Some random thoughts and observations as January comes to a close.

- Mr. Obama sure has his priorities in order.  He blows off the largest gathering of world leaders in Paris to honor those killed during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, yet makes a beeline for Saudi Arabia to honor there new king.  At first, this seemed like some more Obama Administration miscalculations until I went to the gas pump on Sunday and filled up at $1.85.  I'm unconvinced Saudi Arabia is an active partner in combatting terrorism in the way that say the UK or even France are but by keeping their oil production up and prices low, they are helping to keep the Obama war machine turning.

-  Mr.  Obama then makes another speedy to trip to recognize the new PM of India.  Unlike events in Saudi Arabia, this actually does represent a paradigm shift for the US which has been at odds with New Delhi since the Cold War (and professing our continued support of Pakistan).  Alas it seems too little, too late as Russia has been involved with India since the days of the Soviet Union.  India has benefitted from Russian nuclear technology and now is on the cusp of receiving cheap Russian oil to help fuel an ever growing Indian economy.

- The challenge with deconstructing a given conspiracy theory is there is almost always a little truth to them.  Case in point, the conspiracy theorists have been labeling the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a "false flag" attack, meaning it was set deliberately to justify actions by other states usually leading towards war.  In this case, France had committed to sell two warships to Russia and was reducing their military which would mean fewer French troops and equipment would be available to support US led actions.  Now France is rethinking its drawdown.

- Speaking of the Charlie Hebdo attack, a renewed debate on guns has erupted on cyberspace.  The pro-gun side believes a well armed civilian populace would have prevented the massacre in Paris.  The gun-control side believes just the opposite that access to guns increases the likelihood for an even higher body county.  Now Interpol, the police agency consisting of countries with some of the most restrictive gun-control policies, has come out with a Hobson's choice; you either arm your citizens or impose martial law.  "Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security,” stated Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble.

- The US may need to figure which side of the argument it is on soon.  Our friends at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have in another demonstration of short-term thinking are shutting down 20 percent of the US coal-burning power plants.  Hooray!  Clean-air and less carbon emissions for all!  Except with coal accounting for 40 percent of US power production, and no new EPA approved plants coming on-line, this means our power grid is being constrained even more.  It won't take make much for either a physical or cyber attack on our power grids to put us down for the count.  But we will have cleaner air.

- The US poster-child for waging asymmetrical warfare (read, killing terrorists) is the aerial unmanned vehicle or simply drone.  These remotely piloted aircraft allow for the hunting and killing of terrorists in real-time.  They also present the illusion of conducting air warfare for less than using manned aircraft and without risking the lives of American pilots.  But time marches on and what was true just 10 years ago has greatly changed.  According to Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the air service’s Air Combat Command, "Predators and Reapers are useless in a contested environment."  Whoops, isn't that exactly the kind of environment we DON'T want our pilots to fly in?  He goes on, "Today … I couldn’t put [a Predator or Reaper] into the Strait of Hormuz without having to put airplanes there to protect it."  Wait, you need to protect you unmanned aircraft with an manned aircraft?  Why yes, according to Gen Welsh who revealed that an F-22 — the planet’s most sophisticated stealth fighter — intercepted Iranian F-4 Phantom jets that were closing in on a U.S. Predator drone over the strait last March. In November 2012, Iranian Su-25 ground attack jets fired on, and missed, an American Predator over the strait. (Source:  Foreign Policy)

- Mr. Obama has instituted several changes to the US military during his tenure; allowing women in combat, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, and an increased focus on reducing sexual assault.  Any one of these would have be a major cultural shift for the US military, implementing all three while the US is still deploying troops to hostile areas has led to the lowest morale of the US military since Vietnam.  This is not to argue the merits of any of the decisions but to point out that in chasing the political side of the issue, the morale of the troops has suffered.  None of these issues are easy to implement, one need only look back on the history of race in the military.  To ask the military to sort through three major issues, while facing continued deployments as well as troop reductions, is just foolhardy.  If you are serious about these issues, then give the troops the time and support to change the culture.  Otherwise this is just politics and not about the troops.

- January is the month that US President's give their State of the Union address.  Mr. Obama said the U.S. was upholding 'the principle that bigger nations can't bully the small' by opposing what he called Russian president Vladimir Putin's aggression and supporting democracy in Ukraine (Source: Daily Mail).  Strong words from a president who has a military that  has been at war for 13 years, facing a drawdown, is going through major cultural changes, and flat out doesn't like their Commander-In-Chief (CINC). But now, according to the Daily Mail,  the Russians have claimed the speech showed how the United States believes it is 'number one' and is unable to be an equal.  The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Levrov reacted by saying, "Yesterday's speech by the president shows that at the centre of the U.S. philosophy is only one thing: "We are number one and everybody else has to respect that."

