Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review Columns writted by Fred Edwards in 2010

Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review
Archive 2010

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 01 2010 Terrorism in the air: Is it time to earn the privilege of flying?

Jan 08 2010 Americans are saying they want to qualify for the privilege of flying

Jan 15 2010 The F-35 program puts all the eggs in one basket

Jan 22 2010 Air Force working on F-35 rollout problem

Jan 29 2010 On Miranda rights for radical Islamists, and other nonsense: Why on earth are we playing right into the hands of the enemy?

Feb 05 2010 LORAN-C shutdown: Penny wise and pound foolish

Feb 20 2010 Iwo Jima: Two flags, two symbols

Mar 05 2010 Don't ask, don't tell: We had better ask the following questions

Mar 12 2010 American war doctrine goes around and comes around

Mar 19 2010 Mullen solidifies new war doctrine

Apr 02 2010 Eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Which fighter is the way to go?

Apr 16 2010 Fraternization causes enough problems: Must the military endure more?

Apr 24 2010 Iran plays brinkmanship in the Straits of Hormuz

Apr 30 2010 How to defuse the Straits of Hormuz

May 21 2010 Let's count the Marines in for future wars

May 28 2010 North Korea borrows asymmetry from radical Islamists

Jun 04 2010 Retired Marine general: Military oath of office never dies

Jun 11 2010 Radical Islamist scorecard: Al Qaeda failing, homegrown terrorists ascending

Jun 25 2010 Afghanistan: Where do we go from here?

Jul 09 2010 Terrorist pleads guilty: Now we pay to house him and feed him for life

Top | Home

Terrorism in the air

Is it time to earn the privilege of flying?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 1, 2010 -- The security breakdowns surrounding the bombing attempt on a Northwest/Delta Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit last Christmas were outrageous.

The only positive aspect is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failure to detonate the explosive disclosed the type of weapon he tried to use. As Stratfor advised in a December 26 summary, if Abdulmutallab had blown up the airliner, the authorities could have taken months or years to determine the type of device used. This would have facilitated subsequent attacks, because airport security teams wouldn't know what to look for. Now, the bomb makers will have to find a new type of device and a new way to hide it.

With our security structure beginning to look like the Keystone Kops, it's time to take a hard look at five factors: technology, HUMINT (human intelligence), profiling, coordination, and civil liberties.

Radical Islamists and other terrorists will always seek new technology. They used box cutters on 9/11, and we started searching for knives. Two days before Christmas of 2001 Richard Reid tried shoe-bombing, and we started taking off our shoes. Now that Abdulmutallab failed with lap-bombing, will we strip off our underwear?

History reveals that, ever since ancient man first used a stick as a club, technology has been countered by technology. Would Abdulmutallab's explosive have been spotted by a body-scan machine? Although some experts say "no," if we did not scan, that would leave us wide open for more bolt cutters. If we are to employ any type of security machines, then let's use them with a vengeance.

Simple HUMINT starts with lists. We had three on Christmas, but they were abysmally misused. One list names 550,000 people with possible ties to terrorism. Another depicts 14,000 individuals who must undergo additional screening before being allowed to fly. Yet another list is the no-fly list of 4,000. For goodness sake, let's learn to use them.

More complex HUMINT brings in agents and agent handlers. What does it take to make us understand the threat from radical Islamists? One of them murders fellow soldiers. Just weeks later another one tries to blow up an airliner. We must infiltrate the radicals. We must get more agents into the community where the enemy lurks. We succeeded against the Communist Party USA; we must succeed against the radical Islamists.

Above all, we must profile. Since almost all of the terrorist acts connected with the commercial airline industry have been committed by Muslims, we must introduce a system to screen every Muslim who wants the privilege of flying. With due respect to the tens of thousands of innocent Muslims who wish to fly, there seems no way around this. If a feasible, accurate system is instituted, cleared Muslims who line up at airports will know that their non-Muslim fellow passengers have no reason to look at them with suspicion. Difficult and expensive? You bet. But if we're serious, that's what we must do.

The next point, coordination, should be obvious. The National Counterrorism Center (NCTC) was supposed to prevent exactly what happened December 25. Let's hope President Obama's investigation will make the NCTC responsible, force the other 16 intelligence agencies to truly coordinate with it, and ensure that such coordination will produce action.

But what about civil liberties? They become irrelevant if we decide that nobody has an inherent right to fly. If flying is not a civil right, the right has to be earned just like the privilege of driving an automobile must be earned. Prospective drivers must pass tests aimed at keeping them from maiming or killing other human beings or their property. In short, government says, "You will either drive our way or you won't drive in our state." Granted, the system is not foolproof, as evidenced by police blotters, court records, and hospital admissions. But think of what would happen if there was no system.

If the federal government is serious about protecting Americans from radical Islamists when flying, it can adapt this concept to the airliner industry. Nobody would have the right to fly just by presenting money for a ticket. In order to qualify for the privilege, they would be profiled and screened. Government would tell them, "You will either go through our system or you won't get on a commercial airliner."

Even if all the recommendations in this column were instituted, radical Islamists would still find ways to strike. But last Christmas day, in spite of millions of dollars spent for protection, and regardless of tens of thousands of innocent Americans being harassed at the gates, the passengers on Flight 253 flew with a horribly false sense of security. We must do better.

Top | Home

Americans are saying they want to qualify for the privilege of flying

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 8, 2010 -- The Crosshairs column of January 1 dissected the problems of airline passenger security and suggested that flying should be a privilege rather than a right. It compared flying with the privilege of driving, which must be earned by obtaining a driver's license. A deluge of messages have arrived applauding this. The following are three examples.

* A subscriber from Florida writes: "This was a great article which exposed the latest terrorists airline bombing attempts. Your proposal to counter these attacks was excellent. The ability to fly is no right but a privilege."

* From a subscriber in Virginia comes: "Great idea comparing flying with driving as a privilege. I'm on board."

* And a subscriber from Arkansas says: "I like your comparison that you must qualify (with a license) to have the privilege to drive a car, so why not have airline passengers qualify to fly? Pat-downs, strip searches, X-rays, etc. work fine, but we have to reduce the number of air passengers subject to these measures. Otherwise, we will have to hire two or three times the number of TSA personnel at airports, and passengers will have to check in three-four hours before departure time!"

* The Arkansas subscriber continues: "The only way to do this efficiently is "Profiling" -- that awful, dirty, non-PC word. Right now we know the age range, sex, religion, national origin, etc., of all airline bombers going back to 9/11, to include the shooters at Fort Dix, Little Rock, and Fort Hood. If another terrorist act is committed, we simply add that category to the profile mix. Please continue with your current line of thinking and research. A retired Air Force general officer put another idea into the hopper. He said that pilots and crew members from Strategic Air Command flew aircraft containing nuclear weapons for years with virtually no security problems. Why? Because all had received successful background investigations that qualified them for security clearances. They were profiled!

