Five months after the murder of four Americans by terrorists in Libya, we still know precious little about the activities of the man who had the ultimate responsibility to protect them--the President of the United States.
Indeed, Mr. Obama was a virtual ghost on that fateful evening. Only last week, during testimony by outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, we learned that Mr. Obama offered his only guidance to military forces as the attack unfolded. "Do whatever you need to do to protect American lives," Obama reportedly told Mr. Panetta. The comments came in a previously-scheduled meeting between the President, Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After that? It's anyone's guess. The White House has disclosed virtually nothing on Mr. Obama's whereabouts our activities from the end of that meeting (which wrapped up around 5:30 pm) and the next morning, when he climbed on Air Force One for a fund-raising speech in Las Vegas.
At some point in the evening, President Obama reportedly called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As you might have guessed, details of that conversation have never been released. But according to Mr. Panetta, there was no further communication (or guidance) from the President on the Beghanzi crisis, even as Ambassador Chris Stevens went missing (and eventually died), along with a State Department official and two former Navy SEALs, working as CIA contractors, who came to the aid of the beleaguered consulate.
So where was Mr. Obama? The White House claims it has "answered all questions on Libya," suggesting that no further information will be forthcoming. So, outside the remote possibility of a whistle-blower leak, don't look for new details from the administration.
Still, there should be another source of information for Congressional investigators. Anyone with a basic knowledge of White House operations knows that the Secret Service maintains detailed logs on all Presidential movements, even if he's only going from the Oval Office to his living quarters. Similarly, there are detailed visitor logs, phone logs and other records of what was going on during the hours in question.
That begs an obvious question: why haven't Congressional Republicans subpoenaed those logs? Perhaps Senator McCain or Senator Graham can explain. To be sure, their status as the minority party looking into Benghazi limits their power to demand documents from the White House, but that isn't the case on the House side. Why hasn't Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made a request for those records? Perhaps someone ought to call his office, too.
Oddly enough, there have been claims that Mr. Obama watched the entire debacle unfold from the White House Situation Room, through real-time video provided by a Predator drone that arrived over Benghazi in the early stages of the attack. The White House has never released still photos of Mr. Obama in the Situation Room during Benghazi, though photographs of the President in that facility were taken during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and again during the government response to Hurricane Sandy.
Why does this matter (to coin a phrase)? Because it is reflective of Mr. Obama's leadership, or in this case, the lack thereof. Faced with a urgent situation at a U.S. diplomatic facility abroad, the President took a pass, issuing a vague order and, essentially, retiring for the night. From Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey, we know there was no further communication from the POTUS, even as Americans fought for their lives in Benghazi. That reflects a wholesale lack of interest, compassion and decency that is shocking, even by the low standards of the Obama Administration.
How can an elected leader engage in such fecklessness? Our theory goes something like this: early reports from Libya were grim, and the situation was likely to get worse. In the middle of a heated presidential campaign, Mr. Obama and his handlers decided he didn't need to be anywhere near a disaster-in-the-making, so management of the crisis was farmed out to the Pentagon. We're also guessing that White House interest in that infamous You Tube video which "insulted" the Prophet Mohammed, began to spike about the same time.
So, President Obama took a pass and four Americans died. That must be awfully reassuring to military members, diplomats, contractors, intelligence operatives and other U.S. citizens who go in harm's way. If you wind up in a jam, Mr. Obama might actually participate in efforts to assist you--if it meets the right political conditions. But if the situation is bleak, your fate may be in the hands of the new Secretary of State (John Kerry) who can't get his calls returned by the Russian foreign minister, or the next Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, who admits he has much more to learn about the operations and capabilities of his new department.
It's time for a look at those White House logs on that terrible night in September.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Shades of Vladivostok?
Like many in the intel community, I followed the collapse of the Soviet Navy in the early 1990s. It was absolutely stunning; in a matter of a few short years, a blue-water force was largely reduced with a ghost fleet that was left rusting at the pier. I remember seeing video from Vladivostok, once the most important base for the Soviet Pacific Fleet; less than five years after the collapse of the USSR, some of the surface vessels had actually capsized at their berths, and it was a rare event for more than one ship to leave port for a few days.
To be sure, a U.S. Navy facing sequestration is a long way from the Soviet naval collapse of 20 years ago. But last week's announcement that a deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman would be delayed is disturbing, to say the least. Even more disconcerting was the concurrent news that the refueling/mid-life upgrade of the USS Abraham Lincoln will be postponed by at least three years. Without refueling of its reactors (and scheduled equipment upgrades), the Lincoln will likely never sail again. The planned upgrades, known as a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) is a three-year process, with a price tag of at least $3 billion. Even if current estimates hold--and the RCOH is funded--the Lincoln would not rejoin the fleet until the end of this decade.
As for the Truman, the delay in its scheduled deployment creates short-term readiness problems for the U.S. military. The carrier and its battle group were slated to sail to the Middle East, with extended time in the Persian Gulf. With the Truman stuck in Norfolk (for the time being), the Navy is left with one carrier in the gulf region, the USS John C. Stennis, which deployed from Bremerton, Washington, last August. The Stennis will be replaced on station by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which will deploy on schedule in a few weeks, barely 90 days after it returned to Naval Station Norfolk.
Since 9-11, the U.S. has tried to keep at least two carriers in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea at all times. Having two carriers on station adds more than 150 aircraft to the regional balance for forces, giving us increased flexibility to support operations in Afghanistan, or (if it becomes necessary), conduct operations against Iran. The carrier's escorts add even more firepower to the equation, for missions ranging from long-range strike to missile defense.
But such problems may represent the "new normal" for the Navy. With the USS Enterprise now in the process of being retired, the American fleet is down to 10 carriers. But the available number if actually eight, with the Lincoln's RCOH on hold, and the USS Theodore Roosevelt still undergoing its mid-life upgrade. The Roosevelt was supposed to re-join the fleet in 2013, but its return is now on hold--thanks to the same budget problems that will delay the Lincoln's overhaul, possibly for years. There are also questions about the projected RCOH for the USS George Washington, next in line behind the Lincoln.
Critics like to point out that no other country has more than two carriers, and none match the capabilities of a Nimitz-class ship and its embarked air wing. But the equation is changing the Far East, where China recently commissioned its first carrier (purchased from Russia), and is reportedly building three more, two conventionally-powered (set to enter service later this decade), along with Beijing's first nuclear-powered carrier, which could be ready by 2020. In terms of power projection, few assets are more important than an aircraft carrier, particularly for the U.S., which literally defends the sea lanes for the rest of the world.
That's why the Lincoln's status is so troubling. In the current budget environment, putting off the RCOH could easily become the first step towards the carrier's early retirement. That, in turn, will create a ripple effect throughout the Navy and the entire defense sector. With one less carrier in service, pressure will build to retire one or two Aegis cruisers; two or three Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, a couple of older Los Angeles-class attack boats and even a logistics support vessel. Factor in accompanying reductions in personnel and the carrier air wing, and you're talking about real money.
In the civilian sector, delays in the RCOH process will mean lost jobs--potentially thousands--at Newport News Shipbuilding, the largest private employer in the state of Virginia. Layoffs at the shipyard will mean even more job losses in the Hampton Roads economy, which is largely based on the military and defense contracting.
During the annual State of the Union speech, President Obama will reportedly urge Congress to reach a budget deal and avoid the additional cuts that would result from sequestration. But Mr. Obama has been a virtual spectator in this process, and there are plenty in his administration that would welcome the added $500 billion in defense cuts that sequestration would trigger. That would free up more money for social and entitlement programs. Afterall, in the words of the President and other prominent Democrats, the U.S. doesn't have a spending problem, it has (as Steny Hoyer puts it), a "paying for it":problem. What better way to pay for new benefit programs--and avoid the issue of entitlement reform--than by gutting defense.
Our naval stations in places like Norfolk, Mayport, Bremerton and San Diego may never look like Vladivostok of twenty years ago, But once you start down the road of wholesale defense cuts (accompanied by social pressures and economic woes), it's stunning how far fleet readiness can fall--and how fast.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
The Voice
This year's crop of Super Bowl ads wasn't particularly noteworthy; sure the Budweiser ad that reunited a Clydesdale with his trainer tugged at heartstrings, as did a Chrysler spot saluting the troops--and narrated by Oprah Winfrey. There were chuckles at the Doritos "goat" ad and the senior citizens who sneak out of the rest home for an exciting evening at Taco Bell (if that's their idea of a good time, they really need to get out more).
For my money, the best ad aired early in the fourth quarter. It began with a shot of the prarie, with two words on the screen: Paul Harvey.
As a reformed broadcaster, it got my attention. Mr. Harvey passed away four years ago this month, and he's been largely forgotten by a younger generation of radio listeners.
But not that long ago, Paul Harvey was appointment radio for millions of Americans. When he came on the airwaves at 7:25 in the morning, or during his 15-minute noontime program, people paused from the daily activities. Traveling in a car, you turned up the volume a bit and listened. Paul Harvey was on the radio.
That's why the Dodge Trucks commercial was such a treat, a trip down memory lane with one of the most talented broadcasters who ever sat behind a microphone.
The spot was a salute to farmers, or more correctly, a paen to the traditional American values embodied by those who work the land. The images that filled the two-minute commercial were compelling--even moving--but it was the narration that made the spot so memorable. And the words were pure Harvey, drawn from a 1978 speech to a Future Farmers of America convention; the complete text and audio have been posted at Fox News, among other sites:
"And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said I need a caretaker--so God made a farmer."
Rich Lowry of National Review calls it a "gem of literary craftsmanship" and its hard to disagree. Sure, the prose is a bit purplish, and wags claim the imagery recalls days on the farm that are long since past, but such criticism is almost irrelevant. The values of faith, family and hard work that echo in the commercial were once prevalent (and still exist in some circles), but most Americans can't imagine a life built around back-breaking labor, with no guarantees of success, and failure looming with the next hail storm, blizzard or flood.
In fact, some of the on-line comments that greeted the Dodge spot were rather telling. Some asked why farmers "were getting all the credit." Uh...maybe it's because they're less than four percent of the population, but they some how manage to feed 350 million Americans a a good chunk of the six billion humans who now inhabit the planet. It's a feat that most of us take for granted. When's the last time you thought about where your food and fiber came from, or what might happen if our sources--the nation's farms--suddenly disappeared.
Hard to believe, but once upon a time, most Americans were farmers; in colonial times, they made up 90% of the labor force. By the early 1990s, only 2.6% of the population was engaged in agriculture, and that number will continue to decline, with further improvements in crop science and farm technology.
As that happens, our diet won't suffer, but we will lose something that isn't measured in agrarian output, or caloric consumption, but in those vanishing qualities so wonderfully described by Paul Harvey.
Cheers to Dodge for shelling out an estimated $16 million for the two-minute commercial, and whoever had the idea of bringing back a radio icon--and a 35-year-old speech--to remind us of a way of life (and values) that have all-but-disappeared.
For my money, the best ad aired early in the fourth quarter. It began with a shot of the prarie, with two words on the screen: Paul Harvey.
As a reformed broadcaster, it got my attention. Mr. Harvey passed away four years ago this month, and he's been largely forgotten by a younger generation of radio listeners.
But not that long ago, Paul Harvey was appointment radio for millions of Americans. When he came on the airwaves at 7:25 in the morning, or during his 15-minute noontime program, people paused from the daily activities. Traveling in a car, you turned up the volume a bit and listened. Paul Harvey was on the radio.
That's why the Dodge Trucks commercial was such a treat, a trip down memory lane with one of the most talented broadcasters who ever sat behind a microphone.
The spot was a salute to farmers, or more correctly, a paen to the traditional American values embodied by those who work the land. The images that filled the two-minute commercial were compelling--even moving--but it was the narration that made the spot so memorable. And the words were pure Harvey, drawn from a 1978 speech to a Future Farmers of America convention; the complete text and audio have been posted at Fox News, among other sites:
"And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said I need a caretaker--so God made a farmer."
God said, "I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board." So God made a farmer.
"I need somebody with arms strong enough to rustle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, have to wait lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting ladies and tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon -- and mean it." So God made a farmer.
God said, "I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, 'Maybe next year.' I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from 'tractor back,' put in another seventy-two hours." So God made a farmer."Rich Lowry of National Review calls it a "gem of literary craftsmanship" and its hard to disagree. Sure, the prose is a bit purplish, and wags claim the imagery recalls days on the farm that are long since past, but such criticism is almost irrelevant. The values of faith, family and hard work that echo in the commercial were once prevalent (and still exist in some circles), but most Americans can't imagine a life built around back-breaking labor, with no guarantees of success, and failure looming with the next hail storm, blizzard or flood.
In fact, some of the on-line comments that greeted the Dodge spot were rather telling. Some asked why farmers "were getting all the credit." Uh...maybe it's because they're less than four percent of the population, but they some how manage to feed 350 million Americans a a good chunk of the six billion humans who now inhabit the planet. It's a feat that most of us take for granted. When's the last time you thought about where your food and fiber came from, or what might happen if our sources--the nation's farms--suddenly disappeared.
