Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Navy's Essential Role in Our History
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why I Joined the Navy
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Afghanistan, A Cause or A Curse?
The central question is Afthanistan a cause worth pursuing, or a curse that will continue to eat at the fabric of resolve until America and their allies quit leaving a vacumn for the Taliban to return? Will quiting become an example to others who see profit in the strategic defeat of the great powers. Can America singlehandedly manhandle 28 million people, 15 million of which are under 30, into the modern world without destroying the tribal culture. These questions have kept the midnight oil burning in Washington for over two months and right along side, the soft glow of monitors have reflected the thought of experts from all corners of the spectrum.
I am no expert and will not pontificate on what we should do or not do. It troubles me as someone who willingly fought for a cause that at the time seemed just, will again see thousands of American and families from many nations, stand over their childrens graves and wonder what hath their nation done to waste their childs life.
In a continuing effort to inform, I offer the following posts that reflect the breadth of this issue.
First from the field>Michael Yon who up until a short time ago was embedded with the 2 Rifles of the British Army in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. The British became sensitive to Michael's honest reporting and ended his embed. He wrote this troubling post.
In 2008, I was trekking in the Himalayas in Nepal preparing for a return to Afghanistan. A message came from a British officer suggesting to end the trip and get to Afghanistan. Something was up, and I didn’t bother to ask what. Days of walking were needed to reach the nearest road. After several flights, I landed in Kandahar and eventually Helmand Province at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. The top-secret mission was Oqab Tsuka, involving thousands of ISAF troops who were to deliver turbines to the Kajaki Dam to spearhead a major electrification project. The difficult mission was a great success. That was 2008. During my 2009 embed with British forces, just downstream from Kajaki Dam, it became clear that the initial success had eroded into abject failure. And then the British kicked me out of the embed, for reasons still unclear, giving me time to look further into the Kajaki electrification failure.
READ MORE: Afghanistan: Electrification Effort Loses Spark
To illustrate that all is not lost, we turn to the United States Marines and this measurement of progress that prove the Marines the most innovative of our forces, have made since being deployed to the same Helmand Province that Michael Yon reported about above. It is heartening that the Marines are again proving as they did in Vietnam with their Combined Action Program (CAP) that success means getting up close and knowing the people you are tasked to protect.
There’s No Substitute for Troops on the Ground by Max Boot, New York Times Opinion
“I hope people who say this war is unwinnable see stories like this. This is what winning in a counterinsurgency looks like.” Lt. Col. William F. McCollough, commander of the First Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, is walking me around the center of Nawa, a poor, rural district in southern Afghanistan’s strategically vital Helmand River Valley. His Marines, who now number more than 1,000, arrived in June to clear out the Taliban stronghold. Two weeks of hard fighting killed two Marines and wounded 70 more but drove out the insurgents. Since then the colonel’s men, working with 400 Afghan soldiers and 100 policemen, have established a “security bubble” around Nawa. Colonel McCollough recalls that when they first arrived the bazaar was mostly shuttered and the streets empty. “This town was strangled by the Taliban,” he says. “Anyone who was still here was beaten, taxed or intimidated.”
Small Wars Journal sponsored this essay by Dr. Tony Corn. Toward a Kilcullen-Biden Plan?
At this particular juncture, the U.S. simply cannot afford a 500 billion dollar open-ended escalation. Nor can it opt for an incremental (“middle road”) strategy which would fail to create the psychological effects required in both the West and Afghanistan.
A temporary 40,000 surge is doable, but only if the core of the Obama strategy is a “Kilcullen-Biden” plan combining convocation of a loya jirga domestically with a regionalization of the Afghan question diplomatically. Let’s go massive for a limited time, and “clear, hold, and build” as much as we can. If it does not work, a regional negotiation provides ample cover for a drawdown.
Rounding out this weeks discussion is this post from It's The Tribes Stupid! where Steve Pressfield continues his interview with Afghan tribal leader, Chief Zazai. Here a little taste of this informative interview.
