Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review Columns writted by Fred Edwards in 2009

Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review
Archive 2009

Free Subscription! To receive future columns by e-mail click here.

The content of Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review may be copied or retransmitted for information purposes, but may not be used for any commercial purpose without my written permission. Please include this notice and credit the source as Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards.

Jan 02 2009 Green Zone gets the green light

Jan 09 2009 Homosexuals and lesbians in the armed forces: Is it time?

Jan 16 2009 Mexico: Terrorism on the southern front

Jan 30 2009 Guantanamo: The other side of the story

Feb 06 2009 Guantanamo: Pandora's Box

Feb 13 2009 The robot revolution is now

Feb 27 2009 Iwo Jima: Two flags, two symbols

Mar 06 2009 Robots: Will they replace the military mind?

Mar 13 2009 The Chinese naval threat and the Law of the Sea

Mar 20 2009 Osama bin Laden and the economic meltdown

Mar 27 2009 Afghanistan is now Obama's war

Apr 03 2009 The Mexican monster: A many-headed Hydra

Apr 10 2009 Guns in Mexico: Numbers do lie

Apr 17 2009 Piracy: Dollars and sense

Apr 24 2009 'AfPak' targets Taliban threat

May 01 2009 Afghanistan and the Opium War

May 08 2009 Muslim fanatics and American courts: Square pegs and round holes

May 15 2009 An American military ethos: What's wrong with it?

May 22 2009 Sri Lanka: It's not over until it's over

May 29 2009 North Korea Cocks the Trigger

Jun 07 2009 North Korea shatters U.S. preemption policy

Jun 19 2009 Is there a war going on? Does only 1 percent care?

Jun 26 2009 A super intelligence agent: The UAV

Jul 03 2009 An Independence Day thank you to our warriors

Jul 10 2009 The V22 Osprey -- For want of a nail

Jul 17 2009 Completing the combat mission means doing the numbers right

Jul 24 2009 Iran: The nuclear proliferation clock is ticking

Jul 31 2009 Military hardware and democracy: Our crazy-quilt defense procurement system

Aug 07 2009 Another general goes public on Iran's intransigence

Aug 21 2009 Afghanistan: What kind of war are we fighting?

Aug 28 2009 The Afghanistan Enigma

Sep 18 2009 McChrystal's Afghanistan plan: Easy to conceive; bloody to carry out. Three failures cause four Marine deaths

Sep 25 2009 Afghanistan troop 'surge' in the crosshairs: There is no magic moment to go home

Oct 03 2009 Crosshairs on cyberspace: Who is the enemy?

Oct 09 2009 Afghanistan at the grass roots

Oct 23 2009 How to lose the war in Afghanistan without blame: Do nothing

Nov 06 2009 Road-bound on Afghanistan's Death Highway

Nov 13 2009 Traitor, treason, terror and terrorism

Nov 20 2009 The Chinese space dragon is hissing

Dec 04 2009 The disease is radical Islam: The symptoms appeared at Fort Hood, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, USS Cole, Kenya, Tanzania, Khobar Towers, and all the others

Dec 11 2009 Why the Afghanistan surge can succeed

Dec 18 2009 Let's buy bonds to fund this war

Top | Home

Green Zone gets the green light

It sends a powerful signal that American warriors can soon depart Iraq

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 2, 2009 -- At one point it was called a "quagmire." Many mistakes were made, but America's leaders got their act together. And along with the other nations forming the "coalition of the willing," they have given some 50 million Iraqis a chance for better lives than they had any hope for just eight years ago.

The status of forces agreement effective New Years Day replaced the U.N. resolution under which the U.S. government had been operating since the invasion. The agreement says Iraq may request help from the U.S. military "for limited and temporary support" in providing security for Baghdad's Green Zone, but otherwise the 3.5-square-mile zone on the banks of the Tigris in central Baghdad has become Iraqi territory.

The Republican Palace in the zone lost its American flavor when the United States handed over security control to the Iraqi government. As the Iraqi flag was hoisted at the palace entrance, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said, "It is our right to consider this day the day of sovereignty and the beginning of the process of retrieving every inch of our nation's soil" He added that "The palace is the sign of Iraqi sovereignty and it is a message to all Iraqis that our sovereignty has returned."

The Americans, however, are not leaving the Green Zone overnight. Both governments agree that the American withdrawals will be gradual. Although the zone will be run by the Iraqi Baghdad Brigade, U.S. checkpoint equipment will remain and the checkpoints will be coordinated with American forces.

Nevertheless, the traffic light remains green, and here's why:

* In the past four months forces from 19 coalition countries have departed the country -- Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Tonga and Ukraine. * British forces have transferred control of Basra airport, a main military base in southern Iraq, to Iraqi officials.

* Britain and Australia -- which had the second and third largest contingents respectively after the United States -- have signed their own bilateral agreements with Iraq and expect to depart at the end of July.

* Under the American-Iraqi status-of-forces agreement, American combat troops will leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, and will completely clear the country by the end of 2011. Nonetheless, thousands of American uniformed troops are expected to remain behind as trainers and advisors. (Whether incoming president Barack Obama's previously announced target of May 2010 will be a factor remains to be seen.)

* The U.S. transition already has started. In an area south of Baghdad, once called "the triangle of death," a combat brigade of 4,000 to 5,000 soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division is being replaced with a task force of 800 to 1,200 trainers and advisers. Granted, there's no free lunch for some Americans, but the light remains green, and the traffic cops are changing uniforms from American to Iraqi.

The light was already changing before Christmas of last year. On December 21, Army Brig. Gen. David G. Perkins, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, reported that the number of daily attacks in Iraq had dropped nearly 95 percent since the previous year. He explained that, Iraq had suffered an average of 180 attacks per day a year earlier, but over the past week, the average number was 10. He added that the country's murder rates had dropped below levels that existed before the start of American operations in Iraq. In November, the ratio was 0.9 per 100,000 people.

Another bilateral arrangement was signed by President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Called the "Strategic Framework Agreement," it formalizes economic, diplomatic, cultural and security ties between the two nations. President Bush said the pact establishes a common vision for future U.S.-Iraqi relations which will bring greater stability to Iraq and the region through trade and investment.

"Throughout the past eight years, I've seen the tremendous talent and courage of those who wear the uniform," Bush said. "Their efforts have overthrown tyrants, made our nation safer, put terrorists on the run, and opened the door to liberty for more than 50 million people."

So the Green Zone handover signals an enormous success. Of course much remains to be done, and we can expect setbacks and more bloodshed, but for now the light is green. Top | Home

Homosexuals and lesbians in the Armed Forces

Is it time?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 9, 2009 - We know that homosexuals and lesbians serve in the armed forces. Under the Clinton plan of Don't Ask. Don't Tell (DADT) they can stay unless they declare themselves. In fact their leaders aren't allowed to ask them about their sexual inclination even if they have suspicions. This sounds like hypocrisy at its worst. Consider an extreme case:

Two off-duty, hard-charging, unmarried service men go to town, and one says, "I'm going to a place that has some really slinky ladies. Want to go?" The other says, "No," I'm going someplace where I can meet a boy." He's out!

Well, we can't turn time back 16 years, so we have to face the situation today. To date as many as 12,500 service members have been caught in the net of DADT. Among them, we're told, were 800 homosexuals and lesbians in key jobs such as Arabic translators, medical billets, pilots, and intelligence specialists. The people who provide these statistics don't explain whether such non-straights might migrate to the same types of jobs in other organizations important to the United States. So let's just ignore that and admit that the services had to scurry around to fill 800 slots with straights--or at least people who didn't tell.

If we let professed homosexuals and lesbians into the military services, a practical person might ask what would be done about shower and toilet facilities. Four choices pop into mind: (1) create two more types of facilities throughout the armed forces; (2) let homosexuals use the women's and lesbians use the men's; (3) since nobody would know where to send bisexuals, create unisex facilities; or (4) do nothing. I suspect choice four would win but I'm not sure how it would affect a lot of service members who adamantly insist upon no homosexuals and no lesbians.

Officials of the incoming administration say that "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited." And the machinery for changing DADT, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, is already in place with a bill sponsored by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif. Tauscher claims that surveys show 75 percent of Americans want DADT eliminated. Even a group of some 100 retired generals and admirals have demanded that DADT be scrapped.

Nonetheless, the populations polled and the retired senior officers don't have to live with the troops. The Military Times polled some 2,000 active-duty members in December and found that 58 percent were dead-set against letting homosexuals and lesbians out of the closet. Twenty-nine percent were comfortable with the idea, while the other 13 percent had to think about it some more.

If it happens, this wouldn't be the first time the services confronted a major cultural change. On June 12, 1948, President Truman signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act, which gave uniformed women co-equal status with their male counterparts. And on July 26 the same year, he signed an executive order that desegregated the armed forces. Today, male and female service members of all skin colors and religions are fighting, bleeding, and dying heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the services are ordered to accept president-elect Obama's plan, senior officers will implement it of course. It is mindful of a highly upset junior officer talking to his boss in Saigon during the Vietnam War: "Sir, this idea of (Secretary of Defense) McNamara to seal off the Republic of Vietnam from North Vietnam with a fence is out of touch with reality. We can't do it in the mountains and jungles, and even if we did, we'd have to guard every foot of it to keep the North Vietnamese from breeching it any time we were gone. I'm not going to be part of it." The senior officer peered kindly at the younger man. "Son, he said, "I understand your concern. But if the Secretary of Defense tells us to build a fence, we'll simply build a fence." We did.

Will the day come when two service men are going to town and one says, "I'm going to this great place where I can meet a boy. You also might meet a girl there if you want to go with me"? Top | Home

Mexico: Terrorism on the southern front

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 16, 2009 -- The United States is under attack from narco-terrorism. Here's how it's happening and what is being done about it.

First, deep down in a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command's "Joint Operating Environment 2008" is the statement: "In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico." The explanation for Mexico follows:

"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

That report merely poses possible threats that the United States might face within the next 25 years. But consider what's happening right now.

*Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, has declared a state of emergency along the Arizona-Mexico border.

* The Justice Department has stated that Mexican narco-criminal cartels are the "largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities." The barbarians are not at the gates--they are within. *

Inside Mexico, in 2008 the cartels killed more than 4,000 people. Almost 500 Mexican police officers and soldiers have been murdered since January 2007.

Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, adjunct professor of international affairs for the U.S. Military Academy, also sees the threat as now. The following is a partial summary of a report he made to the academy after a visit to Mexico Dec. 5 through Dec. 7 of last year (see the entire report at http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/pdfs/Mexico_AAR_-_December_2008.pdf).

Mexico "is fighting for survival against narco-terrorism." Political leaders and law enforcement officers who confront the cartels are at risk of being murdered.

I Cartels have kidnapped, tortured, and murdered entire units of the police and army, and left their decapitated bodies on public display.

* Conflict between the drug cartels is creating chaos along the American-Mexican border and is affecting more than 295 U.S. cities.

* Ninety percent of cocaine used in the United States comes via Mexico, and the major source of methamphetamine is Mexico. This creates $25 billion per year in the American market, with $10 billion in cash being returned to Mexico.

* "The drug menace and drug addiction is central to much of the U.S. criminal and social malignancy that has put more than 2 million Americans behind bars, clogged our courts, and placed enormous burdens on our health system."

* Cartel forces are armed with weapons such as RPGs, anti-tank rockets, mines and booby traps, heavy machine guns, 50 caliber sniper rifles, helicopters, transport aviation, and ocean-going submersibles. Up to 90 percent of the weapons are smuggled across the American border. Assault rifles and similar weapons often are bought from licensed gun dealers in U.S. border states. AK-47s come into Mexico illegally "a hundred at a time."

* If the Mexican government cannot stop the violence, and cartel rule wins, the United States will be faced with not only a rogue nation, but also millions of refugees trying to escape the chaos.

So the threat is now.

What is being and should be done?

McCaffery, who also is a consultant with BR McCaffrey Associates, states flatly that "we cannot afford to have a narco state as a neighbor." He says that planned U.S. government spending to support Mexico is "a drop in the bucket" compared to the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting that funding to help Mexico fight the cartels should be a high priority. He says, "Now is the time during the opening months of a new U.S. administration to jointly commit to a fully resourced major partnership as political equals of the Mexican government."

Meanwhile, the Navy and Marine Corps have imposed restrictions on visits of sailors and Marines from southern California into Mexico. Under the new rules, enlisted members in pay grades E-6 and below must obtain formal approval before traveling to Mexico. Sailors and Marines of all other ranks, including officers, must notify their commands if they plan to visit Mexico. All sailors and Marines who go to Mexico were advised to:

Use a buddy system and denote the name of their buddy on a command-approved document.

Get a security brief and be current on "Level I" antiterrorism training given by a Level II training officer or taken online.

Register with the U.S. consulate in Mexico.

In addition, unit commanders are to maintain rosters of their members who travel to Mexico, and are authorized to impose even stricter rules if they feel it's necessary. Furthermore, each command was ordered to submit a list of its members who have immediate relatives living in Mexico.

So it looks like we're defending. Are we attacking this war on terrorism? Top | Home

Guantanamo: The other side of the story

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 30, 2009 -- We've heard tales of torture at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo in Cuba. We've seen videos of detainees being led like sheep to some slaughter. And we've been bombarded with shibboleths like "civil rights," "habeas corpus," and the like. After years of this, we might begin to think that the United States sent the most vicious, sadistic people in uniform to Guantanamo. Well, it's time for the other side of the story.

It comes from Army Maj. Gen. Jay W. Hood. The following is what he told almost a hundred leaders and spouses of the Military Officers Association of America in Florida January 24.

"I have absolutely no hesitation to tell people I commanded the joint task force at Guantanamo Bay, and was responsible for the men under U.S. detention there from March 2004 to March 2006.

"I am intimately familiar with the men that were held in U.S. custody there. And I'm extraordinarily proud of the 8,000 Americans that served with me during that time period. While I was there, no American under my command ever did anything that he was embarrassed to show the American people, any lawyer, or the Lord.

"In fact, we treated the men in U.S. custody there with greater dignity, respect, kindness and compassion than any enemy that has been held in captivity by any army. in the history of warfare. And if you have not been there and have not seen it, I'll tell you that there has been a great . . . fallacy . . . propagated, largely by U.S. and international media about the nature of the Americans who were there.

"I never tortured anybody. I never hurt anybody meaningfully. I treated those that I dealt with, with respect. No man died in my custody, ever. And, I followed the oath I took when I took office.

"There were very clearly some very dangerous men we were holding there, some of which will find their way back into the fight. If you believe our intelligence community, a fairly significant number of them already have. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you read the New York Times, (you would see an article about) a Saudi detainee that was held in U.S custody there that was returned to Saudi Arabia and subsequently re-entered the fight as the deputy al-Qaeda commander in Yemen, and recently perpetrated an attack on the U.S. embassy that resulted in several Yemeni deaths. I can tell you, that -- almost certainly -- is an extraordinarily accurate report.

General Hood, now chief of staff of U.S. Central Command, did not name the terrorist, but the New York Times article identified him as Ali al-Shihri, who was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007. Al-Shihri attended a Saudi rehabilitation program for jihadists, which presumably was supposed to convert him to a peaceful Muslim. He resurfaced with al-Qaeda in Yemen. His status was announced by the Yemeni jihadist group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis.

Hood continued with carefully chosen words:

"There are some dangerous fellows there. And quite rightly, some very bright folks from the Department of Justice and in our intelligence agencies must sort out what they're going to do. I need to ask, 'What do you wish to do with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and was responsible for 3,000 deaths, What do you wish to do with a couple of his principle henchmen?' We have them in U.S. custody and somebody is going to have to figure that out.

Again Hood paused, searching for accurate words. And he found them:

"How genuine the young men and women that served with me there were. If you'd seen the genuine kindness that they had showed some men who were fundamentally opposed to you, who you are, your way of life, your beliefs your freedom, your liberties -- completely intolerant of who you are, you'd probably be amazed at how often an American turned another cheek. Fascinating. Truly fascinating."

That, fellow Americans, is the other side of the story.

Top | Home

Guantanamo: Pandora's Box

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 6, 2009 -- Remember Pandora's Box, which contained all the evils of mankind? Considering some of the terrorists that are being considered for release from the U.S. Guantanamo detention facility, Gitmo contains a box crammed with evils. And President Obama opened the lid when he signed an executive order January 22 to close Gitmo.

About 245 detainees remain at Gitmo, with 20 scheduled for trial and 60 deemed eligible for transfer or release. How do you decide who wears white hats and who wears black hats?

We already know you can't simply declare a jihadist healed and put a white hat on him. Saudi Arabia tried that with Ali al-Shihri, who was released from Gitmo in 2007. Al-Shihri attended a Saudi rehabilitation program for jihadists, which supposedly qualified him for a white hat. But he resurfaced with al Qaeda in Yemen, which welcomed him publicly.

Altogether, 11 Saudis who were released from Gitmo and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program are believed to have fled the country and joined terrorist groups. Another three were simply arrested upon their return to Saudi Arabia. How do you reverse any jihadist who has been brainwashed for years in an indoctrination program that teaches madness?