Sincere, patriotic Americans are saying that flying in an airliner should be a privilege and not a right, and that the privilege should be earned by successfully undergoing profiling. In short, if a prospective passenger is not willing to be profiled, then that person simply can't board an airliner.

Who would pay for the extra profiling? The same person that pays for the ticket -- the prospective passenger. But what would this do for civil liberties? It's hardly different than when innocent Americans get profiled for the privilege of leaving our country's borders with a U.S. passport -- and they pay for the privilege.

If these proposals appear too harsh, just ask yourself which is harsher -- being profiled or being blown out of the air. Once upon a time virtually anybody was allowed to ride a horse. Then came the automobile, and nobody was authorized to drive it unless they were granted the privilege.

The president has said we don't need to do anything drastic about the near-disaster last Christmas day when a radical Islamist tried to blow up Northwest/Delta Airlines flight 553 to Detroit. He announced that we only need to tweak the system we have. Well, Mr. President, if innocent people who fly on airliners are demanding that they be profiled -- on their nickel -- let's help them be safe. Top | Home

The F-35 program puts all the eggs in one basket

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 15, 2010 -- For centuries farmers taught their children not to put all their eggs in one basket, because if they should lose the basket they would lose every egg. In the case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, it looks more and more like it is the only egg scheduled for the basket. Here's how it's beginning to play out.

Congress decided to cap production of the fifth-generation F-22 by pulling its funding from the 2010 military budget. By recent estimates, the F-35 won't be fully operational before 2013. After buys of the F/A 18 Super Hornet series conclude, this will leave the F-35 as the only egg in the future basket.

To save money, the F-35 program was established to be "concurrent," which gives the services early, lower-cost production aircraft while the plane is still in the middle of flight tests. That means that combat pilots will be conducting their own flight testing on the job. Meanwhile, actual flight testing is lagging. For instance, in January of last year, program officials were promising that 10 test aircraft would be flying in 2009, but by September, only one new plane was in the air. Five more were promised by the end of 2009, but by mid-December, only one of those had been delivered. Most important is the nagging worry over whether flight testing will expose problems that will be time-consuming, expensive, and perhaps almost impossible to fix.

Moreover, under the law, the program cannot move into a multiyear contract phase until operational testing is completed. So experts say that the Defense Department and the Congress will have to decide this year whether to pay for development overruns by cutting early production numbers of aircraft. At present, every year's delay leads to 230 more platforms ordered before development is complete. So here we have a variant of the chicken-and-the-egg syndrome -- which comes first, extra costs on the front end or fewer combat aircraft for the longer term?

To complicate matters, the decision to build an American joint fleet of only 187 F22-s means that hardly a hundred of them will be available for combat at any one time. With that basket of eggs shrinking, the need for the only egg in future production, the F-35, jumps drastically, and perhaps dangerously.

One reason for jettisoning the F-22 was the cost. Estimates predict that the F-22s will end up costing about $350 million apiece once the final 50 or so have been added to the 140-aircraft inventory. Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, has predicted that the ultimate cost of the F-35, on the other hand, will reach almost $200 million. Somehow, I would rather have a $350 million egg in the strategic basket tomorrow than be hoping to find a $200 million egg in the henhouse someday in the future.

Top | Home

Air Force working on F-35 rollout problem

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 22, 2010 -- In my column of January 15, I described the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as beginning to look worrisome for, among other things, two reasons.

First, the concurrent plan, whereby the aircraft goes through flight testing while some planes have already reached the Air Force, lagged markedly in 2009. As concurrency increases, the overlap exposes operational F-35s -- and indeed the entire program -- to the chance that serious problems could surface late in the cycle that would be difficult to fix. This can become critical because the fifth-generation F-22 program has been scrapped, and buys of the F/A 18 Super Hornet series will be phasing out.

Second, although one reason for shelving the F-22s was cost, a leaked Navy document forecasted that the F-35 promised to become more expensive to operate than current Navy and Marine Corps fighters.

In the meantime, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has acknowledged the problems, and announced that the Defense Department is slowing down testing and acquisition of the F-35. He said, "The path we were on was too aggressive, so there's an effort underway to reduce concurrency, to lengthen the period associated with testing, to increase the number of test assets and make the production rate somewhat less ambitious."

He added that the adjustment should facilitate building large numbers of problem-free F-35s as they replace existing fighter fleets. Even with the slowdown, he insisted that the Air Force's F-35 will be ready for initial operational capability by 2013. It seems he's saying that we'll produce them more slowly, and increase platforms, pilots and systems for the test cycle, but will still start phasing them into full service by 2013.

As I suggested in my column of January 15, the phase-in better be in adequate numbers, because the F-35 looks like it's going to be the only U.S. game in town during a period that a lot of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian fighters and air-suppression technology are going to be playing their games. Top | Home

On Miranda rights for radical Islamists, and other nonsense

Why on earth are we playing right into the enemy's hands?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 29, 2010 -- Throughout much of history, spies were shot upon discovery or sometimes hanged after a trial. In America's far west in the 19th and early 20th century, cattle rustlers were often hung from the nearest tree. Now, in the 21st century, we are treating radical Islamist killers like they are innocent until proved guilty. Hence, five men charged with masterminding the 9/11 attacks, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, are to be tried by a civilian court.

On top of that, consider the lap bomber of last Christmas, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. According to AP accounts, he ended up being treated like a traffic violator. The interrogation started smoothly enough when U.S. Customs agents and local police took him off the airplane and to the hospital. He openly admitted that he had tried to blow up the plane, but then things turned sour. Agents from the FBI's Detroit office were called in. Abdulmutallab readily informed them that he was from al Qaeda in Yemen. Under an exception to the Miranda ruling, they questioned him for 50 minutes without warning him about self-incrimination. Later, in order to make his statements admissible, another team of FBI interrogators gave him his Miranda warning, and he virtually shut up.

Why was this a sour turn of events? Because the FBI is concerned primarily with law enforcement -- getting a conviction in court after a crime. Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by a team concerned with national security -- preventing future terrorist acts. He needed to be grilled as long as necessary about impending threats, about al Qaeda operational matters, and about other intelligence items critical in our war against radical Islamists.

In an article in the January 25th issue of National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy explains why the criminal justice system is the wrong avenue of handling radical Islamists. Look at what happens if a prisoner gets an attorney and a civilian trial.

* The lawyer will advise him not to speak unless prosecutors agree to drop charges, or not to use his statements against him, or to promise him a minimum-security "country-club" jail, or maybe even to deport him to his native country.

* The lawyer will tell him to demand various comforts and benefits in exchange for cooperation.

* In a capital case, the lawyer may tell him to cooperate only if prosecutors agree to drop the death penalty.

As McCarthy says, "Once you accommodate a defendant on anything, the psychological ground shifts. He realizes that he is in control." That's playing right into the enemy's hand.

Once a radical Islamist is consigned to the criminal justice system, little chance remains of gathering intelligence or interrogating him. When he realizes he doesn't have to tell investigators anything, he simply waits for a bail hearing. In preparation for the trial, officials are concerned with subpoenas, and motions, and even with committing their resources to get him information he can use to beat the charges. It's no wonder that, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, he said, sure, he'd talk, in New York with his lawyer.