Hard to believe, but once upon a time, most Americans were farmers; in colonial times, they made up 90% of the labor force. By the early 1990s, only 2.6% of the population was engaged in agriculture, and that number will continue to decline, with further improvements in crop science and farm technology.
As that happens, our diet won't suffer, but we will lose something that isn't measured in agrarian output, or caloric consumption, but in those vanishing qualities so wonderfully described by Paul Harvey.
Cheers to Dodge for shelling out an estimated $16 million for the two-minute commercial, and whoever had the idea of bringing back a radio icon--and a 35-year-old speech--to remind us of a way of life (and values) that have all-but-disappeared.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Not Ready for the E-Ring
Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel during his Senate confirmation hearing on 31 January (National Review photo)
Napoleon famously observed that "every Corporal carries a Marshal's baton in his knapsack." Historians say the French leader was trying to inspire his men to greater valor on the battlefield, but over the centuries, the quote has become synonymous with over-arching ambition that out-strips actual abilities.
We're not sure if former Senator Chuck Hagel every aspired to flag rank during his days as a grunt in Vietnam, but one think is painfully clear: given a chance to become Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hagel is proving himself completely unqualified for the job.
As you've probably heard, Hagel's confirmation hearing yesterday were a complete disaster. Some low-lights, courtesy of National Review:
"...in response to a challenge from Senator Graham to name one person or one “dumb” government policy negatively influenced by Jewish intimidation, Hagel drew a blank. When asked if he stood by an Al Jazeera interview in which he agreed with the characterization of the United States as “the world’s bully,” Hagel split follicles by noting that, “My comment was it’s a relevant and good observation. I don’t think that I said I agree with it.” He answered a question about his vote against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group by claiming it would have been unprecedented to call an arm of “an elected, legitimate government” terrorists, “whether we agree or not.” An hour or so later, White House press secretary Jay Carney dodged a question about whether the president agreed.
But Mr. Hagel wasn't finished.
Hagel also ran afoul of the president — and perhaps of his wits — when he said that he “support[ed] the president’s strong position on containment,” rather than prevention, of a nuclear Iran. Later, after being handed a note, he said “I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don’t have a position on containment.” But this wasn’t quite right either, as pointed out by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.). “We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment,” Levin said. “I just wanted to clarify the clarify.”
Mr. Hagel best summed up his eight hours ordeal when he assured his interlocutors that “if confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.”
To be fair, none of these exchanges offer any real insight on Hagel's views regarding our military forces, how they should be structured going forward, and how they should be employed. But the former Senator's comments do speak to his world view, which will certainly influence his leadership as Secretary of Defense.
There's also the matter of why Hagel was allowed to make a fool of himself on Capitol Hill. Prepping a nominee for Congressional grilling is the responsibility of the White House. Judging by Mr. Hagel's performance, it looks like he was "prepped" by the same bunch that handled the administration's response to Benghazi.
Still, it would be premature to summarize the Hagel hearing as another example of incompetence from the team that has given us record debt, a steadily shrinking workforce, and Middle East policy that would make Nero envious. But there may be a method to this madness. The White House hasn't exactly jumped to Mr. Hagel's defense, as it tried to do when Susan Rice's nomination for Secretary of State went down in flames. In fact, the former Nebraska Senator now seems to be slowly twisting in the wind, usually a cue for the embattled nominee to ask that their name be withdrawn.
If that's the case, it begs a serious question: who's next. Ms. Rice gave way to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who foreign policy views are similar to those of the former UN Secretary, and in some respects are even worse. Lest we forget, Mr. Kerry was a longtime advocate of engagement with Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, even as that country dissolved into civil war, and the regime began slaughtering its own people. But Mr. Kerry easily won confirmation, and for better or worse, he will be implementing President Obama's foreign policy for the next four years.
As for who might follow Hagel, that's anyone's guess. But it's very clear that Mr. Obama is looking for a SecDef who will implement his directives without making waves, or offering a vision of his own.
It doesn't take a military genius to understand that DoD desperately needs someone with ideas, exceptional managerial acumen and a road map for America's military forces in the 21st Century. To date, President Obama hasn't offered much, other than winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which would have occurred regardless of who was in the Oval Office); his strategic focus on the Pacific theater and massive cuts in the defense budget.
The next Secretary of Defense faces huge challenges. Even without sequestration, the Pentagon is looking at roughly $500 billion in cuts over the next decade, along with cuts in personnel and hardware that will create significant operational obstacles. Good luck taking on a modernized Chinese military with a force that, on its current trajectory, will be completely hollowed out by the end of Mr. Obama's second term.
And we're being told that Chuck Hagel is the right man to lead the Defense Department at this critical moment. How rich. We're not sure if Mr. Hagel ever had a marshal's baton in his knapsack; at this point, we'd just like to know if he actually has a clue.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Can't Wait for Washington
UPDATE/31 January: An Iraqi newspaper in London (consider the source) reports the Israeli airstrike near Damascus yesterday targeted a chemical and biological weapons production facility. According to western diplomats in Syria (who were interviewed by the publication), Israeli F-16s launched air-to-surface missiles against the complex and dropped at least one "bunker-buster" bomb.
The same sources claim the facility was guarded by 3,000 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and a number were killed in the attack.
If this account is accurate--and we have our doubts--it suggests the Assad regime is nearing collapse. Entrusting security of a WMD complex to the IRGC suggests the Syrian dictator can't trust the most elite members of his military, or the fight is going so badly that all ground force elements have been committed to the fight against the rebels.
In either case, it provides yet another indication of a regime nearing collapse. What happens after Assad's departure is anyone's guess, but there will almost certainly be a bloodbath--and a scramble for what's left of the Syrian WMD arsenal. For now, the U.S. seems to content to let events run their course, virtually ensuring that thousands more will die and some chemical and biological weapons may fall into the "wrong" hands.
*****
The on-going civil war in Syria inched closer to becoming a regional conflict, as Israeli jets attacked a research complex near Damascus, and a weapons convoy heading to Lebanon.
With the Assad regime rapidly losing its grip on power, there have been rising concerns about "last ditch" moves by the Syrian dictator, ranging from chemical weapons attacks on neighbors like Israel and Turkey, to the transfer of chemical and biological weapons to its ally in Lebanon, the terrorist group Hizballah.
Needless to say, today's airstrike on that convoy did nothing to allay those fears. Indeed, reports of Syrian weapons on the move--even conventional arms--suggest that Assad's government is in its last days, and assets are being transferred to prevent them from falling into rebel hands.
According to a press report, the convoy attacked today was carrying advanced SA-17 surface-to-air missiles to Hizballah. From Israel National News:
The sources said that the shipment was intended for Hizbullah and that, had
they made it into the organization's hands, the strategic balance of power in the region would have been
altered.
Israel has not responded thus far to reports in the foreign press, according to which the IAF carried out the attack on the convoy.
According to some reports, the weapons convoy was attacked shortly after it crossed the border from Syria into Lebanon. Another source reported that the attack took place when the convoy was still inside Syrian territory.
The Israeli Air Force Chief of Staff, Major General Amir Eshel, virtually telegraphed the move, in a speech he gave a few hours before the airstrikes began:
"The example in the north, in Syria, is the most glaring one, of a state that is in a process of disintegration, about which none of us has a clue as to what will be there on the day after," Eshel said
.
"Add to that a huge weapons arsenal, some of which is state-of-the-art, some of it unconventional, and all of this is happening – I can't call it our back yard, but on our borders. So we have challenges here ranging from the limited ones to the very large ones.
So far, there have been no details about the strike on that research complex. But it's a fair bet the targeted facility is connected to Syria's vast WMD program. Israel has repeatedly vowed to use military force to prevent Assad's inventory of chemical and biological weapons from being transferred to Hizballah. Today's raids suggest that Israel has detected disturbing activity that, in their view, must be halted. The frequency and volume of air strikes in the coming days will give us some idea of what is going on inside Syria, in relation to its WMD arsenal.
For what it's worth, the U.S. (and President Obama) have made similar vows, saying the employment or transfer of WMD by Assad would represent the crossing of a "red line" that would not be tolerated. So far, Washington has done nothing to back up such claims, a development not lost on our allies in the region, particularly Israel.
A medium-range SAM based on the original SA-11/GADFLY system, the SA-17 (NATO code name GRIZZLY) would provide a major upgrade for Hizballah's air defenses, which consist (chiefly) of shoulder-fired SAMs and light/medium caliber AAA guns. With a maximum range of 20 miles--and an advanced radar--the SA-17 would allow Hizballah to engage a variety of aerial targets, ranging from jet fighters to smart bombs. It's the type of "game-changer" that Israel simply can't allow in Lebanon.
Syria has operated the SA-17 for several years, and it's never been an impediment to Israeli air operations. Still, in the right hands, the GRIZZLY can be a formidable air defense system. During its brief 2008 war with Georgia, the Russian Air Force lost at least four aircraft to the SA-11, a development that was particularly embarrassing when you consider that Russian engineers designed and built the system.
With today's air strikes, Israel made it clear that it will not wait for the U.S. to decide on military action. It's a perfectly understandable course of action. Had Jerusalem let Mr. Obama take the lead, those SA-17s would have arrived safely in Lebanon, and they would be in service in a matter of days or weeks.
If there's any good news about the U.S. in this matter, it is the current silence from Washington regarding today's attacks. There are indications the United States has given Israel some degree of latitude in protecting its interests in Syria and Lebanon. IAF fighters remained active over Lebanon for hours after today's raids, apparently waiting for new targets to materialize. It's a given that Israel's drone fleet is monitoring targets throughout Lebanon and even inside Syria, looking for more weapons convoys or changes at WMD facilities. When those occur, the IAF will strike once more.
Sometimes, leading from behind simply isn't an option.
The same sources claim the facility was guarded by 3,000 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and a number were killed in the attack.
If this account is accurate--and we have our doubts--it suggests the Assad regime is nearing collapse. Entrusting security of a WMD complex to the IRGC suggests the Syrian dictator can't trust the most elite members of his military, or the fight is going so badly that all ground force elements have been committed to the fight against the rebels.
In either case, it provides yet another indication of a regime nearing collapse. What happens after Assad's departure is anyone's guess, but there will almost certainly be a bloodbath--and a scramble for what's left of the Syrian WMD arsenal. For now, the U.S. seems to content to let events run their course, virtually ensuring that thousands more will die and some chemical and biological weapons may fall into the "wrong" hands.
*****
The on-going civil war in Syria inched closer to becoming a regional conflict, as Israeli jets attacked a research complex near Damascus, and a weapons convoy heading to Lebanon.
With the Assad regime rapidly losing its grip on power, there have been rising concerns about "last ditch" moves by the Syrian dictator, ranging from chemical weapons attacks on neighbors like Israel and Turkey, to the transfer of chemical and biological weapons to its ally in Lebanon, the terrorist group Hizballah.
Needless to say, today's airstrike on that convoy did nothing to allay those fears. Indeed, reports of Syrian weapons on the move--even conventional arms--suggest that Assad's government is in its last days, and assets are being transferred to prevent them from falling into rebel hands.
According to a press report, the convoy attacked today was carrying advanced SA-17 surface-to-air missiles to Hizballah. From Israel National News:
The arms convoy that Israel reportedly attacked last night along the Syria-Lebanon border carried SA-16 missiles, among other things, according to foreign sources. The SA-17 is a Russian-made surface-to-air missile.
Israel has not responded thus far to reports in the foreign press, according to which the IAF carried out the attack on the convoy.
According to some reports, the weapons convoy was attacked shortly after it crossed the border from Syria into Lebanon. Another source reported that the attack took place when the convoy was still inside Syrian territory.
The Israeli Air Force Chief of Staff, Major General Amir Eshel, virtually telegraphed the move, in a speech he gave a few hours before the airstrikes began:
"The example in the north, in Syria, is the most glaring one, of a state that is in a process of disintegration, about which none of us has a clue as to what will be there on the day after," Eshel said
.
"Add to that a huge weapons arsenal, some of which is state-of-the-art, some of it unconventional, and all of this is happening – I can't call it our back yard, but on our borders. So we have challenges here ranging from the limited ones to the very large ones.
So far, there have been no details about the strike on that research complex. But it's a fair bet the targeted facility is connected to Syria's vast WMD program. Israel has repeatedly vowed to use military force to prevent Assad's inventory of chemical and biological weapons from being transferred to Hizballah. Today's raids suggest that Israel has detected disturbing activity that, in their view, must be halted. The frequency and volume of air strikes in the coming days will give us some idea of what is going on inside Syria, in relation to its WMD arsenal.
For what it's worth, the U.S. (and President Obama) have made similar vows, saying the employment or transfer of WMD by Assad would represent the crossing of a "red line" that would not be tolerated. So far, Washington has done nothing to back up such claims, a development not lost on our allies in the region, particularly Israel.
