greatly expanded its counterterrorism operations and partnerships over the past six years. In the process, it has often joined forces with anti-democratic or authoritarian regimes."--WP.  Oops, the same mistakes previous administrations have made in Central and South America is now being repeated by the nation's first Black President in his father's homeland.

Now this admittedly abridged history of the colonization of Africa and US involvement was to lead to a conclusion on my part.  Allow me to thread together everything I've written thus far.

Africa is the richest continent on the planet when it comes to natural resources.  Its huge population also represents a cheap labor force which has historically exploited as slaves but now as people displaced by war.  If Europe is no longer the colonial empire in control, and the end of the Soviet Union, who is left in control?  Certainly not any Africans.  Certainly not the United States as its recent actions seem to be in reaction to another power being in control.  

For the answer, one needs to travel to Egypt.  A very good friend of mine recently travelled to Egypt and discovered that all of the lands there have been bought by the Chinese.  He also noted a huge population of Chinese now living and working in Egypt.  Why?  Because China is buying all of Egypt's debt from the United States, which is why President Mohamed Morsi travelled to Beijing and not Washington on his first official visit outside Egypt (sorry Barack!).  

“Our relations with China will increase, because our new government has some doubts about the West,” said Mohamed Kadry Said, military analyst at the Cairo-based Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies--Global Post.  

In November 2010, an opinion poll released by the Pew Research Center showed 52 percent of Egyptians held a favorable view of China, while just 17 percent of Egyptians held a favorable view of the United States.  Just this week China has signed on to build a power station, a water desalination plant and a high-speed train line between Cairo and Egypt’s second city, Alexandria totaling around $500 million worth of investments.

It explains why former Secretary Clinton and President Obama wanted to "pivot" towards Asia.  China has the wealth to outbid the US in Africa and thus control its resources.  The only hope was to try to keep China in check with increasing US military presence in Asia and the creation of USAFRICOM.  The latter was created, in non-specific terms, to deal with threats in Africa.  Right now the only real threat is China.

This explains why Hillary Clinton didn't label Boko Haram a terrorist group.  They really didn't pose a threat to US interests and even now, the White House is stumbling over how to work the kidnapping in as a prelude to increased military actions in Nigeria.  It won't be a death knell for Hillary 2016 unless some other damaging information comes out.  Most likely this will be used as a way to openly increase US influence in Nigeria and prevent further expansion of China's influence on the African continent.

And perhaps this is the real reason the Obama Administration is seemingly unable to stop Russia.  It has decided China is the bigger threat and has diverted too many resources towards that end making it unfeasible to also engage Russia.  And Russia knows it.

Nigeria

We all have our biases and I'm certainly have mine.  I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union since my undergraduate days.  The Soviet Union was what the US military was focused on for the first 6 years of my career until the fall of the Soviet Union.  Hence the events in the Ukraine have been of particular interest to me but have diverted my attention from another major story.

Allow me to share it in the way that it first came to my attention.  About two weeks ago, a female friend posted on her page a request for prayers for the girls held hostage by Boko Haram.  The plea did not make any connections for me and I went on researching Russia's actions in the Ukraine.  A few days later, a different female friend posted a link about female veterans supporting the girls taken by Boko Haram.  Not recognizing the reference, I was looking over how many time Russian aircraft and subs had been caught new the US.

More postings on social media about Boko Haram still did not get my attention.  I peruse multiple news sites daily but Boko Haram just hadn't caught my attention.  Then I came across this article.  According to the article, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department repeatedly refused to add the Nigerian al-Qaeda affiliate group Boko Haram – the organization responsible for the recent kidnapping of more than 300 young girls – to its official list of terrorist organizations.  Oops.  The article goes on, "in 2011, after the group's mass-murderers bombed the United Nations building in Abuja, Nigeria, Obama administration agencies and more than a dozen members of Congress begged Clinton to add it to its official list of designated terror organizations – but the State Department fought it and did nothing." --Daily Beast

Ah, now things are becoming clearer.  Hillary Clinton has avoided entanglements over the Benghazi incident thus far.  The kidnapping in Nigeria by a group that Hillary and the State Department failed to list as a terrorist group is not something she wants to deal with.  Hillary of course is the de facto Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.  To have deal with these latest allegations, plus Monica Lewinsky coming out with her memoir at the same time, is not what Hillary wants.

