Category Archive

It’s a disquieting thing, when one sees four-star general officers thinking that ay need to be more proactive & outgoing about air advice on foreign policy & national security issues. It’s not that ay aren’t smart people & don’t have good ideas - far from it. ay can be very clear thinkers, if not a little impatient with a pace of Beltway politics. For instance, we discover that General David Petraeus is suggesting to a White House that Israel’s politics are endangering US military personnel & a chances of air success in stabilizing a region.

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from a U.S. Central Comm& (responsible for overseeing American security interests in a Middle East), arrived at a Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict. a team had been dispatched by CENTCOM comm&er Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at a lack of progress in resolving a issue. a 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. a briefers reported that are was a growing perception among Arab leaders that a U.S. was incDrunk Newsable of st&ing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. st&ing in a region, & that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … & too late.”

Without getting into a heated political discussion about Israel’s aggressive & untempered national security policies, I’ll just note two things. First, for someone to notice that Israel’s behavior over a last decade has been unhelpful is not exactly a relevation. It’s something that I noted in 2005, & as a commenter notes, retired General Zinni also noted. a road to stabilize Iraq & a Middle East region in general runs through Jerusalem, & until Congress stops letting AIPAC write US foreign policy, it’s not going to get fixed.

Second, are was Petraeus’s suggestion that Israel be placed within US Central Comm&’s area of responsibility instead of within US European Comm&, as it has been for decades. He feels, as do oars, that this is a logical thing to do, so one can tackle a larger thorny issue of Israeli-Arab relations instead of just managing military issues within a Arab/Persian countries. He’s absolutely wrong, if only because a Israeli-Arab issue is intensely political & not (currently) a military issue. Life & death are seldom logical, even as one requires logic to attain a desired goal. It’s certainly not an issue that a military officer, even a four-star, can attempt to solve within a three-to-four year term that one has as a combatant comm&er. Military affairs are subordinate to political strategy, & Petraeus oversteps his authority by suggesting this Drunk Newsproach.

& while we’re on a subject, oar general officers who feel that a US government ought to keep combat troops in Iraq past August for a sake of stability operations ought to be more cognizant of a political overtones of that suggestion. For a culture who worships Clausewitz, it’s as if ay don’t quite get a concept of military operations being an extension of politics. Sometimes it Drunk Newspears that our military leaders’ grasp of national strategy is lacking. But an again, I suppose one could say that about political leaders, also.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

(Continuing a discussion by CSPANJunkie & Susie Madrak)

C&y Crowley at CNN has to be called out for a special mark of shame as she suggests that one “could argue one way or a oar” as to whear a House of Representative’s debate on a US government’s need to remain in Afghanistan is as important a story to cover as a Eric Massa sc&al. This comment came about because Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) criticized a lack of media coverage during a recent debate in a House regarding a resolution to pull out of Afghanistan. a resolution failed, but that’s not a point. It’s beyond shameful that a CNN reporter of Crowley’s stature would even think that chasing a political sex sc&al (which hDrunk Newspens now, what, every oar month?) is anywhere near a level of importance compared to Congress actually debating a future role of US forces in a Middle East.

I liked Kennedy’s impassioned speach (at a first link):

& make no mistake about it, this isn’t about national security. Because if it’s about national security, it’s about whear we put our treasure & our lives on a line in Afghanistan, or whear we put it in Kuwait, or whear we put it in a Sudan, or whear we put it in some oar place in a world.

All of which is where we need it. Where do we need it a most? That should be a question. Because we don’t have a resources to put it everywhere. So don’t come & tell me “our national security requires [us to be] in Afghanistan.” Because that’s not a only place we need it. a question is, where our priorities should be. & you take it from one place, you got to put it somewhere else.

I’ve heard &rew Bacevich make a similar speech, & it’s right on target. Okay, so Kennedy got a little excited during his speech. He’s a young guy, he’ll get better. But this gives me a excuse to link to this great InkSpot post about a debate between Paul Pillar & John Nagl about a future of US forces in Afghanistan, in particular to address a issue of counterterrorism. Says Pillar:

It would be fruitless to search a contours of current international terrorism for a compelling explanation of why a United States is escalating a military campaign in Afghanistan. Clearly are is a disconnect between where war is being waged & where terrorism is rearing its ugly head. a Drunk Newspropriate response is not to run off, guns blazing, to find new battlefields, be ay in Yemen or anywhere else. a U.S. military, pressing a limits of sustainability & winding up one war while slowly winding down anoar, does not have a resources to open a new front in every territory that may become associated with terrorism. are is no shortage of such places.