A medium-range SAM based on the original SA-11/GADFLY system, the SA-17 (NATO code name GRIZZLY) would provide a major upgrade for Hizballah's air defenses, which consist (chiefly) of shoulder-fired SAMs and light/medium caliber AAA guns. With a maximum range of 20 miles--and an advanced radar--the SA-17 would allow Hizballah to engage a variety of aerial targets, ranging from jet fighters to smart bombs. It's the type of "game-changer" that Israel simply can't allow in Lebanon.
Syria has operated the SA-17 for several years, and it's never been an impediment to Israeli air operations. Still, in the right hands, the GRIZZLY can be a formidable air defense system. During its brief 2008 war with Georgia, the Russian Air Force lost at least four aircraft to the SA-11, a development that was particularly embarrassing when you consider that Russian engineers designed and built the system.
With today's air strikes, Israel made it clear that it will not wait for the U.S. to decide on military action. It's a perfectly understandable course of action. Had Jerusalem let Mr. Obama take the lead, those SA-17s would have arrived safely in Lebanon, and they would be in service in a matter of days or weeks.
If there's any good news about the U.S. in this matter, it is the current silence from Washington regarding today's attacks. There are indications the United States has given Israel some degree of latitude in protecting its interests in Syria and Lebanon. IAF fighters remained active over Lebanon for hours after today's raids, apparently waiting for new targets to materialize. It's a given that Israel's drone fleet is monitoring targets throughout Lebanon and even inside Syria, looking for more weapons convoys or changes at WMD facilities. When those occur, the IAF will strike once more.
Sometimes, leading from behind simply isn't an option.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Three Views on Women in Combat
Today's reading assignments from Mackubin Thomas Owens in the Weekly Standard; Ryan Smith in The Wall Street Journal and Captain Katie Petronio in the Marine Corps Gazette.
Not exactly the PC version that the White House (or outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta) would like you to read, but it's the truth. There's a reason that 99% of all women in the military can't pass muster for service in the infantry or special forces. And it has nothing to do with sexism; it's all about physiology and the fact that most women don't have the upper body strength or endurance to handle those jobs.
But remember this: with the door now open for women to serve in ground combat units, the left will do whatever it takes to make this "experiment" succeed. When we start "gender-norming" for physical standards in the infantry, SEAL units; Special Forces A-teams and Air Force combat control and pararescue elements, we are finished as a military. But our feckless senior leaders (helloooo, General Dempsey) are willing to go along, figuring the consequences will become evident after they retire and in the mean time, maybe their bosses in the White House and on the Hill will go easy on sequestration.
Not exactly the PC version that the White House (or outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta) would like you to read, but it's the truth. There's a reason that 99% of all women in the military can't pass muster for service in the infantry or special forces. And it has nothing to do with sexism; it's all about physiology and the fact that most women don't have the upper body strength or endurance to handle those jobs.
But remember this: with the door now open for women to serve in ground combat units, the left will do whatever it takes to make this "experiment" succeed. When we start "gender-norming" for physical standards in the infantry, SEAL units; Special Forces A-teams and Air Force combat control and pararescue elements, we are finished as a military. But our feckless senior leaders (helloooo, General Dempsey) are willing to go along, figuring the consequences will become evident after they retire and in the mean time, maybe their bosses in the White House and on the Hill will go easy on sequestration.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
No Free Ride to the War Zone
UPDATE: 27 January 2013. The Pentagon has announced plans to provide in-flight refueling support for French operations in Mali. Guess someone explained to the Commander-in-Chief that we have these specialized planes that can transfer fuel to other aircraft in flight, and if we didn't contribute tankers to the French mission, it would grind to a screeching halt.
****
There's an old joke in the military mobility circles, and it goes something like this: what do you call the transport section of the French Air Force? Air Mobility Command, as in the USAF MAJCOM by the same name.
Sad to say, but the vaunted Armee de l'Air (ALA) lacks the necessary airlift to get troops, equipment and supplies to the war zone in Mali. And, as operations there intensify, Paris put out an urgent plea for assistance, prompting the U.S. to send C-17 transports to ferry its forces into North Africa. As of today (22 January), at least five C-17s have flown sorties into am airfield in Bamako, the capital of Mali, carrying at least 80 French troops and more than 120 tons of supplies.
It's a familiar scenario. AMC airlifters have played a key role in carrying French troops to war zones in its former colonies for decades, and that trend won't change anytime soon. Like most European nations, France has under-funded its military for decades, with some of the deepest cuts in support functions like airlift and in-flight refueling. Why spend billions on transport and tanker fleets when you've got the Americans? No wonder many of the transports on the tarmac at Bamako carried the markings of such French-sounding locales as Charleston, South Carolina and Dover, Delaware.
And to no one's surprise, France has already requested U.S. tankers to supplement its small fleet of C-135R tankers, virtual clones of our own KC-135s. With the tempo of air operations in Mali increasing rapidly, the French need more tankers to refuel fighter aircraft and other aerial platforms that must operate across long distances. Given the geographic constraints of the Mali operation, it's a perfectly legitimate request.
Our response? Until a few days ago, the Obama Administration was insisting that France reimburse us for all airlift and tanker missions flown in support of air ops over Mali. At the time, the bill was somewhere between $17-19 million dollars. Relative chump change, but the French were incensed. Officials in Paris are quick to point out their folks are doing the fighting (and dying) over there. All they're asking from the U.S. is more airlift to get soldiers, beans and bullets into the war zone, and tanker support to sustain the air bridge to Mali. We should also point out that other NATO allies (notably Great Britain, Canada and Denmark) are providing support to the French without charge.
True, various French regimes have sabotaged U.S. interests on multiple occasions, but the Mali request seems tailor-made for the Obama Doctrine of "Leading from Behind." Instead, Mr. Obama is threatening to undermine the entire operation; without in-flight refueling, it will be impossible for France to sustain the current pace of air and ground operations, giving the rebels a chance to re-group and launch new offensives.
Besides, there's the little matter of how we got here in the first place. As noted in a previous post, many of the current problems in North Africa are a by-product of last year's revolution in Libya, which was fully supported--politically and militarily--by the Obama Administration. Now, with arms and fighters from Libya spreading to adjacent countries (and creating more havoc), Mr. Obama seems reluctant to deal with problem he helped create.
It sounds like a page out of the French foreign policy hand book circa 1970-1990, but this time around, it's the USA threatening to botch the entire operation over a few transport and tanker missions. Sacre bleu!
****
There's an old joke in the military mobility circles, and it goes something like this: what do you call the transport section of the French Air Force? Air Mobility Command, as in the USAF MAJCOM by the same name.
Sad to say, but the vaunted Armee de l'Air (ALA) lacks the necessary airlift to get troops, equipment and supplies to the war zone in Mali. And, as operations there intensify, Paris put out an urgent plea for assistance, prompting the U.S. to send C-17 transports to ferry its forces into North Africa. As of today (22 January), at least five C-17s have flown sorties into am airfield in Bamako, the capital of Mali, carrying at least 80 French troops and more than 120 tons of supplies.
It's a familiar scenario. AMC airlifters have played a key role in carrying French troops to war zones in its former colonies for decades, and that trend won't change anytime soon. Like most European nations, France has under-funded its military for decades, with some of the deepest cuts in support functions like airlift and in-flight refueling. Why spend billions on transport and tanker fleets when you've got the Americans? No wonder many of the transports on the tarmac at Bamako carried the markings of such French-sounding locales as Charleston, South Carolina and Dover, Delaware.
And to no one's surprise, France has already requested U.S. tankers to supplement its small fleet of C-135R tankers, virtual clones of our own KC-135s. With the tempo of air operations in Mali increasing rapidly, the French need more tankers to refuel fighter aircraft and other aerial platforms that must operate across long distances. Given the geographic constraints of the Mali operation, it's a perfectly legitimate request.
Our response? Until a few days ago, the Obama Administration was insisting that France reimburse us for all airlift and tanker missions flown in support of air ops over Mali. At the time, the bill was somewhere between $17-19 million dollars. Relative chump change, but the French were incensed. Officials in Paris are quick to point out their folks are doing the fighting (and dying) over there. All they're asking from the U.S. is more airlift to get soldiers, beans and bullets into the war zone, and tanker support to sustain the air bridge to Mali. We should also point out that other NATO allies (notably Great Britain, Canada and Denmark) are providing support to the French without charge.
True, various French regimes have sabotaged U.S. interests on multiple occasions, but the Mali request seems tailor-made for the Obama Doctrine of "Leading from Behind." Instead, Mr. Obama is threatening to undermine the entire operation; without in-flight refueling, it will be impossible for France to sustain the current pace of air and ground operations, giving the rebels a chance to re-group and launch new offensives.
Besides, there's the little matter of how we got here in the first place. As noted in a previous post, many of the current problems in North Africa are a by-product of last year's revolution in Libya, which was fully supported--politically and militarily--by the Obama Administration. Now, with arms and fighters from Libya spreading to adjacent countries (and creating more havoc), Mr. Obama seems reluctant to deal with problem he helped create.
It sounds like a page out of the French foreign policy hand book circa 1970-1990, but this time around, it's the USA threatening to botch the entire operation over a few transport and tanker missions. Sacre bleu!
Monday, January 21, 2013
Life on the Dole
A few years ago, Natalija Belova emigrated from her native Lithuania to Great Britain. She has no plans to go home, since the U.K. welfare state provides such a comfortable lifestyle for Ms. Belova and her daughter. From the U.K. Sun (h/t: Powerline)
Natalija Belova, 33, told The Sun how she spurns full-time work — yet can afford foreign holidays and buys designer clothes.
The Lithuanian said: “British benefits give me and my daughter a good life.”
She has milked soft-touch Britain for £50,000 in benefits and yesterday said: "I simply take what is given to me."
Overjoyed Natalija told how she lives a life of luxury thanks to our “strange” system, declaring: “It’s important to have nice things and good holidays.”
The graduate, who became a single mum after she arrived here, rakes in more than £1,000 a month in handouts — £14,508 a year — to fund her love of designer clothes, jaunts to the Spanish sun and nightclubbing.
She bragged: “I have a lovely, fully-furnished flat and money to live properly on.
Had she remained in Lithuania, her benefits would be only a fraction of what Belova receives in the U.K. A college graduate who speaks six languages, Ms. Belova also holds down a part-time job, but is careful to keep her weekly hours below the threshold that would affect her benefits. And it's all perfectly legal under the British system.
England's welfare rolls exploded during 12 years of Labour rule and now with Conservatives back in power, there are efforts underway to curb benefits. But progress has been difficult, and the situation will soon grow worse; under European Union rules, Britain will be forced to welcome tens of million additional immigrants from eastern Europe beginning next year, and all will be immediately eligible for the full-range of U.K. welfare benefits. Currently, new arrivals from that region must have a job in Britain to remain in the country.
If all of this sounds disturbingly familiar, it should. Under Barack Obama, the number of Americans receiving various forms of government benefits has exploded. According to a Politico article published last summer, spending for more than 133 billion federal welfare programs has grown by almost $200 billion since Mr. Obama took office four years ago. The administration has even run ads on Spanish-language TV programs encouraging more Latinos to sign up.
Historically, the welfare system in the U.S. wasn't quite as generous as its European counterparts, but that gap has been closed. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute illustrated this quite nicely back in July, with a graphic and article depicting the so-called "Welfare Cliff." Put another way: a worker in a low-paying job (making $29,000 a year) was better off staying in that position--with full welfare benefits--than taking a $69,000 a year job. Under an analysis conducted by the State of Pennsylvania, the worker making $29,000 a year received a total of $57,327 in net income and benefits--more than their counterpart making $69,000 a year, with net income and benefits (after taxes) of $57,035.
With Mr. Obama entering his second term, it's a good bet that welfare spending will skyrocket again. And by encouraging more Americans to sign up, the President sees an opportunity to create even more Democratic voters, completely beholden to the state for their subsistence.
Happy Inauguration Day.
Natalija Belova, 33, told The Sun how she spurns full-time work — yet can afford foreign holidays and buys designer clothes.
The Lithuanian said: “British benefits give me and my daughter a good life.”
She has milked soft-touch Britain for £50,000 in benefits and yesterday said: "I simply take what is given to me."
Overjoyed Natalija told how she lives a life of luxury thanks to our “strange” system, declaring: “It’s important to have nice things and good holidays.”
The graduate, who became a single mum after she arrived here, rakes in more than £1,000 a month in handouts — £14,508 a year — to fund her love of designer clothes, jaunts to the Spanish sun and nightclubbing.
She bragged: “I have a lovely, fully-furnished flat and money to live properly on.
Had she remained in Lithuania, her benefits would be only a fraction of what Belova receives in the U.K. A college graduate who speaks six languages, Ms. Belova also holds down a part-time job, but is careful to keep her weekly hours below the threshold that would affect her benefits. And it's all perfectly legal under the British system.