So first back to Boko Haram for a moment, what are they about?

Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society. This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education. Boko Haram regards the Nigerian state as being run by non-believers, even when the country had a Muslim president.--BBC News

Okay, no brainer.  Sounds like a Nigerian version of the Taliban.  So why weren't they labelled a terrorist group?  Well that seems to be the question and perhaps why the American media has been rather silent on the matter thus far.

Details on the kidnapping are also elusive.  Somewhere between 180-300 school girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram but the Nigerian government has not been able to produce names.  I'm no Hillary Clinton fan but the timing of this kidnapping, the lack of consistent details coinciding with the release of Lewinsky's book just seems suspect.

Boko Haram has the track record to prove they are every bit deserving of the title "radical terrorist group" and are responsible for over 900 murders.  But the Nigerian government isn't helping the. According to Voice of America, Nigerian authorities have said 276 are still missing but have not provided a list of names or other identifying details. For the most part, the girls' families have not released the names, either due to the social stigma of the girls being potential raped and thus being viewed by Nigerian society as "dirty".  At least some of the girls are Christian which is how this story eked out despite being ignored by the American media.

After weeks of silence, Michelle Obama finally spoke on record about this atrocity.  Interesting given that Mr. Obama father is African.

Something doesn't feel right here but I can't put my finger on it.  But I suspect it has to do with oil.

In 1958, Shell discovered oil around the delta of the Niger River.  As of 2013 figures, Nigeria is ranked 13th in oil production.  Royal Dutch Shell owns the oil and the Nigerian people only get a fraction of the wealth.  But even that small fraction comes at a cost.

Amnesty International, in its report, said the hundreds of oil spills reported in Nigeria every year are ruining the environment and putting human lives at risk. It said spills in the Niger Delta are the result of pipeline corrosion, maintenance issues, equipment failure, sabotage and theft. (CS Monitor)

Remember how freaked out everyone was when the Deep Water Horizon rig started spewing tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico?  Nigeria has been facing that magnitude of ecological catastrophe every year for decades.

The oil companies don't want diffuse blame but also don't want their oil production interrupted by by Boko Haram.  It is very likely that some of these oil interests persuaded the State Department not to label Boko Haram a terrorist group just to keep oil flowing.

Now we have missing school girls kidnapped by a group that big oil would rather appease than try to get rid of.  We have a government that is too poor and corrupt to deal with the terrorists.  And we have a weakened US government that is trying to pretend like it gives a damn about an African country that it has been happy to ignore until now.

Of Russia and the United States

I read something the other day that said the war in Afghanistan was the longest war in modern history.  How is it possible for a modern war, using modern technology, to have lasted twice as long as the US involvement with World War II?  How is it that the war in Afghanistan has lasted longer than the Vietnam War?

The answer is that most American citizens don't perceive that we are at war.  Think about that for a minute, unless you or someone you know has served what effect has the war in Afghanistan or Iraq had on you?  Have you experience any attacks or than some random individuals detonating the occasional bomb?  Unless you fly commercial airlines, what inconveniences have you experienced as a result of the war?

Americans during World War II were subject to being drafted.  Even if you did not serve, material goods (such as fuel, food, cars, tires, etc) were all subject to rationing for the war effort.  Those living on the West Coast were very much worried about an attack by the Japanese.  U-boats were seen off the East Coast and around Florida.  Everyone felt the stress of being at war.

