Now that didn't take long. Reports are coming in about the "Battalion of Blood" storming a gas production facility in Algeria and capturing 41 foreigners. The Battalion of Blood is demanding a halt to military operations against Al Qaeda insurgents in Mali.
A local source told Reuters six foreign hostages were killed along with eight captors when the Algerian military fired on a vehicle being used by the gunmen.
Mauritania's ANI news agency, which has been in constant contact with the kidnappers, said seven hostages were still being held: two Americans, three Belgians, one Japanese and one British citizen.
It quoted one of the kidnappers as saying that Algerian ground forces were trying to fight their way into the complex.
Reuters
After I wrote my blog about Mali, I was going to wrtie one abou the French and their involvement in Indochina (Vietnam) in the mid 1940s through 1950s. The French attempted to use conventional forces and tactics to fight unconventional forces (the Viet Minh) in a jungle. The result was the eventual defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu. You may recall US forces had a similar experience a mere ten years later fighting the Viet Cong with conventional forces with the end result being the same as the French.
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Despite the long history of others who tried and failed (including the might 19th Century British Army), the Soviets had one thing up their sleeve that should have made the difference. The Mujahideen fighters loved to run up into mountain caves and fired down on their enemies. Works like a charm on infantry, cavalry and even armored troops. It doesn't work so hot against a flying tank better known as the Mi-24 Hind. A hovering gunship was not something the Mujahideen were ready for until the US gave them stinger missiles (through our former friend, Osama bin Laden). The carnage became too high even for the Soviets and they pulled out.
Then in 2002, the US thought it was worth a shot chasing Osama bin Laden around Afghanistan. Needless to say, the US faced the same challenges as the Soviets. Ten years later, and the Obama administration is pulling out and there is not a lot to show for all of the carnage (remember, Osama bin Laden was actually killed in Pakistan).
It seems to me the West (especially the United States) is being drawn slowly into another Vietnam, only on a much larger scale. The US has been focused on Iran and Syria but now is also involved in Mali and potentially Algeria. We are still trying to use conventional forces to fight a hit and run type of foe. We do not have the forces to deal with all of these pop-ups and our enemies know it.
The British and French for that matter aren't that well off militarily either. Protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have tired the populace and caused a depletion of much of their wartime spares. Escalating conflicts in Northern Africa is not something the West should be drawn into.
Since the Tehran Embassy crisis, the West has focused on the Middle East as the potential region for a major conflict. What this mindset overlooks is that pan-Islamism is actually rooted in Northern Africa (the very region we are now being drawn into). The more Western military forces are used, the more strength the movement to create an Islamic state becomes.
“If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing.”--Benjamin Franklin
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Mali
Military intervention here has the very real possibility of turning Malin into what Afghanistan has become for the United States; a ground war with no real end in sight. Are troops really leaving Afghanistan in 2014? Well yes and no according to a piece on NPR last week. The majority of troops are due out in 2014 (perhaps in time to assist the French with Mail?), however a contingent of US commandos will remain for an undetermined amount of time assisting Afghani forces in killing Al Qaeda. This moves seems more in keeping with austere budget cuts for the military that are to begin this year than with any type of military success in Afghanistan.
The United States involvement in this action comes at an odd time. The Deparemt of Defense is going into sequestering which would ground aircraft and call ships back should it go into effect. “[W]e have no idea what the hell’s going to happen,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta bluntly said during a briefing at the Pentagon on Thursday. “All told, this uncertainty, if left unresolved by the Congress, will seriously harm our military readiness.”
In the Daily Report from AF Magazine, it states "According to the Jan. 7 memo (from the service's leadership to Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter), signed by Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force can no longer simply hope Congress will avoid the postponed sequester and is therefore taking steps to blunt the effects, which in any case will have "immediate and devastating impacts to readiness." Specifically, since combat units must have top priority, the Air Force will apply the mandated spending cuts to any units not in Afghanistan or spooling up to go there, "sacrificing preparedness for contingencies or [operations plans]," states the memo. The 18-percent reduction would be applied "disproportionately across the force," causing some units to "stand down for extended periods," with a possible "flying standdown from late July through September," wrote Donley and Welsh."