England's welfare rolls exploded during 12 years of Labour rule and now with Conservatives back in power, there are efforts underway to curb benefits. But progress has been difficult, and the situation will soon grow worse; under European Union rules, Britain will be forced to welcome tens of million additional immigrants from eastern Europe beginning next year, and all will be immediately eligible for the full-range of U.K. welfare benefits. Currently, new arrivals from that region must have a job in Britain to remain in the country.
If all of this sounds disturbingly familiar, it should. Under Barack Obama, the number of Americans receiving various forms of government benefits has exploded. According to a Politico article published last summer, spending for more than 133 billion federal welfare programs has grown by almost $200 billion since Mr. Obama took office four years ago. The administration has even run ads on Spanish-language TV programs encouraging more Latinos to sign up.
Historically, the welfare system in the U.S. wasn't quite as generous as its European counterparts, but that gap has been closed. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute illustrated this quite nicely back in July, with a graphic and article depicting the so-called "Welfare Cliff." Put another way: a worker in a low-paying job (making $29,000 a year) was better off staying in that position--with full welfare benefits--than taking a $69,000 a year job. Under an analysis conducted by the State of Pennsylvania, the worker making $29,000 a year received a total of $57,327 in net income and benefits--more than their counterpart making $69,000 a year, with net income and benefits (after taxes) of $57,035.
With Mr. Obama entering his second term, it's a good bet that welfare spending will skyrocket again. And by encouraging more Americans to sign up, the President sees an opportunity to create even more Democratic voters, completely beholden to the state for their subsistence.
Happy Inauguration Day.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Debacle in the Desert, Redux
Despite a busy travel week, we've been following events in Algeria with a great deal of interest. While accounts of the hostage crisis at the Ain Amenas natural gas complex have varied widely, news from the site has become increasingly grim; at one point, the Algerian government claimed that all the captives had been freed and some of the Americans in the group had been flown to military hospitals in Europe. But more recent reports paint a much different picture, as indicated by this AP dispatch:
The Algerian government says 32 militants and 23 captives were killed during the three-day military operation to end the hostage crisis at a natural gas plant in the Sahara (editor: subsequent reports put the number who died at more than 80).
The ministry added that the militants involved consisted of 32 men of various nationalities, including three Algerians.
And don't be surprised if the death toll rises. As far as we know, there are no western journalists at the Ain Amenas complex (the dateline on the AP article was Algiers, hundreds of miles away). Reporters are having to rely on whatever the Algerian government decides to share, along with bits of information from governments who had citizens taken captive. With each new account, the number of hostages listed as killed has increased, and it's common practice in the Middle East to release wildly optimistic version of events (in the immediate aftermath of a crisis), then let the bad news dribble out later. The result has been a muddled picture--at best--and the real story of what happened in the Algerian desert may not emerge for weeks or months, if ever.
The other noteworthy angle in this tragedy has been the media's relative lack of curiosity regarding the "roots" of this terrorist operation, and the unilateral response that eventually ended it. As the Algerian military operation drew to a close, Time openly speculated about security concerns for western oil firms operating in the Sahara desert--with far less emphasis on the geopolitical factors that prompted this week's deadly attack.
"There is no knowing when oil companies will deem it safe to return expatriate staff to Algeria, let alone risk plowing billions into new energy projects; Algeria has been courting Western investment, not only in its hydrocarbon sector but also to finance such renewable-energy plans as solar plants in the vast Algerian Sahara. At minimum, potential investors will now drive a harder bargain, given the additional expenses they would have to incur on security in order to expand their infrastructure in Algeria. “Operating in Algeria has just become more expensive,” the Eurasia Group’s Africa director Philippe de Pontet said in a memo to clients on Friday. “Assets sold in the coming 12 to 18 months with have a significant discount applied.”
Western oil firms have been operating in the Maghreb for decades--and Algeria has extensive experience in fighting terrorists--but this was the first successful attack on a petroleum complex. Why now? Well, for starters, there's last year's successful coup in Libya that toppled Mommar Qadhaffi (with U.S. and NATO support). With the former Libyan dictator dead, many of his Toureg mercenaries returned home, and reportedly participated in the operation at Ain Amenas. Funny, but we haven't seen a single member of the MSM ask an administration official about our knowledge of this migration, and its impact on regional security. Likewise, we're waiting for an enterprising reporter to ask oil firms in Algeria if they received any warnings about an increased security threat, stemming from Qadhaffi's collapse in Libya.
There's also the matter of the recent French intervention in Mali, where Islamists threatened to overrun much of the country. With the arrival of French troops, terrorists began looking for ways to retaliate, and one Islamist communique suggested the gas complex attack was in response for western military action in Mali. If nothing else, the French incursion pushed more terrorists back into Algeria, and increased the probability of an attack.
While some western leaders praised the Algerian actions, others were privately critical, saying the use of attack helicopters actually increased hostage deaths. Of course, no one has said what the U.S., Great Britain, France (or other nations) offered in the way of support. And for that matter, we can't find a single U.S. press report that describes the military assets available in the western Med, assuming the Algerian inquired about assistance.
If all of this sounds a little too familiar, it should. Back on September 11th, four Americans were killed in a "surprise" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The Obama Administration initially tried to blame the raid on an Internet video that was offensive to Islam. But as the truth emerged, we quickly learned that the strike was well-planned and coordinated--and that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens (one of the Americans who died) had been long concerned about the deteriorating situation in Benghazi and our almost non-existent security presence.
In response, Team Obama stonewalled. The nation was suddenly treated to news of an extramarital affairs by CIA Director David Petraeus, which delayed his testimony. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will finally make it to Capitol Hill this week, after being sidelined by a series of health issues. And the Director of the FBI finally made it to Benghazi last Thursday, 129 days after the attack.
Expect a similar response on the Algerian crisis. To be fair, the most recent terror debacle is slightly different from Benghazi; the facility attacked last week is not U.S.-owned (although several Americans were present at the time of the raid). Additionally, Algeria has a long history of going it alone on terrorist issues, so its possible Algiers would have declined offers of help--if they were ever offered.
But that's not to say that the U.S. didn't play a role in setting the stage for the terror attack. Events on the global stage don't happen in a vacuum; actions in one locale often have an impact on neighboring regions and states. That's one reason the terrorists struck in Algeria. Qadhaffi's fall sent many of his Algerian mercs back home, and the French operation in Mali forced more of them across the border as well.
That doesn't mean the United States is to blame, or even most of the blame. We are one of many actors influencing events across North Africa. That's one reason our remarkably incurious press corps might want to ask Mr. Obama about our long-term plans in the region. The current fighting in Mali is likely to get worse (and spread), creating a completely new set of challenges in the Maghreb. A report in today's Financial Times says the West faces "decades" of guerrilla conflict in North Africa and it's a safe bet that Europe will be looking to the U.S. for leadership.
Memo to all the media swells who will be wining and dining at various inauguration events over the next couple of days. When you get back to "work" you might ask members of Team Obama about their strategy for North Africa, beyond sending a few surveillance drones, and tankers to refuel French aircraft. Like Iran, this is another "can" you can only kick so far.
The Algerian government says 32 militants and 23 captives were killed during the three-day military operation to end the hostage crisis at a natural gas plant in the Sahara (editor: subsequent reports put the number who died at more than 80).
The provisional death toll was issued by the Interior Ministry on Saturday after the special forces operation crushed the last holdout of the militants at the gas refinery, resulting in 11 extremists killed along with seven hostages.
A total of 685 Algerian and 107 foreigner workers were freed over the course of the standoff, which began on Wednesday, the statement added.
The military also confiscated machine guns, rocket launchers, missiles and grenades attached to suicide belts.
And don't be surprised if the death toll rises. As far as we know, there are no western journalists at the Ain Amenas complex (the dateline on the AP article was Algiers, hundreds of miles away). Reporters are having to rely on whatever the Algerian government decides to share, along with bits of information from governments who had citizens taken captive. With each new account, the number of hostages listed as killed has increased, and it's common practice in the Middle East to release wildly optimistic version of events (in the immediate aftermath of a crisis), then let the bad news dribble out later. The result has been a muddled picture--at best--and the real story of what happened in the Algerian desert may not emerge for weeks or months, if ever.
The other noteworthy angle in this tragedy has been the media's relative lack of curiosity regarding the "roots" of this terrorist operation, and the unilateral response that eventually ended it. As the Algerian military operation drew to a close, Time openly speculated about security concerns for western oil firms operating in the Sahara desert--with far less emphasis on the geopolitical factors that prompted this week's deadly attack.
"There is no knowing when oil companies will deem it safe to return expatriate staff to Algeria, let alone risk plowing billions into new energy projects; Algeria has been courting Western investment, not only in its hydrocarbon sector but also to finance such renewable-energy plans as solar plants in the vast Algerian Sahara. At minimum, potential investors will now drive a harder bargain, given the additional expenses they would have to incur on security in order to expand their infrastructure in Algeria. “Operating in Algeria has just become more expensive,” the Eurasia Group’s Africa director Philippe de Pontet said in a memo to clients on Friday. “Assets sold in the coming 12 to 18 months with have a significant discount applied.”
Western oil firms have been operating in the Maghreb for decades--and Algeria has extensive experience in fighting terrorists--but this was the first successful attack on a petroleum complex. Why now? Well, for starters, there's last year's successful coup in Libya that toppled Mommar Qadhaffi (with U.S. and NATO support). With the former Libyan dictator dead, many of his Toureg mercenaries returned home, and reportedly participated in the operation at Ain Amenas. Funny, but we haven't seen a single member of the MSM ask an administration official about our knowledge of this migration, and its impact on regional security. Likewise, we're waiting for an enterprising reporter to ask oil firms in Algeria if they received any warnings about an increased security threat, stemming from Qadhaffi's collapse in Libya.
There's also the matter of the recent French intervention in Mali, where Islamists threatened to overrun much of the country. With the arrival of French troops, terrorists began looking for ways to retaliate, and one Islamist communique suggested the gas complex attack was in response for western military action in Mali. If nothing else, the French incursion pushed more terrorists back into Algeria, and increased the probability of an attack.
While some western leaders praised the Algerian actions, others were privately critical, saying the use of attack helicopters actually increased hostage deaths. Of course, no one has said what the U.S., Great Britain, France (or other nations) offered in the way of support. And for that matter, we can't find a single U.S. press report that describes the military assets available in the western Med, assuming the Algerian inquired about assistance.
If all of this sounds a little too familiar, it should. Back on September 11th, four Americans were killed in a "surprise" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The Obama Administration initially tried to blame the raid on an Internet video that was offensive to Islam. But as the truth emerged, we quickly learned that the strike was well-planned and coordinated--and that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens (one of the Americans who died) had been long concerned about the deteriorating situation in Benghazi and our almost non-existent security presence.
In response, Team Obama stonewalled. The nation was suddenly treated to news of an extramarital affairs by CIA Director David Petraeus, which delayed his testimony. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will finally make it to Capitol Hill this week, after being sidelined by a series of health issues. And the Director of the FBI finally made it to Benghazi last Thursday, 129 days after the attack.
Expect a similar response on the Algerian crisis. To be fair, the most recent terror debacle is slightly different from Benghazi; the facility attacked last week is not U.S.-owned (although several Americans were present at the time of the raid). Additionally, Algeria has a long history of going it alone on terrorist issues, so its possible Algiers would have declined offers of help--if they were ever offered.
But that's not to say that the U.S. didn't play a role in setting the stage for the terror attack. Events on the global stage don't happen in a vacuum; actions in one locale often have an impact on neighboring regions and states. That's one reason the terrorists struck in Algeria. Qadhaffi's fall sent many of his Algerian mercs back home, and the French operation in Mali forced more of them across the border as well.
That doesn't mean the United States is to blame, or even most of the blame. We are one of many actors influencing events across North Africa. That's one reason our remarkably incurious press corps might want to ask Mr. Obama about our long-term plans in the region. The current fighting in Mali is likely to get worse (and spread), creating a completely new set of challenges in the Maghreb. A report in today's Financial Times says the West faces "decades" of guerrilla conflict in North Africa and it's a safe bet that Europe will be looking to the U.S. for leadership.
Memo to all the media swells who will be wining and dining at various inauguration events over the next couple of days. When you get back to "work" you might ask members of Team Obama about their strategy for North Africa, beyond sending a few surveillance drones, and tankers to refuel French aircraft. Like Iran, this is another "can" you can only kick so far.
Remembering "The Man"
In remembrance of St. Louis Cardinals great Stan Musial--who passed away Saturday at the age of 92--we offer this post from 2010. It was based on a Sports Illustrated article, suggesting that today's game could still learn a lot from Mr. Musial. Indeed it can.
Still The Man
Still The Man
Monday, January 14, 2013
Higher Ground
It's been six years since China maneuvered an orbital kill vehicle into position and destroyed one of its aging weather satellites, signaling a major advance in its ASAT capabilities. As Aviation Week noted at the time:
Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.