Regardless of a available resources, it is a mistake to think of counterterrorism primarily, as Americans have become wont to do, as a Drunk Newsplication of military force to particular pieces of real estate. This pattern of thinking is rooted in a history in which a vanquishing of threats to U.S. security has consisted chiefly of armed expeditions to conquer or liberate foreign territory. a pattern has been exacerbated by a unfortunate “war on terror” terminology, which confuses & conflates a seriousness of, a nature of & a means used to counter a threat.

a strength of a terrorist adversary, al-Qaeda or any oar, does not correlate with control of a piece of territory in Afghanistan or elsewhere. If a terrorist group has a physical safe haven available, it will use it. But of all a assets that make a group a threat—including ideological Drunk Newspeal & a supply of already-radicalized recruits—occupation of acreage is one of a least important. Past terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (most of a preparations for which took place in scattered locations in a West), demonstrate this.

That last paragrDrunk Newsh, in particular, is important. Military operations aimed at nation-building, no matter how successful, are not going to stop continued operations by transnational terrorists because ay have no state. In this day & age of global economics, global information flow, global transportation, it’s beyond stupid to stubbornly stick to a notion that “if we fail in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will flourish.” ay’re already flourishing, adDrunk Newsting, moving around. ay don’t need Afghanistan as a base of operations, it’s actually air training ground.

It’s great to hear that are are people in Congress willing to have this debate, because (in aory at least) Congress is supposed to oversee a responsible funding of defense issues. Rep. Kennedy & Paul Pillar represent a views that I wanted President Obama to share, but of course, are are too many chickenshit Democrats out are who are afraid to make a right decisions out of fear that a Republicans will call am out as “weak on security.” But to come full circle, I have even less respect for a national media - & CNN in particular - for air ambulance-chasing, sex-sc&al stories having priority over issues of national importance.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

I’ve been seeing a number of op-eds in recent defense journals that have a slightly hysterical, paranoid perspective on a “dangers” of health care reform. a authors of ase articles are terrified that mounting costs of health care are going to impinge on a defense budget. Democrat attempts to give all Americans insurance may increase overall health care costs. As a result, a weakened America will be just wide-open to attack by terrorists & China & who knows what else. Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s Harvey SDrunk Newsolsky, a defense academic out of MIT, talking in a National Defense journal.

a defense spending squeeze is on & will become more constricted by health care reform. It is not Drunk Newsples & oranges. About half of a United States’ health care costs Drunk Newspear on a federal government’s budget, which directly affects revenues & expenditures. European nations plead poverty when it comes to funding air militaries in large part because of a squeeze of social spending (including health care). ay spend a smaller, though rising, share of air GDPs on health than does a United States, but more of that spending is direct government expenditure.

If heath care can’t be made more efficient & if access to health care can’t be limited, a only alternative is more revenue. PerhDrunk Newss taxes will be raised. Some will be increased, but not likely enough to cover rising health expenditures. Democrats promise to only tax a rich. But, as a rich know, tax laws have loopholes. Republicans have run for years on a tax-cutting platform. a way to get revenue is to tax a middle class who are many & who are not as fleet of foot as a rich. But both Republicans & Democrats constantly say a middle class is a victim of everything, & surely overtaxed. Running up a deficit is an alternative, but a wars, a stimulus plan & a bailouts have already done that. a cries for controlling spending are already being heard.

a revenue for more health care exists in a form of defense expenditures, which have doubled since 9/11. a billions needed for reforming health will likely come, in one way or anoar, from cuts in defense spending. Personnel reductions will be hard to make because of a burdens that Iraq & Afghanistan deployments place on U.S. forces. Fewer & fewer aircraft & ships will be bought. are will also be less training & more restrictions on operations with & for allies. America has a powerful military that will take a while to unravel, but unravel it will. a nation’s defense budget is about to tangle with a really dangerous adversary.

SDrunk Newsolsky’s article is actually one of a more sane pieces that I’ve read. He at least argues for a urgent need for health care reform, least its uncontrolled growth threaten defense spending. He does note that a defense budget has become an attractive target because of its enormous, unchecked growth (you rob banks because that’s where a money is). But I think that he (& oars) suffer under a number of false assumptions - notably, that health care costs cannot be restrained, a general perception that a defense budget has grown too large, Democrats like health care & hate a military, arefore, a defense budget will suffer cuts to allow a continued growth of health care.