Where do you keep the detainees before you decide whether they are white-hat material? The Geneva Convention and U.S. law forbid housing enemy combatants with military prisoners charged with criminal offenses. But this brings us to the still argued status of the detainees. Does the Geneva Convention apply to them, or are they to be given the same rights as American citizens in American courts?

Meanwhile, the Obama team suggested sending them to military prisons in the continental United States. Not the Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton, Calif., wrote Republican Reps. Darrell Issa, Brian Bilbray and Duncan D. Hunter in a letter to defense secretary Gates January 13, warning that lodging them there "could seriously endanger" the base's mission.

And forget Fort Leavenworth, Kan., say a host of officials in mid-America. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican, said he had been told by officials from Muslim countries that they would no longer send officers to the Army Command and General Staff College if detainees came to Fort Leavenworth.

"We've already heard from students from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that they will leave, or be pulled by their governments, if the detainees from Guantanamo are moved there," Brownback said. "It's where these relationships are built with foreign officers, particularly in the Islamic world. This really hurts us."

In addition, the city, the local chamber of commerce, and Leavenworth County have taken public stands against making Leavenworth the new Guantanamo. "This is just not going to happen on our watch," said U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican. U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a Republican whose district includes Leavenworth, perhaps said it best. The Gitmo detainees would come to Kansas "over my dead body."

What about courts? Susan Crawford, the Defense Department's con-vening authority for military commissions says that at least one detainee was tortured, and that interrogation practices probably have irreparably damaged the entire process. If they are tried and released on legal technicalities, what then?

And what do you do with informants like Yasim Muhammed Basardah, a former Taliban fighter who has been given special privileges at Guantanamo? If the U.S. government does not grant them asylum, can it find a country to accept them? Can it send them to their countries of origin under protective arrangements like the United States does with its witness protection program? Will their "countries of origin" even want them?

Indeed, can you send any home? The first question is how to keep them from going right back to the fight, like al-Shihri did after graduating from the rehab program in Saudi Arabia. The next question is whether their countries of origin will accept them. For example, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has declared the detainees to be America's problem.

The Saudi rehabilitation program must prove to be successful if more detainees are to be released to Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, almost half of the detainees at Gitmo are Yemeni, and Yemen hasn't yet created a rehabilitation program.

It only took 19 jihadists to kill almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. How many absolute jihadists are going to escape legally from Gitmo when Pandora's Box opens? How many of them, as former Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Jay W. Hood says, are fundamentally opposed to you, who you are, your way of life, your beliefs your freedom, your liberties, and are completely intolerant of who you are? How many of them are likely to kill a few thousand -- or perhaps a few hundred thousand -- innocent Americans? Top | Home

The robot revolution is now

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 13, 2009 -- Sergeant John Smith finishes a routine watch and goes to his home in Midwestern America for breakfast before settling in for a day's sleep.

"How was the night?" asks Mrs. Smith.

John spreads a glob of grape jelly over a piece of toast. "Nothing special," he replies. Then he thinks a moment. "Oh yes, one of my robots reported that it killed three high-value jihadists in Burghastitan just before midnight. Helped keep the watch from being boring."

Sound improbable? Maybe. Maybe not.

Robots are infiltrating the American armed forces faster than the proverbial clouds of locusts, and they are forcing decisions upon political, military, and legal experts just as strongly as did tanks, machine guns, airplanes, and poison gas in World War I.

P. W. Singer, author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century, wrote in Armed Forces Quarterly that the inventory of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) in Iraq jumped from a handful in 2003 to more than 5,000 by the end of 2008. Perhaps the most newsworthy is the 27-foot-long Predator, which has been zeroing in on jihadists with Hellfire missiles. The Predator can loiter for some 24 hours, and at altitudes of up to 26,000 feet is virtually invisible from the ground. For low-altitude reconnaissance and surveillance missions, at only $4.5 million per bird it offers a cost-effective substitute for a pilot and a conventional aircraft. Unlike a pilot, it can see through clouds, smoke and dust to identify objects as small as a vehicle's license plate from 10,000 feet. The Predator can fly autonomously or can be controlled by a human, and it can paint a target with a laser beam for destruction by other means. The Predator is only one of many UAVS flying over Iraq and Afghanistan. It's no wonder that the Air Force is adding UAVs and deleting full-sized airplanes in its budgetary planning.

What about the ground arsenal? Singer says that the number of armed ground robots went from zero during the 2003 invasion to more than 12,000 in 2008. And these first-generation robots are already outdated by second- and third generation devices (to use a computer term) that are in the pipeline.

The PackBot, for example, weighs 42 pounds and comes off the shelf for less than $150,000. It can either be operated by remote control or can drive itself. It can climb stairs, clamber over rocks, make its way through twisting tunnels and even swim in shallow water. At this moment soldiers are employing PackBots to check out IEDS and use their retractable "arms" and "hands" to disassemble them while the human explosive ordnance disposal experts remain safely on the sidelines. The Warrior at about 250 pounds is a super PackBot. It still can climb steps but it also can navigate at 15 miles per hour for five hours with a 100-pound load of weapons and surveillance gear. Yet another version of PackBot is the Robotic Enhanced Detection Outpost with Lasers (REDOWL). This device can ferret out snipers and paint them with an infrared laser beam for destruction.

The SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System) behaves much like an infantry soldier in the attack, because its gun mount can carry gunfighters' weapons such as an M-16 rifle, a .50-caliber machine gun, or a 40mm grenade launcher, or even an antitank rocket launcher. It uses five "eyes" for aiming that are more like binoculars than a human's eyes. Scheduled to replace the SWORDS is the MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System), which will be armed with a more powerful machine gun as well as 40mm grenade launchers. The MAARS also can be used for crowd control, because it comes equipped with laser, tear gas, and a loudspeaker.

What about seagoing robots? The U.S. Navy already has tested UAVs on aircraft carriers. It plans to add up to a dozen unmanned planes to each carrier. Since the UAVs take up considerably less deck space than conventional aircraft, use less fuel, and have far greater range, the Navy could in fact reverse the ratio and take aboard 84 unmanned aircraft while keeping only a dozen regular aircraft on board. Indeed, with such miniature replacements for the big birds, the Navy could simply convert smaller vessels -- even merchant vessels -- to aircraft carriers. Even aircraft can become aircraft carriers, simply by carrying, launching, and recovering small UAVs.

Robots also will play enormous roles under the sea. For example, a Navy attack sub already has launched a baby robotic sub while submerged, and recovered it from its reconnaissance mission. Underwater-launched UAVs will follow. Consider old boomer subs standing out in deep water while sending in robots for aerial and subsurface surveillance. Singer writes that such systems could search the entire Persian Gulf in little more than a day. And think of the little craft carrying weaponry. Pirates beware, or over the breakfast table Sergeant Smith might well be reporting their demise.

It took years after World War I to develop doctrine for air attacks, aircraft carriers, mechanized cavalry, and machine gun employment. All of those technological improvements to warfare were adopted except for poison gas. This poses a dilemma for the future of robots. Although robots can keep the users safe, and could be the ultimate force multiplier, what about collateral damage when attacking the enemy? Will international law someday control all or some of the lethal capabilities of robots? Will robots do away with war? I don't think so. Top | Home

Iwo Jima: Two flags, two symbols

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 27, 2009 -- On Feb. 23, 1945, surviving Marines and Navy men wearily greeted D-Day Plus Four on a barren island shaped like a dragon, with an extinct volcano for its head and a deep lava flow for its body. Black volcanic sand covered the lava. The island spanned two miles wide and five and a half long. It was named Iwo Jima, but Marines and Navy men ashore called it Sulfur Island because of the stink. On February 19, four days earlier, 70,000 assault troops from the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions had eaten traditional steak and eggs for breakfast. Then at H-Hour they had stormed ashore unopposed on a beach only 3,000 yards wide. The volcano, Mt. Suribachi, looked down their flank from the left. At H Plus One, Japanese enfilade artillery and machine gun fire had opened up and hell began.

Iwo Jima, 650 miles from Tokyo, was athwart the American's direct flight path to Japan, so its Japanese lookouts flashed early warning to Tokyo every time American bombers flew overhead. The island also maintained Japanese fighter aircraft that U.S. bombers had to face coming and going. It's seizure would provide an American refueling and casualty dropoff site. It had to be taken.

The island belonged to the Tokyo prefecture. This made the mayor of Tokyo also the island's mayor. The Japanese believed that time began with the eruption of Mount Fujiyama, which created their home islands, including Iwo Jima. So Iwo was sacred. It had to be defended.

The Japanese had burrowed as deeply as 40 feet under the rock. They had created 1,500 underground rooms, many of them electrified and ventilated, some even with plaster walls. Sixteen miles of tunnels connected the labyrinth. The 22,000 Japanese defenders had stocked more than five months of water and rations.

So it's D-Plus Four. The Americans have suffered 4,574 casualties during the 1,000-yard advance to sever the dragon's head and isolate Suribachi. Suddenly the volcano, surrounded by members of the 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, under the command of Lt. Col. Chandler Johnson, goes quiet.

Johnson orders a 40-man patrol up the mountain, and hands 1st Lt. George Schrier a 54-by-26-inch American flag he had brought ashore from the USS Missoula. He instructs Schrier, "If you get to the top, put it up."

For 40 minutes, thousands of men ashore and afloat watch the patrol snake up Suribachi, expecting hell to break loose again. But hundreds of Japanese inside the mountain have created their own hell, grasping grenades to their stomachs and pulling the pins. So the Marines claw their way to the top without a shot being fired at them.

They fix the flag to an abandoned piece of drain pipe and prop up the post with rocks and stays made from communications wire. Cheers erupt from the beaches and the hinterland. Dozens of ships lying off the beach blow their whistles and sound their horns. Staff Sergeant Louis Lowery, a photographer for Leatherneck Magazine, takes posed "gung ho" shots.

In seconds, this victory flag has become a powerful symbol of a successful milestone for the warriors fighting for Iwo Jima. So powerful that Navy Secretary James Forrestal, who has just come ashore, decides he wants it as a souvenir.

Colonel Johnson, the battalion commander, tells his assistant operations officer, Lt. Ted Tuttle, that his battalion took Suribachi and his battalion is going to keep the flag. He dispatches the lieutenant to the beach for a replacement big enough to impress Secretary Forrestal. Tuttle returns with an 8-foot by 4 1/2-foot flag from LST-779 that originally had belonged to a ship that sank on Dec. 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor.

Johnson hands the replacement flag to Pfc. Rene Gagnon and tells him that Lt. Schrier, at the summit, is to switch flags. Sgt. Mike Strank, Gagnon's squad leader from the 2nd Platoon of Easy Company, tells Gagnon and three more of his men, Pfc. Ira H. Hayes, Pfc. Franklin R. Sousley, and Cpl. Harlon H. Block: "Colonel Johnson wants this big flag run up high, so every son of a bitch on this whole cruddy island can see it." They climb the mountain, accompanied by a short AP photographer named Joe Rosenthal.

They rig the replacement flag on a larger drain pipe than the first, and will raise it before lowering the victory flag. As they move forward with the 100-pound pipe, a Navy corpsman, Pharmacist's Mate 2nd Class John H. Bradley, carrying an armful of replacement bandages, drops the bandages so he can pitch in to help.

Little notice is paid when the flags are switched. Photographer Rosenthal, standing just off the crest, piles up some rocks and climbs them just in time to snap off a single shot.

Rosenthal then poses another "gung-ho" shot of 18 men in front of the flag. He won't know he already has taken the photo of the century until long after his roll of film has been developed and printed back on Guam, and plastered over newspapers throughout the States.

When President Roosevelt saw the photo, he ordered the flag raisers to be returned to the States for the Seventh Bond Drive, and he directed that the two flags be brought back. The flags went to Washington in the possession of Marines, and their history since has been carefully documented. Today they can be seen at the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Triangle, Va. Occasionally one is taken out for a ceremony under constant possession of a Marine officer.

The replacement flag remained a powerful symbol for all the Americans at home. It symbolized that the war in the Pacific, which had begun so ignominiously, was being won. The second memorial remains to this day near Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. It honors all Marines who have died defending their country since 1775. It contains the words spoken by Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz to the fighting men on Iwo Jima: "Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue."

Top | Home

Robots: Will they replace the military mind?

by Fred Edwards

March 6, 2009 -- In the early 19th century, military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz wrote that it takes "genius" in war to translate classroom teachings into success in battle. Now, in the 21st century, technology is producing robots whose only genius lies in electronic circuitry. Consider what P. W. Singer of the Brookings Institution says in his book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.

He writes of tiny, deadly robot aircraft swarming over the battlespace by the dozens, or maybe hundreds, or even thousands. Each one flies randomly so that the swarm covers the objective area. Quicker than a reconnaissance aircraft or an overflying satellite, one of them senses a preprogrammed target. It might be a buried site for weapons of mass destruction, or a key communications grid, or even a flight of enemy aircraft or a merchant ship carrying hidden enemy aerial robots. The entire swarm attacks like bees overpowering a bear that's stealing their honey, inflicting tiny stings until the bear is reduced to a quivering piece of flesh.

Swarming is not new. In ancient times, for example, Mongol horsemen would spread far and wide over the steppes until they located the enemy. They would encircle them and launch deadly arrows until they defeated them. And the Mongols weren't the only warriors that swarmed. Singer cites a RAND study that concluded that in the time of Alexander the Great, swarm tactics won 61 percent of the battles.

Moving to the 20th century, in World War II, German U-boats scoured the North Atlantic until one of them located a convoy. The other subs converged until more and more were firing torpedoes from all sides of the convoy, and even surfacing to finish off crippled merchant ships with their deck guns. They were called "wolf packs," because wolves and other animals that swarm are nature's most efficient predators. Think of sharks gathering around hapless mariners in the sea for a frenzy of killing.

It's little different with humans, when small bands of guerrillas keep dispersed until a group spots an enemy force of the right size. They converge for the kill, then quickly fade away. Remember Somalia ("Black Hawk Down") in 1993, Grozny, Chechnya, in 1994 and 1996, and Baghdad and Fallujah in today's war in Iraq.

The U.S. Air Force's defense budget allows for buying 271 unmanned aerial vehicles and weapons platforms by fiscal year 2013. This represents 36 percent of the total aircraft procurement budget. So in broad numbers about three of every 10 new Air Force planes in the sky will be piloted from the ground. But the new numbers become insignificant when considering that at the first of the year, 5,331 aerial vehicles -- ranging from 3-foot-7-inch long Ravens that can look behind the next building, to high-flying Global Hawk reconnaissance birds and lethal Predators carrying Hellfire missiles -- were already in use.

But now we're talking about swarms of tiny aircraft that operate like wide-ranging swarms of bees. Just energize them, turn them loose, and let them win battles. They could conduct warfare with no friendly human casualties -- unless the other side has the same technology or a way to counter ours. And that's the rub. I don't think we have reached the point where we can toss out Clausewitz. It's still going to take men and women who use "genius" to determine the outlook of battles, and war. A retired Air Force general officer who was a fighter pilot put it this way: "Robots are not new. We've had them for a long time. We call them 'autopilots.' But they don't replace pilots. It takes a human being to override them at precisely the right time. Don't expect fighter pilots to become obsolete soon." Top | Home

The Chinese naval threat and the Law of the Sea

by Fred Edwards

Letter to the editor from CG in Virginia: "Fred: I have to tell you that your reporting is way better than anything I can read in such rags as the NYT or WP. Great explanation."

March 13, 2009 -- As the U.S. Senate was debating the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, which some call LOST, on March 8, USNS Impeccable, an unarmed U.S. Navy ocean surveillance vessel, was mapping the sea bottom about 70 miles south of China's Hainan Island. The United States refers to the area as international waters, although the Chinese government claims it as part of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that stretches 200 miles beyond its geographical boundaries.

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, nations have the right to protect and exploit marine resources within their EEZs. This stems from the idea that EEZ waters and the oil and mineral wealth in the sea beds contain economic and environmental resources of value to the possessor. From this concept of ownership derives control of fishing rights and navigation lanes. None of this would seem to prohibit an American ship from mapping the ocean floor.

Nonetheless, the Impeccable soon became the center of attention of a motley fleet of Chinese vessels, including a navy intelligence collection ship, a maritime fisheries patrol vessel, an oceanographic administration patrol vessel and two small trawlers. Two ships approached within 50 feet of the Impeccable and the American civilian crew used fire hoses to fend them off. One of them continued to within 25 feet of the American ship. The Impeccable then tried to break away but the two trawlers stopped directly ahead of it.

So why is it such a big deal? Because Shen Dingli, director of the U.S. Studies Center at Fudan University in Shanghai, says it is. He declares that ships like Impeccable can transit the Hainan Island EEZ so long as their intent is "non-harmful" or "innocent," but that was not the case of the American vessel, because Shen claims it was gathering intelligence about Chinese submarines. The United States says, "So what? Intelligence gathering in an EEZ is no different from gathering it on the high seas, because various sections of the treaty support it. But a document containing 320 articles and nine annexes can be subject to a lot of interpretations. And treaty signatories Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan and China insist that the treaty forbids foreign countries from gathering intelligence in an EEZ. Perhaps the term, Exclusive Economic Zone, should be changed to "Exclusive Economic and Military Zone, as we will see."