The attack is believed to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.
Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said.
U. S. Air Force Defense Support Program missile warning satellites in geosynchronous orbit would have detected the Xichang launch of the asat kill vehicle and U. S. Air Force Space Command monitored the FY-1C orbit both before and after the exercise.
In our own analysis, we noted that the January 2007 event was actually the culmination of a series of tests, aimed at demonstrating a viable ASAT option: From our own post, written six years ago this week:
Our own contacts within the space community indicate that this was the latest in a series of Chinese ASAT tests, using the weather satellite as a target. In each successive test, the Chinese managed to get the kill vehicle closer to the weather bird, before finally executing a kill sequence on 11 January. The ASAT could have disabled the target satellite by ramming it, or releasing smaller "pellets" that perform the same function. Limited reporting indicates that the weather satellite was in "orbital distress" after the test, that it was not completely destroyed by the ASAT.
Last week's test comes less than a year after China flashed a ground-based laser at a U.S. reconnaissance satellite, suggesting that it can also use that technology to disable overhead platforms. The ASAT program is believed to be one of the most important in the PRC military, and has advanced steadily over the past 10 years.
The implications of these recent events is clear. Spaced-based communications and ISR are the backbone of our war-fighting capabilities, and play an increasingly important role in the global economy. Successful, pre-emptive attacks on our low earth orbit (LEO) satellites would have a devastating effect, both militarily and economically.
Predictably, China's ASAT program has continued apace since the 2007 test. There is growing speculation that Beijing will conduct another major ASAT test in the coming weeks, illustrating a growing ability to disrupt, degrade or even destroy elements of the U.S. military satellite constellation, which provides everything from intelligence imagery and communications support, to GPS navigation and the detection of enemy missile launches. As Reuters reports:
Gregory Kulacki, a respected researcher with the Union of Concerned Scientists, reported earlier this month on the group's website that there was "a strong possibility" of a new anti-satellite test by China within the next few weeks.
He said Chinese sources had told him in November that an announcement about an upcoming anti-satellite test had been circulated within the Chinese government, and a high-ranking U.S. defense official confirmed in December that Washington was "very concerned" about an imminent Chinese anti-satellite test.
[snip]
Sources within the U.S. government and outside experts said there was no immediate evidence pointing to the preparations for the type of satellite or rocket launches used by China for past anti-satellite tests at lower orbits.
But they said Beijing could test its anti-satellite weapons in other ways that would be harder to detect, such as by jamming a satellite's signals from the ground or issuing a powerful electromagnetic pulse from one satellite to disable another.
China could also maneuver two satellites very close together at higher orbits, replicating actions it has already taken in lower orbits in August 2010 and November 2010. Such activities could be used to perform maintenance or test docking capabilities for human spaceflight, but could clearly be used for more destructive purposes as well, they said.
That comment about "higher orbits' is particularly telling. While some types of spy satellites operate in low earth orbit, China understands it must expand its ASAT capabilities to higher altitudes, improving its ability to target a wider range of U.S. space platforms. Without those platforms, our ability to wage war quickly grinds to a halt.
But the U.S. hasn't been completely inactive in the ASAT arena. In early 2008, a U.S. Navy cruiser downed one of our old spy satellites before it could fall from orbit, using specially-modified SM-3 surface-to-air missiles. According to U.S. officials, the SM-3 can hit satellites as high as 310 miles above the earth, and with a growing number of ships outfitted for missile defense, the Navy has an effective (though limited) ASAT capability that can literally be deployed around the globe.
And there may be a newer arrow in our ASAT quiver. Last December, the Air Force's secretive X-37B unmanned space plane launched on another mission. So far, the platform has flown operationally on at least three occasions, remaining on orbit for more than a year during one mission. ..The X-37B has a 7' x 4' payload bay, large enough to carry a variety of sensor platforms, or even some sort of weapons package. An X-37B was launched from Cape Canaveral on 11 December 2012. Details of the mission have been (predictably) sketchy, but there has been speculation that the X-37 may be used to monitor Chinese military activities, including ASAT test preparations.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has been consulting with our European allies over a proposed treaty that would severely limit our ASAT capabilities. China, on the other hand, has declined several U.S. overtures to discuss potential curbs on military activity in space. And why not? No reason for Beijing to discuss possible restrictions when the U.S. seems committed to a policy of unilateral disarmament in space. As the X-37 circles the earth with its unknown payload, we can always hope that our "official position" is some sort of deception operation. But don't get your hopes up. This is the same administration that favors nuclear disarmament, so why not extend that policy to the high frontier, too.
Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.
The attack is believed to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.
Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said.
U. S. Air Force Defense Support Program missile warning satellites in geosynchronous orbit would have detected the Xichang launch of the asat kill vehicle and U. S. Air Force Space Command monitored the FY-1C orbit both before and after the exercise.
In our own analysis, we noted that the January 2007 event was actually the culmination of a series of tests, aimed at demonstrating a viable ASAT option: From our own post, written six years ago this week:
Our own contacts within the space community indicate that this was the latest in a series of Chinese ASAT tests, using the weather satellite as a target. In each successive test, the Chinese managed to get the kill vehicle closer to the weather bird, before finally executing a kill sequence on 11 January. The ASAT could have disabled the target satellite by ramming it, or releasing smaller "pellets" that perform the same function. Limited reporting indicates that the weather satellite was in "orbital distress" after the test, that it was not completely destroyed by the ASAT.
Last week's test comes less than a year after China flashed a ground-based laser at a U.S. reconnaissance satellite, suggesting that it can also use that technology to disable overhead platforms. The ASAT program is believed to be one of the most important in the PRC military, and has advanced steadily over the past 10 years.
The implications of these recent events is clear. Spaced-based communications and ISR are the backbone of our war-fighting capabilities, and play an increasingly important role in the global economy. Successful, pre-emptive attacks on our low earth orbit (LEO) satellites would have a devastating effect, both militarily and economically.
Predictably, China's ASAT program has continued apace since the 2007 test. There is growing speculation that Beijing will conduct another major ASAT test in the coming weeks, illustrating a growing ability to disrupt, degrade or even destroy elements of the U.S. military satellite constellation, which provides everything from intelligence imagery and communications support, to GPS navigation and the detection of enemy missile launches. As Reuters reports:
Gregory Kulacki, a respected researcher with the Union of Concerned Scientists, reported earlier this month on the group's website that there was "a strong possibility" of a new anti-satellite test by China within the next few weeks.
He said Chinese sources had told him in November that an announcement about an upcoming anti-satellite test had been circulated within the Chinese government, and a high-ranking U.S. defense official confirmed in December that Washington was "very concerned" about an imminent Chinese anti-satellite test.
[snip]
Sources within the U.S. government and outside experts said there was no immediate evidence pointing to the preparations for the type of satellite or rocket launches used by China for past anti-satellite tests at lower orbits.
But they said Beijing could test its anti-satellite weapons in other ways that would be harder to detect, such as by jamming a satellite's signals from the ground or issuing a powerful electromagnetic pulse from one satellite to disable another.
China could also maneuver two satellites very close together at higher orbits, replicating actions it has already taken in lower orbits in August 2010 and November 2010. Such activities could be used to perform maintenance or test docking capabilities for human spaceflight, but could clearly be used for more destructive purposes as well, they said.
That comment about "higher orbits' is particularly telling. While some types of spy satellites operate in low earth orbit, China understands it must expand its ASAT capabilities to higher altitudes, improving its ability to target a wider range of U.S. space platforms. Without those platforms, our ability to wage war quickly grinds to a halt.
But the U.S. hasn't been completely inactive in the ASAT arena. In early 2008, a U.S. Navy cruiser downed one of our old spy satellites before it could fall from orbit, using specially-modified SM-3 surface-to-air missiles. According to U.S. officials, the SM-3 can hit satellites as high as 310 miles above the earth, and with a growing number of ships outfitted for missile defense, the Navy has an effective (though limited) ASAT capability that can literally be deployed around the globe.
And there may be a newer arrow in our ASAT quiver. Last December, the Air Force's secretive X-37B unmanned space plane launched on another mission. So far, the platform has flown operationally on at least three occasions, remaining on orbit for more than a year during one mission. ..The X-37B has a 7' x 4' payload bay, large enough to carry a variety of sensor platforms, or even some sort of weapons package. An X-37B was launched from Cape Canaveral on 11 December 2012. Details of the mission have been (predictably) sketchy, but there has been speculation that the X-37 may be used to monitor Chinese military activities, including ASAT test preparations.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has been consulting with our European allies over a proposed treaty that would severely limit our ASAT capabilities. China, on the other hand, has declined several U.S. overtures to discuss potential curbs on military activity in space. And why not? No reason for Beijing to discuss possible restrictions when the U.S. seems committed to a policy of unilateral disarmament in space. As the X-37 circles the earth with its unknown payload, we can always hope that our "official position" is some sort of deception operation. But don't get your hopes up. This is the same administration that favors nuclear disarmament, so why not extend that policy to the high frontier, too.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Beijing's Quest for Global Reach
A prototype of China's new Y-20 strategic airlifter was recently detected by commercial imagery satellites. The discovery affirms Beijing's interest in developing long-range mobility forces (GeoEye imagery via The Danger Room).
It doesn't take a strategist to understand that China views itself as the superpower of the 21st Century. With an economy hitting on all cylinders; a rapidly expanding technological base and the money to fund an endless array of military projects, Beijing is accumulating the air, ground, naval and cyber assets considered necessary for global dominance.
In recent years, China has begun sea trials for its first fleet carrier (true, it was acquired from Russia and refurbished, but more are on the way); a fifth-generation fighter is undergoing flight testing, and new ballistic missiles and submarines are entering operational service as well. Couple that with improvements in ISR and air defense, and it's clear that Beijing is building military forces that can exert influence on the world stage.
But projecting power means getting your forces to the right place--and in a hurry. And historically, that has been a weakness of the People's Liberation Army and its various elements. One reason that Beijing has never followed through with an invasion of Taiwan is that it lacks the amphibious capability to ferry enough troops, supplies and reinforcements across the strait.
China's mobility problem is underscored by the relative proximity of Taiwan. If you can't project sufficient force across a narrow strait, then how can you sustain operations at much greater distances? Development of a blue-water Navy will remedy this problem to some degree, the PRC still needs strategic airlift, to rapidly deploy military assets across long distances.
But Beijing has a plan for that as well. According to David Axe at the Danger Room, imagery satellites have recently detected a prototype of China's new Y-20 transport at an airfield associated with aircraft development and testing. As he writes:
A week after the
publication of blurry photographs depicting what appears to be China’s
first long-range jet transport, Danger Room has obtained satellite imagery
of the new plane at an airfield in central China.
The images,
acquired by the GeoEye 1 and IKONOS spacecraft — both belonging to commercial
satellite operator GeoEye headquartered in Washington, D.C. — corroborate
the general layout of the Xian Aircraft Corporation Y-20, the existence of which
has been
confirmed by Beijing. They also underscore the emerging consensus among
Western experts that the Y-20, while outwardly impressive, could lack the
performance of even much older American, Russian and European transports.
If the Y-20 bears a strange resemblance to the U.S. C-17, it should. Through espionage, China obtained copies of the C-17's blueprints several years ago, significantly reducing research and development time. But several western experts tell Mr. Axe that the new Chinese transport is still lacking in a critical area--the advanced, high-bypass turbofan engines needed to power an advanced airlifter. The engines mounted on the prototype are believed to be older, Russian D-30s. Without better engine technology, the Y-20 would fall well short of the C-17 in terms of payload and range, and might not even match the performance of older U.S. and European transports.
Still, the Y-20 represents an important step forward for China's military. The same, vast spy network that acquired plans for the Globemaster III is working overtime on advanced transport engine technology. Beijing will eventually gain the high-bypass turbofans needed for the Y-20, no matter how long it takes. So, that technology gap may not be as insurmountable as many believe.
However, it's not quite time to put the PLAAF's airlift division in the same category as Air Mobility Command (AMC), which is responsible for airlift and tanker operations in the USAF. AMC and its predecessors have been perfecting airlift and in-flight refueling for almost 70 years, developing the doctrine and procedures required for transporting troops, equipment and supplies over long distances.
And that raises other issues worth exploring, as they relate to China's quest for a global airlift capability. For example, how much progress has the PLAAF made in developing the organizations and equipment needed to load transport aircraft at their departure point and destination? Does the Chinese Air Force have an equivalent of AMC's Tanker Airlift Control Center, which synchronizes those operations around the world, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Tanker support represents another weak link in China's air mobility plan. While the Y-20 can provide a common airframe for a variety of missions, including airborne warning and control; SIGINT collection, airlift and air refueling, introduction of those variants (based on the new design) may be a decade away; until then, the PLAAF will make do with tankers and special mission platform based on older Russian designs, such as the TU-16 and the IL-76. Currently, China has no more than a handful of those aircraft optimized for tanking and other mobility missions, severely limiting their ability to project power.