Welcome back, Chief Zazai, after last week’s break in our ongoing, multi-part interview. As you know, we took that space last week to post an open letter to Gens. Jones, Petraeus, McChrystal and Adm. Mullen, alerting them to your formation of a Tribal Police Force in the Zazi Valley and asking for help in aligning that force with the American troops (10th Mountain Division) whose Area of Operations (AO) includes your district. Respect for confidentiality prevents me from publishing particulars, but I’m happy to say that we got an immediate response and that it was just what we hoped for. The top U.S. commanders are listening. More on that as it develops– and as confidentiality permits. Now back to our talk!
READ MORE: Interview with a Tribal Chief #4: Warlords and Taliban
This week will bring more news and comment along with the solemn knock, followed by the mournful cry as another family learns that their son or daughter has fallen in the dusty gravel of far off Afghanistan. I learned first hand that war is every bit as exciting as Patton described, and as hellish as Sherman penned. For many in Afghanistan, the lure of conflict is a rite of manhood, exploited and provoked by both sides who seek to impose their own brand of governance on a people who have lived for centuries as if they were the only people on the earth. The answer lies somewhere far down the road, alas, a road strewn with the corpses.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Week in Review-Best Reads
To get our cognitive juices flowing we first turn to Steve DeAngelis of Enterra Solutions who offers this insightful post. He begins by writing:
I'm fascinated by the workings of the human mind. Most people recognize that men and women use different thought processes, which is why Dr. John Gray was able to write a bestselling book entitled Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Thought processes are different for individuals as well as for genders. Mathematicians think differently than social scientists. Musicians think differently mechanics. Those of us who have never suffered from a mental illness can't really understand how some people can hear voices and see hallucinations.
Scientists continue to make discoveries about how the mind works. Yet even with all of the new discoveries, the mind remains pretty much a mystery. Learning more about our minds is important. After all, the thought is father to the act. In a world fighting crime, corruption, sexual perversion, and terrorism, the key to changing unacceptable acts may be understanding the thoughts that inspire them. In this post, I'm going to review a few recent articles I've collected about how we think and act. Let's begin with those impish little thoughts that can lead to bad behavior ["Why the Imp in Your Brain Gets Out," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, 7 July 2009].
Steve continues on, highlighting several articles that examine the latest in what science has learned about the human mind. A very worthwhile read for all interested in learning a bit about what rests between our ears.
After that bit of "brain food" we turn to Steven Pressfield of It's The Tribes Stupid! for tips on how to defeat the sinister roadblock Resistance, which has strangled more creative thoughts in the human mind, than all the murders in history.
If you’ve read The War of Art, you know that the thematic core of the book is the concept of Resistance. Resistance with a capital R, which the book defines as “an energy field radiating from a work-in-potential. It’s a repelling force. It’s negative. Its aim is to shove us away, distract us, prevent us from doing our work.”
Read more: Writing Wednesdays #12: Self-Talk and Self-Sabotage
Now that we have sharpened the understanding of our minds and steeled ourselves to defeat resistance, we are ready for some thought provoking posts that examine two parallel tracks; America's diplomatic and military future as they relate to the continued security of our nation.
Mark of Zenpundit penned this next piece that has garnered deserved recognition around the blogpsphere. Mark dubbed this a "quick "think" post," but after reading, I think you will find it to be anything but that. It offers real insight and sounds a warning that SOS Clinton, or more importantly, the Congress must act to save the office from becoming irrelevant, since it seems that the POTUS is not fully tuned into correcting this problem as long as his rivals (The Clinton's) reside in that office.
A quick ‘think” post.
It is tempting to write this off as another example of traditional, politically-motivated, battles between White House staffers, determined to protect the authority of the POTUS over foreign policy and the bureaucracy at State. We have seen this struggle in the past with Al Haig, Cyrus Vance, William Rogers, Cordell Hull, Robert Lansing and other SECSTATEs who sooner or later found themselves sidelined and excluded from key foreign policy decisions by the president. However, this is not just a case of Obama insiders distrusting and attempting to “box in” the Clintons as political rivals, by using other high profile players ( though that has been done to Clinton).