Despite warnings from both Panetta and the USAF, the Obama administration has the United States involved in yet another contingency. The Mali government is perhaps one of the most pro-West governments in the region and since 9/11 has tried to prevent the northern provinces from becoming a haven for terrorists. Unlike Libya, Mali is not a major oil producer. Its main strategic mineral is gold. It remains to be seen if the joint US/France military operations will result in a reduction of Al Qaeda activities. More likely, it will result in terrorist attacks in France and perhaps even the US.
France24
Marine Corps Times
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
A retrospective
This time of year, many people reflect on what has happened as a way of figuring our what may happen in the future. Looking at world affairs, it seems 9/11 may be a good place to start.
Qaddafi, Hussein, and bin Laden have been killed in the years since 9/11 yet much remains unchanged. Al Qaeda remains the terrorist boogeyman and the Middle East is perhaps less stabilized than before the beginning of the war on terror. Mubarak's ouster has had a more dramatic impact with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed by Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat).
In Obama's second term, Kerry will replace Clinton at State, Hagel has been nominated for Defense and Brennan will take over at the Central Intelligence Agency. Kerry is not seen as doing anything to lessen use military presence overseas. Hagel is seen as anti-Israel and Brennan is seen as major proponent of drones. The three combined means tensions in the Middle East are unlikely to be decreased and more remote targeting of "terrorists" will be conducted via airborne robots. (Hagel should get confirmed but pro-Israeli groups and politicians may lobby to block his confirmation.)
All of this continues to ignore our neighbors to the South. A long time, I heard a South American analyst lecture about Colombia. His conclusion was that the perceived exploitation of Central and South America by the US was the reason for the drug cartels success. Basically drugs were being produced by with the intent of destroying the US from within (this was back in 1988).
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, cocaine was the main drug the Colombian/South American drug cartels smuggled into the US. At some point in the mid-90s, the cartels realized the market for cocaine was pretty much maxed-out, no room for increasing the market with new users. Thus was born the higher grade heroin that we see today. Heroin with a higher concentration could be snorted or smoked so cocaine users would be attracted to the new heroin (and not appear to be a junkie shooting up in an alley). Unfortunately for these new users, they discovered the real strategy of the cartels was to get users hooked. Heroin is immediately addictive unlike cocaine.
Heroin is produced from poppies which aren't grown in Colombia so a new partnership was formed between South American cartels and Afghani poppy growers. The connection between cartels and Taliban leads many to speculate as to the real reason we are in Afghanistan. The new Secretary of State (Kerry) and Sec Def (Hagel most likely) will have to assess the consequences of keeping troops on the ground in that part of world.
China continues to build-up and improve its military capability which begs the question, why? Even if not for a direct confrontation with the US, Chinese technology will force the US to keep developing new weapon systems at a somewhat quicker rate than has happened in the past. Part of the reason the F-35 cost so much is its lengthy development time (plus coming up with three distinct variants to meet the needs of three different service components).
Speaking of the F-35, this is most likely the last manned fighter aircraft we will see. Drones and robots have advanced to the point that manned aircraft are actually a barrier. Flight characteristics are hampered by the need to keep the pilot from being squished to death in a high G-turn. Drones can now take-off, fly and return to base without human intervention. Drones can maintain extremely times on-station and the best part, they are much more affordable than the F-35. Ground forces are not to be outdone, robots now walk and look like men and pack animals. Meaning robots can handle rough terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot and again don't get tired (or want promotions or healthcare).
Despite those advances, we still pretty much remain focused on fighting asymmetrical threats with symmetrical forces. Despite being at war for over a decade, we still are using much of the same tactics.
It is unlikely that under the second Obama Administration much will change. There may be some increase tensions and perhaps some more air campaigns but in the end, nothing much is going to change.