Vietnam did not have rationing but otherwise Americans felt the stress of the war.  The draft would take any able bodied male who could pass the physical exam for entrance into military service.  Those who did not want to go to war fled to Canada or found ways to avoid the draft.  It was also the first war that was covered on TV.  Everyone felt the stress of being at war.  But how times have changed.

When George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, he made a conscience decision NOT to involve American citizens.  There is no draft and no rationing of materials.  There is no shortage of supplies and for the most part, life after the invasion is much the same as before the invasion (unless of course you or someone you knew served).  Even the Boston Marathon bombing last year seemed far removed from the reality of being at war.  Compared to World War II and Vietnam, few felt the stress of being at war.

The lack of stress, or perhaps consequences is a better word, to being at "war" has lulled planners and citizens alike into a sense of a world where ware is fought "over there" at not at home.  US planners are  using the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan to make cuts in answer to budgetary constraints.  With no clear and present danger, war time dollars are drying up quickly.  As typically happens, the pendulum is beginning to swing too far in the opposite direction jeopardizing much needed modernization to our forces.  These are seen as necessary and planners smugly assume our military is still a match for China and Russia.

In the face of drawing down military forces, the Obama Administration grandly announced its infamous "pivot" towards Asia.  Somehow or other, Washington was convinced the "pivot" from the Middle East to Asia would help calm the fears of Western allies in the region over China's increasing economic and military dominance.

The first problem of course were the matters in the Middle East that were far from settled.  The after shocks of the Arab Spring still rebounded throughout North Africana and the Middle East with the most notable epicenter being Syria.  Mr. Obama's failed "red line" regarding the use of chemical weapons by Syria raised questions about the actual viability of the pivot to Asia.  But other matters would soon overtake Syria and even China. (read "America's Pivot Paradox")

In late February, Mr. Putin began to reclaim Russia's position as a world superpower by moving forces to reclaim the Crimea from Ukraine.  Again Mr. Obama tried to sound tough and prevent the Russians from invading.  Once again, Mr. Obama failed to persuade a world leader to heed his words.  But this only touches on a much more alarming issue.  Why did Mr. Putin feel he could pursue his own goals without consequence from the US?

To understand that, we have to look back over the last few years.  First, Russia realized as result of their invasion of Georgia in 2008 that their forces were woefully out of date.  Putin started efforts immediately to modernize the Russian military at the same time Obama started to talk about drawdowns and cuts.  Thus began a series of under-reported events by Russia;

1. In 2009, the first sightings of Russian subs operating near US occurred

"A pair of nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines has been patrolling off the eastern seaboard of the United States in recent days, a rare mission that has raised concerns inside the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about a more assertive stance by the Russian military." N.Y. Times

2. In June and July 2012,  Russian bombers violated US airspace

“There was a single out-of-area patrol by two Russian
long range bombers which entered the Alaska ADIZ that were visually
identified by NORAD fighters,” John Cornelio, chief spokesman for Northcom, said in an email response to questions about the recent war games.--Free Republic

3. In August 2012, an Akula class submarine had been operating in the Gulf of Mexico for "several weeks" (Business Insider).

4. In Sep 2012, the Viktor Leonov CCB-175, an armed intelligence-gathering vessel built for the Soviet navy in the late 1980s, quietly arrived in Havana. (USA Today)

5. In November 2012, for the second time in three months a Russian sub was spotted operating in the Gulf of Mexico:

"This would be the first time a Sierra-2 class attack submarine has been detected near a U.S. coastline and if the report is true, shows Russia is determined to regain its naval projection power. The Russian vessel is said to have been conducting anti-submarine exercises near the U.S. submarine base Kings Bay in Georgia, but did not threaten a nearby U.S. aircraft carrier strike group." Business Insider

6.  In Feb 2014, the Viktor Leonov intelligence-gather vessel returns to Havana.

"The port call came the same day Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Russia would establish permanent bases in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Singapore, the Seychelle islands off Africa. The Russian navy also plans to visit other friendly countries, and Moscow is negotiating to open refueling stations for its strategic bombers."--USA Today

7.  In May 2014, PACAF confirms the increase activity of long-range Russian bombers

I wrote about earlier LAX being shut-down by a U-2 flying through its airspace and overwhelming it's flight route system.  But now comes another theory that after reviewing the above incidents, has me wondering as well.  The Commander of PACAF was quoted in an Associated Press article on Monday "a significant increase in the activities of Russian long-range aircraft flying along the California Coast" (Breitbart.com).

