Obama's War of Words

Words are an interesting thing.  In religion, words bind you to your faith.  In law, words bind you to legal commitments.  In politics, words are used to invoke emotions to persuade people to follow their political leaders.

Last month, President Obama said the following words "no boots on the ground" to promise no troops would be sent into Iraq.  Those words weren't chosen haphazardly.  The words were meant to invoke emotions of trust that no more troops would be sent into harms way.  The words also made no sense.

After failing to keep their word to the Iraqi people, the White House pulled out the US troops (the only thing keeping stability in a traditionally unstable area) leaving Maliki high and dry.  Once ISIS troops entered Iraq, it took away the ability of the White House to keep their "words".  Contrary to what the Col Chuck Horner fanboys would have you believe, you can't win wars or conflicts by airpower alone.  The only way to stop troops from occupying territory is by having other troops kick them out and taking over that same territory.  It is a basic principle of warfare dating back to the most ancient times yet one that modern war planners and politicians pretend is no longer applicable.  ISIS put boots on the ground and they only way to stop them is by having different boots on the ground to either push them or at least re-occupy territory ISIS took over.

The troop pull-out in Iraq greatly exacerbated, if not outright created, the situations were ISIS (now the Islamic State or ISIL) saw an opportunity to come in and topple an already unpopular Maliki.   In theory, the boots to counter ISIL should belong to the Iraqi Army but they have been unable to handle the job.  The US and Maliki have been trying to coax Iran into providing those needed boots on the ground.  Iran has an interest in not seeing the separatist movement in Iraq spread, however they are even more interested in not having their military forces involved in a full blown war.

So now if you are the National Security Council and want to keep your options open in Iraq but not contradict the President's words of "no boots on the ground", what do you do?  Well you can position nine (9) US Navy warships in the Persian Gulf.  The USS George H. W. Bush is on-station accompanied by one cruiser and five destroyers (carrier strike group), the USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) and the USS Mesa Verde (LPC-19).  Now add the USS Bataan (LHD-5) with 1,000 Marines and you see that the White House has many options for striking targets in Iraq without "boots on the ground." (Source:  USNI)  But nothing is ever easy, especially for this White House.

Having all of that firepower on-station in the Persian Gulf does not mean the White House has a strategy.  Republicans as well as Democrats are bemoaning the lack of a strategy for Iraq.  The lack of strategy is perhaps why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has come out on video as the leader of ISIL.  He may end-up stopping a Hellfire missile at some point but for now he is leading a very popular movement.  His words carry more weight than the President right now.  Why do I say that?

The success of ISIL in Iraq has rekindled fears of another al-Qaeda led attack on the United States.  In response to this "impending threat", the TSA has instituted a ban on all uncharged mobile devices.  The paranoia has gone global.  Uncharged mobile devices are now what liquid explosives were just a few years ago.  The problem is not with what is perceived as a viable threat, rather the "one-size fits all" way that the ban has been instituted.  Security agencies around the world are now more concerned with the potential weapon versus the behavior.

TSA especially has always taken the approach of everyone is a potential threat until proven otherwise.  Such an approach has a number of weaknesses.  First, all of the emphasis is placed on passengers boarding.  Little to none is placed on airport employees who could be compromised into hiding a weapon or explosive device on the aircraft.  Second, the TSA approach is a public relations nightmare. By summarily treating every passenger to increasingly more invasive screenings, you are in effect going against the most basic tenet of American law that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  This is why whenever a screener abuses their position of authority it results in a maelstrom of public outcry.  TSA basically has yet to find the words to create belief amongst Americans.  Even if they finally do, TSA is still is only looking at a small part of the problem.

If ISIL or some other al-Qaeda cell is activated, I submit they won't have to travel here (a basic premise of TSA is that potential terrorists will use the airlines to travel or as weapons).  More than likely, there are cells already in place and may not need to move by commercial airliners.  TSA may be thwarting the use of airliners as weapons but what about other potential weapons?  For example, according to a Cincinnati Enquirer article Ohio leads the country in hazardous materials transportation spills with over 25 percent of the spills in Ohio occurring in the Greater Cincinnati area.  Our railroad infrastructure is outdated and crumbling before our eyes, it would not take much for a terrorist cell cause a train hauling hazardous waste (to include spent nuclear fuel) to crash in a major metropolitan area.