Qaddafi, Hussein, and bin Laden have been killed in the years since 9/11 yet much remains unchanged. Al Qaeda remains the terrorist boogeyman and the Middle East is perhaps less stabilized than before the beginning of the war on terror. Mubarak's ouster has had a more dramatic impact with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed by Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat).
In Obama's second term, Kerry will replace Clinton at State, Hagel has been nominated for Defense and Brennan will take over at the Central Intelligence Agency. Kerry is not seen as doing anything to lessen use military presence overseas. Hagel is seen as anti-Israel and Brennan is seen as major proponent of drones. The three combined means tensions in the Middle East are unlikely to be decreased and more remote targeting of "terrorists" will be conducted via airborne robots. (Hagel should get confirmed but pro-Israeli groups and politicians may lobby to block his confirmation.)
All of this continues to ignore our neighbors to the South. A long time, I heard a South American analyst lecture about Colombia. His conclusion was that the perceived exploitation of Central and South America by the US was the reason for the drug cartels success. Basically drugs were being produced by with the intent of destroying the US from within (this was back in 1988).
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, cocaine was the main drug the Colombian/South American drug cartels smuggled into the US. At some point in the mid-90s, the cartels realized the market for cocaine was pretty much maxed-out, no room for increasing the market with new users. Thus was born the higher grade heroin that we see today. Heroin with a higher concentration could be snorted or smoked so cocaine users would be attracted to the new heroin (and not appear to be a junkie shooting up in an alley). Unfortunately for these new users, they discovered the real strategy of the cartels was to get users hooked. Heroin is immediately addictive unlike cocaine.
Heroin is produced from poppies which aren't grown in Colombia so a new partnership was formed between South American cartels and Afghani poppy growers. The connection between cartels and Taliban leads many to speculate as to the real reason we are in Afghanistan. The new Secretary of State (Kerry) and Sec Def (Hagel most likely) will have to assess the consequences of keeping troops on the ground in that part of world.
China continues to build-up and improve its military capability which begs the question, why? Even if not for a direct confrontation with the US, Chinese technology will force the US to keep developing new weapon systems at a somewhat quicker rate than has happened in the past. Part of the reason the F-35 cost so much is its lengthy development time (plus coming up with three distinct variants to meet the needs of three different service components).
Speaking of the F-35, this is most likely the last manned fighter aircraft we will see. Drones and robots have advanced to the point that manned aircraft are actually a barrier. Flight characteristics are hampered by the need to keep the pilot from being squished to death in a high G-turn. Drones can now take-off, fly and return to base without human intervention. Drones can maintain extremely times on-station and the best part, they are much more affordable than the F-35. Ground forces are not to be outdone, robots now walk and look like men and pack animals. Meaning robots can handle rough terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot and again don't get tired (or want promotions or healthcare).
Despite those advances, we still pretty much remain focused on fighting asymmetrical threats with symmetrical forces. Despite being at war for over a decade, we still are using much of the same tactics.
It is unlikely that under the second Obama Administration much will change. There may be some increase tensions and perhaps some more air campaigns but in the end, nothing much is going to change.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Saudi jets bolster US drone attacks on Yemen
According to this article France24, Saudi Arabian fighters supported US drone strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Yemen. The unasked question is how are we striking targets in a country that the US has not declared war on? The same question went unasked when a US drone killed a cleric in Yemen (who held US citizenship). The US has had cause to declare hostilities against Yemen going back to 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed, however such unilateral action was not an option in the pre-9/11 world. Saudi Arabia supporting the strikes has more to do with the royal Saud family worries about and nuclear Iran than US concerns about Al Qaeda. Keeping US forces in the region means Iran will not be able to target Saudi targets without potentially striking US forces. It will be interesting what happens after the innauguration.
France24
France24
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
EMP Attack
An oldie but goodie has been showing up in movie plotlines and web articles over the last few months; electromagnetic pulse or EMP.