There is no reason that enemy combatants must be immediately turned over to the criminal justice system, or turned over at all. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set a precedent in 1942 when he sent eight captured Nazi saboteurs before a military commission. The Supreme Court decided, in Ex parte Quirin, that "Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. Six of the saboteurs were executed in days, not unlike cattle rustlers. Roosevelt understood the kind of war we were fighting. Do members of today's administration, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, understand today's war? Top | Home

LORAN-C Shutdown: Penny wise and pound foolish

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 5, 2010 -- When considering the rationale for dumping the F-22 in favor of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, it's easy to skew the reasoning with dollar tradeoffs. By some estimates a single F-22 costs $350 million including developmental and other costs. One F-35, on the other hand, might cost only $200 million. The $150 million savings per aircraft gets attention. I am not agreeing with those in the Department of Defense who opted to dump the F-22. I'm using it only as an example of cost comparison. But think of this: For the savings on one aircraft, we could operate the entire LORAN-C system for more than four years. But the Department of Homeland Security has ordered the Coast Guard to shut down all LORAN stations February 8.

So what? Doesn't the Global Positioning System (GPS) do the same thing and better? It guides unmanned aerial vehicles, tells troops and their supporting arms exactly where they are, synchronizes time and cell-phone antenna, navigates ships, and helps us drive to the nearest McDonalds. Sure it does, unless it fails, or an enemy disables it. Then what would we do? A good answer is to keep a backup LORAN system, and even upgrade it to the enhanced version, eLORAN, which had been planned.

Some might say that disabling the satellite system that empowers the GPS is unlikely because even terrorists won't be blowing a satellite out of the sky. Might be, but it's relatively easy to cripple the GPS without shooting down a satellite because a space system has two other vital segments -- the up-and-down links and the ground station. The links can be neutralized by electronic assault, and the ground station is vulnerable to a variety of stoppages, including mundane factors like power outages and even simple human error. The solution of course is to have a backup system in order to prevent the chaos of a disabled GPS -- a chaos that could cause a crash of the financial system -- a chaos that would make the annual $36 million cost of operating LORAN look like peanuts.

Another dollar comparison is in order. The estimated cost to upgrade LORAN-C to eLORAN, which should operate for at least 20 years, is $150 million. The projected cost of eight new GPS satellites is $1.8 billion, in addition to launch and operational costs.

If this minor cost of continuing the LORAN system seems to be a no-brainer, then what's going on? Lawrence A. Husick explains. In an essay of February 2, Husick, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Center on Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, wrote that the LORAN system "lacks powerful contractors who profit from its operation and congressional sponsors, to whom a remote radio installation that brings few, if any jobs, merits no support." In short, he says, "Loran is an orphan." He adds that February 8 marks the day the Department of Homeland Security put the nation at risk.

His conclusion: "It is easy to see how a small system like Loran just got lost in the shuffle of bean-counters trying to cut corners." My conclusion: We're being penny wise and pound foolish. Let's spend a few pennies for some vital pounds. Top | Home

Iwo Jima: Two flags, two symbols

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 20, 2010 -- On Feb. 23, 1945, surviving Marines and Navy men wearily greeted D-Day Plus Four on a barren island shaped like a dragon, with a dormant volcano for its head and a deep lava flow for its body. Black volcanic sand covered the lava. The island spanned 2 1/2 miles wide and 5 miles long. It was named Iwo Jima, but Marines and Navy men ashore called it by its English translation, 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 at the south end of the island, Mt. Suribachi, looked down their left flank. At H Plus One, Japanese enfilade artillery and machine gun fire had opened up and hell began.

Iwo, 660 miles from Tokyo, was athwart the American's direct flight path to Japan, so its Japanese lookouts could flash early warning to Tokyo any time American bombers flew overhead. The island also maintained Japanese fighter aircraft that U.S. bombers had to face coming and going. Iwo Jima'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 21,000 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 fight their way up the slopes of 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 to the summit, and hands 1st Lt. Harold G. (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 on Iwo Jima. It is so powerful that Navy Secretary James Forrestal, who has just come ashore, 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 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 had 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 also 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 memorial to that second flag raising remains to this day in Washington. It contains the words spoken by Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz to the fighting men on Iwo Jima: "Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue." Two flags, two symbols. Top | Home

Don't ask, don't tell?

We had better ask the following questions first

by Fred Edwards

March 5, 2010 -- The dispute about don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is creating more questions than answers. The first questions concern a statement by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates: "We have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform."

Is he saying that the Department of Defense -- not the Supreme Court -- is going to interpret Section 654, Title 10, of the U.S. Code that bars active homosexuals from military service? The more accurate word is "re-interpret," because that statute has been followed since it was enacted in 1993.

If Gates is referring to "selective enforcement," is he starting down the slippery slope that social scientists call selective morality? Does he propose to circumvent a law that plainly states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."?

At least, Gates is proposing a study of possible consequences. But Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., isn't waiting for any study. On March 3, he introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would yank DADT right out of the U.S. Code. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin, D-Mich., supports the bill, and said he expects his panel to take it up in May as part of the national defense authorization bill (NDAA).

But isn't the NDAA supposed to authorize funds. This year, will it authorize social engineering to push homosexuals in the faces of the Pentagon chiefs who have cautioned that a study is needed?

Retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, the host of "War Stories" on Fox News, asked more questions in a commentary in Washington Times February 6.

* If Section 654 is modified, will members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) be allowed to serve?

* Will the armed forces have to accept same-sex marriages?

* Will military chaplains be required to perform same-sex marriages?

* Will same-sex couples rate military housing?

* Will same-sex couples be allowed to serve in the same unit or aboard the same ship?

For readers who are not familiar with NAMBLA, this organization declares "We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." and adds, "It's the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful." The question is, how can this philosophy be applied to a 25-year-old military noncommissioned officer and an 18-year-old private just out of basic training?

The next question concerns those -- such as Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen -- who insist that the existing law "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." The statute states, "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces." It adds that "the term 'homosexual' means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts." So what makes a professed homosexual different from any other person who is not wanted in the armed forces?

Furthermore, why does the chairman speak only of young men and women? What will happen if young, openly homosexual service members become old, senior, career members? The NAMBLA questions come to mind.

A former combat comrade who now runs an international leadership academy sent me some questions of his own. He said he has problems with the possibility of intimate relationships developing between a section, patrol, or fire team commander and someone in their command, irrespective of whether the relationship is heterosexual (men and women in combat teams) or homosexual. He quoted an Australian Special Air Service adage that leaders at all levels should be fair, firm and friendly but never familiar. He asked, "How can leaders deal with all their team members fairly if they have a special (and possibly intimate) relationship with one of them -- particularly if disciplinary action needs to be taken with the object of the leader's familiarity?"