- The warmongering former POW and Senator, John McCain, now is pressuring Obama to increase troop presence, "American boots on the ground are necessary to defeat [the group] in Iraq and Syria." (Defense News).  Even McCain admits there is no coherent strategy for dealing with Daesh but he wants to add more troops?  A especially egregious recommendation from a Vietnam veteran, a war the defined the ridiculousness of quantifying military victory.

- The whole GOP/North Korea/Sony Pictures attack seems to have been forgotten.  However, now that the US is ramping up for the 2016 Presidential election, Iran is back on the front burner.  Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is expressing support for legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran if talks fail to reach a deal curbing its nuclear program (The Hill).  More troops for McCain plus more sanctions for Sherman seems to equal a future conflict with Iran?

- Finally, who will next lead the US through this chaos as the 45th President?  We've already heard enough about Hillary and Jeb, now we get other retreads such as Romeny, Biden, Christie and Rubio.  Elizabeth Warren is staying pat so far and as such, no other big name Democrats (other than Biden) are really coming out.  It is the Republicans to lose, I say that due to the sense of many people have had enough of Hillary.  She is tired and not nimble on her feet like her husband.  A prolonged campaign will invite too many opportunities for her to stumble and fall.  But if the Republicans front Jeb, the country may just turn off their electronic devices for the next election.

Arms Dealing

There is money to be made in war or at least in sale of arms.  The US has pledged not to put boots on the ground in Iraq, however there are already 650 of the 770 troop authorization already in-country forcing the Pentagon to deny charges of mission-creep.  Those troops are going to need weapons and ammunition, plus food and other supplies.  The price of those troops pales in comparison to big ticket items like missiles and aircraft.

Those troops in Iraq are there to protect US personnel and act as advisors.  Hardly enough to begging to turn back ISIS.  What the Iraqis need though is better air support and the US had promised to sell them more F-16s and drones.  The aircraft are tied up in bureaucratic nonsense which allowed Russia to once again beat the US to the punch.

On Monday, Russian television trumpeted the arrival of the first five of 12 promised Sukhoi Su-25 combat fighter jets to the Iraqi government, saying it had also sent “trainers” to help the Iraqis use them. Gen. Anwar Hama Ameen,the commander of the Iraqi Air Force, told The New York Times the fighter jets would enter the battle against ISIS within a few days, after which the Russian trainers would leave Iraq. He said Iraq had plenty of pilots with “long experience” flying the Su-25. The Russian ambassador to Iraq also said Russian pilots would not fly missions inside Iraq.--The Daily Beast

Given that Iraqi pilots don't know how to fly the Su-25 yet, I doubt that Russian pilots won't end up flying at least some initial sorties.  The last time Su-25s were flown by Iraq was back in 2002.  The Su-25 was the Soviet Unions answer to the A-10 Warthog.  It is a subsonic jet designed especially for close-air support (CAS) missions exactly what is needed in dealing with ISIS (now the Islamic State).  

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the sale of the Su-25s were in the works prior to the breakout of the crisis but Russia may now have accelerated the delivery of the aircraft in part to trump the United States.  Russia has successfully draw a distinction between itself and the United States which in comparison has been slow to provide minimal support.

Perhaps in an attempt to save face, the State Department announced the sale of 4,000 Hellfire missiles to Iraq;

The State Department has told lawmakers informally that the Obama administration wants to sell Iraq more than 4,000 additional Hellfire missiles for the government’s fight against Islamic insurgents, according to people familiar with the plan.--Bloomberg

Each Hellfire missile costs around $70K, so the sale is worth $280 million.  The Lockheed plant in Bethesda where the Hellfire is made has put on two shifts of workers putting the plant at full capacity.  Nothing like "Gears of War" to stimulate the economy.  

There is a small problem though for Iraq.  Hellfire missiles can't be carried on Su-25s.  Hellfire missiles are typically carried by Predators (MQ-1B) or Reapers (MQ-9) which I cannot find any mention of being sold to Iraq.  The only drones sales I can find mentioned in open-source materials are the 48 Ravens identified in the Marine Times back in December.  The RQ-11 are small hand-held drones which are obviously not capable of carrying Hellfire missiles.  