"EMP is the abrupt pulse of electromagnetic radiation usually results from certain types of high-energy explosions, especially a nuclear explosion, or from a suddenly fluctuating magnetic field. The resulting rapidly changing electric fields and magnetic fields may couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges."
Back when I got paid to worry about what the Soviet military might do, EMP was our favorite attack to worry about. Unlike say a full out nuclear strike, a single nuclear device could be detonated at altitude and in theory wipeout all of the solid-state circuit based technology of the 80s and 90s. The movie version would have it attacking major population centers but the USAF was more concerned about a localized EMP over the battle field. It would render all of the high tech weapons of the USAF more or less useless.
EMP had the added attraction for the Soviets of giving more bang for the buck. Since Soviet nukes were not thought to possess great accuracy, they tended to be built with greater yields. Basically if you can't hit it with a rifle shot, hit it with a howitzer. An EMP attack overcame the accuracy deficit one better; if you can't hit the street address, blackout the whole zip code.
Successfully launching an EMP burst would essentially blind your advisary and render anything that uses solid state components (including modern ignition systems) inoperable. This is in part why EMP has become an motivating concept for some "preppers". EMP does not have to come from a nuclear device, our good old sun is more than capable of spitting out a large enough burst of electro-magnetic energy to make the Soviet attack scenario look like a picnic.
But all of this seems to grandiose to me. We now live in the 21st Century with smart phones and tablet computers common place. I wondered, could you build a compact EMP generator that did not require a nuclear detonation?
A simple Google search for "EMP generator" produced 1.6 million hits! This shows an EMP attack is far more likely and concerning than anything I imagined back in the 20th Century. A large EMP generator could be built that could render a nuclear power plant, power grid, network operations center or telecommunications hub inoperable. Unlike a nuclear explosion, this could be covert and re-used to target different communications nodes. Also unlike our favorite WMD scenario, building an EMP generator is not likely to kill your operatives.
Unlike a cyber attack like Stuxnet, it doesn't require specialized coding and networking skills. Someone with basic electronics training could build something that could disrupt a police dispatching system. A coordinated attack of EMP generators through a major city or region could be easier to pull of that any of the other doomsday scenarios that are dreamed up by DHS.
The news will be filled with the NRA and gun control advocates battling it out over legislation. Images of confiscation will be transposed with images of more school shootings. Yet a terrorist cell is more likely to go for something more wide scale compared to a mass shooting spree (Mumbai being an exception). A coordinated EMP attack seems even more likely than it did 30 years ago.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
2013 Predictions
As we await news of if the US is going over the fiscal cliff, it seems like just as a good a time as any to make some predictions for the upcoming year;
1. The European economy will force NATO to reduce or completely withdraw from Afghanistan. The US will then follow suite and will refocus on North Korea and China.
2. Unfortunately for the US, Iran will continue to provoke Israel into a shooting conflict. If tensions do lead to a conflict, it will most likely happen over the spring or summer.
3. Syria will devolve into Somalia creating an interesting choice for the US, continue to sit it out or send in forces?
4. Much like the advent of CENTCOM, US African Command (AFRICOM) will send troops into Africa on a low level first and then hostilities will increase as new cells of Al Qaeda are "suddenly" encountered.
5. Al Qaeda will be linked to a new attack on the homeland. Unlike what the conspiracy theorists think, this will the impetus for granting DHS new powers and federalizing the National Guard.
6. More mass shootings will occur at schools and malls. These targets are just too soft and afford copy cats the opportunity for their 15 minutes of fame.
7. Hillary Clinton's health will continue to deteriorate preventing her from running in 2016.
8. China will ramp up production of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters. China gets my vote for the country most likely to produce technology that will render our best drones useless (with an honorable mention to Russia).
9. Our food supply will be attacked (again) and everyone will mistake it for poor hygiene of migrant workers.
10. A major cyber attack will successfully be launched against the US attacking either our power grid or water purification.
1. The European economy will force NATO to reduce or completely withdraw from Afghanistan. The US will then follow suite and will refocus on North Korea and China.