All of these questions demand answers before making an irrevocable jump into the unknown. Military commanders are taught that every decision they make must be predicated upon how it will affect the mission. If it does not affect the mission, then the decision should be based upon its effect on the troops. We're fighting two wars and must make decisions involving winning first. Then we might have time for an experiment with social engineering.
Top | Home

American war doctrine goes around and comes around

by Fred Edwards

March 12, 2010 -- During a speech hardly noted by the press, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pronounced a dramatic new war doctrine March 3. Let's see how we got here and what it means.

In late November of 1984, the United States was reeling from the loss of 266 U.S. Marines in Lebanon the previous October 23. The Marines had been deployed there with no fixed mission and no known national interest. This tragedy had occurred on the heels of a war in Vietnam that had ended in disaster.

The United States also was conducting a murky mission in Central America. The slaughter of the Marines and the adventurism in Central American had created a policy struggle between Secretary of State George Shultz and the State Department and National Security Council on the one hand, and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and the Pentagon on the other. At the National Press Club on November 28, Weinberger announced a new warmaking doctrine that established the following six conditions to be met before the United States became involved in a military conflict.

1. The vital interests of the United States or its allies had to be at stake.

2. Sufficient force had to be applied to ensure an intention to win.

3. Political and military objectives had to be clearly defined.

4. The objectives had to be continuously reassessed.

5. Troops would not be committed without a reasonable assurance of support by American public opinion.

6. A combat role should be undertaken only as a last resort.

The third condition quoted the Prussian military philosopher, Carl von Clausewitz: "No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it."

U.S. policymakers and military leaders diligently followed the Weinberger Doctrine in the Gulf War of late 1990-early 1991. But the United States was facing a new international scene of civil wars, ethnic conflicts, failed states, and rogue nations. So decisionmakers fell prey to tendencies to ignore Clausewitz, and to overlook the phrase "as a last resort." We reverted to the concept of using limited military forces for political reasons involving questionable vital interests.

With this came the Clinton Doctrine, derived from a speech that President Bill Clinton made Feb. 26, 1999. He said in part, "If somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it." In short, the United States on its own authority would forcefully intervene to prevent human rights abuses when it could do it without suffering substantial casualties.

So we became the world's police force.

Then Sept. 11, 2001, brought the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush said, "To forestall or prevent . . . hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense."

At this point we would stage preemptive war if felt it was warranted. So we had gone from commitment of troops without a mission, to war only as a last resort, to war whenever we felt the moral need to help others, and finally to preemptive war for self-protection.

Then came Mullen's new doctrine of March 3.

* In future wars, the United States must use measured and precise military strikes, and not overwhelming force.

* Policymakers should consider the use of military force not as a last resort solution in a crisis, but as part of an early response to a conflict or a natural disaster.

* Military forces are some of the most flexible and adaptable tools available to policymakers. Before a shot is even fired, we can bolster a diplomatic argument, support a friend or deter an enemy."

Embedded in the doctrine is the concept that troops must assume greater risk in order to protect innocent civilians in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, it seems that this once again would make the American way of war a diplomatic tool to be used at the drop of a fork.

Indeed, Mullen said, "There is no single, defining American way of war. It changes over time, and it should change over time, adapting appropriately to the most relevant threats to our national security." Top | Home

Mullen solidifies new war doctrine

by Fred Edwards

March 19, 2010 -- The Crosshairs column of March 12 discussed the new military doctrine announced by Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, early this month, and outlined how we got here. Meanwhile, on March 5, Mullen solidified his doctrine with a special release to the American Forces Press Service dubbed "Chairman's Corner." Let's take a look at where we are going.

First, his re-statement officially declares three principles about the proper use of modern military forces. They are similar to his first pronouncement, but they are more formalized, as follows:

1. "Military power should not, maybe cannot, be the last resort of the state."

2. "To the maximum extent possible, force should be applied in a precise and principled way."

3. "In the very dynamic security environment we find ourselves in -- we should welcome a constant struggle between policy and strategy."

Gone is the Weinberger doctrine (which had morphed into the Powell Doctrine) that leans on Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz: don't go to war unless you know why, and if you do go, use all the shock and awe you need to win. Ignored is the Clinton doctrine that made the United States the world's police force whenever it felt morally justified. And bypassed is the Bush doctrine that reserved the right of preemptive war for self-protection any time the national decision-makers felt it necessary.

Instead, the Mullen doctrine offers three refreshing updates for the 21st century.

First -- unlike vague references to terror previously made by administration and Pentagon officials -- Mullen defines the enemy of the last nine years as "Islamic extremists" led by al Qaeda and supported by others.

Second, the new doctrine avoids the term, 'war," because, as Mullen states, today's battlefield is not a field, but is in the minds of people. The war we are fighting against radical Islamists will not end on the battleship Missouri with an internationally televised peace signing. It will taper off bit by bit, little by little -- if we don't lose our national will.

Third, the doctrine says that the United States should use military power early in diplomatic issues, and in concert with other national and international instruments. That can be a slippery slope because only the Congress can declare war, and the president can deploy troops only for a limited time without reporting to Congress. As Mullen says, you can't declare war against a mindset. But what if the United States is challenged militarily by a powerful state?

That brings us to the escape clause. The United States can respond to the challenge because the new doctrine is not set in concrete. In fact Mullen hasn't even called it a "doctrine." As he said, "The day you stop adjusting is the day you lose."

So the Mullen "doctrine" merely adjusts today's political and strategic stance to fit what we have been doing for nine years. That is where we are going. But we had better keep an old fashioned arsenal of shock and awe in reserve for the day we'll need it. Top | Home

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Which fighter is the way to go?

by Fred Edwards

April 2, 2010 -- Back in the 1960s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara decided that the United States should build a one-size-fits-all aircraft. The F-111 would launch and recover from aircraft carriers. It would carry nuclear weapons to worldwide targets. And it would outperform enemy fighters. Well, it got too big and heavy for aircraft carriers, it was too inefficient for a trans-ocean bomber, and it was too unstable as a hi-tech fighter. The Air Force eventually found an excellent mission for what became known as McNamara's folly. Indeed, not another plane in the world could do what the F-111 could. But it took a long time, and maintenance and upkeep finally swept the critter into the bone yard in Arizona.

Shades of the past. Today we're trying to field the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Here's the scenario. First we decide to phase out old-tech F/A-18 Hornets. Next we opt to scrap the F-22 program because its, well, too expensive, and redundant. Then we're ready for the do-it-all Joint Strike Fighter. But the Joint Strike Fighter is well over the future horizon. And it's even more complicated in design and avionics than the F-111 was for its time.

In the meantime, we're making do with Hornets. But the Navy and Marines grounded 104 Hornets of models A through D. Officials offered no specifics on how many of those will be permanently grounded. They hope the grounding will offer a chance for more detailed inspections that will expedite what is called the Service Life Extension Program, designed, among other things, to keep Hornets flying until they are replaced.

Indeed Congress is now pushing the Pentagon to buy more F/A-18 E/Fs. The A-through-D models have cracks where the wings join the fuselage, but the E and F models are good to go. One minor glitch, however, is that some $3.5 billion for the Service Life Extension Program is not yet budgeted.