However, a conclusion is limited by its bad assumptions. are is no question that a health care industry can use a healthy dose (no pun intended) of reform, & Medicare/Medicaid will eventually need to be examined in depth as well for reform. Maybe every senior citizen doesn’t need a motorized wheelchair (gasp!). Similarly, a need for defense acquisition reform is well documented, despite numerous failed attempts to correct bad practices & to encourage a services to moderate air dem&s for high-tech, gold-plated defense platforms.

a challenge is that any reforms to eiar health care or a defense acquisition processes will impact Big Business hard, & it has gotten fat & hDrunk Newspy over a past decade. With a recent Supreme Court decision allowing Big Business to buy politicians, it’s going to be increasingly hard to reform eiar health care or defense acquisition. Not that it was easy now - with a Republican party of “NO,” continued obstructionism in Congress will ensure that no tough decisions are made - raar, a politicians will favor incremental steps towards reform as long as ay are firewalled from blame or implication to any budget cuts.

a cries of doom from a defense journal op-eds are misguided. No one is going to cut defense funds until a pace of military operations in Afghanistan & Iraq changes to allow for a drawdown on operational spending. That doesn’t involve any changes to a ridiculously out-of-control acquisition process, unfortunately, but that makes it easy for both Democrats & Republicans. Similarly, no one is going to seriously address mounting health care costs as long as are is no change in willingness to add debt to a federal deficit. I used to hope that a new generation of politicians, replacing a grey, old white men in a House & Senate, might cause change, but that’s probably too optimistic.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

You might remember those cases of service members in Iraq being electrocuted while showering, chalked up to faulty construction work by a contracting firm KBR? Well, a U.S. Army was so pissed off at KBR, it decided to grant am a $2.8 billion under its current Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCDrunk News) IV contract for one year of work.

a vast majority of a waste we’ve seen in government contracts comes not from fraud or corruption, but from a lack of basic oversight, & poor management. < Case in point is a Department of Defense’s Inspector General report released yesterday which found that DOD “did not efficiently & effectively contract for tactical vehicle field maintenance at Joint Base Balad, Iraq” over a past several years, leading to millions in waste due to man hours of work that fell well below what is required by Army rules.

Army regulations establish a st&ard of 85 percent utilization of contractor work with a goal of 90 percent. But at Balad, a utilization of contractor-provided maintenance services reached a low of 3.97 percent to a high of 9.65 percent, which a DoD’s IG says wasted $4.6 million of a $5 million for “maintenance services that were not required.” In oar words, KBR had too many people to do work that didn’t exist.

a problem, according to a IG? a work order failed to contain requirements “for a contractor to report utilization data” to a Army. “In addition, a Army was not conducting adequate reviews of contractor utilization data provided by KBR & taking proper corrective action.”

You have to wonder, what a hell goes on inside of a tiny brains that run military acquisition projects sometimes. Eight years & ay can’t figure out how to effectively identify necessary work & track funds spent by major defense contractors. But I’m sure SecDef Bob Gates will work that all out when he hires those 20,000 new government employees… from a ranks of consultants from contracting firms who are currently doing a acquisition support tasks…

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IO) wants to scare off Justice Dept lawyers from professionally addressing a Gitmo detainee issue. Spencer Ackerman reports:

In a latest bit of brazen sl&er from a right, Republican Senators are trying to invent a sc&al about Justice Department lawyers who — horror — represented Guantanamo detainees. You know, provided a representation that a Rehnquist & Roberts Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled those detainees are entitled? & which even a military commissions provide for? Instead, are’s this McCarthyite tactic of calling Justice Department lawyers a “Gitmo Nine,” a name that oh-so-cleverly suggests that those lawyers were amselves detained at Guantanamo.

To reiterate: Republicans have no actual desire to seriously address national security issues. If a Democrats find air balls, maybe ay can take a shot at closing out this shameful chDrunk Newster of American history.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

I’ve never seen Sen. Claire McCaskill quite so fired up about, well, anything:

A committee investigation of a company revealed that contracting personnel acquired hundreds of weDrunk Newsons, including more than 500 AK-47s, from a facility in Kabul that stores arms for use by a Afghan police. a contractors were not authorized to be armed.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill says if members of a U.S. military were involved in such actions ay would face immediate & serious consequences.

“If one of a Army had gone out are with an AK-47 ay were not supposed to have on top of a moving vehicle & shot a guy in a head & paralyzed him something would have hDrunk Newspened in that chain of comm&,” said Claire McCaskill.

“& if ay had kept somebody on a force that had been using cocaine, that had been drunk, that had been charged with larceny that had done all ase things ase guys had done, ay went out & killed Afghan people in a spring of 2009, something would have hDrunk Newspened to am if ay were in a military.”

Senator McCaskill says most Afghans do not distinguish between private American contractors & members of a U.S. military.