Note: What if the U-2 was merely propaganda to prevent Americans from panicking or letting Russia know how effective their electronic countermeasures (ECM) really are?

That might sound alarmist but on Wednesday, the US Senate Armed Services Committee called on US national security officials to report back on threats posed by Russian satellite monitoring stations (Defense News).  The concern is if the Russian stations could shutdown our GPS and reconnaissance satellites.

The US Senate isn't the only ones recognizing the threat posed by today's Russian forces.
Russia’s military engagement in Ukraine has triggered a swift response by Sweden to shore up its military readiness and capability, with more spending expected on big-ticket fighter aircraft and submarine acquisition, and modernization programs (Defense News).  Many think Sweden's only claim to a violent past where the Vikings but in reality, Sweden and Russia have had several major wars;

Russo-Swedish War 1495-97
Russo-Swedish War 1554-57
Livonian War 1558-1582
Russo-Swedish War 1590-95
Russo-Swedish War 1656-58
Great Northern War 1700-1721
Russo-Swedish War 1741-1743
Russo-Swedish War 1788-1790
Finnish War 1808-1809

Hence the significance of this quote from Peter Hultqvist, a Social Democratic MP and chairman of the Swedish Parliament’s Committee On Defense:

“This defense reinforcement initiative is long overdue. It will go some way to restoring Sweden’s position, lost in recent years because of low spending on defense, as the Nordic region’s strongest military power. It will also improve our capacity to better police the Baltic Sea area"--Defense News

Russia has been testing the US for at least the last two years (that we know of).  Nothing the Obama administration has done has curtailed these increasingly bold moves by Russia (both domestically as well as in the Crimea).   The Russian military has rapidly become quite modern while the US military continues to drawdown and cut modernization programs.  US nuclear forces in particular have come under scrutiny for not being prepared.

Taken all of this into account, Russia has no fear of Washington.  Any sanctions that Obama gets against Russia for invading Crimea will not deter Putin.  In fact, it may very well embolden him.  The US has never faced military action on its soil since the Civil War.  The Russian military is quite capable of attacking the CONUS via cyber or electronic warfare.  We see what happens when acts of nature cripple our cities and infrastructure, imagine what a concerted effort could do!  And this is exactly what Russia is banking on, that Americans won't want to have their way of life disrupted or destroyed.  Mr. Putin may have already won by simply proving his unwavering determination to win Russia's place back as a superpower.  And the US may have proved it is no longer relevant.

Spy planes, civilian airlines and mass shootings

The following headline caught my eye the other day; "Spy Plane Fries Air Traffic Control Computers, Shuts Down LAX".  According to the article, a U-2 altitude (60,000 feet or higher) and route overloaded En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) which is designed to allow faster processing of route requests and in-flight changes.  The ERAM kept interpreting the U-2 flight path as on a collision course with other aircraft, even though the vertical separation (altitude) between the U-2 and other aircraft in the vicinity was several miles.  I find the explanation to be only partially believable.

While I have no doubt the U-2 overloaded the ERAM, I believe it had more to do with the electronics on-board the spy plane then it did simply with its route.  U-2s have been in operation for over 50 years and has been around since at least 2009.  This can't be the first time a U-2 has flown through congested airspace, albeit several miles above it.  I suspect the U-2 had either some sensors or jammers that prematurely came on which were responsible for the computer crash.  The systems are all programmed on the ground, the pilot is merely along for the ride so he would not have had any way of turning the systems on or off.