The F-35, meanwhile, is getting so expensive that it almost makes one wonder whether we should have stayed with the F-22. The F-35 has run smack-dab into the Nunn-McCurdy law, under which Congress must be notified of a cost growth of more than 15 percent of the original estimate. Lurking in the background is the other part of Nunn-McCurdy, which calls for outright cancellation of programs when the total cost grows by more than 25 percent. The F-35 cost estimates show a spike of almost 90 percent since 2001, going from $69 million a copy to $135 million.

Since our future fighter capability currently rests on the F-35, and if throwing more money at it isn't working, then why not throw more stars at it? That is exactly what Defense Secretary Robert Gates did; he replaced the two-star program executive with a three-star, Navy Vice Adm. David J. Venlet. Gates, meanwhile, has the option of "recertifying" that the F-35 is vital to national security. With the F-22 on the sideline, and the Hornets verging on obsolescence, the F-35 certainly is vital.

The Marines seem pleased so far with the F-35B. On March 18, an F-35B took off from the Patuxent River strip at 80 knots using less than 1,000 feet of runway. Then the pilot brought the plane back to 150 feet above the runway, hovered and descended, making a true vertical landing. Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, praised the aircraft as the forerunner of an all STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing) force that can "operate and land virtually anywhere." Accordingly, the Marines are standing up their official test squadron at Eglin Air Force Base.

So where are we going? It looks like we'll keep certain versions of Hornets flying one way or another until we get a follow-on fighter. The follow-on probably won't be the F-22, but it might be. It's more likely that some versions of the F-35 are a solid bet (or gamble) for the future. But it's somewhat difficult to think of the fighter fleet as "joint," when each service needs a different model. Like McNamara's F-111 folly, will the F-22/F-35 decision eventually be known as "Gates Gaffe"?
Top | Home

Fraternization causes enough problems

Must the military endure more?

by Fred Edwards

April 16, 2010 -- According to Navy Times, since December, the Navy has fired at least 14 leaders for either having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate or knowing about such a relationship and taking insufficient action. The list includes five commanding officers, an executive officer, two command master chiefs, a lieutenant commander and five chief petty officers. All of this has occurred during the law's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy concerning homosexuals and lesbians.

On March 31, Secretary of the Army John McHugh made three statements he had to clarify. The following day he admitted that DADT is still the "law of the land," even though the White House wants Congress to repeal it. He also admitted he had been "incorrect" the preceding day by stating that Defense Secretary Robert Gates had placed a moratorium on the DADT law; he had meant only that Gates had revised implementing procedures to make it more difficult to discharge gays and lesbians based upon allegations by third parties. Finally, McHugh said that three soldiers had shared their views about DADT without being counseled that statements about their sexual orientation could not be treated as confidential and could result in their separation under the law. He added, "I am unable to identify these soldiers and I am not in a position to formally pursue the matter."

All of this is occurring because the Administration has insisted on repealing the DADT law. Gates has commissioned Jeh Johnson, general counsel of the Department of Defense, and Gen. Carter Ham, commander, U.S. Army Europe, as co-chairs of a DADT Working Group. They immediately came under fire by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.). He pointedly asked whether, since Secretary Gates had appointed the group, it would examine the more fundamental questions of whether the law as written threatens or undermines readiness, and whether its appeal would improve readiness in ways that could be measured. This implies that perhaps the president has put the cart before the horse, first by suggesting that Congress repeal the law, then by asking the Defense Secretary to find out how to support the repeal through interviewing the troops.

McHugh alluded to the secondary problem--how can military leaders close their eyes to gays and lesbians, if under interview they admit they violated Section 654, Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Section 654 requires that service members be separated if they have "engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, or if "the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect."

If an outside, civilian organization canvasses these individuals, two vexing problems persist. First, if the interviewers keep the respondents' identities secret, what credibility does such a survey have? Second, if they discover closet gays and lesbians and don't report them to military authorities, are they breaking the law? What if one of them is a reservist or a National Guard member who gets called to active duty?

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of the U.S. Army Pacific, apparently thought that the proposed repeal of DADT was indeed proposed, so on March 5 he wrote to Stars and Stripes saying: "It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy." Mixon's superiors immediately dressed him down by announcing that it is "inappropriate" for active duty officers to comment on potential changes to a law in the manner that he did.

The service heads will have to go along with whatever Congress does, but that doesn't mean they have to like it. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, reportedly has said that the DADT law is helping to keep good order and discipline, and that repealing it during a time of two wars could be too disruptive. Conway said he would not force other Marines -- who normally sleep two-to-a-room on base -- to share rooms with gay or lesbian service members, which implies a major construction project if DADT is repealed.

But it also implies a host of other problems under the rule of unintended consequences. If two gay men share a room, or if two lesbian women share a room, what happens to Navy Regulations against fraternizing (and the Marines fall under Navy Regs). A colleague suggested that maybe a gay man and a lesbian might share a room. My answer was, "And what do you do about bisexuals?

This bag of worms has little to do with social rights. It has little to do with political correctness. It has little to do with the relatively small number of service members who have been discharged under DADT. It has everything to do with morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion, the qualifiers listed in Section 654. If they can't be measured accurately, then we can't say that the system is broke. If it's not broke, don't try to fix it. Let's fix the fraternization problems first. Top | Home

Iran plays brinksmanship in the Straits of Hormuz

by Fred Edwards

April 24, 2010 -- On the final day of its three-day war games in the Straits of Hormuz, Iran reportedly stopped and boarded a French and an Italian vessel. On April 24, Iranian state media announced that naval forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) boarded the vessels and inspected them to see if they were complying with environmental regulations. Finding no violations, they let the two vessels continue.

In a report the same date, Stratfor, a company that collects and analyzes worldwide political, economic and military intelligence, wrote that if the incident happened, it was a signal from Iran that it was willing to disrupt traffic in the Straits in case it was attacked. The Straits carry some 40 percent of the international oil supply, and Iran routinely threatens to halt shipping there if it is attacked. They could do it only temporarily, Joint Chiefs vice chair Marine Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 14.

Does such brinksmanship smacks of strategic insanity? Not necessarily. Maybe Iran is warning the United States and its friends that, if they attacked, Iran would create an international financial crisis by closing the Straits even though the shutdown would mean that Iran itself would stop its own oil exports, and imports of almost everything it needs. In other words, Teheran is saying, "Hey, if you try to destroy me, I'll destroy myself, but I'll take you all down with me, along with the global financial system."

But Iran also might be playing the sly fox. As the United States debates about placing sanctions against Iran to pressure it from continuing its nuclear program, the sly fox may simply be saying, "If you think you can hurt me with sanctions, at any time I decide you are squeezing too hard, I'll just close down the Straits for a few months. Now there's a sanction for you that will stick."