Thanks to Micheal Bay and J.J. Abrahams (pictures instead of words), we tend to think of a terrorist attack as involving massive explosions resulting in huge numbers of casualties.  But who is to say that the next terrorist attack needs to look like something out of summer blockbuster movie?  Our power grids are extremely vulnerable to malware attacks and it would not take much to bring the Eastern Seaboard down.  Just imagine what few weeks without power to run refrigerators would do to the price of food and medicine!

Reports are coming out of West Africa that Ebola is spreading rapidly.  All it will take is one case of that to get on a plane and land here in the US.  How hard would it be for an al-Qaeda operative to arrange something like while we are busy making sure all mobile devices are charged?  Of course it is easier to use words to create a threat (uncharged mobile devices) which can then be portrayed as being neutralized by other words.

Words by the President who calls the situation on the Southwest border a "humanitarian issue" even though anywhere else illegal border crossings would constitute a state of emergency.  And words we don't hear, such as where are those immigrants being housed? (Answer, on military bases.  Out of sight, out of mind don't you know)

Words by a former President declaring a "war on drugs".  We still have troops and other clandestine operatives deployed throughout Colombia yet the flow of cocaine and now heroin are as strong as ever.  The war on drugs did produce some tangible results by increasing the number of Americans in prison for drug related crimes.  So many are in prison that Louisiana (of all places) is looking at reforming drug conviction laws (such as mandatory sentencing for possession) to address prison overcrowding.  The sale of illegal drugs produce such huge profits that the drug cartels are able to out-pay and out-finance most governments (even the US).  Terrorist groups need funding and what has always been obvious, but not spoken of much, is the relationship between the two groups.  Afghani poppy growers produce the raw materials for heroin.  Colombian and Mexican drug cartels have the infrastructure to move the heroin along with cocaine and marijuana.  If you can smuggle drugs, you can smuggle weapons.  Apparently, we don't have words for this potential threat.

President Obama lost a war of words with Syria, then Crimea and now Iraq.  He also lost a war of words with Central Americans seeking amnesty in the United States.  Now he has lost a war of words with the American people.

Does John Kerry not see the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq?

Lieutenant John Kerry (USN) awards; Silver Star, Bronze Star (with Valor device), Purple Hearts (three oak leaf clusters), Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation (for heroism),  Navy Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal (two oak leaf clusters), Republic of Vietnam Unit Citation Gallantry Cross Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Citation Civil Action Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal.  We will ignore the fact he chose to wear his medals on his fatigue uniform when he testified as part of the Vietnam Vets Against the War.

Unlike others, I'm not here to challenge his record.  There is no denying that he served his country with distinction in Vietnam.  Vietnam was an ugly war with the Vietnamese people suffering horrible atrocities and the US troops that survived being damaged by those same atrocities only to return home to an American public too ashamed of them to offer the vets anything other the ridicule and condemnation.

If you asked most people today, they think the Vietnam war started in 1968 (the year the peace negotiated by the Pope was shattered by the NVA attacking the 25th Infantry Regiment).  If they happen to be a little older they might say 1965 (when combat units were first deployed in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident).  Actually the US involvement in Vietnam goes back to the early 1950s, when advisors were first sent in to assist the French and South Vietnamese in preventing the spread of Communism.  The Second Indochina War (what we call the Vietnam War) actually started on Nov 1, 1955.  The US presence went from a few hundred advisors, tripled in 1961 and then again in 1962.  It explains how there was such a huge military presence prior to the events of the Gulf of Tonkin and the incident could incite a huge military response.

Events in Vietnam eerily parallel events in Iraq today.  A weak government (Iraq) is seen as a puppet of the United States (the same way the South Vietnamese government was viewed).  A group from the North (Syrian backed Sunnis) oppose the weak government that has sought to marginalize them.  In retaliation, the United States labels the opposition as a "threat" (Communism being replaced by radical Islamists) and sends in military advisors (Green Berets, the same troops used in Vietnam) to shore up the weak government leader.  The parallels are almost too similar.