Put another way, China's Air Force is many years away from achieving the capabilities AMC has been demonstrating for decades. Lest we forget, it was airlift and tanker forces that created (and maintained) the "air bridge" that saved Israel in 1973; ferried tons of equipment to the Middle East in 1990 and again in 2001 and 2003, and sustained the "long war" against terrorism with airlift and tanker ops in the Gulf Region and Afghanistan. And if you want to go back even further, it was airlift that "saved" hundreds of thousands of Germans in 1948, during the Berlin Airlift.
China clearly understands its current deficiencies in strategic air lift and in-flight refueling. But correcting those problems will require much more than producing significant numbers of Y-20s, equipped with advanced turbofan engines. Establishing a true, PLAAF equivalent of AMC will take a much broader effort in areas ranging from cargo handling and coordination, to the in-flight refueling of large numbers of aircraft, at extended ranges from Chinese installations. Put another way, building the aircraft may be the easy part; creating the rest of the air mobility system is the toughest part of the proposition.
Yet, it would be a mistake to underestimate China's ability to create a viable, strategic airlift and air refueling capability. In November, Gordon Chang of Forbes and National Review noted a visit by a senior Chinese official to Lajes Field in the Azores. Long an important U.S. military facility, the airbase may be targeted for down-sizing (or even closure) in the next round of Pentagon budget cuts.
Enter China. Beijing has long been cultivating ties with Portugal (which controls the Azores) and has indicated its interest in establishing a presence if the U.S. leaves. If that happens, China would immediately have an important outpost in the Atlantic (emphasis ours), and the recent sighting of the Y-20 confirms Beijing's intent to develop the assets required to project and sustain power far from the western Pacific.
Friday, December 28, 2012
The Man Who Stopped a School Shooting
Until the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, the deadliest school shooting in American history occurred at the University of Texas in 1966. Charles Whitman, an architecture student at the university (and a Marine Corps veteran) climbed the landmark, 28-story clock tower on the UT campus with a high-powered rifle, then opened fire. Sixteen people died before a small group of Austin police officers, accompanied by armed citizens put an end to the rampage.
Now, one of the heroes of that deadly day has died. Former Austin policeman Houston McCoy passed away Thursday at the age of 72, following a long illness.
McCoy, then a young patrol officer, was among the first members of the Austin police department to arrive at the scene after Whitman began shooting. They found death and horror across a wide stretch of the campus surrounding the sniper's perch. Dozens lay dead or wounded while Whitman continued firing. When a police sharpshooter in a small plane circling the tower was unable to draw a bead on the shooter, McCoy and other officers made their way to the tower and began moving towards the observation deck, where Whitman was partially obstructed by the structure.
The Austin American-Statesman describes how McCoy, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, ended 99 minutes of chaos:
The frantic moments on the observation deck and who did what and when have been rehashed, researched and analyzed by history buffs and family. It’s generally accepted that it was McCoy’s shotgun blast that felled Whitman. But [fellow Austin policeman Ramiro] Martinez shot him, too, and initially got the credit until about 1970, when then-Police Chief Bob Miles first began to publicly talk about McCoy’s role in stopping Whitman. By then, McCoy had resigned from the department and was a civilian flight instructor in Del Rio for the U.S. Air Force.
From his bed in a rest home in 2011, McCoy recounted what he remembered: “I got him. But it really doesn’t matter whether I got him or Martinez did. Martinez is a good man, and he was the first police officer on the deck to confront the sniper. There were many heroes that day, police officers and civilians.”
Houston McCoy's humility belies his heroism on that fateful day. Back in 1966, virtually no police department in America was prepared for what unfolded in Austin. There were no SWAT teams; few police units had dedicated helicopters and officers on the beat generally didn't have access to rifles like the ones Whitman used during his shooting spree. Urban legend has it that the Austin PD issued a public plea for citizens to bring hunting rifles to the scene to increase officer's firepower. In fact, one of the men who climbed the tower with McCoy, Martinez and fellow officer Jerry Day was Allen Crum, a deputized civilian carrying a borrowed rifle.
Most people were unaware of McCoy's role in stopping Whitman until 1970, when new details of the shooting were made public. Until then, Martinez had been credited with firing the shots that killed the sniper. Indeed, autopsy results showed that one round from Martinez's service revolver struck Whitman. But it was a pair of shotgun blasts--fired by McCoy that felled the gunman.
Years later, McCoy insisted that he did not want to be defined by that day--or Charles Whitman:
n an interview with the American-Statesman in April 2011, he vehemently requested that Whitman — whom he didn’t call by name but referred to as “the sniper” — not be included in his final story. “But I guess you have to do that, mention the incident,” McCoy said. “Just be sure to say that I was not the only police officer there that day. It was teamwork.
Officer McCoy's heroism and selflessness are reminders of what is often necessary to stop a madman. Now, in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, it's instructive to look back at the first deadly rampage at an American school and how it finally ended, not with the passage of new restrictions on the Second Amendment, but at the end of a shotgun barrel, carried by a brave man wearing a badge.
Forty-four years after Whitman's rampage, another gunman appeared on the UT campus. He terrorized students briefly before taking his own life as university police arrived. Incidentally, the sprawling Texas campus had been declared a "gun free zone" several years before the would-be shooter, Colton Tooley, opened fire in the campus library. Go figure.
Now, one of the heroes of that deadly day has died. Former Austin policeman Houston McCoy passed away Thursday at the age of 72, following a long illness.
McCoy, then a young patrol officer, was among the first members of the Austin police department to arrive at the scene after Whitman began shooting. They found death and horror across a wide stretch of the campus surrounding the sniper's perch. Dozens lay dead or wounded while Whitman continued firing. When a police sharpshooter in a small plane circling the tower was unable to draw a bead on the shooter, McCoy and other officers made their way to the tower and began moving towards the observation deck, where Whitman was partially obstructed by the structure.
The Austin American-Statesman describes how McCoy, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, ended 99 minutes of chaos:
The frantic moments on the observation deck and who did what and when have been rehashed, researched and analyzed by history buffs and family. It’s generally accepted that it was McCoy’s shotgun blast that felled Whitman. But [fellow Austin policeman Ramiro] Martinez shot him, too, and initially got the credit until about 1970, when then-Police Chief Bob Miles first began to publicly talk about McCoy’s role in stopping Whitman. By then, McCoy had resigned from the department and was a civilian flight instructor in Del Rio for the U.S. Air Force.
From his bed in a rest home in 2011, McCoy recounted what he remembered: “I got him. But it really doesn’t matter whether I got him or Martinez did. Martinez is a good man, and he was the first police officer on the deck to confront the sniper. There were many heroes that day, police officers and civilians.”
Houston McCoy's humility belies his heroism on that fateful day. Back in 1966, virtually no police department in America was prepared for what unfolded in Austin. There were no SWAT teams; few police units had dedicated helicopters and officers on the beat generally didn't have access to rifles like the ones Whitman used during his shooting spree. Urban legend has it that the Austin PD issued a public plea for citizens to bring hunting rifles to the scene to increase officer's firepower. In fact, one of the men who climbed the tower with McCoy, Martinez and fellow officer Jerry Day was Allen Crum, a deputized civilian carrying a borrowed rifle.
Most people were unaware of McCoy's role in stopping Whitman until 1970, when new details of the shooting were made public. Until then, Martinez had been credited with firing the shots that killed the sniper. Indeed, autopsy results showed that one round from Martinez's service revolver struck Whitman. But it was a pair of shotgun blasts--fired by McCoy that felled the gunman.
Years later, McCoy insisted that he did not want to be defined by that day--or Charles Whitman:
n an interview with the American-Statesman in April 2011, he vehemently requested that Whitman — whom he didn’t call by name but referred to as “the sniper” — not be included in his final story. “But I guess you have to do that, mention the incident,” McCoy said. “Just be sure to say that I was not the only police officer there that day. It was teamwork.
Officer McCoy's heroism and selflessness are reminders of what is often necessary to stop a madman. Now, in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, it's instructive to look back at the first deadly rampage at an American school and how it finally ended, not with the passage of new restrictions on the Second Amendment, but at the end of a shotgun barrel, carried by a brave man wearing a badge.
Forty-four years after Whitman's rampage, another gunman appeared on the UT campus. He terrorized students briefly before taking his own life as university police arrived. Incidentally, the sprawling Texas campus had been declared a "gun free zone" several years before the would-be shooter, Colton Tooley, opened fire in the campus library. Go figure.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Lucky Man
NBC's Richard Engel is a very lucky man.
The network's "Chief Foreign Correspondent" was released earlier this week, five days after being taken captive while covering the civil war in Syria. Engel and the rest of his crew were freed on Monday when their captors (part of a faction loyal to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad) were stopped at a checkpoint manned by anti-regime forces. At least two of the kidnappers were killed when a firefight ensured and the NBC cerw managed to escape. Members of the rebel group that ended the abduction helped Engel and his colleagues reach safety in Turkey on Tuesday.
In an interview that aired on his network, Engel said the NBC team was not tortured during their days in captivity, but they were subjected to mock executions. That strikes us as a bit odd; a number of journalists have died inside Syria and Assad's thugs would have little problem with torturing a western news crew before executing them and disposing of their bodies. But Engel and the other NBC journalists lived long enough to escape when the opportunity presented itself.
So why were Mr. Engel and his crew allowed to survive? The first possibility is that the kidnappers realized they had nabbed a really big media fish, one that was worth more alive than dead. Engel has been covering the Middle East for more than a decade, and speaks fluent Arabic. Without the language barrier that confronts many western journalists, perhaps Engel convinced the kidnappers to let them live, in exchange for a potential ransom from NBC, or the "goodwill" that would come from eventually releasing them.
Still, that scenario is a bit of a stretch. The Assad government has murdered 44,000 of its citizens over the past 18 months, and their public image went in the toilet a long time ago. Somehow, the Damascus government doesn't seem overly concerned with the subtleties of public relations, and that same trait extends to the pro-Assad group that nabbed Mr. Engel.
In reality, there is probably a much more simple--and direct--explanation for Engel's survival. The Assad government planned to use the NBC crew to send a message, warning western reporters to stay out of Syria. Perhaps there would have been a show trial in Damascus, or some rougher treatment before their release. While Engel and his colleagues deserve credit for making the best of a bad situation, their relatively long survival (before escape) suggests their captors had no plans for a quick execution.
Unfortunately, the next foreign reporter to be captured inside Syria may not be as fortunate. As we've noted in previous posts, the conflict in Syria is growing more savage by the day. There are growing concerns about Assad's massive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and their potential employment against rebel forces. The regime has also begun using SCUD missiles and shorter-range (but more accurate) SS-21s against its foes. Obviously, a surface-to-surfaced missile isn't exactly the weapon of choice against rebel forces, which don't mass in large concentrations or operate from fixed facilities, like conventional forces.
But on the other hand, a SCUD or SS-21 is an ideal weapon for delivering a chemical warhead against populated areas where the rebels operate and find refuge. So far, there have been no confirmed reports of missile strikes against insurgent forces using chemical weapons, but opposition groups claim the Assad regime has used chemical weapons several times in recent weeks. However, these reports are no better than second-hand and they have not been confirmed by any western intelligence organization, or media outlet.
Which brings us back to Mr. Engel and his competitors. If Assad is planning to unleash chemical weapons against his people, the last thing he wants is a western media crew to document the mass casualties, or falling victim themselves, if they happen to be in the affected area. So, why not grab a high-profile western journalist and use that unfortunately individual (or crew) to send a not-so-subtle message to the rest of the press. Engel was clearly the chosen medium, until the plan was interrupted by rebel forces at that checkpoint.
We're guessing that Mr. Assad's goons are shadowing other western reporters, in a search for their next kidnap victims. And with the survival of the Assad government at stake--and a CW offensive in the offing--the next abduction will occur sooner, rather than later. And we will likely see a much different outcome.
***
ADDENDUM: Damascus may have other reasons for chasing reporters out of the war zone (and other areas). It was reported today that Syria is serving as a trans-shipment point for the Russian-made S-300 air defense system en route to Iran. Officially, Moscow has refused to sell the state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran, but Fox News reported today that the S-300 is being shipped to Iran through Syria. In exchange, the Iranians will continue to provide the guns, ammunition and support that Damascus needs to continue the war with the rebels.
While Russia has sold the advanced3 SA-17 SAM system to Syria in the past, Moscow reportedly canceled an S-300 delivery to Assad's forces earlier this year. Other reports suggest that Croatia is transferring its older SA-10 equipment to Iran through Syria, with the blessings of Moscow. The SA-10 represents of the "first generation" of the system, which has evolved into the more advanced SA-20/S-300 variants.
