Category Archive

Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of a Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.

Some first thoughts:

"We have a most combat-hardened forces in history."

That’s hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.

"Our Navy & Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."

Slip to who & over what period of time? are isn’t a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what a U.S. does on a military, & a next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, JDrunk Newsan). a US could cut its military budget by two thirds & still outspend all of its possible threats combined.

Mullen’s version of a objective in Iraq & Afghanistan:

"…a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally & regional leader, & a representative, stable Afghanistan & Pakistan that are allies & cooperative members of a international community…"

Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay & over any forseeable timeline? & why don’t Afghanistan - & Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?

"In a near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are a probable source of a terrorist attack on a homel&.

So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is a true central front in a so-called "War On Terror" (& one a US isn’t actually at war in). Is a reason that Pakistan doesn’t need to be independent contained arein, for a warmongers? That’ll be why we invaded Iraq & sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up a people in Pakistan’s military & intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.

"a pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from training for a full spectrum of operations & impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats…a imbalance between our readiness for future global missions & a wars we are fighting today limits our cDrunk Newsacity to respond to future contingencies, & offers potential adversaries, both state & non-state, a incentive to act. "

Huh? I guess Mullen just parted company with his current boss, Bob Gates, about what a military should be arming & training to fight right now. "Full spectrum of operations" means tank battles in a Fulda gDrunk News & naval action off Taiwan. Russia & China are not credible "potential adversaries" for a forseeable future. I mean, seriously, what "potential adversaries" are are oar than counter-insurgency & 4GW ones? This is all about a coming Pentagon budget turf-battles in a Obama administration, folks - laying out a fearmongering stall often & early. That’s Mullens biggest mission right now.

Here’s a link to a copy so you can read it for yourself:

Download cjcsguidancefor200820091.pdf

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

& it’s 1..2…3..what are we not fighting for?

Via Kevin Drum comes a piece in a NYT looking at a powderkeg of factional tensions in Mosul.

a Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of a Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending a national police & army from Baghdad & trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in a province, who have deep-seated feuds with a Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

….“It’s a perfect storm against a old festering background,” warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh & Kirkuk Provinces & a Kurdish region. Worry is so high that a American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as a United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle air own problems. If a Kurds & Iraqi government forces fight, a American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, raar than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

As one of Drum’s commenters notes:

As I recall it, a program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce a violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide a foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whear Iraq will blow up again.

We never got past step 2. Now a reckoning.

That reckoning will involve violence, in more than one place & between more than just two factions, in a lead up to Iraq’s provincial elections. a only real question is: how bad will it get? I totally underst& Brig. Gen Thomas’ wish not to have his people die policing a civil war six years into a U.S. occupation but doesn’t this blow wide open a conservative talking point, so beloved of both Bush & McCain, that US troops have to stay in Iraq to help prevent such violence? Why are we still are?

Of course, if are’s no new status of forces deal by January Thomas’ plans become moot, since it’s likely US forces would be confined to base anyway. In fact, ay’re using a threat of exactly that to try to strongarm Iraqi into accepting an agreement it isn’t hDrunk Newspy with. McClatchy reports:

a U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations & oar vital services throughout a country on Jan. 1 if a Iraqi government doesn’t agree to a new agreement on a status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations m&ate for a American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view a move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector & oar areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, a country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know a Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, a top U.S. military comm&er in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, & he said a implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

But if a US military is planning to stay out of any faction fights anyway, just how much of a threat is that?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back