So what does Iraq have or has purchased to carry all those Hellfire missiles?  Back in January, the US agreed to the sale of six Apache helicopters with an option to buy another 24 (source:  Foreign Policy), the total price including training is $6.2 billion.  That is addition to the $1.9 billion for 36 F-16 fighters that was initiated in 2011 (source: CS Monitor).

With dollar signs like this, Russia is interested in getting their share of Iraqi oil money even more than embarrassing an already weak White House.

Future Shock

Jan 12, 2010…a magnitude 7 earthquake hits Haiti causing mass death and destruction.  The shanty houses collapsed on one another trapping and killing thousands.  Haiti is still recovering from that earthquake since its non-existent infrastructure and corrupt government made receiving and distributing aid nearly impossible.  What though is most memorable is that much of the financial aid collected was gathered through social media.

We've seen videos of flash mobs and received emails from friends asking us to sign petitions.  These seem like novelties but what is often lost is the power of social media and the Internet to change world politics.  Information and disinformation can be shared instantaneously.  Putin really didn't need an intelligence network to know what was going on in Ukraine, he merely had to have his advisors follow social media.

The advent of social media is nothing new and has been talked about for many years, yet the US continues to pursue foreign policy that ignores the compressed timeframe the Internet has introduced.  Like-minded individuals can recruit and solicit funds without ever having to leave their country.  Opposition groups can now reach much larger audiences faster and get the word out about the corruption of their government leaders.

For the US, the problem is now clandestine operations to overthrow unpopular leaders can be rapidly exposed via the Internet.  Atrocities committed by US backed governments are quick recorded via smart devices and posted to the Internet before the CIA or State Department can formulate a plausible excuse.  Given this reality, why does the US continue to talk about foreign policy as though it were still the 1950s?

Another technology that we have not begun to understand is 3D printing.  A father uses a 3D printer he purchased at home to make a bionic hand for his son who had lost his hand in an accident.  A musician uses a 3D printer to make an acoustic guitar that rivals ones made out of wood.  And of course 3D printers are capable of making firearms.  No longer will opposition groups have to "depend on the kindness of strangers" to arm themselves against oppressive governments.  It also means the traditional role of the US as the world's policeman is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Biotechnology is another development that reduces US influence on world events.  Super-crops that can be grown in poor soil and requiring little irrigation are already being sold.  Biotechnology can be used to help combat illnesses in ways that don't depend on Western pharmaceutical corporations.  And of course biotechnology can be used to produce weapons that the US does not have antidotes for.

Robots and drones are becoming the next force equalizer.  You won't need to spend years and millions of dollars to produce fighter pilots and elite special forces troops.  You will very quickly be able to buy off the shelf ground robots, unmanned aerial vehicles, ships and even submarines at a fraction of the cost of building the equivalent of a conventional military force.  Just today there was an article about a self-aiming rifle that will allow snipers to engage targets beyond 1 mile.  Nations that used to be considered Third World will have the ability to pose serious threats to Second and First World nations unlike anything that has been seen before.

Of course the biggest expansion area is still in cyber warfare.  We read about it all the time but really the gravity of cyber warfare is almost too much to comprehend.  A successful cyber attack could shutdown the entire Eastern Seaboard power grid.  Nuclear power plants could be sent into critical states by shutting down their cooling systems.  Our air traffic control systems could be shutdown or aircraft could be turned into one another by sending them false course corrections.  Our trucking systems could be sabotage having trucks sent their loads to the wrong destinations.  Food on those trucks would spoil causing food costs to soar.  Hospitals could have their power and HVAC systems shutdown.

All of this means the US has to rethink how it will engage other nations in the future.  Will it only engage those governments or will it also have to engage the opposition groups as well?

To meet these challenges, the US government really has to change how it acquires new technology.  Kristina Harrington, director of the signals intelligence directorate at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), said acquisition programs typically take about two years to initiate and execute, but rapidly changing threats in the cyber domain require a different approach.

"The current acquisition process is not fast enough to keep up with the speed (of the threat)," Harrington said at a space and cyber conference hosted by the Space Foundation. "Two years after we started is too late in the cyber industry."  Kristina Harrington, quoted in Reuters

"We need to be looking at a different way of doing things," Harrington said during her panel discussion, adding that private industry was increasingly driving change in the cyber realm.  And yet, we still are doing things the same old way.