The Sanya naval base near the city of Yulin, on the southern tip of Hainan Island, is a strategic site. A satellite photo of Feb. 26, 2008, shows a Type 094 nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine moored alongside what might be a demagnetization pier at the base. All the piers have enough space to accommodate two carrier strike groups or amphibious assault shipping. Furthermore, at least a dozen tunnels have been constructed, leading to underground facilities, where subs can be hidden from peering satellites. In short, China's interpretation of the EEZ can turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake. Furthermore the Sanya base offers access to Malacca Strait, the gateway to the Indian Ocean, only 1,200 nautical miles away.

So that's the bigger picture: whether China can use the Law of the Sea Treaty to enlarge and strengthen its strategic sphere of hegemony. Meanwhile, the United States has dispatched a technologically advanced, Hawaii-based destroyer, USS Chung-Hoon, to accompany the Impeccable. And the United States Senate is deciding whether to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Top | Home

Osama bin Laden and the economic meltdown

by Fred Edwards

March 20, 2009 -- In warfare, we speak of centers of gravity, which when disabled or destroyed can topple the enemy. In conventional wars, centers of gravity consist of the enemy's military forces and strategic infrastructure such as transportation and communication networks. For Osama bin Laden and his fellow jihadists, however, the American center of gravity is none of that. It is our money.

In October 2005, Abu Mus'ab al-Najadi, a Saudi and active member of al Qaeda, announced just that to anybody who cared to read. He stated that, in the long war against America, the Islamists and their al Qaeda spearheads are in an era entirely different from earlier crusades. During the Muslim expansion era, wars were measured by military strength, so victory went to the superior armies. "But," writes al-Najadi, "our war with America is fundamentally different, for the first priority is defeating her economically."

Bin Laden himself has publicly declared that he intends to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy," and he is quick to notify the world of every success he has had. So, for Al-Najadi and bin Laden, the American center of gravity is not the U.S. military, although the more they can create the perception that the military, and its leaders, are feckless, the more they can enlist other jihadists to their cause. The true center of gravity, however, consists of the U.S. economic system and the American people.

Once the economic system breaks down, bin Laden and associates expect the people of America to no longer have the willpower or the staying power to endure against the protracted war against terror. Of course al Qaeda carried out this strategy operationally in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. By some estimates, the cost to them for the attacks was a half-million dollars, while the economic damage to us was $80 billion. This represents a return on their investment of 16,000 times the original investment. And that return continues to mount each time TSA agent inspects our luggage.

The attack of Sept. 11, 2001, was only one episode. The jihadists have been carrying out their strategy before and after September 11, because their goal is to force America to react to acts of terror worldwide until the United States -- and its people -- are simply exhausted.

With this in mind, Paul Sperry's book, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, could make readers pretty paranoid about what's happening today in America's economic meltdown. Sperry asserts that, by 2005, jihadists had "penetrated the U.S. military, the FBI, the Homeland Security Department, and even the White House." He doesn't claim they have infiltrated the heart of America's financial system, but the incursions they have made certainly raise suspicion. For them, the "long war" has lasted almost 1,400 years, so expending a score of years from a jihadist's life span to infiltrate the Wall Street apparatus represents an excellent return on investment. Infiltration over time is not difficult because, as Sperry says, they are "ten-times" harder to penetrate than the Italian Mafia.

So, we've seen no evidence that the American financial system has been infiltrated by jihadists. Besides, bin Laden doesn't need jihadists to create havoc within the economy. Indeed, he must be chuckling with joy, and telling his terrorist team, "We don't have to infiltrate America's economy to destroy it; they're destroying it all by themselves."

Top | Home

Afghanistan is now Obama's War

by Fred Edwards

March 27, 2009 -- Even though the vice president echoed old Washington with the word, quagmire, President Obama listened to him and other top military and civilian advisors, and pronounced a focused strategy for Afghanistan and the surrounding region. Afghanistan is now Obama's War. "So let me be clear," he said, "al Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

With this, the president has challenged al Qaeda for a fight to the finish. It started in Iraq when foreign jihadist fighters flocked into the country, desperately trying to force the United States to tuck its tail between its legs and go home. The jihadists failed, and started phasing back into Afghanistan and the Pakistani border areas to re-establish and solidify their global headquarters.

The proximate impact of the president's decision will be 4,000 U.S. troops -- in addition to the 17,000 already earmarked -- as trainers and advisers to Afghan security forces. The plan will boost the army from 82,000 soldiers to 134,000, and to increase police ranks from some 80,000 to 82,000 by 2011. Also deploying will be hundreds of civilian officials and diplomats to work with the Afghan government and its economy. Allies will be asked for their help in training local forces to eventually take over the struggle.

"We seek not simply troops," said Obama, "but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the (August) Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people."

"Critical to this strategy is really the buildup of the Afghan security forces -- the rapid increase in both the Army and police," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. "And, those 4,000 trainers are absolutely at the heart of being able to do that as rapidly as possible," he added. Obama surfaced a previous controversy on the military side in Iraq by calling for benchmarks to measure progress. If benchmarks mean stepping stones and not rigid time schedules, they can work. But if they become linked to, say, the next presidential election year, they could create a cynical and strategic disaster.

The president also will target incompetence in the Afghan government and the challenges of opium cultivation and heroin trafficking. And, bowing to reality, he suggested that the United States will continue carrying the bulk of the combat load, while counting on other forms of assistance from the allies.

We can expect to see a new command in Southern Afghanistan, where U.S. and Afghan troops will operate under the Iraq model as Afghan forces build to 134,000. That may only be a beginning, because some experts believe the ultimate goal should be at least 250,000.

Obama said that he plans to bring together "all who should have a stake in the security of the region." This would include Iran, Russia, China and India, as part of an international group he said he will form within the United Nations.

He also spoke of a willingness to talk with certain Taliban leaders. This is not a new concept, since U.S. troops did something similar in Anbar Province in Iraq. It can be important to identify tribal chiefs who are known as "Taliban" only on a pro-temp basis. To convert them means, of course, that the United States and coalition must convince them they will be protected from al Qaeda and hard-core Taliban.

We hope the president's new emphasis upon training the Afghan army and police instead of committing to years of nation-building will succeed without dragging the United States into that old bugaboo world of quagmire. In any case, it's certain that he has recognized the threat, and he hasn't decided to cut and run. It's now his war. Top | Home

The Mexican monster: A many-headed Hydra

by Fred Edwards

April 3, 2009 -- Greek mythology holds that the Hydra monster had nine heads, but Heracles, who was challenged to kill the poisonous creature, couldn't keep track of the number because each time he cut off one, two grew it its place. Today, Mexico and the United States are confronting a Hydra of their own -- seven or more Mexican drug cartels operating transnationally, along with an unknown number of gangs that engage in kidnapping and other criminal activities. Known drug-related deaths in Mexico since last year number 7,200, while many killings by other criminals go uncatalogued.

Fred Burton and Scott Stewart of Stratfor, a company that collects and analyzes worldwide political, economic and military intelligence, state that Mexico is in fact engulfed in three wars. The first is the battle among the cartels for control of the smuggling corridors, called plazas. For example, Ciudad Juarez offers access to America's I-10, I-20 and I-25 highways. The second is the war between the heavily armed cartels and Mexican security forces. And the third is a kidnapping and terror campaign against civilians by cartel members and other criminals. This third war includes counterfeiting, robbery, burglary, carjacking, extortion, and fraud. To top off the list, Burton and Stewart declare: "Mexico has become the kidnapping capital of the world."

The Mexican cartels have invaded the United States. But you might ask, "How can brown-skinned Mexican thugs operate here without being identified?" Consider that from 7 million to as many as 20 million illegal Hispanics reside in the United States. The actual number depends upon whose statistics you accept, but a hundred or so extras filtered in from the Mexican cartels would hardly register on the radar screen. In short, Mexico and the United States are facing a many-headed monster just as deadly as Heracles' Hydra. And even Canada is in the impact zone.

Law enforcement authorities point to Vancouver, British Columbia, and a spate of shootings connected with cartel distribution of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs. And in the United States, officials have identified 230 cities in the web of Mexican cartels, including Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Billings, Mont., Birmingham, Ala., and Phoenix. Arizona wins the title of hub state because some 60 percent of cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine come through its international frontier. And it's paying for it with increases in violence related to the smuggling. The Atlanta area also rates as a hub, because of its network of highways and the ability of the traffickers to blend with the surge of Mexican immigrant workers who have gone to Atlanta in the past decade searching for work.

So the many-headed Hydra wreaks havoc on both sides of the border. Furthermore, the cartels that smuggle an estimated 90 percent of illegal drugs entering the United States don't force Americans to take them. American customers want them, crave them, and pay for them. And all taxpayers foot the bill in one way or another. This problem, sometimes also called a war, is America's problem, and we haven't found a way--through social, ethical, moral, psychological or legal means--to resolve it.

Furthermore, Americans are arming the cartels with weapons. Depending upon the source you prefer, an estimated 17 to 90 percent of the weapons seized from drug traffickers or at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States. This creates a new balance of payments. Americans make big profits by selling guns destined for Mexico. In return, tens of billions of American dollars in drug money go to Mexico.

American gun laws have turned the four border states into a weapons supermarket. Along the Mexican border, "straw buyers" with clean criminal records can simply purchase three or four high-powered rifles from one of more than 6,600 dealers and feed them to smugglers. On weekends, "gun enthusiasts" can attend weekend gun shows and buy battlefield rifles. A weapon here and a weapon there, and they begin to add up. Last year Mexican authorities seized 20,000 of them.

So there's the Hydra: narco-terrorism, counterfeiting, robbery, burglary, carjacking, extortion, fraud, drug smuggling, and weapons smuggling.

Top | Home

Guns in Mexico: Numbers do lie

by Fred Edwards

April 10, 2009 -- If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells reporters on a flight to Mexico City that 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States, it must be accurate, right?

If CBS newsman Bob Schieffer refers to the same percentage while interviewing President Obama, it has to be correct, right?

And if Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors . . . come from the United States," then 90 percent of the guns must come from America, right?

On top of all that, if William Hoover from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, tells the House of Representatives "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States," that ought to settle the issue, right?

Well, think again. On April 2, William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott of FOX News stated, "It's just not true." They said that only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the United States. They added that an ATF spokeswoman confirmed this by saying that over 90 percent of the guns that Mexico traces originated in the United States. Many aren't sent to the United States for tracing because their markings show they didn't come from the U.S. market.

Let's look at the numbers. La Jeunesse and Lott stated that, in 2007 and 2008, the Mexican government reported recovering 29,000 guns at crime scenes. ATF Special Agent William Newell said that Mexico submitted only 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Almost 6,000 were traced successfully, and 5,114 were determined to come from the United States.

To put the numbers into perspective, of the 29,000 guns found at crime scenes, 5,114, or 17.6 percent were actually traced to the United States. That's a far cry from the 90 percent figure that has been tossed around.

Where did all the other weapons originate? La Jeunesse and Lott documented an international armory, beginning with "fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers." Other sources on their list:

* Russian criminal groups such as Poldolskaya and Solntsevskaya

* The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in league with the Tijuana cartel

* Asia

* Deserters from the Mexican Army

* Guatemala

Why this insistence on 90 percent versus 17.6 percent? Chris Cox of the National Rifle Association blames the media and anti-gun politicians, saying "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment." In line with La Jeunesse and Lott, he mentioned weapons found in Mexico that did not come from the United States, such as Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns, and weapons from Mexican army deserters.

Although a look at the numbers discloses that they can be used to mislead Americans, the hard figure of 5,114 weapons traced to the United States in a two-year period remains a serious factor. But if the United States and Mexico are going to partner in this war that's spilling over our borders, let's keep American left-wing gun-control spin out of it. After all, law-abiding Americans living in the border states need their own guns now, more than ever before. Top | Home

Piracy: Dollars and sense

by Fred Edwards

April 17, 2009 -- Pirates notched up the stakes when they seized the American-flagged vessel, Maersk Alabama, off of Somalia and held the captain hostage until U.S. SEALs killed three of them. Now we hear threats of retribution. One 25-year-old thug from the Somali coastal town of Harardhere who calls himself "Ismail" said, We will seek out the Americans, and if we capture them, we will slaughter them." One Abdullahi Ahmed, also from Harardhere, added, "We have decided to kill U.S. and French sailors if they happen to be among our future hostages. (He included French because the French also responded to a recent piracy attempt by counterattacking.) Meanwhile, Abdi Garad from the pirate lair in Eyl told AFP by telephone, ". . . I tell you that this matter will lead to retaliation and we will hunt down particularly American citizens traveling our waters."

Such audacity springs from pirates' success. Shipping companies have been writing off million-dollar ransoms for their ships and crews as a cost of doing business, just feeding pirate greed. Moreover, many owners refuse to consider using convoys because the additional transit time required would eat into their profits. Some also insist that they will allow no defensive weapons on their vessels for three reasons:

1. Increased liability.

2. The laws of some countries prohibit commercial shipping in their ports if such weapons are aboard.

3. Increased danger to flammables being carried.

Well, let's put the pirate issue into perspective by looking at three bits of history.

1. In the 19th century, stagecoach owners paid people to ride shotgun to protect their passengers and cargo.

2. During the fourth decade of the 20th century, American merchant ships in World War II -- even some carrying fuel and ammunition -- carried protective firepower and people who were paid to use it.

3. During the later part of the 20th century, American pleasure boaters started paying to be towed home if a non-life threatening mishap occurred. This was a change from earlier policy, because the Coast Guard, the Congress, and the taxpayers got fed up with the Coast Guard picking up boaters who weren't properly prepared to go on the water. Today the Coast Guard remains on call only for bona fide emergencies.

In one respect, even though hoodlums have threatened to kill crews of U.S.-flagged vessels, America has little practical interest in pirates that are primarily seizing European and Asian shipping. Furthermore according to the International Maritime Bureau, in 2008 only 50 of 130 piracy attempts succeeded. With some 21,000 ships transiting the Gulf each year, this is statistically insignificant. Nonetheless, two aspects must be considered.

First, as the world's only superpower and a proponent of freedom of the seas since its Revolutionary War, the United States ought to lead the way on anti-piracy, and it's doing just that. The U.S. Combined Task Force 151, with ships from nearly a dozen countries, operates an anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden that spills over into the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, and Red Sea. Those 50 or 60 vessels are far too few for more than a million square miles in the Gulf of Aden and the coastal waters of Somalia and Kenya alone. But, as noted by the Maersk Alabama hijacking attempt, they can be of some help.

Second, media reports have shown that Americans -- as always -- simply don't like thugs to bully other Americans.

So, in view of the three bits of history cited earlier, here's a way to attack the problem. If the pirates know that any ship flying the American ensign is armed, they will be encouraged to make their attacks against other shipping.

I hasten to ask readers not to inundate me with all the reasons why it can't be done, or won't work. As we say today, "think outside the box" and find a way that it can be done. Consider these examples: Liability risk is handled by liability insurance. Countries prohibiting entry to merchant vessels with armed crews can change their laws or stop doing business with the United States. Ships with flammables can be given better protection or can travel by convoy under the protection of helicopter-equipped warship escorts. American merchant seamen can seek employment with U.S. flagged vessels or go to flags of convenience at their own risk. Shipping company owners who don't want their crews armed can hire security companies. And the Congress will have to modify a host of special-interest laws.

Sure, it will cost money, and as consumers we ultimately will pay it. But you and I already are paying for ever-increasing ransoms of millions of dollars a pop. And it just might revolutionize registration of flags of convenience as other countries join the American initiative. Top | Home

'AfPak' targets Taliban threat

by Fred Edwards

April 24, 2009 -- Officials in Afghanistan and Pakistan resent the U.S. term "AfPak" to describe the two countries, just like Americans would resent USCan or MexUS (try pronouncing them "uscan or "mexus"). But if you overlay a map of the two countries to show regions contested or owned by the Taliban, you see an inkblot that looks like AfPak.

It's jolting to launch a surge of troops and American civilians into a new strategy in southern Afghanistan while the Pakistani government has authorized sharia law in the Swat Valley. It's jarring to hear a Taliban spokesman rant about his appalling extremism. For openers, Muslim Khan laid out the welcome mat for militant jihadists who are fighting American and NATO troops. Next, he warned the United States and NATO that his forces would deploy to Afghanistan if we kept fighting there. To cap it off, he invited Osama bin Laden to set up shop in the Swat Valley.

The mob Khan represents intends to spread sharia law throughout Pakistan. Like Adolph Hitler did when he wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, Khan declared the Taliban mission. We must remember what the Taliban did to Afghanistan from 1996 through 2001, when they banned shaving, prohibited music and television, converted women to near-slaves, and turned the sports stadiums into public arenas for cutting off limbs and stoning women to death.

But you don't impose a regime change just because a savage group folds the functions of cop, judge, jury and supreme court into a religion and calls it a government. The Taliban overstepped their bounds, however, when they harbored Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So after 9/11, we destroyed the Taliban's effectiveness in order to go after al Qaeda. Then the Taliban began to infest Afghanistan's southern provinces like poppy crops. So now we are surging to tame the Taliban and help Afghanistan survive. But Afghanistan is only part of AfPak.