John Kerry served in Vietnam from 1969-1970.  What seems like ancient history to most today was current events for him.  He, as the Secretary of State, more than anyone else in the White House (including the goof of a SecDef) should recognize the opening act to this play.  Instead, we get this in today's New York Times;

Winding up a day of crisis talks with Iraqi leaders, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that the Sunni militants seizing territory in Iraq had become such a threat that the United States might not wait for Iraqi politicians to form a new government before taking military action.

“They do pose a threat,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.”

“That’s why, again, I reiterate the president will not be hampered if he deems it necessary if the formation is not complete,” he added, referring to the Iraqi efforts to establish a new multisectarian government that bridges the deep divisions among the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, Kurds and other smaller groups.

This is after Obama assured everyone that "no combat troops" would be sent into Iraq after he announced the deployment of the 300 advisors (which were in addition to the 300 Marine FAST team).

Just like France did in Indochina, the US has broke the political and military system that was in place and worked (forget about Saddam, look at Baghdad before 2003 and now).  Now the US has backed the wrong man (Maliki) and Kerry is the latest (after Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton) to try to put a band aid on a sucking chest wound.  Colin Powell at least recognized the risks if we invaded Iraq.  Kerry should know better than most that whenever you send in advisors, you risk escalation.

Iraq has already granted the US advisors limited immunity from prosecution.  WTF?  If you don't see where this heading then you've not been reading your history.  If you don't recognize how "radical Islam" has replaced "Communism", then you haven't read enough about McCarthyism and Black Lists.  

Kerry also shows he doesn't understand Iraq when he turned to Barzani and asked for the Kurds to assist in keeping the Iraqi government in power.  Are you kidding?  The Kurds have no love for Maliki and see this as the best opportunity to seek and independent Kurdish state.

So Lieutenant John Kerry, USN, I salute your service.  Now please use that experience to keep our troops the hell out of another Vietnam.

What's next for the White House?

Talking over world events with a friend the other night, it seems we are at some tipping point.  Nothing has thus far started a major conflict, everything seems to be contained to a region.  Some theorizes that this may be the new "normal" for wars, keeping things regionalized which keep costs down.

The theory doesn't allow for the acquisition of new territory which in the end is why most wars are fought.  The Sunnis for example feel they have been left out by Maliki and have thus resorted to war.  Putin felt Russia had receded far enough and annexed Crimea.  China and Japan are rehashing old claims to islands from nearly a century ago.  Japanese and Chinese aircraft are nearly bumping into each other over disputed airspace.  Russian fighters have overflown American warships in the Black Sea at extremely low altitudes.

In the 21st Century, the acquisition of territory is almost always about safety.  In modern times safety equates to access to cheap energy (oil).  The White House isn't worried about the American public tiring of war, the war is often the last thing on the minds of people (unless they themselves or their loved ones are serving).  The White House IS worried about the price of gasoline sky-rocketing as a result of a major conflict in the Middle East.  Rising gas prices would not help the Democrats in mid-term elections and would damage Hillary's chances at getting elected.

Gas prices effect not only how much you pay at the pump but how much consumer goods cost at the store.  Soaring gas prices, or worse a gas embargo, would also cripple the US military.  The jet fuel it takes to fly all of those sorties still comes from the oil pumped out of the ground in the Middle East.  About 10 years ago, the USAF successfully tested a synthetic jet fuel made from shale.  The continental US sits atop huge reserves of shale so if the technology has matured enough, the synthetic jet fuel could keep the F-35s turning and burning without regard to OPEC.  The question is does the process the USAF came with have enough capacity for all of the branches of the service?

The Navy went on better.  They have unveiled a technology for turning seawater into fuel at a cost of $3-$6 a barrel.  The article can be found here.  The process has the benefit of reducing CO2 levels in the ocean and it would eliminate the demand for oil from the Middle East.  Good news, right?  Well except for one thing, the timing of this means the Navy is a position to wait out any conflicts in the Middle East and still be able to run its non-nuclear ships.