The cuts to the military have been making new for some time.  Everyone agrees there is no money but no one can agree on what should be cut.  I read an interesting article that almost half of the defense budget goes towards personnel costs (recruiting, training, medical, payroll).  Washington politicians have long ago figured out that troops vote so cutting the military too much in the wrong sectors means no more trips to Congress or Senate.  But cutting new weapons programs is equally fraught with political risk since most major weapons systems like the F-35 bring thousands of unionized jobs to a Congressmen or Senators district.  All of those employees vote as well.

That leaves only one other way to cut spending by closing bases.  The last Base Re-Alignment and Closure (BRAC) was in 2005.  These are sneaky little ways of eliminating weapon systems and personnel without really looking like it.  Furthermore, it gives politicians and their civilian lackeys in DoD the ability to say they've saved money without having cut troop strength.

Apparently even this shell game has run its course as the Senate Armed Services Committee is rejecting about round of BRAC.   Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said "government studies have shown that the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) round cost $35 million, instead of the estimated $21 million." (The Hill).  No wonder the "savings" of the 2005 BRAC disappeared almost as soon as the bases were listed.  It costs millions just for studies, testimony and hearings to close these bases.

“Now is not the time to spend millions of upfront dollars on another BRAC round, especially as DOD has been forced to ground combat aircraft, cancel ship deployments and furlough workers,” she said.

To make matters worse, SecDef Hagel has not developed any relationship with the SASC.  Is it a wonder why the various branches have identified what systems they are willing to cut, only to be contradicted by Congressional recommendations?  He picked Shinseki to lead the VA despite Shinseki's unimpressive tenure as the Army's Chief of Staff.  No the VA finds itself embroiled in controversy over wait-lists for veterans.  All the while, we forget that they still haven't done anything to get the vets the care they need.

Albert Einstein perhaps said it best, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".  

A Culture of Perfection

Now the US Navy is facing a cheating scandal amongst its ranks.  Unlike the USAF, the cheating involves nuclear technicians versus nuclear launch officers.  The nuance may make little difference.

The military culture changes only when faced with irresistible forces that compel change such as war.  The USAF did not change basic training until many years into the Iraq an Afghanistan war.  Until those wars, new recruits at Lackland were still being trained to operate from fixed bases well away from the battlefield.  When a shortage of truck drivers by the Army occurred around 2003, USAF vehicle operators were brought in to help fill the need.  Air Force vehicle operators were never intended to work outside the wire before and as such required much training by the Army in order to work in convoys being attacked by the enemy.

The USAF basic training began to change the experience for new recruits getting them used to working in an expeditionary environment. but it took years for the change to occur.

The nuclear forces of the USAF and USN have not had the same tempering event.  They train the same way they did when the US and Soviet Union were at the height of the Cold War.  Nuclear forces have not had to re-evaluate their training against any real world experience (thank God!) to see if requiring memorization of answers makes the troops better.

The military and civilian sectors are moving quickly towards more automation, especially drones or unmanned vehicles.  We've seen reconnaissance/surveillance platforms that are virtually autonomous and now the British have unveiled the Taranis hunter/killer aerial drone that can perform its entire mission profile without human intervention. British Drone

Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the number of tasks that truly require human intervention for nuclear weapons.  I am not an advocate for drones, I actually believe the opposite since having a large autonomous forces invites the potential for action without the risk of consequence.  But nuclear weapons have only been used once, by the US during WWII against Japan.  All other nuclear weapons sit and wait to hopefully never be used.  Efficiencies could be gained by looking at increasing automation in the nuclear career field.

That's why I don't agree with Secretary Hagel's comment, "take a step back and put renewed emphasis on developing moral character and moral courage in our force.”  If we insist on a zero failure rate on proficiency test for nuclear forces, then we pretty much have guaranteed to see cheating.  Why?  Because the emphasis is on the score and not the knowledge.

Hagel's comment fails to recognize the true culture of "cooperate and graduate" that permeates military technical training.  Every vet will tell you about how they all worked together to graduate, get ready for the final or to help someone that was lagging behind.  It is part of what bonds troops together and helps form unit cohesion later.

Troops in the nuclear side are no different.  They see the need to help each other master the mind-numbing questions that may have little to no relationship to how you actually perform the task.  Hagel should look to have a reevaluation of the testing, not more lectures on ethics and the need to change the culture.  Nothing I've read indicates a problem with the military culture, it seems to be a problem with the perceived lack of relevance of the proficiency tests.