Related posts: Featured at the Atlantic Council
Now that we know the damn kid was sleeping in his attic, can we return to Topic A? As in Afghanistan (and, lest anyone in the administration forget, Pakistan), for which Vice President Biden has been getting a lot of attention: Arianna Huffington is calling for his head, Newsweek is hailing him as a soothsayer, and most of America is wondering when the hell President Obama's going to make up his mind on "his war."
As I detailed here last week, it's a dangerous path for Obama to tread somewhere between "all-in" (Stanley McChrystal's method of controversy, with more troops, more nation-building, and more counterinsurgency) and "strategic disengagement" (Biden's weapon of choice, with more drones, more nation-leaving, and a refocusing on counterterrorism). On the one hand, I can almost see why the president would side with his veep: By essentially shifting "the good war" from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Obama purportedly saves money, lives, and support from an increasingly frustrated electorate.
Barnett ends his column by noting that if President Obama sides with Biden that he must turn to the very person he has been trying to marginalize to save our bacon.
So if Obama rallies behind Biden's somewhat precious definition of the "great game," he better be ready to dispatch Hillary Clinton pronto to a host of great-power capitals — not those of our NATO allies, but to those of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states (Moscow, Beijing, and the "observers" in New Delhi and Tehran) — to determine the price they'll be willing to pay to make this enduring problem go away for good. By that point, of course, Al Qaeda will already be back in the saddle in Kabul.
Read more:Why Joe Biden's War Plan Spells the Rebirth of Al Qaeda
And finally, from Michael Yon this piece he wrote back in December 2008 and just published this week.
Afghan Lunacy
Sunday, October 11, 2009
WTF! Didn't They Ever Watch Fort Apache?
Eight of them made the Ultimate Sacrifice. I don't know their names, only their call signs. Though it may have been smaller in scale, and shorter in duration, their battle was no less heroic than the exploits of their ancestors, in places like LZ Xray or Fire Base Ripcord in Vietnam. I want people to know that there are still some GREAT Americans who serve in the US Army, fighting for Freedom, who will probably never be given the due they deserve. I don't know ALL the facts, only what I overheard on the satellite radio.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Book Review: Your Hero And Mine, Scott
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Life Remembered
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Steve DeAngelis on Democracy and Development
The American essayist Agnes Repplier once wrote, "Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements." That pretty well sums up the conundrum often faced by the development community as it works with governments to help bring prosperity to a developing country -- at what point should the balance tip towards democracy rather development? Everyone would like to see people enjoy political freedom and live in a country that respects human rights. Those ideals are found among other liberal values encompassed by the term "democracy." But democracy encompasses a lot of other traits that often make development difficult -- especially representational democracy. I have noted before that single-party states generally have an easier time developing because single-party governments are better able to make difficult decisions about investing in critical infrastructure (or granting monopolies to people who will build it) when they are surrounded by wants and needs on every side. Infrastructure is critical to attracting foreign direct investment and FDI is critical for creating jobs, supporting a sustainable middle class, and launching a country on the road to prosperity. As a result of investing in infrastructure, governments are in much better position to address other needs.
Building on a review in the Economist, of Paul Collier's new book, Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places, Steve goes on to make a forceful argument democracy will only work if a strong ruleset and the means to ensure protection of those who lose the election is in place. Steve's colleague at Enterra Solutions, Thomas Barnett has written about this eloquently in his book Great Powers. Barnett notes, it took almost half a century after the Declaration of Independence to finally have an election where the majority of voters, (white male) directly voted in a presidential election. And then another 41 years to free slaves and another 100 years to give their offspring the right to vote. Barnett's quote, "If a mature, multiparty democracy was so darn easy, everybody would have one," sums it all up.
A second part of Steve's post looks at the conundrum of how to ensure the rights and identity of ethnic groups within the confines of the larger society while at the same time help they find inclusion in the larger national identity.