Croatia never deployed the SA-10 operationally, and the radars, missiles and other equipment were kept in covered storage for years. The condition of the Croatian SA-10s is unknown, but they could be restored to operational service with Russian assistance. Deployment of the SA-10 in Iran would present serious challenges to potential air attacks by the U.S. or Israel. Transferring the surplus gear from Croatia (through Damascus) creates a degree of deniability for Russia, which never allowed a direct transfer of the S-300 from its production lines, to Iran.
If the Croatian SA-10s are being flown to Iran, the most likely trans-shipment point is Damascus International Airport or military airfields in that area. Clearly, there are plenty of people in Syria, Iran, Russia and Croatia who don't want western reporters ("embedded" with rebel forces) to provide more video proof of these flights.
The network's "Chief Foreign Correspondent" was released earlier this week, five days after being taken captive while covering the civil war in Syria. Engel and the rest of his crew were freed on Monday when their captors (part of a faction loyal to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad) were stopped at a checkpoint manned by anti-regime forces. At least two of the kidnappers were killed when a firefight ensured and the NBC cerw managed to escape. Members of the rebel group that ended the abduction helped Engel and his colleagues reach safety in Turkey on Tuesday.
In an interview that aired on his network, Engel said the NBC team was not tortured during their days in captivity, but they were subjected to mock executions. That strikes us as a bit odd; a number of journalists have died inside Syria and Assad's thugs would have little problem with torturing a western news crew before executing them and disposing of their bodies. But Engel and the other NBC journalists lived long enough to escape when the opportunity presented itself.
So why were Mr. Engel and his crew allowed to survive? The first possibility is that the kidnappers realized they had nabbed a really big media fish, one that was worth more alive than dead. Engel has been covering the Middle East for more than a decade, and speaks fluent Arabic. Without the language barrier that confronts many western journalists, perhaps Engel convinced the kidnappers to let them live, in exchange for a potential ransom from NBC, or the "goodwill" that would come from eventually releasing them.
Still, that scenario is a bit of a stretch. The Assad government has murdered 44,000 of its citizens over the past 18 months, and their public image went in the toilet a long time ago. Somehow, the Damascus government doesn't seem overly concerned with the subtleties of public relations, and that same trait extends to the pro-Assad group that nabbed Mr. Engel.
In reality, there is probably a much more simple--and direct--explanation for Engel's survival. The Assad government planned to use the NBC crew to send a message, warning western reporters to stay out of Syria. Perhaps there would have been a show trial in Damascus, or some rougher treatment before their release. While Engel and his colleagues deserve credit for making the best of a bad situation, their relatively long survival (before escape) suggests their captors had no plans for a quick execution.
Unfortunately, the next foreign reporter to be captured inside Syria may not be as fortunate. As we've noted in previous posts, the conflict in Syria is growing more savage by the day. There are growing concerns about Assad's massive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and their potential employment against rebel forces. The regime has also begun using SCUD missiles and shorter-range (but more accurate) SS-21s against its foes. Obviously, a surface-to-surfaced missile isn't exactly the weapon of choice against rebel forces, which don't mass in large concentrations or operate from fixed facilities, like conventional forces.
But on the other hand, a SCUD or SS-21 is an ideal weapon for delivering a chemical warhead against populated areas where the rebels operate and find refuge. So far, there have been no confirmed reports of missile strikes against insurgent forces using chemical weapons, but opposition groups claim the Assad regime has used chemical weapons several times in recent weeks. However, these reports are no better than second-hand and they have not been confirmed by any western intelligence organization, or media outlet.
Which brings us back to Mr. Engel and his competitors. If Assad is planning to unleash chemical weapons against his people, the last thing he wants is a western media crew to document the mass casualties, or falling victim themselves, if they happen to be in the affected area. So, why not grab a high-profile western journalist and use that unfortunately individual (or crew) to send a not-so-subtle message to the rest of the press. Engel was clearly the chosen medium, until the plan was interrupted by rebel forces at that checkpoint.
We're guessing that Mr. Assad's goons are shadowing other western reporters, in a search for their next kidnap victims. And with the survival of the Assad government at stake--and a CW offensive in the offing--the next abduction will occur sooner, rather than later. And we will likely see a much different outcome.
***
ADDENDUM: Damascus may have other reasons for chasing reporters out of the war zone (and other areas). It was reported today that Syria is serving as a trans-shipment point for the Russian-made S-300 air defense system en route to Iran. Officially, Moscow has refused to sell the state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran, but Fox News reported today that the S-300 is being shipped to Iran through Syria. In exchange, the Iranians will continue to provide the guns, ammunition and support that Damascus needs to continue the war with the rebels.
While Russia has sold the advanced3 SA-17 SAM system to Syria in the past, Moscow reportedly canceled an S-300 delivery to Assad's forces earlier this year. Other reports suggest that Croatia is transferring its older SA-10 equipment to Iran through Syria, with the blessings of Moscow. The SA-10 represents of the "first generation" of the system, which has evolved into the more advanced SA-20/S-300 variants.
Croatia never deployed the SA-10 operationally, and the radars, missiles and other equipment were kept in covered storage for years. The condition of the Croatian SA-10s is unknown, but they could be restored to operational service with Russian assistance. Deployment of the SA-10 in Iran would present serious challenges to potential air attacks by the U.S. or Israel. Transferring the surplus gear from Croatia (through Damascus) creates a degree of deniability for Russia, which never allowed a direct transfer of the S-300 from its production lines, to Iran.
If the Croatian SA-10s are being flown to Iran, the most likely trans-shipment point is Damascus International Airport or military airfields in that area. Clearly, there are plenty of people in Syria, Iran, Russia and Croatia who don't want western reporters ("embedded" with rebel forces) to provide more video proof of these flights.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Re-thinking Guns and Schools
Friday's massacre in Connecticut will inevitably re-ignite the debate over guns and school safety. Of course, some believe the debate is already over; for years, the education establishment has argued that schools should be designated as "gun free" zones, with swift punishment for anyone who violates that policy. There have been numerous cases where elementary school students have been suspended for bringing a toy gun to school. In recent months, youngsters in Colorado, North Carolina and Michigan received suspensions for having a toy gun at school, or on a school bus.
As the residents of Newtown, Connecticut grapple with the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it may be worth considering the efficacy of existing policies. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, but they did little to protect the victims of today's rampage. Media reports indicate the shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used handguns registered to his mother, who was a teacher at the school. Lanza killed his mother at their home before going to Sandy Hook and launching the shooting spree that ultimately claimed 27 lives.
A tragedy of this type inevitably resurrects memories of similar events in the past; Virginia Tech, Colombine, Jonesboro and others. But oddly enough, there is little mention of a school shooting that ended not with the gunman taking his own life, but with the suspect being forced to stop his rampage at the barrel of a gun, aimed by a school official who had the training and courage to fight back. We refer to the shooting that occurred in Pearl, Mississippi in October 1997.
There are some similarities between events in Pearl 15 years ago, and what happened yesterday in Connecticut. The shooter in Mississippi, Luke Woodham, began his crime spree by murdering his mother at their home before heading to Pearl High School, where he was a student. Arriving on campus a few minutes later, Woodham used a high-powered rifle to target his fellow students and school staff members. Two students died and seven others were wounded in a hail of bullets. The school principal desperately called 911 for assistance.
But Assistant Principal Joel Myrick took another approach. Long concerned about the possibility of shooting incident, Myrick kept a .45 pistol in his car. When shots rang out on that October morning, Myrick dashed to his car and retrieved the weapon, then returned to the school in search of the gunman. When the assistant principal confronted Woodham, the gunman surrendered. When police arrived, they found Myrick holding Woodham at gunpoint, his foot across the assailant's neck.
We may never know the number of lives saved by Joel Myrick. When he caught up with Woodham, the shooter had returned to his mother's car and was preparing to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School, where he planned to resume his shooting spree. Instead, Woodham was taken into custody, tried, convicted and sentenced to three life terms in prison. Woodham will be eligible for parole when he turns 65.
While the loss of life in Pearl was tragic, it could have been much, much worse. At a decisive moment, it was the presence of an armed citizen that prevented a much greater slaughter. And the Mississippi incident isn't the only example. In May 1974, Palestinian terrorists targeted an Israeli school in the village of Ma'alot, taking a number of students hostage. When Israeli commandos tried to free the students, the terrorists opened fire on their captives, killing 22 of them.
Fearing another attack, Israeli educators asked the military for assistance. But the IDF told them it was impractical to station troops at all schools and college campuses. So, the Israelis began training teachers, counselors, administrators and parent volunteers to carry weapons, and provide protection for their schools. While virtually no teachers carry guns in the classroom, every school soon had an armed sccurity detail, professional or volunteer. Realizing that Israeli schools were no longer a "soft" target, the terrorists began looking elsewhere. It would be more than 25 years before the jihadists would again target an Israeli school.
In March 2008, two off-duty IDF officers stopped an attack on a religious school in Jerusalem. The Israeli officers, both former students at the institution, arrived before police, and eliminated the Palestinian gunman, who had already slaughtered eight students. But as in the Pearl shooting, the timely intervention of the IDF officers likely prevented a far worse tragedy. The terrorist managed to smuggle an automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition into the school and might have killed many more students, had the Israeli officers not arrived on the scene.
To be fair, the presence of armed educators and security personnel isn't a panacea. During the Colombine massacre, a school security officer retreated into the main office and remained there throughout the rampage; a sheriff's deputy, assigned as the school's resource officer, was called to the perimeter of the campus shortly before the shooting began and was unable to re-enter the building.
Still, the presence of armed--and trained--individuals can make a difference. A shooter at the Appalachian School of Law surrendered after being confronted by fellow students--who retrieved weapons from their vehicles. By some accounts, the suspect still had rounds in his gun at the time of his capture, and could have killed others without the intervention of the armed students, both of whom were local law enforcement officers.
School security has steadily improved since the days of Pearl and Colombine. Yet, events like the one in Newtown still occur, though the overall number of shootings has declined. Just hours after the bodies of dead children were removed from Sandy Hook school, liberal politicians were already plotting strategies to leverage the tragedy in a new attempt to restrict gun rights. But for those who are genuinely sincere about preventing such disasters in the future, it's time for an honest examination of what does--and doesn't--work. Creating an armed security presence inside our schools may seem radical, but given the record of "gun free zones" and "zero tolerance," it may be time for a different approach.
As the residents of Newtown, Connecticut grapple with the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it may be worth considering the efficacy of existing policies. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, but they did little to protect the victims of today's rampage. Media reports indicate the shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used handguns registered to his mother, who was a teacher at the school. Lanza killed his mother at their home before going to Sandy Hook and launching the shooting spree that ultimately claimed 27 lives.
A tragedy of this type inevitably resurrects memories of similar events in the past; Virginia Tech, Colombine, Jonesboro and others. But oddly enough, there is little mention of a school shooting that ended not with the gunman taking his own life, but with the suspect being forced to stop his rampage at the barrel of a gun, aimed by a school official who had the training and courage to fight back. We refer to the shooting that occurred in Pearl, Mississippi in October 1997.
There are some similarities between events in Pearl 15 years ago, and what happened yesterday in Connecticut. The shooter in Mississippi, Luke Woodham, began his crime spree by murdering his mother at their home before heading to Pearl High School, where he was a student. Arriving on campus a few minutes later, Woodham used a high-powered rifle to target his fellow students and school staff members. Two students died and seven others were wounded in a hail of bullets. The school principal desperately called 911 for assistance.
But Assistant Principal Joel Myrick took another approach. Long concerned about the possibility of shooting incident, Myrick kept a .45 pistol in his car. When shots rang out on that October morning, Myrick dashed to his car and retrieved the weapon, then returned to the school in search of the gunman. When the assistant principal confronted Woodham, the gunman surrendered. When police arrived, they found Myrick holding Woodham at gunpoint, his foot across the assailant's neck.
We may never know the number of lives saved by Joel Myrick. When he caught up with Woodham, the shooter had returned to his mother's car and was preparing to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School, where he planned to resume his shooting spree. Instead, Woodham was taken into custody, tried, convicted and sentenced to three life terms in prison. Woodham will be eligible for parole when he turns 65.
While the loss of life in Pearl was tragic, it could have been much, much worse. At a decisive moment, it was the presence of an armed citizen that prevented a much greater slaughter. And the Mississippi incident isn't the only example. In May 1974, Palestinian terrorists targeted an Israeli school in the village of Ma'alot, taking a number of students hostage. When Israeli commandos tried to free the students, the terrorists opened fire on their captives, killing 22 of them.
Fearing another attack, Israeli educators asked the military for assistance. But the IDF told them it was impractical to station troops at all schools and college campuses. So, the Israelis began training teachers, counselors, administrators and parent volunteers to carry weapons, and provide protection for their schools. While virtually no teachers carry guns in the classroom, every school soon had an armed sccurity detail, professional or volunteer. Realizing that Israeli schools were no longer a "soft" target, the terrorists began looking elsewhere. It would be more than 25 years before the jihadists would again target an Israeli school.