Pentagon Cheating Scandal

The Fallacy of "Arrow"

I started watching the TV series "Arrow" on the web.   It is a version of the Green Arrow character from the comics.  Basically the son of a billionaire dons a hood and uses a bow to fight crime.  Think Batman minus the Batmobile.

"Arrow" relies on a plot device of the hero having to go to places in person to interrogate a suspect or confront the bad guy.  The hero always ends up in peril and has to shoot someone with an arrow.  Good stuff but not quite the way it would work in the real 21st Century.

I give you Exhibit A:

That's Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 available for around $300 dollars from the Apple Store.  Our billionaire hero could afford a much more sophisticated and stealthy version but the point is surveillance drones are readily available, cheap and would not require a hero to expose himself (or herself) to danger for the mere sake of collecting information.

The same technology could easily track suspects and bad guys to and from their "secret" hideout without our hero having to drive around recklessly attracting the attention of local law enforcement.

Ah but what about the revenge/justice aspect that makes us watch the Green Arrow or Batman?  Don't they have to be present to face-punch the bad guy for committing crimes?

For that I give you Exhibit B:

That's the world smallest drone capable of deliver a dose of poison to any soft-skinned target.  Our hero would never have to risk being shot or caught by the police again.  He would merely have to launch a miniature drone in the vicinity of his target and let the drone do the work.  Perhaps not as satisfying as a face-punch or arrow through the heat but easily more effective and less risky.

The two drones above are the ones that are being talked about in the open.  The drones being made under classified programs are likely even deadlier and smaller.  Imagine nano-robots that could be placed in a drink or even inhaled by the target.  The nano-robots could then kill the target without leaving a trace or perhaps make a target violently ill until they confess their secrets.

The drones demonstrate why large standing militaries will become a thing of the past.  Drones can sit on the shelf for months without their skills becoming degraded and then immediately used when needed.  Drones don't present the risk of a troop being caught and tortured.  Small drones like the ones above can operate below the tree-line making detection by radar or satellite almost impossible.

The anonymity of drones presents one of the biggest dangers.  If a soldier or spy is caught, it is rather obvious what country employed them.  However, with drones it is not so obvious and may actually create the opportunity for third parties to create conflict.  

Reducing the size of the military is attractive from a budget-cutting perspective.  Relying more on drones to do tasks such as deliver supplies and operate vehicles makes sense from a safety perspective and in the long run will save money and lives.  The risk though is to become too reliant on drones and robots which allows their use with little regard to consequence.  The more we use drones, the more our enemies will develop and deploy drones against us.

Diktat

dik-tat: 1. : a harsh settlement, unilaterally imposed (as on a defeated nation); 2. : decree, order

Two seemingly unrelated events in the past few days gives me reason to dust this term off.  The first was the use of drones to hunt down former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner.  He ended-up in a stand-off with L.A. County deputy sheriffs.  The cabin has was in mysteriously burned to the ground.  Reports are now surfacing that he was killed by a single gunshot to the head.  Diktat.

The other event was the announcement of the Distinguished Warfare Medal (DWM) on Thursday. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said, “This award recognizes the reality of the kind of technological warfare we are engaged in the 21st century.” The Defense Warfare Medal will soon become the fourth highest combat decoration in order of precedence pushing the Bronze Star down a notch to the fifth highest combat decoration.

Combat decorations are just that, awards for those who have served in combat.  For the first time, servicemen and servicewomen can be awarded medals for killing an enemy without ever being on the combat field.  Killing by remote control by "warriors" who get to go home at night.  Diktat.

We are rapidly being conditioned to accept drones as common place without considering the wider implications.  Risking our own bodies in service of our country is what makes troops different.  In comparison to drone operators, look at what it took for SSGT Clinton Romesha to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor.  We both admire his bravery and cringe at the loss of life of his comrades and those enemy combatants he had to kill.   It is brutal, dirty and ugly.

Drone strikes, on the other hand, are "surgical in their approach" being clean, efficient and most of all, anonymous.  Drones can be used anywhere (at let me stress that again, ANYWHERE) and anytime.  President Obama and his future successors will not longer have to face an angry public filled with the family members of the fallen.  He or she will be able to smile and bestow medals on warriors who have never left the country.  More than ever, President Obama and his successors (or for that matter, any high-level administration official) will be able to conduct "warfare" without the public become any wiser.

A report by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al Qaeda or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.  “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” states the Justice Department white paper quoted by Isikoff.  Diktat.