The dream of most ethnic groups is to have their own country -- and that can be a problem when it comes to development. I recall reading somewhere that there are approximately 5000 recognized ethnic groups in the world. If each of those ethnic groups decided they wanted their own country, it's obvious that few of them would be economically viable. That means that countries with more than one ethnic group within their borders must find a way to help those ethnic groups protect their culture but also identify with the larger national identity. That's not an easy task. Helping them develop a viable economy is also not easy.
Steve is totally right this is not an easy task. The United States still continues to struggle with this issue, as it relates to Native Americans, many whom still reside on reservations in the sides waters of our national wake as we plunge ahead imposing blue finger tips and photo ops amid the rumble of the next IED or truckbomb.
Read more:
Democracy and Development
Sunday, October 4, 2009
How The Middle-Class Changed Sides Twice!
Week in Review
Leading off is the first two installments of a multi-part interview series with a Afghan tribal leader by author, Steven Pressfield of the blog, It's The Tribes Stupid!
Here is a short intro to the first installment.
SP: Chief Zazai, this summer you were elected to the paramountcy of eleven tribes in your home region in Paktia province along the border with Pakistan. Why did the tribes meet at this time? What was their agenda?
Chief Zazai: On July 17th, 2009, my 11 tribes, their Chiefs and Tribal elders gathered in the Zazi valley, where the US Army’s 10th Mountain Division is also based. The event was broadcast for three days by the TV channel “Shamasad” and was seen throughout Afghanistan. The tribes met to address the problems created by the escalation of the insurgency and of course the failure of the Karzai administration to bring a stable, uncorrupt and people-representing government to Afghanistan.
Read more: An Interview with an Afghan Tribal Chief, Part #1
Part two follows with this response when Steve asked Chief Zazai about the warlords and their relationship to the current Afghan government.
SP: Tell us a little about how today’s warlords originally came to power. They literally ruled the country in the 80s, didn’t they, after driving out the Soviets and later destroying the Afghan communist government that the Russians left behind?
Chief Zazai: During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, seven or eight freedom-fighting groups were formed by the Pakistani military, mainly by the ISI. When the last regime of the Communist party (PDPA) was thrown out, these power-hungry men started a war against each other in order to get to the throne of Kabul. They used artillery and rockets against each other and turned Kabul into rubble. These brutal men continued their animal acts for a long five years, which resulted in the loss of 60,000 innocent men, women and children in Kabul alone. These men committed atrocities, kidnapped many young boys and girls, and looted people’s livelihoods.
SP: Where are these warlords now
Chief Zazai: Where? They are running Afghanistan!
It is worse now because these same men have the muscle of the US and NATO behind them and full-fledged support when they wish to do something. These warlords are now kings and princes of Afghanistan. They can kidnap anyone for money and no one would ask them; they are in Mr. Karzai’s Cabinet, in his National Security Committee, in the Parliament; they have control in the Defense and Interior Ministries as well as the National Security Directorate, they are all over the governement and much to our surprise the International Community is treating these thugs and criminals as if they were world-class politicians.
Let me give you a straight answer here: Let’s suppose we bring guys like John Gotti and Al Capone and Scarface and make them Vice Presidents, National Security Advisors, Foreign Secretaries and members of the Congress and Senate in America. How would the American people feel about that?
Read more, and then follow the whole series: Interview with a Tribal Chief, Part 2: Warlords
Meanwhile other regional powers foretell more pressing concerns.
The revelation that Iran has a second site dedicated to developing nuclear energy, read (weapons) has caused rumblings in capitals from Riyadh to Washington. Here are two divergent views of what might happen and what should happen.
First from Galhran at Information Dissemination.
Galhran is not trained strategist, but can gin up a good geo-political analysis as the best trained PhD.
I also think all of those who are claiming that the media frenzy over Iran looks like the same kind of media frenzy that happened shortly before the war in Iraq have it right too. It has a very similar look and feel, and it is primarily because there are some very, very smart people of all political sides who are worried war is looming.