2. Unfortunately for the US, Iran will continue to provoke Israel into a shooting conflict. If tensions do lead to a conflict, it will most likely happen over the spring or summer.
3. Syria will devolve into Somalia creating an interesting choice for the US, continue to sit it out or send in forces?
4. Much like the advent of CENTCOM, US African Command (AFRICOM) will send troops into Africa on a low level first and then hostilities will increase as new cells of Al Qaeda are "suddenly" encountered.
5. Al Qaeda will be linked to a new attack on the homeland. Unlike what the conspiracy theorists think, this will the impetus for granting DHS new powers and federalizing the National Guard.
6. More mass shootings will occur at schools and malls. These targets are just too soft and afford copy cats the opportunity for their 15 minutes of fame.
7. Hillary Clinton's health will continue to deteriorate preventing her from running in 2016.
8. China will ramp up production of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters. China gets my vote for the country most likely to produce technology that will render our best drones useless (with an honorable mention to Russia).
9. Our food supply will be attacked (again) and everyone will mistake it for poor hygiene of migrant workers.
10. A major cyber attack will successfully be launched against the US attacking either our power grid or water purification.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sandy Hook
The news has been focused on nothing but the massacre at Sandy Hook. A lone, disillusioned twenty-something murdered teachers and children. Instead of a discussion about how American society failed both the victims and the shooter, we have now allowed the politicians and pundits to provide us with their "solutions".
Since the shooter used an "assault rifle", this has generated the requisite liberal outcry for more gun control. The argument of course turns the more critical issue of our lack of mental health resources into a pathetic sound-byte about gun-control. The same liberals fail to mention the recent mass murders committed by Anders Breivik. Denmark is not known for having liberal gun laws yet he was able to purchase an "assault rifle" legally and used it to kill 69 Danish teenagers in July 2011.
The conservatives have been silent, most notably the NRA took down their Facebook page and have not sent out a Tweet since the shooting. The NRA is supposedly going to conduct a press conference on Friday to announce a initiative to help craft meaningful gun-control. In the vacuum, the only conservative voice has been former governor Mike Huckabee who has concluded that the massacre occurred because "they" have take God out of schools.
Somehow the American public has allowed a major sociological issue to become a political sound-byte. A twenty-year old, whose mother was concerned about his mental health, was able to have a confrontation with 4 teachers at a school and return later unmolested by police or security. Despite these basic facts, most Americans have turned to the federal government to solve a problem that they have profoundly ignored for decades. The United States systematically eliminated mental health institutions turning patients out on the streets leading to surge in the homeless population.
At the same time, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) became the bible for proscribing medication to anyone demonstrating the symptoms outlined in the manual. This means that hyper-active children are now prescribed medication instead of learning to deal with their excessive energy in non-pharmological ways. (Would Leonardo da Vinci even exist in today's world?) To be fair, this is overly simplistic but it emphasizes the concept that makes my next point.
Instead of institutionalized care (even that term seems politically incorrect), those with mental health issues can now take a pill. Therein lies the crux of the problem, what happens when the patient does not take their pill? Patients may not take their medications due to a lack of health insurance, feeling better or simply not want to feel under the influence. Once they stop, their symptoms return. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, he may not have been seen by a mental health professional so his condition was untreated.
But even if he was undiagnosed/untreated, it still does not answer how he was able to return to the school AFTER he was in a altercation with four school teachers (and I assume witnesses). The answer is the second sociological problem, the United Sates has become the land of lawsuits. School administrators were probably worried that if they called the police, the shooter (I refuse to give him any notoriety on my blog) would go out and hire a "Gloria Allred" who would sue the school district for violating his civil rights.
Our thin-skinned, lawsuit-prone society has made us more vulnerable. Dangerous people have to actually do something (other than terrorists) before legal action can be taken. Look at stalkers. Most women are at the mercy of the stalker until they threaten to do something and law enforcement actually has proof. Unfortunately the "proof" sometimes is the assault or murder of the victim.