If Khan wins, and all of Pakistan is shackled with sharia law, we'll face a transnational threat from the Taliban themselves, because of nuclear weapons. Pakistan has dispersed some 60 warheads throughout the country. If the Taliban take over district by district, as they recently tried with their surge from the Swat Valley into the districts of Buner, Mansehar, and Swabi, the odds are they'll get a nuke.

Can't the Pakistani military stop this spreading plague? Surely, an army of a half-million, bolstered by another half-million reserves, would find no problem disposing of a few hundred guerrillas. But three questions arise.

1. Is the army overly preoccupied with India's reaction to the terrorist attacks against Mumbai involving Pakistan and Pakistani nationals in 2008?

2. Does the army's readiness for another possible conventional war against India hurt its preparedness for a counter-guerrilla war against the Taliban?

4. Do family, ethnic and religious ties between some members of the army and Pakistani civilians involved with the Taliban adversely affect the Army's readiness. To put it more bluntly, will the army be averse to fighting its own people?

In response to such questions, Pakistan army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani condemns such "pronouncements by outside powers raising doubts on the future of the country." He adds: "A country of 170 million resilient people under a democratic dispensation, strongly supported by the army, is capable of handling any crisis that it may confront. Victory against the terror and militancy will be achieved at all cost."

Muslim Khan has outlined the Taliban plan, so let's find a way to prevent it. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said the United States does not envision sending combat troops into Pakistan, and Islamabad insists that the government doesn't want them. Meanwhile, however, American UAVs are going after high-value targets to the southwest in Waziristan, even though Pakistan publicly complains about them.

U.S. Predators and special operations troops in the northwest might offer one answer. It would be difficult to pinpoint targets because the districts between Swat and Islamabad are more settled than Waziristan, allowing Taliban leaders to blend with the innocents. Defusing the Pakistan-India relationship so the Pakistani army can concentrate on training locals to defend against the Taliban could provide another. That would be a difficult transformation. But no general -- from Prussian Carl von Clausewitz to American David H. Petraeus -- has ever said that war was easy. This applies especially when talking about AfPak.

Top | Home

Afghanistan and the Opium War

by Fred Edwards

May 1, 2009 -- More than two millennia ago, a Greek city-state's strategy often centered upon destroying an enemy city-state's crops. If the hoplite infantry's shields and spears defeated the defending hoplites, they won the food and therefore the war. If they failed, they went home.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the United States and its allies are doing something similar in southern Afghanistan, but it's more complicated. First, the opium trade, rather than a food crop, is the strategic asset. If the map of Afghanistan was a bulbous sack and you poured poppy seeds in the small end, they would fall into the bottom provinces, with Helmand Province collecting most of the seeds. Ironically, when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they banned poppy cultivation in 2000, leaving the United States an opening to win hearts and minds by encouraging it when it expelled the Taliban after 9/11.

Now the poppy chickens have come home to roost, and the Taliban have twisted their religion to take over the opium trade. In a region of few, and dangerous roads to take crops to market, if you tell an impoverished farmer you'll buy all the poppies he can produce and deliver them to market for him, he'll likely jump at the deal. Add extortion and taxation and you'll reap as much as $300 million a year for Taliban coffers. That represents as much as 90 percent of the world's opium production, and will pay for Taliban military operations in the southern provinces for the year. Thus, the opium trade makes up nearly 60 percent of the country's gross national product. So the poppies have to go. The United States is ponying up $250 million to replace poppies with wheat, and another $200 million for infrastructure to get the crops to market.

Afghanistan is not a city-state, but it's also not a nation-state. It's groups of families, tribes and clans protected by local warlords, or oppressed by Taliban leaders. So it must become a nation-state, with a visible central government that the Afghans know, respect, and support. This means a proactive government free of corruption. Until this happens, farmers and villagers have no choice of leadership than either warlords or the Taliban. As much as they may despise the Taliban's savagery in the name of religion, they often get the Taliban by default.

This brings the two-fold mission that the United States is undertaking: (1) work with the government in Kabul; and (2) provide security in the rural areas until the Afghans can handle their own. The second requires the same difficult strategy that has succeeded in many an anti-guerrilla campaign. And we're going to work on it in August with 20,000 Marines and soldiers moving into Helmand, Kandahar and Zabul Provinces, down in the bottom of that bulbous sack. They must win the hearts and the minds of the people by protecting them and training them to protect themselves when they are not present -- and eventually when they leave for good. It's a tough job to move in as foreigners and try to make friends with farmers while fighting the Taliban terrorists. The Taliban make it tougher by fighting only when they think they can win, and forcing the United States and its NATO allies to use supporting arms that aren't smart enough to kill just the enemy. But that's the same tough strategy guerrillas have used for centuries.

For the Taliban, it's an all-or-nothing struggle. According to Agence France-Presse, the Taliban leadership set May 5 as the target date to launch Operation Nasrat (Victory), targeting Afghan officials and international diplomats with a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks. This comes in addition to attacks from across the border in Pakistan. So the Pakistani sanctuary also has to be eliminated, and officials say it will take a decade for the Pakistani army to do its share.

For the United States, it's also an all-or-nothing struggle. This is not a Greek hoplite war against another city-state, where the losers can go home and say, "Well, we tried." It would be disastrous to our nation-state if the United States decided the struggle wasn't worth the time, money, and blood, and went home. Much more is at stake in this war than Afghanistan's crops, be they poppies or wheat. Top | Home

Muslim fanatics and American courts:

Square pegs and round holes

by Fred Edwards

May 8, 2009 -- With all the rhetoric about the detainees at Guantanamo that's bouncing from one side of the Beltway to the other, it's time to isolate the facts.

Nearly one in every 10 detainee who has been released has hightailed it back to the killing fields. And they're not all just run-of-the-mill suicide bombers.

For example, Said Ali al-Shihri is al Qaeda in Yemen's second in command, and Abdullah Gulam Rasoul reportedly is the Taliban's operational commander in southern Afghanistan. If only one in 10 go back to the kill, and with some 241 detainees still at Guantanamo, this would amount to 25 assassins. We must remember that it took only 19 Muslim fanatics to kill almost 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition to the problem of letting cutthroats go back to cutting throats, turning them over to American courts or courts martial can create a two-step domino reaction: (1) prosecutors can't get convictions without severely compromising national security, thus exposing more Americans to danger; and (2) if killers go free, they go loose into the world to commit more mayhem. Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the quandary with a question to Congress: "What do we do with the 50 to 100 -- probably in that ballpark -- who we cannot release and cannot try?"

Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., focused on the problem in a Wall Street Journal article May 6, with five cogent dictums for the administration and the Congress to take to heart:

1. "Do not confuse war with common criminality." Most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not your common jailhouse criminals. They are committed to the destruction of our way of life: secular law, equal rights for women, freedom to practice any -- or no -- religion, and freedom of speech. They have forcefully forsaken the rights that innocent Americans enjoy by birth.

2. "Military commissions remain the appropriate trial venue for these individuals." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 applies. Furthermore, the American military justice system-- modified for war crimes trials--is a tried, proven, and trustworthy apparatus.

3. "Preventive detention will continue to have a place in the war on terror." Combatants can, and should be, held off the battlefield as long as they present a military threat. Indeed, if somebody breaks into your home threatening to kill you, and his pistol misfires, would you give him your pistol? To hear petitions for habeas corpus authorized by the Supreme Court, we need a " designated national security court." And we need an annual review to determine whether each detainee remains a national security threat.

4. "We must address the detainee situation at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan." Afghanistan is not Guantanamo. Afghanistan is an active theater of war. We cannot endanger the safety of our Armed Forces who are fighting the enemy."

5. "Finally, Congress must be involved in crafting detainee policy." We already have found that executive orders are not the answer to a complex problem that involves detained Muslim fanatics. The answer lies in careful study and debate that ultimately will include all branches of government.

The senators' article closes by saying that the enemy-combatant detention process must be transparent, provide robust due process consistent with the law of war, involve an independent judiciary, and protect us against a dangerous enemy. If the process is administered correctly it will be seen as an "intelligent balance of due process and national security."

We must look at the detention rhetoric against a backdrop of people who kill innocents in the name of religion, and decide who has the most rights -- them or us. Top | Home

An American military ethos: What's wrong with it?

by Fred Edwards

May 15, 2009 -- English author George Orwell is said to have written, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Are Americans who sleep peaceably afraid of those "rough men" who protect them? Let's look at two cases.

First, scholars are warning of a civil-military gap within the United States. They say that members of the all-volunteer force tend to see themselves as part of a an elite group different from the average civilian hedonist. Thomas Ricks wrote in Making the Corps how various members of a group of 63 Marine recruits found themselves alienated from their former peers. The recruits who made it through boot camp had cloaked themselves in honor, courage, and commitment, and couldn't understand why others refused to don the cloak. Ricks' book implies that such a military cultural ethos is somehow dangerous to America, and some purveyors of populism have expressed concern.

Our warriors of all military services are doing a magnificent job in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have earned the right to view themselves as a cut above other Americans. How many other Americans start each day with thoughts of ending prematurely because of an improvised explosive device, a sniper's bullet, or an ambush with deadly weapons? How many other Americans are facing another deployment instead of planning for the next tailgate party? Tell me who the elites in this country should be, those who want more today, or those who want to live through today?

Meanwhile, the Marines are now drawing flak from another quarter. A provision in the 2009 Defense Authorization Act directs the Defense Department to partner with school systems that serve at-risk students. Such programs would give high-school kids who are capable graduating -- and who want to graduate -- a chance to do it. The program does not portend an out-of-the-blue attempt to militarize America's schools. It only adapts the concept of Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps programs.

Under the new program, teachers with master's degrees in their fields will remain with their students for all four high-school years. Instead of turning the kids loose for idle pursuits on summer vacation, the schools will allow only periodic, short breaks. If this is militarism, and it will salvage talented kids, let's go for it.

If some have their way in greater Atlanta, Ga., however, it won't happen in DeKalb County. A Marine institute has been proposed to give talented, at-risk students their chances for success. We're not talking of a Marine air-ground team assaulting DeKalb County. We're just talking of a similar venture to one that has already started in Chicago, although it is not a mirror image. Just the same, some of DeKalb's residents are protesting.

For example, Tim Frazen, who works with the Quaker-run American Friends Service Committee, is quoted by Military.com as saying, " . . . we may be on the verge of the military trying to bail out schools from their discipline problems. If this succeeds, they will open others. I can see it spreading like wildfire."

Well, if it works, it should spread.

Grace Hawkins, of the Atlanta Grandmothers for Peace and the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, told Military.com, "We are opposed to recruiting children into the military this way at such early ages. This is the trend: Giving out free violent video games, inviting them to come and fire weapons to get them used to the idea of shooting. Thinking that nothing bad will happen."

It makes one wonder about drive-by shootings during summer vacations. It makes one ask what's better for those kids -- gangs, or a disciplined learning environment.

Dana Tofig from the Georgia Department of Education simply compares the proposed institute to a magnet or charter school with a military theme. She doesn't sound like a military martinet when she says: "We have received some e-mails in our office from concerned parents. We feel like it's good to have the debate and have it publicly. As long as students have the choice to attend and the school follows state and federal law, we don't see a problem."

Despite the protests, the school board has chosen a temporary site for the new institute and hired a principal. It looks like the Marines will land in peace as soon as approval comes from Acting Secretary of the Navy, B.J. Penn.

I say the sooner, the better, so those kids in DeKalb County will have their chance to get their high school diplomas. Maybe someday one of them will be a U.S. cabinet secretary, or chief of staff of the armed forces, or even president of the United States. And people can sleep peaceably in their beds at night. Top | Home

Sri Lanka: It's not over until it's over

by Fred Edwards

May 22, 2009 -- Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa declared May 9 on television that after more than 25 years, his troops had defeated the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in a bloody, decisive battle. This either ends one of the world's longest violent anti-guerrilla struggles or opens a new phase.

The victory was guided by two of Rajapaksa's brothers, Gotabaya, the secretary of defense, and Basil, who served as a special advisor. The family fought the war fiercely, defying international abhorrence at civilian casualties, squelching internal dissent, blocking independent journalists, and ejecting international aid agencies from the country.

During the campaign, that began in 2006, government forces regained chunks of the country that the Tigers had operated as a de facto state. Sri Lanka achieved the victory virtually without outside help, by spiking military spending, buying weapons primarily from China and Pakistan, and nearly doubling its armed forces to 160,000.

The warfare included land, sea and air assaults against rebels in the east and the north. The government also borrowed guerrilla tactics from the Tamil Tigers by sending commando teams deep into the jungle to assassinate rebel leaders.

It was ask-no-quarter warfare. The Tigers used tens of thousands of Tamils -- yes Tamils -- as human shields, and, according to Human Rights Watch, the Sri Lankan army shelled civilian areas. The United Nations reported 7,000 civilians killed since January. More than 265,000 Tamil refugees have thronged into crowded camps. Several governments, including some that had branded the Tigers a terrorist organization, are now demanding an international commission of inquiry into possible Sri Lankan war crimes.

How did all this terror start? In the 6th century B.C., moved onto the island from India. Some 2,000 years later, in the 14th century, Tamils came from India into the northern area. As the island colony passed from Portuguese to British hands, it became known as Ceylon. It achieved independence from the British in 1948, and became Sri Lanka in 1972. Today the population is roughly 74 percent Sinhalese and 8.5 percent Tamil.

The bloodletting began in 1983 when the Tamil minority rebelled against discriminatory policies being imposed by the Sinhalese majority. Rebel leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran converted the rebellion into a quest for an independent Tamil state under his control. His terror tactics included suicide bombers and child soldiers. He soon created his own quasi-state, its own army, navy and air force. The Sri Lanka government determined to crush the rebellion, regardless of civilian casualties, and in spite of world opinion.

On May 19, Sri Lankan television showed the corpse of a man in battle fatigues that the military identified as Prabhakaran, the Tiger commander. His death was as momentous to both sides as Osama bin Laden's would be to al Qaeda and the United States. Tigers spokesman Selvarasa Pathmanathan, stated on the pro-Tigers Web site, TamilNet, that "This battle has reached its bitter end. We have decided to silence our guns." Nonetheless, he declared "fearless and unending commitment to this cause."

So it might appear that the decisive battle means the end of the Tigers' conventional war. Nonetheless, more than 30 years of brutality on both sides is not likely to fade away with the fade-out of Prabhakaran's television photo. Unless Sri Lanka's president institutes a dramatic change toward the Tamils, it is possible that the Tigers will blend into the Tamil populace and resort to guerrilla tactics and terrorism.

Although no two guerrilla wars are like, many facets of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind. For example, the Tigers have a place of refuge and perhaps friends just across the water in Tamil Nadu, an Indian state with a substantial Tamil population. In addition, the Tigers might enjoy financial support from Tamil expatriates that have fled Sri Lanka, although many of their funds were frozen when the Tigers were declared a terrorist organization.

Fred Burton and Scott Stewart of Stratfor (www.stratfor.com), a company that collects and analyzes worldwide political, economic and military intelligence, made the following bleak assessment in a report on May 6:

"We anticipate that small Tamil units will resume operations to massacre civilians, in particular Sinhalese Buddhist and Muslim civilians. The Tigers also probably will attack crowds of civilians and commercial centers. We also anticipate assassination attempts to be launched against military and political VIPs in Colombo, and against local/regional leaders and military and police commanders in the northeast. Attacks against passenger trains and buses also can be expected."

A visit to TamilNet reveals that, although Sri Lankan forces may have won a decisive battle, the political conflict is far from over. Top | Home

North Korea cocks the trigger

by Fred Edwards

May 29, 2009 -- Since President Obama's 95th day in office, North Korea has detonated a nuclear device, launched a slew of missiles, and started moving a long-range missile to a launch pad in the country's northeast. Furthermore, it declared that it is no longer bound by the terms of the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, and threatened military action if South Korea searches North Korean vessels.

The announcement from Pyongyang came on the heels of South Korea's decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a group of more than 90 nations that was formed in 2003. Ships from countries in the PSI will stop and search ships suspected of carrying nuclear materials or ballistic missiles, in order to deter states such as North Korea and Iran from trading with them. North Korea warned that it would consider South Korea's naval participation in PSI as a declaration of war.

Meanwhile, the South Korean website at www.korea.net posted a notice saying, "The North's test is in contravention of the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and agreements reached at the Six-Party Talks. As a breach of the UN Security Council Resolution 1718 that prohibited the North from conducting any additional nuclear test, it constitutes a provocation that can never be tolerated under any circumstances."

Dictator Kim Jong Il has ruled North Korea with tyrannical ferocity since his father, Kim Il Sung, (the "eternal president") died in 1994. He funnels an estimated 20 percent of the gross national product into military spending, while the average citizen lives in an economic crisis under constant famine. Whenever Kim can, he extorts international aid which serves as free money.

Because the army receives elite treatment, it would appear that a million troops would pose a formidable threat. But defectors indicate that even the soldiers are suffering food shortages. Moreover, one defector was quoted by the Washington Times as saying, "If war breaks out, North Korean soldiers will run away once they become acquainted with South Korea." She added that corrupt soldiers guarding the border with China extort money from civilians trying to sneak across.

For many North Koreans, the choice is to escape or die. Some 15,000 North Koreans have fled the country during the past decade. About 2 million - 10 percent of the population - are believed to have succumbed to starvation or related diseases in the mid- to late 1990s alone.