The last time Teheran played a similar sort of brinksmanship was on March 23, 2007, when Iranian military forces seized seven British marines and eight sailors. The Brits were aboard two inflatable patrol boats in the northern Persian gulf, boarding merchant vessels, and Iranian officials claimed they were trespassing in Iran's territorial waters. Before releasing them, the Iranians put them on public display where some "confessed" and apologized for entering Iranian waters.

This time the chips are on the table -- or perhaps in the Straits of Hormuz: Iran failed to meet the December deadline for nuclear talks; the United States is deciding which sanctions to apply; and Iran is saying America wouldn't dare. Top | Home

How to defuse the Straits of Hormuz

by Fred Edwards

April 30, 2010 -- I received a response from a colleague concerning my column of April 24, "Iran plays brinksmanship in the Straits of Hormuz." The colleague, Victor Wood, is a retired Navy officer who has held top positions in the corporate world. His track record springs from his policy of establishing a strategic plan, following it at all costs, making modifications as needed, and continuing to the objective. He proposed the following plan to keep Iran from holding the United States hostage in the Straits of Hormuz.

For our national security, we should immediately develop alternative energy sources by the end of five years, so that we would no longer be dependent on foreign oil from that area. That should get the attention of the Iranian leadership, because each year their threat to close the straits would lose leverage if we were following our five-year plan. Here's how it would work:

* Develop shale oil in the Rocky Mountains. Remove the ban and encourage oil companies to develop.

* Immediately expand the areas for oil exploration in this country, including Alaska.

* Expand and improve our refineries to process this additional oil. What better use for the bailout funds than to improve unemployment by revitalizing and expanding existing capacity, and adding new capacity.

* Find more ways to exploit natural gas, including possible automotive power.

* Expand use of clean-burning coal.

* Develop more atomic power to supplement electricity. This is a longer term project, so the sooner we start, the better.

* Develop a massive program to encourage Americans to use less energy. This could be a patriotic program much like used in World War II.

Wood concludes by stating that we have been standing in quicksand for years, and it's high time to pull ourselves out by our own bootstraps.

David Brooks addresses a similar topic in a New York Times article of April 29, where he writes of the American Power Act. He admits that the bill is full of special interest provisions in order to give it a chance of being passed. But it has two good thrusts. First, it would raise the price of carbon and channel some of the money generated to research and development. This would encourage innovation of the type mentioned above.

Second, it would establish a predictable price for carbon, allowing energy companies to confidently invest in research and development. Brooks writes that "tens of billions of dollars" of potential investments are in limbo because of "uncertainty and regulatory hurdles." He explains that, while technology companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of their revenue on research and development, energy companies spend only one-quarter of 1 percent. And in another comparison, the federal government spends $30 billion on health research but only $3 billion on clean energy research.

If we can get a handle on the energy problem, we can defuse the crunch in the Straits of Hormuz. Meanwhile, says Wood, we and our allies should make a critical review of the results of sanctions so far. Cold, hard logic reveals that the time might come for a preemptive strike. By then it may be the only alternative we have, and if it is, it had better happen early enough to be preemptive. Top | Home

Let's count the Marines in for future wars

by Fred Edwards

May 21, 2010 -- Military leaders are often criticized for fighting the last war when they are planning for the next one. It seems that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is planning for future wars by concentrating on the two current ones. When he spoke on May 3 at the Navy League's annual Sea-Air-Space Convention, he asked, ". . . in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?"

Gates added, "We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again - especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore." It is mindful of General Omar N. Bradley's 1949 testimony that "large-scale amphibious operations will never occur again." On the heels of his pronouncement came the landing at Inchon, Korea, in 1951.

In Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, Colin S. Gray surmises over conflicts that might take place in the future and conflicts that might not occur, but concludes that nobody can forecast future warfare because it simply hasn't happened. Well, yesterday's buzzword was "transformation." Today's prize and joy is "asymmetry." Gray's prognostication is "we just don't know."

So Gates mused: "What kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire - in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle [EFV]. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City - forcing Saddam's army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again - especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?"

The following day at Quantico, with the National Museum of the Marine Corps as a backdrop, the Marines unveiled the latest prototype of the EFV. So where are we and how did we get here? It begins with Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 507, Section 5063, which specifies that:

"The Marine Corps . . . shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide Fleet Marine Forces of combined arms, together with supporting aviation forces, for service with the fleet in seizure and defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign."

With such a statutory requirement, how could the Marine Corps not plan for an EFV? In spite of the Marine role for the past eight years in Iraq, and now Afghanistan, the Marine Corps is not just a second land Army. It must be prepared for maneuver from the sea. Marine Col. Keith Moore, the EFV program manager, said, "The EFV creates places where it's simply impossible for an enemy to defend against, so you can find those gaps and exploit those gaps, so that we don't relive an Iwo Jima, a Tarawa, a Normandy." He's talking about racing ashore at water speeds exceeding 25 knots, hitting the beach a speeds of 45 miles per hour, punching through the enemy with a 30-mm MK 44 Bushmaster, and delivering 17 combat-ready Marines. That is projection of United States naval power ashore.

Granted, the EFV is controversial, and, at more than $16 million per vehicle, 573 EFVs will be expensive. Moreover, armor kits will be required for vehicles that are threatened by IEDs. But the Marine Corps is doing all it can to keep the costs down, complete the program, and be prepared to meet its commitment to service with the fleet. This is not the toughest battle it has fought.

To borrow from Gray, how can we tell if the United States won't need the EFV if we can't forecast the next time we'll need an amphibious assault? Indeed, how can we take a chance on being wrong? The success of the U.S. campaign in Korea was doubtful until the landing at Inchon.
Top | Home

North Korea borrows asymmetry from radical Islamists

by Fred Edwards

May 28, 2010 -- The question that comes to mind when considering the March 26 torpedo attack on the South Korean warship, Cheonan, which killed 46 Korean sailors, is what Kim Jon Il's regime in North Korea is up to. The answer is asymmetrical warfare. Operating like the radical Islamists who attacked the U.S. World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, the North Koreans have adopted terrorism tactics designed to upset the economic and political stability in the region.

Asymmetrical warfare poses great advantages for Kim, whose treasury is depleted, whose people are starving, and who insists upon confronting a powerful nation like American-backed South Korea. Here's the scenario: At relatively little cost, but by careful planning, simply send out a miniature submarine and destroy a South Korean warship. The fact that 46 South Koreans were murdered is irrelevant in the grand scheme of asymmetry. Although "Dear Leader" Kim has denied North Korean involvement, experts from South Korea and five other countries concluded that the murder weapon was a small North Korean submarine armed with a powerful torpedo.

A South Korean military official said, "As the Americans didn't anticipate 9/11, we were not prepared for this attack. While we were preoccupied with arming our military with high-tech weapons, we have not prepared ourselves against asymmetrical-weapons attack by the North."