Now let's follow that a step further.  The Air Force is rapidly follow out of favor with drones the have a bad habit of falling on innocent bystanders, nuclear launch officers who cheat, sexual assault scandals, and state of the art fighters that spend more time in hangars than in the air.  The Army takes too long to get anywhere and needs too much stuff to win.

The Navy is self-sufficient with ships and airplanes.  The Navy doesn't need expensive overseas bases to operate from.  Their nuclear forces are being benchmarked by the USAF to try to improve the readiness of Global Strike Command airmen.  Navy ships also carry Marines that can land on the shores and take-over stuff if needed.  Now with the ability to run everything on seawater, the Navy may have come back to forefront and give the White House an option to use to wage war.

But even this White House can't just wage war without some type of impetus.  Syria failed to provide enough justification for Obama, even after the use of chemical weapons.  Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons made great sound bytes but provided Obama with even less of a reason to go to war.

Iraq was supposed to be his victory lap in having pulled all the troops out but Washington's trust in Maliki blinded them to his actions.  Maliki marginalized and oppressed the Sunnis and Kurds.  Further complicating matters was the US decision to completely disassemble the Iraqi military and build anew.  The Iraqi military of Saddam Hussein had seen battle many times.  The Iraqi military of Maliki is completely new and is having to operate without their US mentors for the first time.  The results have not been impressive;

After tens of thousands of desertions, the Iraqi military is reeling from what one U.S. official described as “psychological collapse” in the face of the offensive from militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).--The Washington Post

The Sunnis have the Shiites on the ropes.  Contrary to the naysayers, the Sunnis are a bigger threat for they are the majority through Middle East.  The British intelligence agencies are quite concerned that Sunnis in the UK might be inspired towards terrorist attacks since the UK and US did nothing to help them in their fight against Maliki.

It's a stretch but this may be where the White House finds its reason to go to war.  A British 9/11 could give Obama the reason he lacks to go back into Iraq or finally attack Syria.  Of course the Sunnis most likely have operatives here in the US as well and another major attack on US soil could inspire the White House.

I never like the obvious, I think the reason for the US to go to war has yet to come out.  Perhaps Japan and China finally get tired of playing chicken and finally launch forces.  Perhaps North Korea fires a missile at Japan.  I don't think this White House will launch any kind of military action to protect the Southwest border although the continued flood of illegal immigrants here poses the most immediate threat (and where is DHS in all of this?).

Iraq

This map shows why things are so volatile right now in Southwest Asia.  Syria has had a civil war waging for over a year.  Shiite supporters from Syria have been supplying Iraqi insurgents since the beginning of the invasion in 2003.  Syrian refuges have been pouring into Turkey.  Turkish and Syrian forces have been clashing on the border for almost as long as the civil war has been going.  

The uprising in Iraq has created a strange cooperation between the US and Iran.  Iran and Iraq went to war in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein feared the Iraqi Shia minority would be inspired by the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Now roles are reversed and Iran is interested in not having the violence of Syria and Iraq spill over to their republic.  The US fears is violence erupts in Iran, any nuclear technology could fall into terrorist hands.

The US is culpable in all of this.  As I wrote previously, the invasion destroyed the infrastructure for any kind of leadership.  Placing bets that Prime Minister Maliki would be the one to keep the peace was a mistake.  His tendency towards oppressive violence was known as far back as 2008.  Once the troops came out in 2011, it was inevitable that Iraq would erupt into violence.

Now the White House is trying to work with Iran to keep things in check.  If things work out, it will make Tehran seem much less like the "axis of evil" and the White House like a bunch xenophobic hypocrites.  On one hand, the President has spent most of his tenure demonizing Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Now he has to turn to Iran under his "multilateral partnerships" to fix a problem the US created.

The US direct response was to send in a Marine "FAST" (fleet anti-terrorism security team) to protect US embassy personnel.  In an ironic twist, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel sent the USS George H.W. Bush to the Persian Gulf.  The carrier will give the White House more options to strike but there arises the big question, strike who?  There is no single person or group of people to target to stop the insurgency.  Worse such strikes would most likely exacerbate matters.

Now with the US attention once again distracted, what of Ukraine? Or even our own border with Mexico?