Some analysts see China as a U.S. ally in contesting this confrontation, but North Korea's warlike stance has placed China into a quandary for two reasons. First, China needs North Korea as a strategic military buffer. We must remember that Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River into North Korea in 1950 when American troops got too close to the border. Second, a collapse of the Kim Jong Il regime could send a mass of refugees across the border. China needs North Korea but doesn't want North Koreans.

Rumors have circulated that 66-year-old Kim Jong Il is seriously ill. That could mean he is consolidating power. But what happens when a dictator steps down, or begins to fade? Remembering that Fidel Castro turned over his regime (sort of) to his brother, we might ask who is in the wings in North Korea? Three possible sources emerge -- Kim's family, the military, and the party.

Within the family, heredity would point to the first-born male, Kim Jong-nam, 37, as successor, but Jong-nam incurred disfavor in 2001 when he attempted to enter Japan on a false passport. The second-born son, Kim Jong-chol, about 27, is seen as a contender. The third-born, Kim Jong-un, about 25, could be a possibility, except for being the most junior. To complicate the issue, the sons were born to two different women, and neither woman was married to their father.

If one of the sons should succeed his father as dictator, it's possible that the real power might rest with a member of the elite, 10-member National Defense Commission, or a leader within the party apparatus.

The purpose of conjecture is to determine who has their hands on the trigger. And we don't really know. This begets another question of whether the North Korean actions will create an arms race in Japan to counter a North Korean missile threat.

In the meantime, South Korea's 655,000 troops and America's 28,500 servicemembers in South Korea are on Watch Condition II, one notch below the highest condition.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said that the United States could fight an old-fashioned war against North Korea if necessary, even while operations against terrorists and extremists continue. He added that it might take a while "to shift gears" and convert from the counterinsurgency mode.

Casey said it normally would take the Army about 90 days to convert, but asserted that it wouldn't take 90 days to start. He then suggested that war with North Korea might not be the style of land war that U.S. forces in South Korea were expected to fight.

Maybe North Korea merely wants to extort more aid money and concessions in return for yet another solemn promise to shut down its nuclear program. All the same, military analysts estimate that North Korea could get the long-range missile into launch position in 15 days. That would be President Obama's 140th day in office. Top | Home

North Korea shatters U.S. preemption policy

by Fred Edwards

June 7, 2009 -- A colleague told me this week, "If we know where North Korea's missiles are, we have a right to take them out." He makes a good point. President Bush established a preemption policy immediately after Nov. 11, 2001: The United States reserves the right to attack terrorists wherever they are, and if a country harboring terrorists doesn't -- or can't -- do something about them, America will. Thus came Afghanistan, and Iraq. But now comes North Korea playing an on-again, off-again nuclear shell game of terrorism.

Within the last weeks, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has detonated a nuclear device. It's launched a string of missiles. It's moved at least three medium-range missiles on its east coast. And it has transported an intercontinental missile -- probably a Taepodong-2 -- to the new Dongchang-ni launch site in the northwest. A Taepodong-2 can hit Alaska.

North Korea has threatened to scrap the 1953 armistice agreement that stopped the Korean War. The government is conducting amphibious assault exercises along its western shore. It has warned South Korea of war if the South Koreans board one if its vessels to search for missiles or nuclear materials that might be headed for other rogue nations or transnational groups like al Qaeda.

Under the Bush doctrine, this makes North Korea a prime target for a preemptive strike. As my friend asked, "While we're at it, why don't we take out the Taepodong-2, and maybe scratch some of the short-range missiles?" We can't, because North Korea is playing a killer game of chess, and has maneuvered us into a checkmate. Here are three reasons why:

1. The Taepodong-2's launch pad is about 35 miles from the Chinese border. U.S. air strikes or missile attacks could get dicey if they got close to China. Of course, such incidentals haven't bothered Israel when it felt its existence threatened. But our existence isn't threatened. My colleague asked, "Are we sure?"

2. North Korea has already warned that it is ready for war -- and it's never renounced its intention to reunify the peninsula on its terms. Its army has thousands of artillery pieces targeted at South Korea's capital city of Seoul, which is only 30 miles from the DMZ. On June 6, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley told some 200 members of the Military Officers Association of America at a national security seminar in Florida that a North Korean attack across the DMZ would be a "bloodbath." So do we destroy a Taepodong-2 in trade for 12 million innocent people? But my colleague asked, "Will it be any different if they decide to attack some other day?"

3. U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey says the United States can fight an old-fashioned war against North Korea if necessary. But our force concentration in Iraq and Afghanistan, might make it difficult to back up the 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea any quicker than when we sent American soldiers to aid the Republic of Korea's army after the North Koreans invaded in 1950. Except for today's U.S. air posture, this looks like deja vu.

So if we won't destroy the North Korean missile, what can we do about this urgent emergency? For the preemption stalemate, we'll probably just rely on yet more sanctions and hope the UN will publish yet another resolution -- number 2000 or 3000, or whatever number happens to come next.

If the North Koreans should fire toward Alaska, however, their missile would likely meet an American missile bent on its destruction. Fort Greely, Alaska, maintains one of two ground-based missile defense units on the U.S. West Coast. (The other is at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.) The unit at Fort Greely, equipped with 16 interceptor systems, already has the experience because it intercepted a mock enemy missile last December. After visiting a silo at Fort Greely this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that, should there be a launch "from a rogue state such as North Korea," he had confidence that the United States could deal with it. He added that he has inserted almost $1 billion in the 2010 budget to develop ground-based interceptors.

But it seems that Secretary Gates is playing his own chess game. His Defense Department budget froze ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely and Vandenberg at 30, down from a planned 44. This worries missile defense advocates. For example, Riki Ellison, who heads the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said, "There was a determination six months ago that the total number needed to protect the United States homeland from a simultaneous attack from North Korea and Iran was 44 missiles." He added that he didn't see the threat being reduced.

It's one thing to have America's preemption policy neutralized. It would be something else to have our missile-defense program neutralized.

Top | Home

Is there a war going on? Does only 1 percent care?

by Fred Edwards

June 19, 2009 -- World War II movies often contain the joke, "Don't you know there's a war going on?" The joke in today's war against radical Islam is supposed to be that "One percent of Americans are fighting this war, and the rest of America is at the mall." The World War II joke was sarcasm targeting somebody who wanted special perks when everybody else was sacrificing for the war effort, while today's phrase is a sick joke, and here is one reason why.

On Monday, June 8, more than 75 percent of civilian workers at Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Okla., went on strike. The 800 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 898 headed for the picket lines after failing to reach a deal with their employer, CSC Applied Technologies. Vance AFB is home to the 71st Flying Training Wing, whose mission is "to train world-class pilots for our Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and our Allies and to prepare AEF warriors to deploy in support of our combatant commanders."

On June 15, the base announced that normal flying operations at Vance had been temporarily suspended, and posted the following notice on its Web site:

"In order to keep pilot production at Vance Air Force Base on schedule for the Air Force, Navy, Marines and United States allies, Vance sent members of three classes of student pilots and their instructor pilots to Randolph Air Force Base and Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas, today to resume flying training."

When this issue of Crosshairs- Military Matters in Review went to press, Vance's Web site had posted the following strike update:

"We continue to place top priority on the care of our people and base, and look forward to resuming our mission safely. While the Air Force remains neutral in the labor dispute between the contractor and the union, this dispute has limited base services and limited our current ability to produce combat aviators for our nation. During the past two weeks, we have been working closely with our chain of command to continue pilot training operations that comply with all applicable laws."

The Air Force might be "neutral" in the dispute, but it's certainly not neutral concerning the strike's impact upon its mission to train pilots. And what about the impact upon morale of families of the 1 percent who are fighting this war while civilian workers and unions bicker over perks? The situation makes you wonder about tens of thousands of contract employees spread throughout the Defense Department. It's reminiscent of 1981 when President Ronald Regan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers. Maybe the Defense Department or the president ought to fire CSC if they can find a hole in their contract with the Air Force. Don't they and the union, and the workers know there's a war going on? Top | Home

A super intelligence agent: The UAV

by Fred Edwards

June 26, 2009 -- The United States never has enough human intelligence collectors (Humint), and the long war we are fighting makes this clear every day. But right under our noses -- or actually above our heads -- technology in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is compensating in spades for the Humint shortage. In fact, the UAV provides vital information that you would like to get from old fashioned agents if you had them and could trust them. Here's how.

At a national security seminar June 6, at St. Pete Beach, Fla., retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley explained. Wooley, former commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command, cited an example of a Predator conducting surveillance on a typical white Toyota pickup. The Predator follows the pickup through downtown Baghdad traffic and creates historical data about it, including who's driving, whether the passenger is always the same, and whether he always sits in the same place in the vehicle. If you build up thousands of hours of aerial surveillance on that vehicle, then lose it in traffic, your historical database can give you the probability of exactly where the vehicle will appear later in the city. The database can be just as accurate as the Toyota driver's memory -- and also more trustworthy.

Want to kill the guy in the Toyota? Just command the Predator to launch a laser-guided Hellfire missile. Why is he a target? Gen. Wooley said because you know he's a member of "the radical arm of Islam." He added, "We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with the radical arm of Islam. They're the ones we have to kill." He looked into the faces of some 200 people attending the seminar. "I can't say it any other way. We have to kill them."

In fact, killing the enemy with UAVs can be more efficient than killing them with our American warriors, because the UAV eliminates high-value targets. This makes it a force multiplier.

Wooley also said that a UAV such as the Predator might have a backup special ops team prepared to go and capture the guy riding in the white Toyota pickup. But why capture him? Because he might have the knowledge to lead us to another killer.

UAVs have not been perfected by a long shot. For example, former Pentagon chief of acquisition, technology and logistics, John J. Young Jr., argued April 27 that the Air Force had refused to budget for an autonomous landing capability for the Predator, even though a large percentage of Predators lost were due to landing accidents. According to Young's spokesman, Chris Isleib, "Since 1994, the Air Force has procured 195 Predators, and 65 have been lost due to Class A mishaps." He said that, of the 65 lost, 36 percent were blamed on human error, and "many of those attributable to ground station problems." About 15 percent of the total losses occurred during the landing phase.

So the UAV represents a technology that's being perfected in the middle of a war that Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz calls "the realm of danger, uncertainty, and chance." How many F-4 Phantom pilots and electronic warfare officers would have expected their successors to drive from home in middle America, kill the enemy by way of a joystick and a video screen, and drive back home for breakfast and a trip to the mall?

The drones are indeed in their infancy. For instance, an unseen Predator can focus on a license plate, but not simultaneously on the vehicle and its surroundings. Wooley, the national security seminar presenter, compared this to "a soda straw view" of the target, and said that we must improve the systems so that we can look at a wide area, then focus the soda straw on one individual. Even then, he said, "We will never have enough intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (UAV support) in Afghanistan and Iraq."

These systems may not replace Humint but they are filling in for Humint when it's absent, and augmenting it when it's there. Let's give UAVs the funding they need. Top | Home

An Independence Day thank you to our warriors

by Fred Edwards

July 3, 2009 -- Because only one half of one percent of Americans are fighting the long war against radical Muslims, what can the other 99.5 percent do to help? Case in point is an Army sergeant in fatigues who my friend and colleague, Don Mace, sat next to recently during a flight from Dallas to Sacramento.

Mace, publisher and editor of Fedweek and Armed Forces News, described the sergeant as a "big guy, young, Hispanic/Indian ancestry, from California's central valley." He said they conversed during more than three hours during the flight.

The sergeant, an Army scout for the preceding five months in Baghdad, was heading home for R&R. He was due to return to Iraq in two weeks, but with American troops turning the cities over to the Iraqis, by now he could be somewhere other than Baghdad. Here are more of Mace's comments:

"He was upright, motivated, intelligent and thoroughly squared away. He commands a squad of eight men, all but one of them NCOs. It was obvious from the photos in his well-worn laptop -- which he showed me at my request -- that all are experienced and battle-hardened troops."

Mace used a metaphor to tell me that "he wore his patriotism on his flag-sewn sleeve." He added that, "although the sergeant was weary of the combat experience, he was eager to get back with his men. I was deeply moved by his uncomplicated decency and paternal instincts." Mace, a Vietnam veteran, explained: "He was, maybe, 24-25 years old."

Mace continued:

* "I recalled a statement I once made that I thought this generation of military men and women may yet bail us out of the moral and ethical morass we're in. If so, I could see him playing a solid role."

* "I asked the sergeant how he'd been received by Americans as he wended his way from airport lounge to car rental shacks. He said he was very pleased, and was especially impressed when citizens approached him and thanked him for his service. I was surprised (and delighted) that he particularly appreciated the little 'business' cards some folks carry with them to give to servicemen and women like him -- the cards that extol their commitment to all of us."

More than 200,000 men and women like that sergeant are in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus thousands getting ready to go or coming back. Altogether 1.5 million are serving somewhere in uniform. If you are one of the other 99.5 percent, when you see one of those warriors, take the time to say, "Thanks for your service." Better yet, get some cards that say "Thank you for serving." Service members who get a card will treasure your thanks every time they look at it. They deserve thanks; they are carrying on the legacy of July 4, 1776. Top | Home

The V22 Osprey -- For want of a nail

by Fred Edwards

July 10, 2009

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

(From Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack)

I'm not suggesting that we'll lose the war in Afghanistan if Congress kills the V22 Osprey program. But the idea of cancelling procurement of Ospreys causes a lot of serious questions. Let's look at this in three parts. First we'll listen to the folks (besides al Qaeda and the Taliban) who want to kill the Osprey. Next, we'll hear from the other side. Third, let's ask some critical questions about the implications of shutting down the V22 program.

On June 23, Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called for the halt in V-22 production. He said that of the 105 Ospreys bought since 1988, only 47 are combat deployable. He added that on June 3, only 22 of the 47 Ospreys were ready for combat. His conclusion: "The dream of a viable high-speed, long-range, tilt-rotor aircraft has not been realized."

Arthur Rivolo, recently the lead analyst on the MV-22 at the Institute for Defense Analyses, said that the V-22 "would fail to meet basic airworthiness requirements" set by the FAA.

The latest GAO report about the V-22 said that its cost per flight hour is over $11,000 - more than double the target estimate and 140 percent higher than the CH-46E helicopter. The GAO report posed the following questions:

* To what degree is the V-22 a suitable and exclusive candidate for the operational needs of the Marine Corps and other services?

* How much will it cost? How much can DOD afford to spend?

* Can a strategy be crafted for ensuring control over these future costs? Can another existing aircraft (including V-22s) or a new aircraft perform all or some of its roles more cost effectively?

The GAO report concluded that we should evaluate the roles such aircraft play in today's theaters of war and whether their performance warrants their cost.

Chairman Towns capped the House committee hearing by announcing that "the list of things the Osprey can't do is longer than the list of things it can do."

Sounds like a serious indictment. Now for the other side.

Marine Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, former VMM-162 commander in Iraq, told the committee his Ospreys flew every place and every time they were requested, including daytime combat missions in 120-degree heat. "I operated for seven months and did not miss a mission," he said.

From the strategic point of view, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, head of Marine Aviation, spoke of the U.S. failed rescue of hostages held in the U.S. Embassy in Iran. He said bluntly, "It would have been a successful mission and we probably wouldn't be where we are with Iran today."

Trautman was speaking of events at Desert One, southeast of Teheran, in April 1980, from where the rescue event was to be launched. Of nine helicopters involved, two developed mechanical problems, a third was diverted to help, yet another was damaged on landing. After the hostage rescue mission was aborted and the aircraft started to take off, one of the remaining helicopters crashed into a C-130 with a loss of eight Americans dead and others burned. Several critical factors were involved, but the helicopter failures cannot be denied.

This brings us to critical questions about the future of amphibious warfare itself. On April 17, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, "We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another amphibious action again. In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?" Shades of 60 years ago, when General of the Army Omar Bradley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, earnestly told congress, "Large-scale amphibious operations will never again occur." One year later, in 1950, the South Koreans were thankful that the United States could land its Marines at Inchon.

This should make us look carefully at the implications of Gates' statement.

* Can we afford to abandon a forcible entry from the sea capability in order to conduct counterinsurgency operations, such as when the Marines made the 400-mile air assault from the Arabian Sea into Afghanistan in 2001? They used the old CH-53 helicopters.

* Can we conduct humanitarian operations, peacekeeping operations, emergency evacuations and foreign internal defense operations against a determined enemy if we don't have an amphibious forcible entry capability?

* Are we thinking of reducing the requirement for a 38-ship amphibious force?

This leads me back to the start of this column about Benjamin Franklin's nail, shoe, horse, rider, battle, and kingdom metaphor. What might the balloon observers in World War I have said when they saw flying machines? Dangerous to their pilots? Unproven? Too expensive? Unnecessary because they won't fit in future warfare?

Congressman Towns, admittedly the V22 Osprey has what the media call a "troubled" history, but just what would we replace it with today if we didn't have it?

Mr. Rivolo, our pilots don't always fly by FAA rules. They get paid extra to fly dangerously. Just give them a flying machine and watch them go. Top | Home

Completing the combat mission means doing the numbers right

by Fred Edwards

July 17, 2009 -- According to retired Air Force Colonel Steve Strobridge, some 30,000 of our active duty forces are non-deployable. About 10,000 of them are recovering from injuries, another 10,000 are supporting the wounded, and the remaining 10,000 are unavailable because they've been assigned out-of-cycle to fill vacancies in other deploying units. Strobridge, head of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), adds that, behind the scenes, Army leaders have sought another 30,000 increase in its end strength.