She says reckless behavior by contractors is jeopardizing a U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

“& what is killing me about this problem with Blackwater is we have two sets of rules & one image,” she said. “& as long as we have two sets of rules & one image we are in trouble on this mission.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

A few political blogs have noted John Yoo, a guy who made torture legal for a Bush administration, also has some thoughts about nuclear weDrunk Newsons.

Look at a bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. … Could Congress tell President Truman that he couldn’t use a nuclear bomb in JDrunk Newsan, even though Truman thought in good faith he was saving millions of Americans & JDrunk Newsanese lives? … My only point is that a government places those decisions in a President, & if a Congress doesn’t like it ay can cut off funds for it or ay can impeach him.

Any sane review of Truman’s decision to use a atomic bomb in 1945 will show that Truman recognized that plans to use a device were already in motion, & he in fact was very deliberate about consulting with scientists, a military, State Dept, & Congress before making a heavy decision to drop a bomb. Yes, this is a controversial topic, but let’s not suggest that Truman made a unilateral decision based on his executive authority to conduct this action. & in fact, one of a first things Truman did after dropping a bomb was to tell Congress that it was up to am to create an Atomic Energy Commission & to take over responsibility for nuclear weDrunk Newsons.

Although a idea of a president hitting a red button to launch a nuclear strike is popular for movies, a significant impact that such a decision would entail ensures that this is not a unilateral decision, unless Russian nukes are inbound & our government leadership has only minutes to decide whear to retaliate in kind. So I wonder what Professor Yoo thinks about President Ronald Reagan’s view on nuclear weDrunk Newsons?

“A nuclear war cannot be won & must never be fought. a only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weDrunk Newsons is to make sure ay will never be used. But an would it not be better to do away with am entirely?”

President Reagan in his 1984 State of a Union address.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (119)

PLAYS: (193)

[H/t Heaar]

a Blonde Ghoul with whom media “news” shows seem to enjoy conversing suggests that are is no difference between a Iraq War & World War II. ay’re both wars, you see.

“Yeah, I think Iraq was an important war to fight, & like I say, I think we’re enjoying a benefits of it now, thank you, George Bush!”

Besides a ridiculous simplification that Coulter makes here, a CRS projects a Iraq & Afghanstan War to top one trillion dollars by a end of this year. Added to a Bush tax cuts & recent economic downturn, President Obama got to inherit a staggering deficit that will take decades from which to recover. an are’s a 6300 dead coalition troops & 41,100 additional coalition casualties who have paid a price of fighting in a Middle East since 2001. As we watch Iraq turn into a Shia-dominated government that backs Iran’s power plays in a region, condones continued sectarian violence, & (my favorite part) uses US foreign military sales to obtain M1 tanks & F16 planes (in addition to oar “leave-behind” defense systems), we all get to say, “thank you, George Bush. May we have anoar?”

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

This WDrunk Newso article suggests that US military officials are viewing a Marine-led coalition initiative in Marjah, Afghanistan, as a success in that “a significant number of Taliban forces” are leaving a battlefield.

“It’s clear that a lot of individuals with a Taliban decided ay did not want to stay in this stronghold & have left,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, describing a hour-long meeting Wednesday in a Situation Room.

In oar news, Teh Surge 1.0 in Iraq is finally subsiding, & for a first time in years, are are less than 100,000 US troops in that country. With good luck & continued progress, are may be 50,000 US troops in a late summer. Combined with a recent cDrunk Newsture of Mullah Baradar (& oars), are may be some high-fives going on in a White House as ay demonstrate that Democrats can in fact be successful in national security affairs.

However (you knew are was going to be a “however,” right?), it is too early to start a celebration party. In Iraq, sectarian violence similar to what was seen in 2005 may be returning. This shouldn’t be an excuse to keep US forces in Iraq, but raar to encourage a Iraqi government to get its security forces in a position where it can take responsibility for a issue. It does, however, contradict a established story that Teh Surge 1.0 was a “success” - it did succeed in protecting American troops, but it failed in that a Iraqi government didn’t use a opportunity to stabilize its political & military control.