Bruce E. Bechtol Jr., author of Red Rogue: The Persistent Challenge of North Korea, said the torpedoing probably was carried out by someone close to Kim. Certain senior American officials have suggested that Kim ordered the sinking as part of a scheme to assure the succession of his youngest son, Kim Jong-un. Such logic--based upon what passes for logic in the North Korean regime--would mean that Kim is strengthening his control after a debilitating stroke two years ago. And with the control would come his authority to name his son as successor.

Kim's involvement could be indicated by intelligence reports that he appeared on April 25 to praise a military group, Unit 586, that could have been responsible for the attack. At about the same time, Kim Myong-guk, who may have played a crucial role in executing the attack, regained his fourth star, after losing it last year when a North Korean ship ventured into South Korean waters and was attacked.

A lot of talk has rumbled around about "punishing" North Korea. The United States did not "punish" al Qaeda after 9/11; it simply destroyed their ability to mount another coordinated attack by overrunning them in Afghanistan. But how could South Korea and the United States destroy North Korea's capabilities for more asymmetric warfare? Bomb its naval facilities? Bomb Pyongyang? Who would get the punishment if Kim turned the Seoul-Inchon area and its 20-million inhabitants into a blood bath?

So the Obama administration faces difficult choices as it traverses an international minefield that could lead to unwanted, perhaps accidental, war. For example, is China friend or foe in this issue? Its resistance to getting involved places it in support of its bordering state, North Korea. Meanwhile, China is flexing its military muscles as it patrols what it calls its "First Island Chain" along a line running from the Kurile Islands southward through Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines to Indonesia. In April, Chinese ships appeared in the chain, not for the first time, in the East China Sea southwest of Okinawa. During the same month a Chinese helicopter flew within 100 feet of a Japanese military vessel that was in the vicinity of a Chinese naval exercise.

The following chronology raises more complications:

* On May 24, four North Korean miniature submarines left a port on the Sea of Japan, and the South Korean navy launched a search for them.

* The same day, the Obama administration announced that it would bolster South Korea's defenses and initiate joint military exercises with Seoul.

* Also on May 24, Japan's prime minister indicated that heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula influenced him to break a campaign promise to move the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma off the island of Okinawa.

* On May 27, North Korea said it was disestablishing a naval hot line that had been created to prevent clashes near its sea border with South Korea.

* On May 30, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he was worried that Kim might follow up the sinking with another provocative act because he often behaves that way.

* In Japan a legislative committee sent parliament a bill that would allow coast guard vessels to inspect North Korean freighters in international waters. The bill is expected to pass.

* A plan for South Korea to assume operational control of its troops from the United States on April 17, 2012, appears to have been shelved because of doubts as to whether the country can defend itself against a North Korean attack.

* The United States has announced naval exercises commencing in June to detect submarines of the type suspected of sinking the South Korean warship.

*A second series of naval exercises under the multilateral program of the Proliferation Security Initiative, will concentrate on intercepting banned cargo at sea, such as nuclear materials, weapons, and components.

* On May 30, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, concluded a two-day summit on South Korea's resort island of Jeju. The summit was originally scheduled to discuss trade events, but Wen Jiabao announced that avoiding conflict between the Koreas over the sinking of the warship had become "most urgent."

Take the confrontation between the Koreas about water boundaries, add the deployment of Chinese warships, Japan's initiative to board North Korean ships, and the erratic record of Kim Jong Il, and it is understandable why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tagged the region a "highly precarious" security situation.

Kim has rattled North Korean sabers often without reigniting the Korean war, but a lot of players are getting into the act. It's important to remember that the assassination of a relatively obscure duke in 1914, pulled in a lot of players, and the result was World War I. The unanswered question is how the Obama administration can restrain Kim Jong Il's asymmetrical acts without pulling Pacific players into another big accidental war.

Top | Home

Retired Marine general: Military oath of office never dies

by Fred Edwards

June 4, 2010 -- At a dinner for some 300 participants from the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) on May 23 in Fort Myers, Fla., retired Marine General Richard I. "Butch" Neal challenged Americans to pursue integrity, judgment and courage. General Neal, chairman of the board of MOAA, said that the qualities spring from the military oath that begins with the words, "I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Prowling to and fro in front of the first row of dinner tables, Neal said he chucked a generic presentation that a speechwriter had prepared for him, and "I wrote my own, during most of today." He added that he created the new speech because he was disturbed about what is happening in our country. He said that too many Americans are busy pointing their fingers at others when they should take responsibility for their own actions. He didn't have to give the audience examples because recent media stories immediately pop into mind. Consider the following:

* Officials from a major financial firm explain what happened that affected the economy, but they point fingers this way and that, implying, "please don't hold me responsible."

* The BP oil disaster makes daily headlines, and causes talented, highly paid leaders to testify. But the thrust of their statements shows "arrows going this way and arrows going that way, saying, 'I'm not the individual responsible. It was somebody else'."

* A state attorney general "forgets" whether he was in Vietnam.

* And a Congressman appears on TV with a young lady he admitted he had an affair with after he had preached abstinence to his constituents. He sounds like he is saying, "The devil made me do it."

Neal approached a table where a Naval Academy midshipman in uniform sat with his grandmother, and placed a hand on his shoulder. "I get fed up when I juxtapose the unwillingness of some to accept accountability with the young man sitting at this table who swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Neal gestured to the audience of military officers, spouses, widows and widowers. "You are the kind of rock-bottom people who are the foundation of this country, to whom much is given, and much is required. Yes, we're going to have the other kind; that's why so much is expected of you. When we go to the high court of history and we are judged, we will be asked, were we truly men and women with integrity, judgment, and courage?"

Speaking for all Americans who follow those principles, he said, "We accept responsibility and accountability seriously. If we don't do this, then shame on us."

Referring back to his audience, he said: "You and I are the apostles. We raised our hands and took that oath of office seriously. Not for 3 years, 20 years, 30 years. We took it until the end of time. Because we believed in what we stand for and what this country stands for: integrity, judgment and courage. I challenge you to continue."

He closed by saying: "People like you and I got in line a long time ago and we stayed in line. I thank you for standing for integrity, judgment, and courage. If we encourage our youngsters to embrace those qualities, we can count on our country's future."

He received a standing ovation.

Prior to his retirement, General Neal was the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. He currently is a mentor in a mandatory six-week program for newly-selected flag and general officers. Top | Home

Radical Islamist scorecard: Al Qaeda failing, homegrown terrorists ascending

by Fred Edwards

June 11, 2010 -- In the aftermath of the murders of 13 people at Fort Hood in November, a recent failed car-bombing attempt at Times Square, and the apprehension of two would-be terrorists at Kennedy International Airport June 5, it might appear that we are losing the war against radical Islam. No, it's just changing in scope, and the al Qaeda organization itself is on the run, says retired Army Major General James L. Dozier. It's important to review the history, he told some 300 members of the Military Officers Association of America on May 22.