Congress has approved that number, but was not planning to fund it until 2011 and 2012, if the Administration should put the increase in a future budget request. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., recognizes that the Army needs those extra people now, not in FY 2011 or 2012. So he has introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill to authorize the 30,000 increase. Furthermore, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said last week that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is considering proposals to make the increase in order to relieve the stress on the force.

It looks like in this case that the Congress, the Administration, and the Department of Defense will agree that two plus two equals four -- or rather, 10 plus 10 plus 10 equals 30.

Now let's apply basic arithmetic to Afghanistan, beginning in the Helmand province, where 10,000 U.S. Marines have joined 9,000 British troops. About 4,000 of the Marines began operations in the lower Helmand River valley this month, seeking to cut off Taliban supply lines from Pakistan and eliminate Taliban influence in the region. The ultimate mission will involve more than just one operation. The overall U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, is using the shape, clear, hold, and build approach. He stresses that the clearing phase lasts longer than people realize, and that the hold and build phases won't be effective if security threats are not eradicated. The keys to success, he said, are patience and time for everybody involved, both security forces and civilians.

How many troops will it take? The former U.S. commander, Gen. David McKiernan, had told President Obama that he needed an additional 10,000 troops beyond the 68,000 currently authorized. McKiernan was summarily relieved, and the White House put off any decision on further numbers until the end of this year.

Meanwhile, Gen. Richard Dannatt, outgoing head of the British army, said larger numbers of soldiers are needed in Afghanistan to hold territory won in combat and to give Afghans confidence in the region's security. It doesn't matter whether the soldiers are British, American or Afghan, he said.

It looks like the administration is focused on the "Afghan" part of the equation. For instance, the president's National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired Marine general, personally notified fellow Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson and 20 of his senior staff not to expect any additional Marines in Helmand. According to reports, his colonels and lieutenant colonels turned ashen because Nicholson had just told Jones he was "a little light" and that he didn't have enough troops to go everywhere in Helmand Province. Because the shape, clear, hold, and build strategy will require the Marines to stay close to the people instead of attacking Taliban and withdrawing, the logical result would be that -- if forces are lacking -- wherever the Marines are absent, the Taliban won't be.

Nicholson finally told Jones, that he didn't need more U.S. forces. He needed more Afghan forces." "I'm not going to sugarcoat it," he said. "The fact of the matter is we don't have enough Afghan forces, and I'd like more." He said that he would like for every 1,000-member Marine battalion in Afghanistan to be accompanied by 500 Afghan troops.

Based upon a senior U.S. diplomat's estimated requirement ratio of 1 to 10, Nicholson would need about 1,000 Afghans. Increasing this by the British force, the need reaches 1,900 Afghan security troops. Because Helmand is only one province, and McChrystal is expected to recommend an increase of from 134,000 to 160,000 Afghan troops, the arithmetic discloses that we simply aren't going to recruit and train an adequate number of Afghans this year or maybe next.

It seems that we will have to fill the gap with U.S. and other allied troops until the Afghan security forces are trained and competent. This doesn't mean an open-ended spigot of American combat troops pouring from the United States into Afghanistan. But it does mean that, if the president truly believes his own statements about the importance of Afghanistan, he cannot place an absolute limit on the number of U.S. troops to be committed. Top | Home

Iran: The nuclear proliferation clock is ticking

by Fred Edwards

July 24, 2009 -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced July 22 that the United States might extend a "defense umbrella" over the Middle East if Iran insisted upon defying international demands to stop possible nuclear weapons development. This is the first time that a senior U.S. official has publicly discussed a defensive shield. What might her warning imply?

* It could signify increasing concern within the administration that Middle East states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt might be tempted to pursue nuclear programs in self defense.

* It might be interpreted as an extension of the nuclear umbrella that the United States has promised its Asian allies in case they are attacked by nuclear weapons. Israel's minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor, suggested that interpretation of Clinton's pronouncement by using the term, "nuclear," in connection with the "defense umbrella."

* It could be intended to provide justification for the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

* It might suggest that Washington is prepared to accept Iran's achievement of nuclear capability as inevitable.

* It might be just the opposite -- that the Obama administration is telling Israel, "Don't take things into your own hands. We'll be there to help you. Trust us. As Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador to the United States, said, it may be only an attempt to "reassure our partners in the gulf."

If the last is so, we're talking apples and oranges so far as Israel is concerned. What if Mexico, or, say, Canada, had announced that the United States should be wiped from the pages of history, and had started developing a nuclear program? What would Americans think if -- again hypothetically -- perhaps India promised to place us under a nuclear shield? If I were an American decision maker, I'd say that India was far away, that the threat is here and now, and that it was time for us to eliminate it.

So what about the Israelis? One U.S. official was quoted as saying, "Are they anxious? Yes, they're anxious." He said they are losing patience because diplomacy is not working. They've made it clear that they can strike the heart of Iran's nuclear program, but are not ready to make their move just yet.

Just as Secretary Clinton's "defense umbrella" can be interpreted several ways, the Obama administration's messages concerning an Israeli strike have been mixed. For example, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has advised that any Israeli strike against Iran would be destabilizing to the region. On the other hand, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said this month that the United States "cannot dictate" Israel's decision on military action. Two days later, President Obama told CNN that the United States was "absolutely not" giving Israel its approval for a strike.

Responding to this diplomatic confusion, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, reminded the world that Iran also could make strikes into Israel: "There is nothing stopping us from targeting Israel's nuclear sites and this will definitely happen if we are attacked," he said. "Our rockets have the precision capabilities to target all the Israeli nuclear sites."

The latest estimates conclude that Iran could have nuclear weapons within a year, and three years at most.

The White House has given Iran until late September to accept an offer of talks on abandoning its nuclear plan, and until the end of the year to show progress.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was scheduled to be in Jerusalem on Monday to meet with Israel's prime minister and defense minister in talks that a senior American military official said would be connected with Israel's growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear work. The official said that the trip was routine and that Mr. Gates was not going to "roll out a map and do contingency planning for some strike on Iran." We'll see.

Top | Home

Military hardware and democracy

Our crazy-quilt defense procurement system

by Fred Edwards

July 31, 2009 -- What a crazy-quilt system!

The service chiefs tell the secretary of defense what they need to defend the United States against our enemies. The secretary produces a budget that lists what he says the chiefs need. Each chief then has essentially two choices: tell the public, "We can win a war with that," or resign.

But this is just the beginning. The Congress makes the next decision. Senior military officers, other officials, and think-tank experts tell the legislators how they want to change the secretary's budget. Senior military officers voice their opinions privately, while retired officers speak more openly. But this still is just the beginning, because lawmakers have their own ideas of what's best to preserve our country. Furthermore, their constituents have their ideas. Moreover, legislators may have defense industries in their states or districts. Those firms bring jobs for constituents and also make campaign contributions.

Somehow each representative and senator must come to grips with all these countervailing forces and do what's best for the country in the form of a defense authorization bill.

Even if both houses agree on the bill, we're not there yet. The president can veto the bill if he disagrees with it. And a plethora of countervailing forces are doing their best to influence him.

To now, the $636 billion bill contains $6.9 billion for spending that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates did not want.

An example is money for nine F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets. Last June, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley spoke about this at a national security seminar in Florida. Wooley, former commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command, said that even to remake the old F-18 would be like putting a new engine in a 1985 Cadillac, but without adding today's enhancements such as GPS or automatic air conditioning. In the aircraft arena, this is not good news.

The bill also includes $674 million for three unrequested C-17 cargo jets. It's logical to ask why, since senior defense officials have formally testified that a mix of existing C-17s and upgraded C-5 aircraft, will do the job. But a House staff member stated that Air Force officials will say on the record that they don't support the measure, but off the record they say that they will actually use the planes.

Gen. Wooley, speaking at the national security seminar, explained that the C-17s fly back and forth carrying ammunition, supplies, and vehicles, and exchanging brigade combat teams. He said, "We are wearing out the C-17s. We are literally flying the wings off of them." He added that the proposed mix of C-17s and C5s might look good on paper, but the C-5 is an old airplane with technology from the late 1960s. "It is very unreliable," he warned. Meanwhile, "We are eating our C-17s up as soon as they come off the line." Sounds like we need those three new C-17s.

Now here's a purchase that hardly anybody wants, except maybe Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. They insist upon adding $400 million to the bill for five VH-71 presidential helicopters. The program is six years behind schedule and $6 billion over budget, and the president has said he doesn't need new helicopters. Wooley said, "The VH-71 has been a debacle." He added that current HH-3 helicopters must be fixed, and cautioned that they must be updated with defensive suites of robust communications.

The bill also would authorize procurement of an unrequested alternate engine by a different manufacturer for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Earl G. Peck, who has flown every fighter plane from the F-80 to the F-15, including the F-111 and F-4, gave the rationale for an alternate engine. He said that the F-84's engine failed after about 35 hours, and the Air Force had no replacement. The entire fleet was grounded for almost a year until a newer engine could be built.

In another example, he said the P-51 with the original Allison engine "was a dog." When a Rolls-Royce (Spitfire) engine was installed, the P-51 became the best fighter in World War II. He concluded that an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter "certainly would increase the probability of success."

So does it matter if we have an alternate engine? It does if you're the pilot. In earlier times, governments have authorized their military commanders to create and furbish their armies. Indeed, some military commanders such as Napoleon Bonaparte did it themselves, but Bonaparte was an emperor (read "dictator"), and the United States is a democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Our crazy-quilt of defense procurement has never failed us. The only war losses we have incurred were from political decisions. No matter what hardware our troops get, they manage to win. Let's hope the system does not fail them. Top | Home

Another general goes public on Iran's intransigence

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 7, 2009 -- Back in 2007, I discussed retired Air Force Gen. Thomas G. McInerney's pronouncements on how to dispose of the Iranian nuclear threat in 48 hours (visit www.milmat.net/archive2007.htm#070316). Almost three years later, Iran's leaders are still playing nuclear poker while the United States is refusing to call. Whispers abound that Israel will play its trump card, but it hasn't yet.

Fast forward to August 2009 and another retired Air Force general lays his cards on the table. Gen. Charles F. Wald published an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal August 7 about steps we could take if the apparently re-elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his boss, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, continue their nuclear defiance, and if Israel does not cut their program off at the roots. I stripped his comments of diplomatic niceties in order to summarize the following three points.

1. Show Teheran that we mean business. Deploy additional carrier battle groups and minesweepers to the waters off Iran, and conduct military exercises with allies.

2. If that fails, blockade Iranian ports to cut off Iran's gasoline imports, thus stanching one-third of its domestic consumption, and creating an internal economic crisis. Of course this is an act of war, but we are talking about preventing possible big-time future warfare.

3. If those steps fail to halt the Iranian nuclear program, and no other pressures work, then lay waste to the Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

Naysayers might claim that the U.S. military is over-committed, or can't find the sites, or that the sites are too heavily fortified. Wald says, "Such assumptions are false," and explains why.

We would haul out Air Force and Navy air assets that are not over-committed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In addition, we would use available special-ops troops to protect key assets in bordering countries, and to launch clandestine operations from across their borders. We also would augment missile-defense capabilities in the region.

Now here's Gen. McInerney's proposal.

First, the United States could station three carrier strike groups in the Indian Ocean.

Second, U.S. Central Command (CentCom) could reinforce the Air Force posture in seven days. He spoke of 15 B-2 stealth bombers, 32 F-117s, 32 F-22s, and support aircraft. In addition, CentCom could redirect some of the more than 700 drones deployed at that time in Iraq. McInerney said that, with CentCom's forces in place, the operation would accomplish the following objectives within 48 hours.

1. Neutralize the uranium development activities.

2. Eliminate or neutralize Iran's air and naval forces in order to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

3. Neutralize its air defense system.

4. Destroy its 300 Shahab-3 missile capability.

5. Decapitate its military and political command and control system.

The suggestions from the two generals mesh. Moreover, we wouldn't have to go it alone because we would expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to squeeze Iran from all sides.

Furthermore, Wald explains that hostilities or impending hostilities could reveal undetected Iranian nuclear facilities if the Iranians take steps to protect them. But what if they are buried so far underground that they will survive conventional bombing?

Two answers.

First, the bombing will eradicate their entrances and exits.

Second, Gen. McInerney spoke in 2007 of a super bunker-buster bomb powered with conventional explosives that can root out any underground facility. He added that, with the U.S. technical capability to pinpoint targets, if the first bunker buster didn't penetrate far enough, we could simply drop a second through the first hole. Those bombs are now ready.

Of course, military action would entail huge risks. Wald speaks of U.S. and allied casualties, Iranian retaliation, increased Iranian interference in Iraq and other Gulf states, and the possibility of a substantial consolidation of Iranian opinion in favor of their government. The first three are a given, but a pair of factors would mitigate against the possibility of the third.

First, as McInerney noted, the majority of the 78 percent of the population that are below the age of 30 do not want rule by radical Islam. They want a system that is balanced between Islam and a secular rule of law. They are not likely to coalesce with the current radical Islamic regime.

Second is the recent election. Unlike two and a half years ago, a lot of the population is steaming with unrest. Those young Iranians -- and many of the older ones -- might just jump at the chance to overturn the regime if the bombing begins.

Although a coordinated bombing campaign would set back Iran's development of nuclear munitions, it would not destroy its knowledge base. So the United States would be committed to being a long-term watchdog.

But we must balance all the naysaying against the consequences of continuing to do nothing. The following is Wald's concept of what we would face from Iran if we let its leaders keep playing nuclear poker:

* Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf.

* Nuclear blackmail against Arab regimes friendly to the United States.

* An open door to other radicals in the region.

* A full-flowered threat to Israel's existence.

* Destabilization of Iraq.

* The end of the Israel-Palestine peace process.

* A regional nuclear arms race.

Can the United States afford to let this happen? Top | Home

Afghanistan: What kind of war are we fighting?

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 21, 2009 -- President Obama made the following statement August 17 about the war in Afghanistan:

"We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." He concluded, "So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

It sounds like we must defeat an indirect enemy, the Taliban, in order to deny our actual enemy, al Qaeda, a safe haven. And it looks like our goal is "armed state-building," as Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, termed it in a New York Times op-ed August 21.

But how long will such a war take? Retired Marine Gen. James Jones, the president's national security adviser, says we won't even know if the strategy announced in March is working until the end of 2010.

Let's hope the president's advisers have heard the August 12 interview of Michael Yon August 12 by Ward Carroll, the editor of Military.com. Yon is a blogger who decided the best way to blog is to get source material with the troops in Afghanistan. So far on this trip (not his first), he spent three weeks embedded with the Lithuanians, then went with the Brits for six weeks. Following that, he is scheduled to go to the U.S. Marines. Speaking to Carroll by satellite phone from northern Helmand Province, and taking cover from fire during the interview, he said, "We're not going to be finished in 10 years. It's going to take a hundred years. We don't have enough troops here in this province. The lack of troops is acute. It's a very serious problem. We're not even close to what we need."

Carroll asked if we are in the classical guerrilla situation where we own the day and they own the night, and got a surprising answer.

"I wouldn't say we own the day. We don't. The Taliban is getting stronger. We don't control anything that we can't observe 24/7 [interrupted by small-arms fire]. In 2010 I think you'll see the most intense fighting we've ever seen since the war began. This war is just getting started. Everything up to now has been a warm up."

Last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of the Afghanistan surge that began in February and the strengthening of the Taliban. "We needed to get troops in order to have an impact, particularly this year, because the Taliban's getting tougher, better organized, more sophisticated, better tactics, better intelligence, all those kinds of things. If we delayed that, we would miss a significant period of time to engage them."

With 62,000 U.S. troops and 39,000 allied forces in Afghanistan, along with about 175,000 Afghan soldiers and police, how many more troops will it take? The Times of London has reported one estimate at 45,000 more.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, is preparing a major strategy review to be delivered to the White House soon. A group of outside advisers reportedly has recommended that he request up to 21,000 more troops. McChrystal also is examining whether up to 12 percent of support personnel could be replaced by combat forces, which might create a force multiplier. But this raises two questions.

First, if we are in the business of "armed state-building," don't we need more of both -- combat and combat-support troops?

Second, if we sent too many support troops in the first place, did we know what kind of a war we wanted to fight? Let's hope that Gen. McChrystal's report is truly comprehensive. Almost 60,000 American lives were lost in Vietnam, and it took years for former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to admit that "we were wrong, terribly wrong."

A final question arises: Is the war in Afghanistan really a war of necessity? Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote August 23 in the Washington Post that, "unless the nation is invaded or its very survival is imminently threatened, going to war is always a choice."

Following that logic, since al Qaeda invaded us and declared our survival to be at stake, going to war with al Qaeda was a necessity. But is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to deny a safe haven to al Qaeda the right choice? If it is, do we do this by armed state-building that at least one knowledgeable person says will take a hundred years?