Back in the early 90s, our radar unit was in a major exercise in Europe.  An EC-111 (Raven) was on-station and started to jam our radar (which puked out 100,000 watts of R/F energy).  We were able to manually switched frequencies to defeat the jamming UNTIL the back-seater got tired of our shit and turned up the energy of his jammer.  He shut us down in a heartbeat and friend some of our equipment.  The point of this story was at least 20 years ago, military aircraft had the ability to shut-down ground based radar (even military ones with frequency hopping capability).  A modern day FAA civilian radar would have no chance against a U-2 if it was switched on at the wrong time.

Most civilians outside electrical engineers and physicists have no idea how much energy electronic jammers, radars and even HF radios produce.  All of these are capable, with enough power and range, to bring down aircraft.  I still am of the opinion the Flight 370 was hit by some kind of R/F weapon.  Perhaps the pilot was planning to divert and land somewhere.  His route may have crossed into protected airspace and a R/F weapon was used on it.  I am reading now where supposedly Al Qaeda terrorists were on board.  Perhaps they had something to do with it or perhaps they were merely passengers.  Terrorist using an aircraft as a weapon again will take some time.  Everyone is looking for that so the next major attack will involve something else.

Something else could be the ability to "turn" our own people against us.  The news is reporting more and more shootings, stabbings and attempted bombings at schools.  According to the Liberty Crier, nearly every mass shooting in the past 20 years was committed by people on psychotropic drugs (article).  Most of these drugs are prescribed to prevent certain behaviors but those prescribing often don't know all of the side effects.  What if the drugs allow one to be more easily programmed via mass media (TV, Internet, video games, etc)?  It would keep our focus off of external threats while keeping us focused on internal threats.  Remember, propaganda encompasses all forms of communication to change attitudes and behaviors.  We tend to think of wartime posters and Voice of America when propaganda is actually more psychological warfare.  When you consider propaganda in that manner, it becomes harder to dismiss the use of mass media by outside forces as a way of turning our own people against us.

In these three examples, the headlines are only part of the story.  The 24 hour news cycle is making impossible to stay focused on one story before the next major headline hits.  Syria and Ukraine are still tearing themselves up but the news has already moved on to the next headline.

Thoughts on Ukraine, the US officer corps, and Nevada

In May 2008, Russia invades Georgia.  The large, unwieldy Soviet style command and control of the Russian Army proved disastrous.  Russian troops were antiquated and ill-equipped for warfare in the 21st Century.  Mr. Putin spent the next  years changing the Russian army from its Cold War era posture to a lean, modern fighting force that quickly retook the Crimea.  Reports now are coming in that Russian troops in the Ukraine are wearing state-of-the-art body armor.  The armor is believed to have titanium and hard carbide boron ceramic chest and back plates.  If correct, these plates can deflect 5.56mm NATO round and means the Ukraine rifles won't be very effective.  Even the Russian grenade launchers and helmets have take such an order of magnitude leap that a former US general was quoted as saying, "The body armor is better than our body armor. They’re doing a lot of things right. I’m pretty amazed at it.”--Washington Times

As a result, Mr. Obama's foreign policy failures continue to mount.  Mr. Putin has thus far been unpersuaded by threats of isolating Russian on the world market.  Reclaiming Crimea, which was turned over by Khrushchev, is imperative in Mr. Putin's mind to reclaiming Russia's spot as a world power.  Thus far, he has achieved his goal and seems hellbent on keeping it.  In contrast, Mr. Obama's failed foreign policy continues with the assignment of the Ukraine situation falling to elder "statesman" VP Joe Biden.  Kerry out, Biden in and how did the vice president handle this passing of the torch?  By saying upon his arrival in the Ukraine, "Thank you for making me feel relevant again!" (Weekly Standard).  Mr. Biden, this is not about you or your lack of relevance, it's about preventing a potential war.