We will hear about gun-control and the loss of Constitutional rights for the foreseeable future and no one will point out that it has nothing to do with what happened. Columbine is remembered for the shootings but everyone forgets to mention the propane bombs that were going to be the primary way of killing. It was only when those dumb asses could not get the bombs to detonate, they went on their shooting spree. Even Breivik first used bombs before he went on a shooting spree.
My point is we are focusing more on the "how" instead of the "why". No matter what legislation the federal government passes we will not be any safer. Our modern society is less connected with each other making it harder to really know who is struggling with problems. Compound that with a litigation-happy legal system and we are in no real position to identify and stop problems before they happen.
Imagine what an organized, terrorist organization can do with all of this.
Since the shooter used an "assault rifle", this has generated the requisite liberal outcry for more gun control. The argument of course turns the more critical issue of our lack of mental health resources into a pathetic sound-byte about gun-control. The same liberals fail to mention the recent mass murders committed by Anders Breivik. Denmark is not known for having liberal gun laws yet he was able to purchase an "assault rifle" legally and used it to kill 69 Danish teenagers in July 2011.
The conservatives have been silent, most notably the NRA took down their Facebook page and have not sent out a Tweet since the shooting. The NRA is supposedly going to conduct a press conference on Friday to announce a initiative to help craft meaningful gun-control. In the vacuum, the only conservative voice has been former governor Mike Huckabee who has concluded that the massacre occurred because "they" have take God out of schools.
Somehow the American public has allowed a major sociological issue to become a political sound-byte. A twenty-year old, whose mother was concerned about his mental health, was able to have a confrontation with 4 teachers at a school and return later unmolested by police or security. Despite these basic facts, most Americans have turned to the federal government to solve a problem that they have profoundly ignored for decades. The United States systematically eliminated mental health institutions turning patients out on the streets leading to surge in the homeless population.
At the same time, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) became the bible for proscribing medication to anyone demonstrating the symptoms outlined in the manual. This means that hyper-active children are now prescribed medication instead of learning to deal with their excessive energy in non-pharmological ways. (Would Leonardo da Vinci even exist in today's world?) To be fair, this is overly simplistic but it emphasizes the concept that makes my next point.
Instead of institutionalized care (even that term seems politically incorrect), those with mental health issues can now take a pill. Therein lies the crux of the problem, what happens when the patient does not take their pill? Patients may not take their medications due to a lack of health insurance, feeling better or simply not want to feel under the influence. Once they stop, their symptoms return. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, he may not have been seen by a mental health professional so his condition was untreated.
But even if he was undiagnosed/untreated, it still does not answer how he was able to return to the school AFTER he was in a altercation with four school teachers (and I assume witnesses). The answer is the second sociological problem, the United Sates has become the land of lawsuits. School administrators were probably worried that if they called the police, the shooter (I refuse to give him any notoriety on my blog) would go out and hire a "Gloria Allred" who would sue the school district for violating his civil rights.
Our thin-skinned, lawsuit-prone society has made us more vulnerable. Dangerous people have to actually do something (other than terrorists) before legal action can be taken. Look at stalkers. Most women are at the mercy of the stalker until they threaten to do something and law enforcement actually has proof. Unfortunately the "proof" sometimes is the assault or murder of the victim.
We will hear about gun-control and the loss of Constitutional rights for the foreseeable future and no one will point out that it has nothing to do with what happened. Columbine is remembered for the shootings but everyone forgets to mention the propane bombs that were going to be the primary way of killing. It was only when those dumb asses could not get the bombs to detonate, they went on their shooting spree. Even Breivik first used bombs before he went on a shooting spree.
My point is we are focusing more on the "how" instead of the "why". No matter what legislation the federal government passes we will not be any safer. Our modern society is less connected with each other making it harder to really know who is struggling with problems. Compound that with a litigation-happy legal system and we are in no real position to identify and stop problems before they happen.
Imagine what an organized, terrorist organization can do with all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)