Visit Michael Yon's Website at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/. Top | Home

The Afghanistan Enigma

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 28, 2009 -- The top American general in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is due to present a comprehensive report any day on Afghanistan. Well, if a draft legislation package for fixing the American health system ran 1,000 pages, I would expect Gen. McChrystal's comprehensive report to fill a full wing in the Library of Congress. Here are questions it should consider.

If U.S. troop levels remain or increase, what will be done for dependable supply lines? The 1,500-mile route from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan has slowed and is sometimes interdicted.

Are we seriously considering an alternate supply route of 4,000 miles from the Baltic Sea through Russia? Wasn't Russia involved in shutting us out of the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan, where we had staged through more than 170,000 soldiers and 5,000 tons of cargo? Now we would trust Russia not to pull the plug on a land route? At what expense to former Soviet republics?

Are we really contemplating an Iranian route? What would Teheran expect from us in exchange that doesn't involve nuclear development or hegemony over Iraq?

Do we intend to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to keep al Qaeda down? If so, should we try it by building Afghanistan into a modern state? Top-level decision makers in Washington are saying it will take a year and a half before we even know whether we are "turning around" the situation in Afghanistan. Are they -- and the American people -- prepared to pour troops into Afghanistan for maybe a generation?

Can't we fight our enemies without nation-building? Indeed, if we are going to nation-build, why pick Afghanistan. Why not do it in Somalia, which has al Qaeda connections, or Nigeria, or a half-dozen other failed or failing states? Obviously we don't have the money or the blood to go nation-building around the world.

But President Obama reminded us that we really have no choice except to fight the Taliban and by extension al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So the crucial question for McChrystal is what exactly is our goal?

On August 13, Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was asked at the Center for American Progress how we will identify success in Afghanistan. "We'll know it when we see it," he replied. That same day at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a similar answer when asked how long U.S. forces would be fighting in Afghanistan. So what exactly is our strategic goal if we won't recognize it until it someday pops up like a genie from a bottle?

In a recent article in Joint Forces Quarterly, journalist and author Ralph Peters offers a choice of two possible goals that are within our capability.

1. Cancel nation-building and keep no more forces in Afghanistan than we can supply by air (15,000 or less), while concentrating on making provinces ungovernable by the most extreme Taliban; or

2. Withdraw completely but maintain an over-the-horizon capability to help anti-Taliban factions keep Pashtun provinces ungovernable by the Taliban or al Qaeda.

In short, says Peters, in Afghanistan we are embarked on block-by-block nation-building. This means taking and holding territory until a strong, central government emerges that is seen by the people as legitimate. That is not our mission. We simply want to disrupt the enemy so they can't carry out another 9/11.

If we opt to continue nation-building, we must be prepared to keep enough troops for it in Afghanistan for a generation or more. If we choose an alternate strategy, the time required will not necessarily be shortened, and might even be lengthened, but we can afford it if it's the correct one. If we go for nation-building, we should consider upwards of 100,000 troops and consider it now. Otherwise, let's take the 15,000 option. A middle ground can put us into another Vietnam.

Top | Home

McChrystal's Afghanistan plan

Easy to conceive; bloody to carry out

Three failures cause four Marine deaths

by Fred Edwards

Sept. 18, 2009 -- It was supposed to be a classical counterinsurgent operation under the plan conceived by the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. On Tuesday, Sept. 8, a team of 80 Afghan soldiers and border police officers moved to the hamlet of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province, near the Pakistan border. With them were 13 U.S. Army and Marine trainers, along with veteran foreign affairs reporter Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers.

It was an Afghan operation designed to search Ganjgal for weapons and meet with the elders to work out a plan for police patrols. The Afghans ran it, as the elders had wanted, and the U.S. trainers came only to advise and call for artillery and air support if needed.

Three things went terribly wrong: an intelligence leak, a failure of coordination, and a flawed application of policy.

1. Intelligence
Insurgents were tipped off, either by the Afghan security forces or by the village elders, who had announced over the weekend that they were recognizing local government control. As the patrol reached the outskirts of the village at 5:50 a.m. the first enemy round cracked out. Landay writes, "We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition."

2. Coordination
According to Landay's report, the U.S. advisors had been assured before the operation began that "air cover would be five minutes away." When the attack began, U.S. Army Capt. Will Swenson, the senior border police trainer, immediately called for artillery or air support from a unit of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. He was told that no attack helicopters were available. More than an hour later, helicopters finally arrived and began firing into the enemy in the hillside. Pentagon press secretary Geoffrey S. Morrell later said the helicopters took so long to get to the scene because they had a long distance to fly.

At 6:05, Swenson and U.S. Marine Lt. Ademola Fabayo, the senior Afghan army trainer, radioed for artillery to fire smoke rounds to mask a withdrawal. No smoke was available, so the artillery fired white phosphorus rounds. Fifty minutes later, enough white phosphorus smoke covered the valley for them to pull back. What's important about white phosphorus? It's an incendiary agent that you would rather have raining down on the enemy instead of you.

3. Flawed interpretation of policy
Under new rules of issued by Gen. McChrystal, attacks by artillery and air would be limited in order to minimize civilian casualties. McChrystal declared, however, that such support would not be restricted when U.S. troops were under direct threat. The situation should have been a no-brainer: use supporting arms against the insurgents dug into the slopes and tree lines but not against the hamlet.

It didn't work that way.

The U.S. trainers' requests for artillery support were rejected repeatedly, despite their insistence that the target wasn't near the village. During the battle, that raged until 2 p.m., four Marines were killed, along with eight Afghanis and Fayabo's Afghan interpreter. Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded. U.S. forces found the bodies of two insurgents.

In the 19th century, Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz wrote of the need to overcome "the fog of war." There was no fog of war in Ganjgal. The intelligence failure occurred long before the fated patrol set out. Coordination must be conducted before the first round is fired. And a misinterpretation of policy is pure stupidity. We have a long war ahead of us and we cannot afford to make mistakes like this.

Top | Home

Afghanistan troop 'surge' in the crosshairs

There is no magic moment to go home

by Fred Edwards

Sept. 25, 2009 -- The senior military officers I have talked with who know Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, tell me he is the best qualified person in the armed forces for the job.

But what is the job? Congress and key administration officials talk about timelines and exit strategies, while the Taliban and al Qaeda don't. The Taliban intend to keep fighting a war of attrition season after season, until the United States and NATO forces become exhausted and go home, like the Soviets did in 1989, and the British in 1842. So any talk of a timeline merely makes our adversaries grin. The term, "exit strategy," also makes them smile because it sounds like we believe that at a certain magic moment we can close up shop and go home.

McChrystal sees it somewhat differently. He and other officials have already said that there is no magic moment when we will know that we have won and they have lost. Instead he has embarked on a two-step form of nation building: (1) Move the troops in with local Afghanis, and train Afghan security forces to protect them from the Taliban; and (2) Prevent our real enemy, al Qaeda, from re-establishing itself in Afghanistan. Somewhere along the line, Afghanistan must develop a central government that is seen as legitimate. Meanwhile, lying in a mass of obfuscation across the border is a nuclear-powered, al Qaeda-infested country called Pakistan.

But if McChrystal's job is nation building in Afghanistan, and not creating a legitimate central government in Kabul -- and not advancing too far across the Pakistan border, how will he do this?

He has sent two reports up the chain of command to the president; an assessment of the situation, and a request for troops. The assessment is somber, stating that 2010 could well be named the year of the Taliban. For a pessimist, the troop request essentially says: with about 40,000 more troops we might succeed; with only 20,000 or 25,000 we might have a chance to succeed; and with 10,000 to 15,000 we don't know if we'll have a chance.

If McChrystal gets fewer than the top number he requested, he faces a grim choice; spread the troops he gets throughout the country and expose them to attritional annihilation, or simply concede some provinces to the Taliban. He is the best we have, so if we don't give him what he says he needs, we're headed for another Vietnam where strategy was incrementally modified, coddled, or left to wander around aimlessly until it turned into defeat. That is the worst kind of an exit strategy.

Mr. President, esteemed lawmakers, and Mr. Secretary of Defense, pay careful attention to what Gen. McChrystal says.

Top | Home

Crosshairs on cyberwarfare: Who is the enemy?

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 3, 2009 -- In July and August 2008, the country of Georgia came under a form of cyberattack called "distributed denial of service" within the time frame of a ground invasion from Russia. It might appear that Russia had shut down key Internet services to the country. What is known is that on July 19 a computer with a U.S. IP address launched a denial-of-service attack against the Web site of Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili. This exemplifies the complexity of cyberwarfare: in this case, unknown people used a civilian computer in U.S. territory to conduct an attack against a presumed ally.

What is cyberwarfare? Analysts and scholars are still trying to agree upon basic terms. But at a once-classified National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations document explains its extent, saying that it is "a domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and physical infrastructures." Giving that a little thought and it seems that cyberspace stretches from national command centers to personal desktop computers, to corporate systems, to everybody's personal data assistants. And cyberwarfare can be any action that disrupts them.

Think about computers in your life. You need them to get gasoline, use a credit card or debit card, make a 911 call, or any telephone call. Ships and troops can't navigate without computers. Supporting arms must have them. Missiles and anti-ballistic missiles become duds without them. Citizens can freeze in the winter and die of dehydration in the summer. All because of an enemy attack.

But it doesn't have to be an enemy. For example, in 1988 a computer science student at Cornell University tried to find out how big the Internet was, so he innocently launched a query consisting of 99 lines of code. The effort created the first computer worm, which caused between $10 million and $100 million in damage.

Cyberwarfare encompasses botnets -- collections of software robots (bots) that run autonomously and automatically within and through computer systems whose owners are unaware of them. And the attacks don't just come from outside the country. According to SecureWorks.com, the United States is the greatest source of global botnet attacks. By September 2008, 20.6 million attacks had originated from the United States, compared with 7.7 million from China. The attackers themselves were not necessarily in the United States, however, but they used compromised American computers. It is likely that the vast majority of them came from civilian computer systems (.com, .org, .net, etc.) rather than from government (.gov) or U.S. military (.mil) sources.

Even before the attacks against Georgia in 2008, Andrew Palowitch, a former CIA official who was a consultant to the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said in a talk at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies, "America is under widespread attack in cyberspace." He cited statistics provided by Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that 37,000 breaches of government and private systems occurred in fiscal 2007. He added that nearly 13,000 direct assaults took place on federal agencies, and 80,000 computer network attacks were attempted on Defense Department Systems. Palowitch concluded that some of those assaults "reduced the U.S. military operational capabilities." It's almost impossible to determine which of these attacks came from hackers who felt challenged to enter or disrupt a system and which ones came from potential enemy sources. From one point of view, any attack that shuts down a system is an enemy attack.

So control of cyberspace is critical. It involves all government agencies and ultimately all civilians. As a start, on October 1, the U.S. Cyber Command stood up, with plans for Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, to don a fourth star and become commander of USCYBERCOM. Because of this proximity of CYBERCOM and NSA, concerns have been raised about how much the new command will encroach on private citizens. We are told that the command will be a unified command subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command. Will an agent from CYBERCOM someday knock on your door to impound your computer for operating a botnet? Or perhaps I should ask, "Will your computer crash someday with an icon plastered across the monitor saying, "Shut down by CYBERCOM."?

Top | Home

Afghanistan at the grass roots

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 9, 2009 -- This week Michael Yon, who during his latest trip to Afghanistan has embedded with combat troops of several NATO nations, sent the following message:

"While London and Washington waffle over troop levels, Afghanistan is on course to surpass anything we ever saw in Iraq. We can still turn this war around but at the current rate surely the war will be lost. Indecision on a troop increase is a decision to lose the war. The required information has been presented to leaders in Washington and London. They have all the information needed to make a decision on troop levels. Weak civilian leadership is sabotaging the war effort."

Remember President Obama's pronouncement of August 17? "We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. . . . This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

He could be taking all this time to make a decision for at least two reasons. First, perhaps he intends to back down from his earlier announcement and wants to sandwich in as much slop time as possible before backpedaling. Second, whatever decision he makes can place an indelible mark on history, one far more vital than American decisions that delivered the Republic of Vietnam to the North Vietnamese in 1975. That episode was not crucial to the existence of our country, but the wrong move concerning Afghanistan could be.

In Wall Street Journal Online October 8, Vincent G. Heintz, a reservist and a member of Vets for Freedom, outlined where we are and where we should be. For seven months in 2008, he commanded a team of U.S. Army combat advisers in northern Afghanistan's Chahar Darreh district. With some 50 Afghan police troopers, they conducted ambushes and reconnaissance, and carried out law-enforcement tasks and reconstruction. He reports that, although some of the Afghans were corrupt, some were lazy, and a few were Taliban infiltrators, most served honorably and bravely. His team was not committed to large-scale nation building. He was building at the grass roots level. He was doing what Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top general in Afghanistan, would do throughout the country if he had enough troops: help the Afghans establish security at the local level so they can develop their own infrastructure.

In the beginning all went well with Heintz's team. Within two months locals were reporting roadside bomb locations and attack threats through the chain to the police chief. In response, Heintz's team and the police warned suspected insurgent leaders that they would be held responsible if something happened.

The Taliban threatened the locals in writing to stop cooperating with the police and the Americans. Then they attacked the police station with machine guns and rockets, but the police held their ground and fought back. And they earned the trust of the locals.

Heintz's team also provided funds to link the district's main road to the national highway system. This gave access to businesses and medical services in Konduz City. In addition, the team enlarged the district's central school, which soon was teaching both boys and girls. The team's placement and activities also afforded them vital local intelligence, which they passed to counterterrorism units for action.

The system was working. But that's when something went wrong. The Taliban? No, us. We were in too much of a hurry. After seven months, Heintz reported, as required, that the district police had reached a high enough level of proficiency to be "certified." So Heintz was ordered to move out. The 56 cops-in-training suddenly were left on their own before they had achieved enough stability to police 100,000 people under asymmetric attack by the enemy.

How could we abandon them prematurely? Because we simply did not have enough trainers for continuous coverage in each key district until the grass roots were solidified. When Heintz left, security collapsed, the schools suffered, and the Taliban resurfaced. The construction projects fell prey to corruption. And the intelligence flow stopped. Heintz says:

"Cops and soldiers (Afghan or American) are not made in classrooms or on shooting ranges. It is in alleyways and markets and on open highways and farmlands where young troopers build trust in one another, receive on-the-job mentoring, and earn the confidence of the citizenry."

He concludes by advising that, if the president thinks of settling a troop level somewhere between the highest and lowest that Gen. McChrystal requested, rather than at the highest, "That would be the equivalent of FDR ordering Gen. Dwight Eisenhower to assault Omaha Beach but not Utah."

The history of American freedom is at a critical juncture in this long fight against radical Islamists. Michael Yon and Vincent Heintz have told us what we must do. Will we opt to win, or are we going to play with numbers? Top | Home

How to lose the war in Afghanistan without blame: Do nothing

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 23, 2009 -- On Dec. 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke to Congress about the date "which will live in infamy." Within the hour, Congress passed a formal declaration of war against Japan. Now imagine the following alternative.

Instead of going to Congress, Roosevelt holds one of his famous fireside chats on the evening of December 8, or maybe the 9th, or the 10th. He says, "Last December 7th the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In the next few weeks I plan to hold secret meetings with different advisors and some members of my staff. In due time, we'll have another chat about this."

Do you suppose that, while the Japanese were gobbling up the rest of the Pacific, Americans at home would have simply gone about their Christmas shopping? Would the families of the American service members captured at Wake Island sipped calmly at eggnog Christmas Eve, knowing that, somehow, the president would someday make everything right? What would Gen. MacArthur in the Philippines have said rather than "I shall return."? And what would millions of Americans be doing the next day instead of thronging into their draft boards -- ambling over to the nearest football stadiums?

In a dusty farming community along the Helmand River in Afghanistan lies a micro version of what we might do if Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior general in Afghanistan, gets enough troops. Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote Oct. 22 in the Washington Post that, before the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines arrived at Nawa in early July, the bazaar, the school and the health clinic were virtually shut down. Municipal services were nonexistent. The Taliban ruled the community with checkpoints and bombs, like a gang of cutthroats. Three months after the Marines arrived, all had changed, and the central part of town was safe enough to skip body armor and helmets.

Of course, the Nawa district is not the problem community that others are, because its three principal tribes are not warring with each other, and its governor is extremely capable. If that wasn't the case, it might have taken the Marines a little longer. Nevertheless, two problems remain. First, the Taliban did not flee the province; they went only 10 miles away to the community of Marja, where they are swarming like hornets eager to strike back when the Marines leave. Second, the strength ratio of U.S. and Afghan security forces in the district is about 1,500 for its population of some 75,000. This matches the 1-to-50 ratio recommended by counterinsurgency experts. To expand that ratio across southern and eastern Afghanistan would require 100,000 more troops. This is not far from the highest number Gen. McChrystal reportedly has requested. Although some sources say his top number is about 40,000 more troops, reports from his meetings with ministers of NATO countries in Bratislava on October 23 indicate a high option of 85,000. Let's say that the United States did provide 85,000 and NATO filled in with the other 15,000. What might it look like in perspective?

During World War II, more than 10 million American men and women served in the armed forces. If 85,000 more U.S. troops were added to the 65,000 already in Afghanistan, a rough comparison would be that we would be committing about 1.5 percent of the military strength to the Afghanistan war as we did to the Second World War. Is the threat to our survival by the Taliban one-and-a-half percent of the threat by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?