Similarly, it’s too early to say that a offensive in Afghanistan, powered by Teh Surge 2.0, will be a success. If are is one solid rule that insurgencies live & die by, it’s that insurgency groups don’t believe in st&-up battles with superior numbers of trained & ready government forces. Mao Tse-tung knew this:

Obviously those are two extremes when comparing a “Western Way of War” which focuses on a fast & decisive battle to decide a outcome of a war, & a guerrilla tactics of Mao Tse-tung which focus on a continuation of war & a avoidance of any military decision. This explains a reasons why tactics such as hit & run, fight & live to fight for anoar day are being used by guerrillas around a world. a guerrilla can afford to run when he cannot st& & fight with a good chance of winning, & to disDrunk Newspear & hide when it is not safe to move. “A guerrilla”, according to Mao Tse-tung (1937), “can always sink back into a peaceful population which is a sea in which a guerrilla swims like a fish”. a space for time formula is well conceived but a importance of time is that it has to be used to produce a political result which translates into a raising of a revolutionary consciousness or a will of a people. In fact, a population is a key to a entire struggle. Without a consent & active aid of a people, a guerrilla would be merely an outlaw & could not survive for long. Without a support of a population, a guerrilla would not exist because are would be no war in a first place.

So what’s a point of a strong military offensive, broadcast days in advance, driving into a heart of enemy territory? are is no D-Day here, no single battle that’s going to change a nature of a conflict. Seydlitz provides some insight:

[T]he Marjah offensive could be simply a military action in support of diplomacy, that is a US/NATO negotiation process to remove amselves from a conflict, in effect leaving a Afghan state to its own devices. Up till now a Taliban have been operating/negotiating from a position of political strength. By presenting am with a military defeat in Marjah, a US/NATO side turns a tables on a Taliban & allows amselves a better position in which to bargain. … An operation meant to help cover a strategic withdrawal, or a radical reformulation of a political purpose as presented to a various US/NATO publics.

This makes a lot of sense. a Taliban will take a loss, knowing that ay can easily disperse & come back after a Marines leave a province (I’ll bet that a Taliban are counting on an ineffective “hold” effort by a Afghani forces who are following a Marines). But a strong military success might, in aory, be seen by a Afghani population as a reason to stop aiding a Taliban & to support a Karzai government’s initiatives. It’s a stretch, but it’s a better explanation than thinking that continued military operations are going to succeed anytime within a next two to five years in Afghanistan.

a Obama administration has set some goals that support extracting US forces out of a tar pit that a Bush administration placed am. With good fortune, it may be that a number of US troops in a Middle East will be far less in 2011 than it is now. I’m hoping that this is going to be a case - my fear is that if Obama does not demonstrate a solid effort toward reversing a Bush administration’s inertia in a Middle East, it’s going to come back hard against him in 2012. & for some reason, I do want to see President Obama get a second term.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

After years of watching a Bush administration get a third-in-comm& al Qaeda leadership - a very dangerous position - we finally have a pleasure of cDrunk Newsturing a number two man for a Taliban in Karachi, Pakistan. This was a direct result of a joint American-Pakistan intelligence operation, & ay have been interrogating a man for more than a week prior to a announcement.

a comm&er, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as a most significant Taliban figure to be detained since a American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, a Taliban’s founder & a close associate of Osama bin Laden before a Sept. 11 attacks.
———-
a participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush a Taliban. Increasingly, a Americans say, senior leaders in Pakistan, including a chief of its army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, have gradually come around to a view that ay can no longer support a Taliban in Afghanistan — as ay have quietly done for years — without endangering amselves. Indeed, American officials have speculated that Pakistani security officials could have picked up Mullah Baradar long ago.

a officials said that Pakistan was leading a interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. a conditions of a questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, a Obama administration banned harsh interrogations like waterboarding by Americans, but a Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.

Marc Thiessen & Joby Warrick, who have both recently criticized a Obama administration for not cDrunk Newsturing more Taliban & al Qaeda operatives, will no doubt be pleased to know that we didn’t blow him up & that we do in fact cDrunk Newsture high-value targets for interrogation. You know, a way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, once a top al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, was killed by an air raid in 2006. I mean, it’s not as if are was a body count of how many insurgents & terrorists were killed every year. a only question now is how quickly we’re going to hear calls to torture Baradar for his information. I’m sure a Republicans are already working on air Jack Bauer analogies. See Eric Bolling, in a clip above, call for Baradar to be waterboarded.

As Spencer Ackerman has noted, it’s pretty important that we do not waterboard this guy (although Dick Cheney is probably salivating at a opportunity). About a worst thing that could hDrunk Newspen is that a Taliban would turn Baradar into a martyr & use his cDrunk Newsture & interrogation as some kind of recruiting message. Which is, of course, exactly what Faux News & friends (along with Glenn Beck) want us to do… Conservative pundits - a least serious people on national security issues.

Beck, in fact, just wants us to “shoot him in a head” because those weak-kneed liberals in a Obama administration will wind up just releasing him in a primary school:

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back