The same article points out "Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”  Based on this, I truly felt Dorner was going to become the first test case of Holder's opinion.  The next serial killer or would-be terrorist that high tails it into the woods may be taken out by a drone strike.  Diktat.

The Obama administration has realized something Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon could only have dreamed of during Vietnam; a sanitized way of killing your enemies.  And medals still get to be handed out.

The Interesting Case of Christopher Jordan Dorner

The above montage shows Christopher Jordan Dorner, former LAPD and Navy Reservist who has now been charged with capital murder of one and attempted murder of three other LAPD officers.

Dorner, a former LAPD officer, was sacked in 2008 for falsely claiming a colleague kicked a homeless suspect, but a judge who examined the case concluded that he could not be certain whether or not the suspect had been kicked. 

Fresh out of the navy reserves, where he had served in Bahrain and Kuwait, Dorner, a trained marksman, was a rookie police officer on 28 July 2007, when he accompanied a training officer, Teresa Evans, to a reported disturbance at the Doubletree Hotel in San Pedro. 

They encountered a mentally ill homeless man, Christopher Gettler. Evans tasered him after he threw a punch. Gettler was later returned to his father and that seemed to be the end of the incident. Two weeks later, however, according to LAPD records published by the LA Times, Dorner told a superior, Sergeant Donald Deming of the harbour division, that after the tasering, Evans had kicked Gettler in the chest and face, snapping his head back and causing him to bleed. 

 An internal affairs investigation ruled that the kicking did not happen and that Dorner had lied. This led to a disciplinary hearing in 2008. Dorner's attorney, Randal Quan, a former police captain, called the case against his client "very, very ugly" said he "wasn't given a fair shake." Quan said: "In fact, what's happening here is this officer is being made a scapegoat." Dorner said he had not immediately reported the kicks because he had filed other complaints against fellow officers and feared retaliation.  Guardian

Last week, he published his manifesto and went on a shooting spree.  He also mailed a LAPD challenge coin to Anderson Cooper at CNN which Dorner had shot several times with what appears to have been a 5.56mm weapon.

After his shooting spree, he drove off into the mountains and set his SUV on fire.  Authorities have been hunting him on foot and via drones ever since.

The LAPD have been on edge ever since resulting in two officers opening fire on what they thought was his vehicle (even though it was the wrong color and was driven by a grandmother).

Unlike say the shooters at Columbine or Sandy Hook, Dorner has garnered a surprising number of sympathizers.  At least three Facebook pages appeared shortly after the shootings all in support of Dorner (those have since been taken down).  It is this support that has fascinated me and leads me to wonder what else is at work here.

A Navy officer who seems to have served in the Undersea Warfare Unit.  He holds a rifle marksmanship ribbon and an expert pistol medal.  The extent of his training is unclear.  He is not a SEAL based on his uniform yet he would seem to possess more training than a typical Navy officer would possess.  I've read conflicting reports as to when he separated.  Some state 2006 while others say as late as 2013.  I suspect he may have left in 2006 but remained in the Inactive Reserves until this year.

Dorner played football and suffered two concussions, one while playing in high school and one while playing college football.  This is mentioned in his manifesto where is also talks about suffering severe depression.  It may turn out he was on prescription medications which may be responsible for his mental state and desire to commit mass murder.

From all reports, it appears Dorner is highly trained between his Navy and LAPD experience.  He is also very fit having played football and from all of the photos, has maintained a very high level of fitness.  Based on this, I doubt Dorner is hiding out in the woods.  He torched his vehicle to draw attention to that spot and is hiding elsewhere.  He did not spend all of that time writing a manifesto to freeze to death in the mountains.

LAPD is being quick to convict Dorner in the media.  The populace does not seem to be as quick to buy into it.

Dorner also represents a bigger issue yet mostly unspoken issue.  The military spends millions of dollars to train operators like Dorner yet nothing on converting them from highly trained killing machines back into civilians.  We may find Dorner is suffering from both severe depression brought about due to his football injuries and PTSD.  The question becomes what happens to all of these highly trained operators in future years?

The Dorner case also is conditioning the public to be more accepting of drones being used domestically. Both of these are things that we should be as concerned about, perhaps even more than a former cop running amok in the mountains of California.

Read about the life of the SEAL Team Six operator that killed Osama bin Laden.  His story is NOT unique.  The man who shot Osama bin Laden

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

Photo credit: George Teichrib

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

Iran Says It Shot Down Unmanned U.S. Plane

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

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

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