The problem is, none of what these folks are saying is actually relevant to events unfolding in regards to Iran, because they misunderstand the problem. They believe this is about UN weapon inspection results or it represents some American political problem that can be debated reasonably on information available to the public, and that this will somehow produce a right and wrong answer on the nuclear issue that suggests a course of action that can resolve the problem. They are wrong, the Presidents choices are very limited, and at this point it appears that political damage control has already begun. The only good news is that the President appears to have a clear sense of the real problem, and is on the same page with Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia who all appear to have a good sense of the problem too. China is, as usual, difficult to take a read from based on public statements.
Galhran ends on this point.
The stakes for the President regarding Iran are very high, much higher than the political rhetoric of his domestic political opponents suggest. The consequences are too high for political games, something the Presidents opponents would do well to keep in mind, indeed, something his political supporters should keep in mind too. Iran may not have a nuclear weapon, but we may be closer to nuclear war today than many imagine possible, and the seriousness which most political analysts outside government are taking the issue is somewhat troubling to me. There are good reasons the President is holding his cards close regarding Iran, the stakes are too high for mistakes.
For the meat of his argument read more here: Misunderstanding the Problem.
Thomas Barnett offers this prospective on the limited choices in his latest War Room column.
It's the moment we've all been waiting for, and yet today's six-on-one nuclear confrontation with Iran may go down as the most botched opportunity for this kind of global resolution since Paul Wolfowitz went into Iraq and George W. Bush came out with a slice of yellow cake. Perhaps it was all the campaign rhetoric upon which now-President Obama built up these negotiations, or that a botched intelligence operation inside an enriched Middle Eastern mountainside forced him to sit down earlier than expected — alongside two great powers with their own ambitions, no less. But the "engagement track" that Washington officials say they're jumping on in Geneva this afternoon is headed straight to Sanction City. Next stop? Nowhere fast, with Beijing, Moscow, and, yes, probably a near-nuclear Iran walking away no less empowered — if not more so — than before we found that secret uranium factory. Here's why:
Read more:Continue reading this week's World War Room column at Esquire.com
And while these minds are fast at work thinking and discussing the real issues that confront our shared future, others at home from the highest office to the TV tabloids are preoccupied with more mundane issues.
Lead off example:
President Obama held an unannounced meeting here on Friday with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, his Afghanistan commander, to discuss a possible change in strategy and a proposed troop buildup in the eight-year-old war. General McChrystal flew here from London, where he gave a speech on Thursday affirming the need for a military buildup in Afghanistan. He joined Mr. Obama in the forward cabin of Air Force One on the tarmac of the Copenhagen airport for 25 minutes after the president finished his presentation to the International Olympic Committee on behalf of Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Games. It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.
Read more: Obama Meets Top Afghan Commander as He Mulls Change in War Strategy - Peter Baker, New York Times
Hollywood on Roman Polanski's arrest for rape of a 13 year old, 35 years ago.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6648018.html
And David Letterman's self-revelation that he cheated on his mate of 25 years with numerous staffers.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/david-letterman-admits-sexual-affairs-staffers-details-extortion/story?id=8728424
And finally to clear the air, we turn to intrepid war corespondent Michael Yon who penned this editorial in the Washington Post.
He begins:
The coalition is weakening. While the US has gotten serious, the organism called NATO is a jellyfish for which the United States is both sea and prevailing wind. The disappointing effort from many partners is best exemplified by the partners who are pushing hardest: The British are fine examples. The British landed in Helmand province after someone apparently vouched that Helmand would be safe, and they believed it. Helmand is today the most dangerous province in Afghanistan.
Read more:
The Greatest Afghan War
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Rhythmic Echos of The Anabasis
The lessons learned from The Anabasis of Cyrus are still relevant. Organization, battle tactics, adjusting to the unexpected, and leadership by example, still rule the day. We may never see great fighting retreats as these again. The last great fighting retreat was preformed by the U.S. Marines fighting out of the Chosen Reservoir in Korea, and they had air support as an ally to hold back the Chinese armies. Air superiority now holds the key as shown by the destroyed men and arms at Falsie Gap in 1944 and on the Road of Death out of Kuwait in 1991. The likelihood that anyone will see such great fighting retreats against a superior foe is almost zero, given the level on technology.