Gen. Dozier, an anti-terrorism consultant to several government and private agencies, said that bin Laden formed al Qaeda in the wake of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, and subsequently recruited several other radical organizations with the goal of re-creating the caliphate that existed during the crusades that expelled the Crusaders from the holy land. Bin Laden began by establishing training camps in Saudi Arabia, but got thrown out. Then he went to Sudan, but again was kicked out. He ultimately ended up in Afghanistan, which was being run by the Taliban. With their acquiescence, he began teaching his recruits that the West, led by the United States, represents modern-day crusaders, and must be treated as such.

Due to western complacency, al Qaeda's leadership figured that it could project power outside of the Middle East, and began making attacks in Africa and elsewhere, which brought no meaningful response from the United States. Then came the attacks of 9/11, and the administration of that time had the backbone to project our own power and enter the Middle East and South Asia in force. The following, said Dozier, is the scorecard.

* Libya saw the light and gave up its WMD programs.

* Simmering feuds between Muslims and other groups in the Balkans settled down.

* Fledgling democratic processes began in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even at the lowest level in Saudi Arabia.

* Muslim extremist insurgencies in the Philippines and Indonesia were nipped in the bud.

* We established a special command (AFRICOM) in Africa to pre-empt the formation of training areas and to assist African nations in their march away from corrupt governments and toward more enlightened leadership.

* In doing all of this, we seized the initiative from the extremists and put al Qaeda, as well as Hezbollah and others, into a defensive mode that limited their freedom of action.

Thus, al Qaeda itself (headed by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri) "is no longer in an operational mode, and most importantly no longer has the ability to project power." Because of their isolation, they are reduced to providing mainly philosophical leadership for their franchise organizations. Dozier added, "The franchises are still a threat, but it is a fragmented threat that local governments, with our help, can deal with."

"The bottom line," said Dozier, "is that the Muslim extremists have not been able to execute bin Laden's strategic plan: not a single Muslim government has supported him. Quite the contrary, country after country, with our leadership, has joined in the battle to bring stability back into a very unstable region of the world."

After the meeting, Gen. Dozier commented about the latest effort by some of the franchises to recruit American citizens in support of their operations. He said, "Although the media have made a big deal out of it, this has so far been a largely unsuccessful, somewhat desperate effort on their part." He warned, however, that "This is no time for complacency---these folks will not go away anytime soon. Countering the Islamic militant threat will require a long-term effort, perseverance and patience on our part."

The scorecard is in. Bin-Laden's grand scheme for another caliphate is failing, but homegrown terrorists are on the move. Top | Home

Afghanistan: Where do we go from here?

by Fred Edwards

June 25, 2010 -- Now that the dust is settling on the McChrystal-Petraeus changeover, we must evaluate where we are, how we got here, and where we're going.

First, the United States is searching for what George Friedman of STRATFOR calls a "negotiated framework," in a counterinsurgency war against the Taliban. Their ideas of Islamist Sharia law are anathema to everything America stands for--the rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality of women, and all the other rights. How could such an organization develop?

It began when the United States created a Frankenstein monster during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by helping Pakistan form the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. In the wake of the Mujahideen came the son of Frankenstein--the Taliban. But, do the Taliban in Afghanistan directly threaten the national interests and the survival of the United States? No, unless they again allow al Qaeda bases and training camps in Afghanistan of the type al Qaeda had when preparing for and launching the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Following those attacks, the United States moved into Afghanistan and neutralized both al Qaeda and the Taliban.

So where are we going? Think of draping a gigantic waffle over an oval-shaped area the size of Texas, the upper two-thirds of which is divided by a mountain chain with peaks of 20,000 or more feet. In each pocket of the waffle lives a community that might be part of an ethnic group, a tribe, a clan, a professional group, caste, religious group, village community, or simply part of an extended family. The inhabitants of one pocket may have little interest in what is happening two or three pockets away, and they have little trust in something called a central government that is many pockets distant.

This oval-shaped area was larger until 1893, when Englishman Mortimer Durand drew a border between Afghanistan and British India, placing strategic points such as the Khyber and Khojak passes, and important cities such as Peshawar and Quetta on the Indian (read English) side of the border. In addition, Durand's line sliced directly through the heart of the Pashtun homeland. Naturally, this line on a piece of paper meant nothing to a Pashtun living in a waffle pocket, even if the line went through the pocket where he lived.

Today, the Pashtuns remain Afghanistan's dominant ethnic group. They are the world's largest remaining tribal-based society, and their local rules or rivalries continue to weigh far more than edicts from Kabul. Is the United States--following two failures by England and a relatively recent failure by the former Soviet Union--really going to break down those waffle pockets by July 1, 2011?

American planners do not even speak of "victory," because they can't define it in a land of waffle pockets. They do speak of progress, but progress towards what? Reaching an artificial goal set by a calendar? We've already gone farther than mission creep; we're embarked on a creepy mission. Is it American hubris that keeps us going? Is it a sense of duty to the blood and treasure that American families already have spent? Or is it just something that keeps moving along under its own power?

Meanwhile, Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, reportedly are conferring with Afghan President Hamid Karzai about whether the Americans have the staying power to win anything. An example of their "exit strategy" is to broker a power-sharing deal with Sirajuddin Haqqani, an ally of al Qaeda and a long-time Pakistani asset, who runs a major part of the insurgency in Afghanistan. This could put the United States back to where it was before 9/11, with al Qaeda enjoying a national haven.

Putting all of this together means that Gen. Petraeus has a herculean task besides just fighting counterinsurgency. He must understand where we are, and how we got here, and he must take us where we are going. He must impress his knowledge upon NATO, upon the Taliban, upon the people living in the waffle pockets, upon Karzai, upon Petraeus' superiors, and, most importantly, upon the American people. Top | Home

Terrorist pleads guilty: Now we pay to house him and feed him for life

by Fred Edwards

July 9, 2010 -- On July 7 Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit terrorism, and to providing material support to al Qaeda, with purposes, listed in the charges, of:

* Targeting, attacking and murdering civilians;

* Attacking civilian objects;

* Murdering in violation of the law of war;

* Destroying property in violation of the law of war; and

* Conducting terrorism and provide material support for terrorism.

Al Qosi was Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver from 1996 to 2001, when he was captured in Tora Bora. He was armed with an AK-47, and he had fought in support of al Qaeda as part of a mortar crew. He has operated under 19 aliases. He enjoys six attorneys at no cost to him.

In spite of the murders committed on 9/11, and in spite of his direct assistance to bin Laden, al Qosi appeared before a non-capital military tribunal for the pleading. The tribunal members will formally determine his guilt or innocence in August.

The strongest punishment he can receive is life imprisonment, and press accounts suggest that he has even plea-bargained for less.

It appears that your and my taxes will pay this terrorist's room and board for the rest of his life--unless he is freed early, with a chance to go back to murder and mayhem.

If we should capture bin Laden himself, is that what we can expect for what he has done to the United States, to innocent civilians from more than a dozen countries, and even to his fellow Muslims--life imprisonment?

One of bin Laden's sworn goals is to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." If the United States sentences enough of his hoodlums to life imprisonment, he'll be well on his way.

At the turn of the 16th century, William Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Well, something is rotten in 2010.

Top | Home | More Archives