The state of the US military has to be emboldening Russia.  While Mr. Putin has increased spending over the last 6 years, Mr. Obama first imposed sequestration across the Department of Defense.  While wartime spending needed to be brought under control. the sequestration was a heavy-handed approach that has threatened modernization and has all of the Joint Chiefs scrambling to maintain relevancy.

It is against the backdrop of these events that I read with interest an article by William Lind in the American Conservative, "An Officer Corps That Can't Score".  In it, Lind sees the officer corps has become the land of careerists who seek to reinforce one another's beliefs without challenging the status quo.  He believes, and I agree, the officers are no longer learned professionals who read and study serious military history.  He also feels that there are just too many officers who are in-turn augmented by contractors (who are mostly just retired officers themselves).

The pathologies that flow from this are endless. Command tours are too short to accomplish anything, usually about 18 months, because behind each commander is a long line of fellow officers eagerly awaiting their lick at the ice-cream cone. Decisions are pulled up the chain because the chain is laden with surplus officers looking for something to do. Decisions are committee-consensus, lowest common denominator, which Boyd warned is usually the worst of all possible alternatives. Nothing can be changed or reformed because of the vast number of players defending their “rice bowls.” The only measurable product is entropy. 

 The second and third structural failings are related because both work to undermine moral courage and character, which the Prussian army defined as “eagerness to make decisions and take responsibility.” They are the “up or out” promotion system and “all or nothing” vesting for retirement at 20 years. “Up or out” means an officer must constantly curry favor for promotion because if he is not steadily promoted he must leave the service. “All or nothing” says that if “up or out” pushes him out before he has served 20 years, he leaves with no pension. (Most American officers are married with children.)--The American Conservative

The USAF is accused of being more of a corporation than a military organization at times so I tend to agree more with Lind than if I had been say in the Marine Corps.  Nonetheless, his observations are timely for a military that was for so long trained to fight the Soviet Union, only now to become engaged in a conflict with Russia that it is no longer able to contain.

When one lacks a curious mind, you become locked into reactive state without regard to causes or consequences.  In war, this means you lose.  In the civilian world, it's how over a month after the disappearance of Flight 370 no wreckage has been found.  It had to have crashed, no pilot would have dropped below radar coverage and landed somewhere?  It couldn't have crashed, otherwise our satellites and other systems would have detected the wreckage?  The truth is probably going to be a combination of the pilot intentionally avoiding detection and landing/crashing on an island somewhere.

Of course another, more sinister option brings us back to Russia.  What if there was a way to take over the controls of an aircraft and divert it somewhere or outright destroy it without leaving a trace?  It might just be enough incentive to convince and already iffy US President to stay home and mind his own business.

Speaking of which, apparently US federal agents aren't required to read history books either.  Attempting to takeover a Nevada ranch eerily resembled the Branch Davidian compound from 1995 yet they expected US citizens not to react?  Wisely they were pulled back (is Mr. Obama also failing on his domestic policies?).  I don't think the situation is over in Nevada but I also don't thinks this administration can handle both a domestic and international crisis at the same time.

Camp Ravenna clears hurdle for possible missile defense site

Last fall, Camp Ravenna and four other sites were named as areas that would house an undetermined number of U.S. missiles designed to intercept incoming enemy missiles. Cost estimates for such a facility range from $1 billion to $5 billion.

Three other sites were selected for completion of the environmental study: Fort Custer, Mich.; Fort Drum, N.Y;. and the Portsmouth Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Training Area, near Rangeley, Maine.

Akron Beacon Journal

The Strange Case of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

By now, pretty much everyone who reads the Internet or watches the news has heard about this incident. But for those who may not or for future reference, here are what details we know about the flight prior to its disappearance.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 headed to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, locally at 12:41 am Saturday (Friday afternoon ET), March 8, 2014, air traffic controllers in Subang, outside Kuala Lumpur, lost contact with the Boeing 777 plane over the Gulf of Thailand between Malaysia and Vietnam, 90 nautical miles northeast of Kota Bharu, Malaysia. Malaysia Airlines’ Boeing 777 asset was last tracked at 1722 Zulu (1:22 am local), when it disappeared from radar contact.  I've marked the approximate area on the map below.