Is the United States capable of doing what has to be done? Does it have the will? Where is Franklin Delano Roosevelt when we need him?

Top | Home

Road-bound on Afghanistan's Death Highway

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 6, 2009 -- When the Soviet Union's 40th Army invaded Afghanistan on Christmas eve of 1979, the forces went in with vehicles designed for a war on the European plains -- BMP-2 tracked vehicles, and BTR-70 and BTR-80 wheeled vehicles. All vehicles were vulnerable to mines emplaced by the mujahideen, and the BTRs were highly vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). When U.S. Special Forces went in after 9/11, they used small Afghan ponies, along with satellite communications, night vision devices, and laser targeted weaponry. They were not road-bound. Then, when troops of the U.S. 5th Stryker Brigade deployed in southern Afghanistan in July this year, they took along their Stryker vehicles.

Whereas the mujahideen used mines in the 1980s, the Taliban are using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against the Americans in the 21st century, and the Stryker troopers aptly named their vehicles "Kevlar coffins." Twenty-one of 350 Strykers have been destroyed since the 5th Brigade deployed in southern Afghanistan in July; more than two dozen Americans have been killed and nearly 70 wounded in the incidents.

The eight-wheeled Stryker was originally conceived as an air-deliverable substitute for a tank, a vehicle that could be deployed quickly and in quantity. In warfare like that fought in parts of Iraq, its speed and capacity --11 troops plus a crew of two -- compensated for its lighter armor. But it hasn't been adaptable to parts of Afghanistan where the enemy knows it's going, like Highway 1, the "Death Highway," in Kandahar Province.

The Soviets did what they could to upgrade their vehicles in the 80s. They increased the gun's angle of elevation on the BM2 tracked vehicle so it could fire higher into the mountains, and made it more comfortable and more stable on slopes. They also up-armored and otherwise improved the mobility of their BTR-80 wheeled vehicles. Now, deja vu, the United States is doing something about their vehicles.

They first started with mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) that were used in Iraq. They also up-armored Humvees. And now comes the mine-resistant, all-terrain vehicle with four-wheel independent suspension, known as the M-ATV. The M-ATVS are designed to operate in Afghan terrain, and are lighter and more maneuverable that their big brothers in Iraq. Featuring armor and V-shaped hulls to deflect IEDs, they will replace the up-armored Humvees. Scheduled for the pipeline are more than 6,500 M-ATVs, with some 690 already on the ramp. The base cost of each is $437,000, and when fully equipped it is $1.4 million, including shipping and handling. Meanwhile, early-production MRAPs are slated to have their rigid suspensions replaced with suspensions similar to those on the M-ATVs.

The M-ATV is designed for a driver, three passengers and a gunner. An all-purpose vehicle, it can be used for mounted patrols, reconnaissance, security, convoy protection, a communications hub, a command and control vehicle, and combat service support missions. It can be equipped with a variety of surveillance and targeting systems, tactical air support equipment, TOW anti-armor missiles, land-mine protection jammers, and remote weapons systems. It is somewhat more sophisticated than the al Qaeda and Taliban signature Toyota pickups, and at the cost, it had better be. Maybe, we can get American service members out of Kevlar coffins, but can we get them off the death roads?

Top | Home

Traitor, treason, terror and terrorism

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 13, 2009 -- The Eleventh Edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has the following definitions:

* A traitor is one who commits treason, or is one who betrays another's trust, or is false to an obligation or duty.

* Treason is the betrayal of a trust.

* Terror is a state of intense fear.

* Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.

An officer in the armed forces of the United States must take the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (The final sentence is not required.)

Anybody who takes this oath and kills his fellow soldiers has been false to an obligation or duty, and has betrayed a trust. According to the definitions given, this makes him a traitor, guilty of treason.

But what does the Constitution of the United States say? Section 3 of Article III states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical anti-American cleric in Yemen, reportedly was a spiritual adviser to two 9/11 hijackers. On November 9, al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda supporter, blogged that a U.S. Army Major was a hero who "did the right thing" at Fort Hood, Texas. Considering al-Awlaki's background, that sounds like the major was giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet 13 innocent Americans were slain and 31 were wounded at Fort Hood on November 5. The person who did did the shooting fits the definitions of traitor, treason, terrorist and terrorism.

The major has been charged with murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The article reads that a service member who is found guilty of murder must be sentenced to either death or life imprisonment. If he is found guilty but not sentenced to death, why couldn't we just send him to Guantanamo to live with the likes of others who have killed American service members? Top | Home

The Chinese space dragon is hissing

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 20, 2009 -- China has launched satellites for communications, reconnaissance and global positioning systems. In January 2007 it shot down one of its weather satellites in a test that suggests an arms race in space. This year, it is expected to launch more satellites than the United States. It is the third country to conduct a spacewalk. It expects to land a vehicle on the moon in 2012 and place a manned space station in orbit by 2020. It also is testing the enormous Long March V Rocket, designed to lift heavy payloads into space.

On November 11, China announced that it soon will launch a scientific research satellite into space from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. The satellite, Shijian XI-01, will be carried by a Long March 2C rocket. China also is working on microsatellites that weigh less than 100 kilograms. Think of these as a swarm of bees -- difficult to find and too numerous to swat down. In addition, China is talking about "co-orbital" anti-satellite systems, whereby a satellite can pair up with an opposing satellite, overtake it, and destroy or neutralize it.

Gen. Xu Qilians, commander of China's air force said this month that China is developing an air force capable of offensive and defensive operations in both space and in air. On the one hand, he called militarization of space and air "a threat to the mankind," but on the other hand he said that China must develop a strong force in both. He added that the militarization of space is a "historical inevitability." Reminiscent of the U.S. Navy's old Cold War slogan of "Peace Through Firepower, Xu declared that "Only power could protect peace," while stressing that the People's Liberation Army air force was peace-oriented.

It's not certain that Chinese officials are all reading from the same sheet of music. Roger Cliff, a military analyst at RAND Corp., says that an internal struggle is ongoing within the Chinese military hierarchy for who will control the space mission. In any case, Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said: "I think anyone who's familiar with this business -- and particularly our history in this business over the years -- would have to be absolutely amazed at the advancement that China has made in such a short period of time, whether that be in their unmanned program or the manned program."

In the face of China's buildup and posturing, U.S. officials said November 3 that America's satellite coverage in the Southern Hemisphere cannot sufficiently track launches from Asia. Priorities within the Defense Department's space program dictate that satellites and associated equipment are being pushed beyond their designed life span

Chilton said that the United States is using old, Cold-War-vintage satellites and many of them focus mainly on the Northern Hemisphere. Lt. Gen. Larry James, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space at U.S. Strategic Command, said, "As you look at launches that would potentially come out of Asia and head south, you don't get a look at those for some period of time due to the lack of coverage there. So we still have shortcomings we need to deal with."

In the meantime, the United States and China have agreed to step up discussions on cooperative space exploration, while each is planning to send separate manned missions to the Moon by around 2020. U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintaro agreed during the week of November 15 to formalize space talks and to exchange visits of the two countries' space agency chiefs. Chilton has already met with Gen. Xu Caihou, one of two vice chairmen of the People's Republic of China's Central Military Commission, during Xu's visit to Strategic Command. And NASA director Charles Bolden said, "I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor."

When comparing China's massive strides in space with the aging fleet of American satellites and their inadequate coverage, it would be easy to conclude that the American plan to hold discussions on space cooperation is like a kitten mewing at the Chinese space dragon. Top | Home

The disease is radical Islam

The symptoms appeared at Fort Hood, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, USS Cole, Kenya, Tanzania, Khobar Towers, and all the others

by Fred Edwards

Dec. 4, 2009 - Some analysts have claimed that Army Maj. Nidal Hasan was afflicted with second-hand post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he launched a murderous rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, November 5. It's time for the facts. We're not confronting theoretical PTSD; we're facing a symptom of hard-core, radical Islam.

What is radical Islam? In the Dec. 7 issue of National Review, Alex Alexiev hit the nail on the head when he called it a "revolutionary ideology" like Nazism and Communism. It's founding father, Sayyid Qutb, cloaked his brand of Islam within a shroud of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, making it totalitarian. Radical Islam places anybody of any religion -- including Islam -- or any government that disagrees with it, on the enemies' list. (Think of the Taliban in Afghanistan.) Radical Islam proselytizes, indoctrinates, infiltrates, and undermines American society from within, using guaranteed democratic rights as tools. And it creates terrorism.

Radical Islam has been funded in the United States for some 40 years. Alexiev writes that, in the early 60s, Saudi money funded cadres of professional revolutionaries from the Muslim Brotherhood that infiltrated the United States and other parts of the West. The infrastructure began forming with the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in 1963. Soon thereafter came the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). Today the MSA has 1,000 chapters in North America, while ISNA and NAIT directly control hundreds of mosques. Although they claim to be independent representatives of American Muslims, Alexiev declares "there is hardly a city of any size in America or Europe today that does not have a Saudi-controlled institution preaching extremism and spewing hatred against Western civilization, directly or indirectly advocating its destruction."

So what really happened to Major Hasan? Alexiev says that Hasan, "like thousands of others, became radicalized - long before the war in Iraq came along." He explains Hasan's transformation by identifying two institutions where he was indoctrinated. One is the radical Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va. Hasan's mentor there was Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, an advocate of violent jihad. The other is the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md., under Imam Faizul Khan, another Muslim extremist.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry has provided a frightening revelation of the depth of the danger of radical Islam in his book, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. Besides reporting the extent of the infiltration, he documents perpetration of political correctness in 2005 and before in the White House, the Congress, the CIA, and the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury.

Although tens of thousands of Muslims have served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces, Sperry identifies eleven he calls traitors and accused traitors who served between 1985 and 2004. Some killed or tried to kill their fellow service members, and others committed espionage or were charged with espionage and pled guilty to lesser charges. Seven are Americans who had converted to Islam, two are Egyptians, one is Syrian and one is Lebanese.

One of the converts, John Allen Muhammad, recruited a young Jamaican who was a converted Muslim, Lee Boyd Malvo, and the two carried out a sniper terrorism attack in Washington, DC, that killed 10 and wounded three innocent people. Muhammad, who was executed by lethal injection on November 10 this year, also was suspected of throwing a grenade at a fellow soldier when he was in the Army.

Another convert, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed 2 soldiers and wounded 15 in Kuwait on the eve of his Army unit's invasion of Iraq in early 2003, reportedly said, "You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children." All in all, the recent massacre at Fort Hood is not new.

In spite of all the evidence, until Fort Hood four presidential administrations ignored the clear-and-present danger of radical Islam infiltration. Many editorials have castigated top military leaders along with Hasan's supervisors and peers for a murderous misdirection of political correctness, and it would be difficult to disagree. Nonetheless, if an administration and its Secretary of Defense disregard the threat, generals and admirals will follow their civilian leaders. It's called obeying orders. Just as Muslims who love our country find themselves impaled on tenterhooks by radical Islamists, senior U.S. officers have labored far too long under the yoke of political correctness about radical Islam.

Tragically, it took the murders at Fort Hood to sound a bloody wakeup call. Finally, a president is demanding answers, as is the Congress. And so are non-radicalized Americans of all religions. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan against the symptoms of a disease. We must attack the disease itself right here at home. Top | Home

Why the Afghanistan surge can succeed

by Fred Edwards

Dec. 11 2009 -- President Obama's approval of an Afghanistan surge and a calculated withdrawal promises to provide a bellwether solution to American operations in Afghanistan for three reasons:

(1) The timing of the deployment is critical.

(2) The drawdown schedule is variable.

(3) The strategy diverts the Taliban and al Qaeda from other targets.

First, the fighting season slackens this time of year as the enemy hunkers down for the winter. This should give our additional forces time to get into the country and break up the enemy's preparations for next spring.

In addition, knowledgeable people on the ground such as blogger Michael Yon have been warning that the Taliban will launch the heaviest fighting of the war in 2010. He and others see March or April as the beginning of a Taliban version of a surge. As Yon says, Spring Break in the United States is "Spring Offensive" in Afghanistan, and indications are that the Taliban envision 2010 as the decisive year. But with the U.S. surge, 2010 could be our decisive year.

Next, the timing of the drawdown won't tip our hand because it doesn't forecast that on a magic day in 2011 a hundred thousand American troops in Afghanistan will disappear -- poof -- and go home. Of course Obama said the United States will commence a drawdown in 18 months. Well, if we haven't trained some additional Afghan security forces by then, we certainly ought to poof and go home. But we won't fail, so we have the more realistic option of marching out as Afghans march in.

The question has been posed: "How long should we remain?" The answer: "It is not unthinkable to consider keeping American troops in Afghanistan for 10 or 20 more years." After all, U.S. forces have been positioned in South Korea for more than 55 years, and in Germany for more than 65 years, and we don't have an enemy in those two regions that has sworn to destroy our economy, our freedoms, and our very way of life.

Third, the strategy of diversion puts the enemy on the defensive.

George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, which publishes worldwide geopolitical intelligence, explains the difference between the war we conducted in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and today's war. Our strategic interests remain the same today: to prevent the genesis of another major attack on the United States by al Qaeda, and to keep radical Islamist groups like the Taliban from ruling a country like Afghanistan. But our operational approach is completely different. In the war of 2001-2002, we brought about regime change of the Taliban and we annihilated al Qaeda's center of gravity. Today, on the other hand, we support the Afghan regime, and al Qaeda has little or no center of gravity because -- although the movement still exists -- it is fragmented. Al Qaeda, for its part, does not necessarily seek the centralization it had in 2001, because that would expose the organization to destruction. Nevertheless, says Friedman, we have the movement exactly where we want them for two reasons.

One, their attacks against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan are forcing the Afghan security forces to take countermeasures. This accomplishes what the United States wants -- to get Afghan Muslims to fight radical Muslims, so that American troops can begin to phase out. Two, the reduction of the jihadists' operations to local actions should keep them too occupied to reconstitute the transnational movement that produced 9/11. As a byproduct, the more that radical Muslims kill Afghan Muslims, the more alienated the latter will be from the former. When regarding it this way, the United States is buying into a win-win situation.

Is it worth the American treasure, and the blood of some of our finest young men and women? Think of an al-Qaeda nuclear blast in a U.S. city that would cause a million dead and wounded. Think of a terrorist biological attack in the United States that would leave several hundred thousand Americans dead and suffering. And on the heels of either such tragedy would come a financial disaster that would make our current economic downturn look like a pimple on a rhinoceros. If we can prevent holocausts like this at home because of a surge in Afghanistan, the strategy will succeed. Top | Home

Let's buy bonds to fund this war

by Fred Edwards

Dec. 18, 2009 -- Last October, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wisc., Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., proposed tacking a "war surcharge" onto the federal income tax. Supposedly this would make the wars in Iraq and Iran unpopular, and indeed it should because Americans resent being told they must pay more taxes. Instead, the cost of the wars might be funded voluntarily. Consider World War II.

On May 1, 1941 Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau sold the first World War II war bond to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. By Jan. 3, 1946, when the proceeds from the final campaign were deposited in the treasury, the War Finance Committees that ran the loan campaigns had sold $185.7 billion worth of bonds. More than 85 million Americans had invested in War Bonds. In today's dollars, based on an estimated annual inflation rate of 4.05 percent beginning in 1941, Americans had loaned their government the equivalent of $2.8 trillion. Compare that to the current cost of today's wars of $150 billion annually.

When the World War II finance committee estimated the cost of running an annual nationwide bond sales campaign at $4 million, it decided to simply ask industry to produce and exhibit radio, print, and outdoor advertising at their cost. This proved to be a win-win decision for three reasons. First, donor industries knew they were doing more for their country than if the government was paying them to create and run the ads. Second, they benefitted from the public's appreciation of their patriotism. Third, home-front Americans who bought bonds knew they were doing something for the war effort. Many responded to one of the ads, "Buy until it hurts."

The bonds were sold by a combination of short-term campaigns and long-term monthly investments under the Payroll Savings Plan. For the latter, investors could have their employers withhold a certain amount of their salaries until the deductions accumulated enough to issue them a bond. The price of the bonds were as low as $18.75, which would be worth $25 in 10 years. So for only $6.25 a week, an employee would get a $25 bond with his pay check every third week. This offered an excellent way to save for retirement. Even school children participated, by buying 10-cent and 25-cent stamps to paste in special booklets. Once a booklet was full, it could be exchanged for an $18.75 bond.

A similar plan can work today, and it could be in the works. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., have introduced bills in Congress that would authorize the treasury department to issue and sell bonds to Americans to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Detractors complain that the bond money still has to be repaid. Well, aren't bond sales to Americans better than selling treasury paper that finds its way to countries like China?

But will something called "war bonds" sell? The term worked in World War II because there was no question in anybody's mind that the United States was in that war to the finish.

Today, however, Americans have difficulty coming to grips with just what to call this war against radical Islamists. President Bush tried "the war against terrorism," but that didn't resonate. If Congress authorizes bonds, and if that political body really intends to sell such bonds, let's hope they can produce a name that will sell, and a finance committee that can market them like they were marketed in World War II.

Top | Home | More Archives