Iraq

The situation in Iraq is a reminder of how much the media needs headlines.  "Radical Islamists", "Islamist militants", "militants led by the ISIS", "ISIS backed militants", etc. etc. etc. are the terms being thrown about by writers on both sides on the pond and across all political spectrums.  When in doubt, link the ISIS to al-Qaeda and you have a ready made headline.  The problem is nothing going in Iraq is really all that new.  Iraq's modern borders dated back to 1920 and the Treaty of Sevres, which encompassed a Shia majority with a Sunni minority population in the Southeast and a Kurdish minority population in the Northeast.

Saddam Hussein's brutality wasn't just the resulted of his own psychosis, it was in part due to keeping some semblance of order between the three different groups.  Colin Powell new this and worried that if the US invaded Iraq, it would be stuck with trying to keep all three groups at peace.  He famously warned then President Bush, 'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'  Neither Bush nor Obama heeded that advice.

Why do I include President Obama?  Because he also failed to realize the situation in Iraq for what it truly is, three different groups seeking their own independent states but locked into a country than none really control.  The US post-war presence served as a bit of a buffer but the continued outbreaks of violence forced Obama to pull the troops out.  He made two mistakes in doing this.  First, he ignored Colin Powell's warning.  Whether Obama agreed with Bush or not, the US had broken Iraq and now owned it.  Pulling the troops out was reneging on our debt for invading in the first place.  The second mistake Obama made was announcing a firm timeline for the troops leaving.

Think about being in a boxing match.  You announce that in the next 5 seconds, no matter what, you are going to throw a right cross.  You opponent would have more than enough time to come up with dozens of counters to your pre-announced right cross.  Obama has done the same thing.  The "militants" have had years to plan their move. Blair was right in his criticism of Obama's handling of Iraq but don't agree with his assessment that military action in Syria would have prevented the ISIS from seizing power.  

(Obama is making the same mistake in Afghanistan, announcing a timeline for troop drawdowns years in advance.  The Taliban and al-Qaeda are drawing up all sorts of plans for those final days.)

Realizing this mistake (maybe), Obama quickly went on the defense to announce no troops would be sent in even though the Iraqi government was pleading for US assistance.  Now taking a page from the Clinton administration, both the White House and the UN have decided that drone strikes will help.

Unfortunately, the ISIS is conducting ground warfare which means once the have move into an area they occupy it.  Even with drones, you still need to force then out and then occupy their former areas with your own troops.  The Iraqi military has thus far proved unable to handle this assignment so the drone strikes are not going to be anything more than headlines for a few days.  Worse, if memory serves, drone strikes have not been all that popular in Pakistan.  The Taliban and been condemning drone strikes for years and since they are linked to al-Qaeda it appears the ISIS will also follow suite.

Perhaps this is why so many are now bemoaning the inevitable next strike of al-Qaeda against the United States.  Odd that this potential threat is getting more air time and concern from pundits than the masses of bodies making their way through the Mexican border, at least some of whom are part of the drug cartels.  The US evacuated most their personnel from the embassy in Baghdad.  I wonder if FEMA will be called on to evacuate US citizens from the border region?

Bush broke Iraq and Obama did nothing to fix it.  Now the US is running away from it like a kid that has just hit a baseball through a neighbor's window.  What is not being discussed is how our lack of action in Iraq will hobble future US foreign policy initiatives.

And less we forget about the Ukraine;

Ukraine says Russia has cut off all gas supplies to Kiev, in a major escalation of a dispute between the two nations.

"Gas supplies to Ukraine have been reduced to zero," Ukrainian Energy Minister Yuri Prodan said.

Russia's state-owned gas giant Gazprom said Ukraine had to pay upfront for its gas supplies, after Kiev failed to settle its huge debt.--BBC News

Putin has always had more than the military card to play in the Ukraine.  Economic sanctions have their greatest impact in the long-term.  Short-term, Putin is going to be able to bend Ukraine to his vision before any sanctions force he to adopt a new strategy.

Obama, Kerry, Hagel and Susan Rice are being outmaneuvered in each situation.  Obama's amnesty program has created a sucking chest wound on the Mexican border.  Yet the administration thinks it can contain China.