The only other factor we know for sure is the aircraft attempted to "turnaround".  It is unclear if this means a full 180 degree turn back to its point of origin or if it was a more abrupt 90 degree turn indicating a loss of altitude (and the turn is an attempt to avoid other aircraft in the route).

The first point many articles fail to point out is that aircraft operating under IFR aren't truly tracked by radar as in the beam reflected off of the skin of the aircraft, but rather but the transponder signal received by the radar antenna.  It is the reason why the final location of the aircraft is alluding authorities.  Once the transponder was turned off or destroyed, FL 370 disappeared from air traffic control radars.  Any AWACS in the area would have been able to still track it as military radars look at both skin reflection as well as transponders.

The second point is the black box (which is actually a bright color such as red or orange so you can find it) emits a locating signal but that signal is very weak.  The signal is only good for several thousand yards and that assumes it isn't underwater.

The third point is why didn't Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 squawk either "7500" for hijacking or "7700" for emergency?  If the disappearance was due to some type of hijacking or terrorist incident, then the pilot and co-pilots may have been overwhelmed or killed before they could react.  If not then a terrorist or hijacking, then there is the possibility something in the environment effected the crew before they could enter the transponder code.  If oxygen levels slowly dropped, reaction times for the pilots may have prevented them from acting accordingly.  

The fourth is the lack of debris.  If Flight 370 exploded in mid-flight or crashed into the ocean, there should be signs of debris floating in the ocean.  Seat cushions, life vests and baggage should be visible on the surface.  Some speculate this is a sign that is was diverted and forced to land somewhere.  This seems unlikely as it is damn hard to find land strips long enough for a Boeing 777 much less keep witnesses from seeing it.  The only explanation that makes sense right now is that searchers aren't looking in the right place.

The Boeing 777 has operated for nearly 20 years with an impeccable record so it seems unlikely that the disappearance of Flight 370 is related to some type of mechanical failure.  It is also unlikely that a missile was used to bring down the aircraft.  Missiles leave smoke trails and radar signatures that would have been seen.  

The majority of passengers on this flight were Chinese with 154 citizens. Additionally, 38 Malaysians, 7 Indonesians, 6 Australians, 5 Indian, 4 French, 3 Americans, 2 New Zealanders, 2 Canadians, 1 Austrian, 1 Dutch, 1 Italian, and 1 Russian were reported to be aboard.  Based on this, a motivation for a terrorist to target this flight seems unlikely.  There are numerous reports of passengers using bogus passports.  While certainly suspicious, one has to wonder how many other flights have passengers using bogus identities?  Of these, how many result in an aircraft disappearing?

The turn would indicate the pilots suspected something but since they did not radio anything, it would support a scenario involving a hijacker.  But if hijacked, why blow up the aircraft over the ocean once you already have control of it? 

I suspect we may find out a new type of attack was used.  Some type of either cyber or advanced weaponry.  A cyber attack could have be launched against the Boeing's on-board systems rendering the pilots unable to control the aircraft or radio for help.  It is not outside the realm of possibility especially if one of the people carrying a fake passport were involved.  Flying over the ocean, the aircraft could have been hit with some type of advanced weapon from a ship or satellite that knocked out its navigation systems and radios.  If I'm right, governments and militaries would be extremely reluctant for this information to get out.  It would mean that any civilian airliner could be targeted (and potential even military aircraft).

What is most disconcerting to me is the timing.  This happened right after Russia's move into the Crimea.  It seems to me like someone (and not necessarily the Russians) wants to keep the world off balance.

UPDATE:  The Chinese government has released satellite images which may show debris from missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.  The photos, found on the website for the Chinese State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND), show what appears to be a floating object in the South China Sea, according to CNN.--Raycom Media Network