In March 2008, two off-duty IDF officers stopped an attack on a religious school in Jerusalem. The Israeli officers, both former students at the institution, arrived before police, and eliminated the Palestinian gunman, who had already slaughtered eight students. But as in the Pearl shooting, the timely intervention of the IDF officers likely prevented a far worse tragedy. The terrorist managed to smuggle an automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition into the school and might have killed many more students, had the Israeli officers not arrived on the scene.
To be fair, the presence of armed educators and security personnel isn't a panacea. During the Colombine massacre, a school security officer retreated into the main office and remained there throughout the rampage; a sheriff's deputy, assigned as the school's resource officer, was called to the perimeter of the campus shortly before the shooting began and was unable to re-enter the building.
Still, the presence of armed--and trained--individuals can make a difference. A shooter at the Appalachian School of Law surrendered after being confronted by fellow students--who retrieved weapons from their vehicles. By some accounts, the suspect still had rounds in his gun at the time of his capture, and could have killed others without the intervention of the armed students, both of whom were local law enforcement officers.
School security has steadily improved since the days of Pearl and Colombine. Yet, events like the one in Newtown still occur, though the overall number of shootings has declined. Just hours after the bodies of dead children were removed from Sandy Hook school, liberal politicians were already plotting strategies to leverage the tragedy in a new attempt to restrict gun rights. But for those who are genuinely sincere about preventing such disasters in the future, it's time for an honest examination of what does--and doesn't--work. Creating an armed security presence inside our schools may seem radical, but given the record of "gun free zones" and "zero tolerance," it may be time for a different approach.
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Most Dangerous Turn in Syria
The conflict in Syria appears poised to take an ominous--and even more deadly--turn.
In recent days, there have been several developments, suggesting that the on-going civil way may soon cross one of the feared "red lines," dragging Syria's neighbors (and perhaps NATO) into the conflict as well.
First, there were multiple reports last week that the Assad government had shut down internet access across the country and restricted cell phone service in a number of areas. The move came after government forces suffered a string of recent defeats, losing control of air bases and other key facilities around Damascus. Restricting communications would (at least in theory) make it more difficult for rebel forces to plan follow-on attacks. Syrian insurgents, like those in other countries, have made extensive use of various internet platforms to coordinate their activities.
While the communications shut-down makes some degree of military sense, it raises a couple of obvious questions. First, why did Assad and his minions wait so long, and secondly, why surrender such a valuable source of "open source" intelligence information as the battle for Syria enters a critical phase. Besides, rebel forces have been receiving secure communications gear from the U.S. (and other sources) for several months, so pulling the plug on the internet may not impact anti-government forces as much as Mr. Assad might hope.
But the comms black-out may be related to something far more dangerous--the potential introduction of chemical weapons in the 20-month-old conflict. According to The New York Times, U.S. intelligence agencies have detected recent movements involving Syria's chemical stockpile, activity that goes well beyond past measures which placed them in more secure locations:
The Syrian military’s movement of chemical weapons in recent days has prompted the United States and several allies to repeat their warning to President Bashar al-Assad that he would be “held accountable” if his forces used the weapons against the rebels fighting his government.
[snip]
What exactly the Syrian forces intend to do with the weapons remains murky, according to officials who have seen the intelligence from Syria. One American official provided the most specific description yet of what has been detected, saying that “the activity we are seeing suggests some potential chemical weapon preparation,” which goes beyond the mere movement of stockpiles among Syria’s several dozen known sites. But the official declined to offer more specifics of what those preparations entailed.
U.S. officials did not provide specifics on the type of activity observed. Preparation actions involving chemical weapons can include such measures as
-- Removing chemical shells and missile warheads from secure storage
-- Transporting those weapons to designated delivery systems (such as aircraft, artillery units and missile battalions)
-- Special security measures involving weapons storage sites and employment assets
-- Detection of chemical protection and decontamination activity among units involved in CW operations
-- Activation of special C2 networks associated with WMD employment (and)
-- The actual "mating" of chemical munitions with delivery platforms
Not surprisingly, the current activity involving Assad's CW stockpile has caught the attention of Israel's neighbors. Turkey has asked NATO to deploy two Patriot air defense battalions, to help defend the country from chemical-tipped missiles that might be fired from Syria.
Meanwhile, Israel is considering a much more aggressive approach. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu has sought Jordan's permission to bomb Syrian WMD sites on two occasions in the last two months. In both instances Jordan declined, saying the "timing wasn't right."
With many Syrian CW facilities located near the Jordanian border, Israel believes it is important to have Amman's permission before launching an attack through its airspace. But as U.S. officials observe, Israel doesn't need Jordan's permission to go after Syria; over the years, the Israeli Air Force has struck a number of targets in Syrian-controlled territory with near-impunity. So, why the sudden concern about Jordanian permission?
For starters, it's worth remembering that airstrikes alone won't eliminate most of Syria's chemical arsenal. Neutralizing that threat means destroying weapons, eliminating production facilities and removing some assets--and personnel--from Syrian territory. It's a monumental task, one that would require a minimum of 75,000 troops, based on a recent Pentagon estimate.
While there are no indications that Israel (or anyone else) is contemplating that type of operation, a flight corridor through Jordan would have certain advantages. First, it would decrease the amount of time Israeli aircraft spend in hostile airspace, and if coupled with a feint towards Lebanon (a more traditional ingress route for Syrian missions) and cyber-attacks against Damascus's air defense network, the IAF would have much better odds of achieving complete tactical surprise.
Additionally, the "Jordan option" suggests Israel has more than airstrikes in mind. Routing through Jordan would be ideal for an Israeli command operation, using helicopters and transport planes to ferry special forces assets deep into Syrian territory, allowing them to attack high-value WMD sites and fly captured weapons back to Israel.
This much is certain: the events of recent days are clearly connected, and signal that the Syrian civil war is moving in a very dangerous phase. With the internet switched off (and only limited cell phone service), it will be easier for the Assad government to use chemical weapons against the rebels, without the sort of "instant" reporting that would normally accompany such events.
Under present conditions, it may take hours (or even days) for reports of CW attacks to reach the west, giving Mr. Assad and his regime time to concoct their own version of events. By his calculations, if the circumstances surrounding chemical attacks are "murky" enough, the west is less likely to act, giving him the green light to continue a WMD campaign against his own people.
And if all else fails. Assad is quite willing to provoke a regional war, in hopes of uniting the Arab world against their common foe--Israel. If the chemical genie is released from its bottle, it's quite easy to envision initial attacks against rebel forces being followed by "stray" missiles launched against Israel and Turkey. Assad believes (correctly or not) that both of his foes would be restrained by the U.S. and NATO--and the success of available missile defense systems.
If his desperation plan works, the various regional players would be less likely to intervene on the side of the rebels (hoping to avoid a further escalation in the conflict), allowing Assad to proceed with an even greater genocide in the name of regime survival. And if it doesn't, there's always a quick flight to Tehran, and billions looted from the Syrian treasury, socked away in Swiss bank accounts.
As for the United States, our recently re-elected Commander-in-Chief is about to get a nasty surprise. Having kicked the Syrian can to the end of the road, President Obama will soon face a tough decision. Find some way to neutralize the Syrian WMD threat, or watch those weapons be used against anti-government forces--along with innocent civilians in Israel, Turkey and Jordan. He can out-source the job to the Israelis (or the Syrian rebels); launch a U.S. military operation, or mount some sort of coalition effort. Whatever he chooses, the outcome won't be very clean, and the potential loss of life could be significant. But there are few good options in Syria right now, and postponing the decision won't make them any better.
In recent days, there have been several developments, suggesting that the on-going civil way may soon cross one of the feared "red lines," dragging Syria's neighbors (and perhaps NATO) into the conflict as well.
First, there were multiple reports last week that the Assad government had shut down internet access across the country and restricted cell phone service in a number of areas. The move came after government forces suffered a string of recent defeats, losing control of air bases and other key facilities around Damascus. Restricting communications would (at least in theory) make it more difficult for rebel forces to plan follow-on attacks. Syrian insurgents, like those in other countries, have made extensive use of various internet platforms to coordinate their activities.
While the communications shut-down makes some degree of military sense, it raises a couple of obvious questions. First, why did Assad and his minions wait so long, and secondly, why surrender such a valuable source of "open source" intelligence information as the battle for Syria enters a critical phase. Besides, rebel forces have been receiving secure communications gear from the U.S. (and other sources) for several months, so pulling the plug on the internet may not impact anti-government forces as much as Mr. Assad might hope.
But the comms black-out may be related to something far more dangerous--the potential introduction of chemical weapons in the 20-month-old conflict. According to The New York Times, U.S. intelligence agencies have detected recent movements involving Syria's chemical stockpile, activity that goes well beyond past measures which placed them in more secure locations:
The Syrian military’s movement of chemical weapons in recent days has prompted the United States and several allies to repeat their warning to President Bashar al-Assad that he would be “held accountable” if his forces used the weapons against the rebels fighting his government.
[snip]
What exactly the Syrian forces intend to do with the weapons remains murky, according to officials who have seen the intelligence from Syria. One American official provided the most specific description yet of what has been detected, saying that “the activity we are seeing suggests some potential chemical weapon preparation,” which goes beyond the mere movement of stockpiles among Syria’s several dozen known sites. But the official declined to offer more specifics of what those preparations entailed.
U.S. officials did not provide specifics on the type of activity observed. Preparation actions involving chemical weapons can include such measures as
-- Removing chemical shells and missile warheads from secure storage
-- Transporting those weapons to designated delivery systems (such as aircraft, artillery units and missile battalions)
-- Special security measures involving weapons storage sites and employment assets
-- Detection of chemical protection and decontamination activity among units involved in CW operations
-- Activation of special C2 networks associated with WMD employment (and)
-- The actual "mating" of chemical munitions with delivery platforms
Not surprisingly, the current activity involving Assad's CW stockpile has caught the attention of Israel's neighbors. Turkey has asked NATO to deploy two Patriot air defense battalions, to help defend the country from chemical-tipped missiles that might be fired from Syria.
Meanwhile, Israel is considering a much more aggressive approach. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu has sought Jordan's permission to bomb Syrian WMD sites on two occasions in the last two months. In both instances Jordan declined, saying the "timing wasn't right."
With many Syrian CW facilities located near the Jordanian border, Israel believes it is important to have Amman's permission before launching an attack through its airspace. But as U.S. officials observe, Israel doesn't need Jordan's permission to go after Syria; over the years, the Israeli Air Force has struck a number of targets in Syrian-controlled territory with near-impunity. So, why the sudden concern about Jordanian permission?
For starters, it's worth remembering that airstrikes alone won't eliminate most of Syria's chemical arsenal. Neutralizing that threat means destroying weapons, eliminating production facilities and removing some assets--and personnel--from Syrian territory. It's a monumental task, one that would require a minimum of 75,000 troops, based on a recent Pentagon estimate.
While there are no indications that Israel (or anyone else) is contemplating that type of operation, a flight corridor through Jordan would have certain advantages. First, it would decrease the amount of time Israeli aircraft spend in hostile airspace, and if coupled with a feint towards Lebanon (a more traditional ingress route for Syrian missions) and cyber-attacks against Damascus's air defense network, the IAF would have much better odds of achieving complete tactical surprise.
Additionally, the "Jordan option" suggests Israel has more than airstrikes in mind. Routing through Jordan would be ideal for an Israeli command operation, using helicopters and transport planes to ferry special forces assets deep into Syrian territory, allowing them to attack high-value WMD sites and fly captured weapons back to Israel.
This much is certain: the events of recent days are clearly connected, and signal that the Syrian civil war is moving in a very dangerous phase. With the internet switched off (and only limited cell phone service), it will be easier for the Assad government to use chemical weapons against the rebels, without the sort of "instant" reporting that would normally accompany such events.
Under present conditions, it may take hours (or even days) for reports of CW attacks to reach the west, giving Mr. Assad and his regime time to concoct their own version of events. By his calculations, if the circumstances surrounding chemical attacks are "murky" enough, the west is less likely to act, giving him the green light to continue a WMD campaign against his own people.
And if all else fails. Assad is quite willing to provoke a regional war, in hopes of uniting the Arab world against their common foe--Israel. If the chemical genie is released from its bottle, it's quite easy to envision initial attacks against rebel forces being followed by "stray" missiles launched against Israel and Turkey. Assad believes (correctly or not) that both of his foes would be restrained by the U.S. and NATO--and the success of available missile defense systems.
If his desperation plan works, the various regional players would be less likely to intervene on the side of the rebels (hoping to avoid a further escalation in the conflict), allowing Assad to proceed with an even greater genocide in the name of regime survival. And if it doesn't, there's always a quick flight to Tehran, and billions looted from the Syrian treasury, socked away in Swiss bank accounts.
As for the United States, our recently re-elected Commander-in-Chief is about to get a nasty surprise. Having kicked the Syrian can to the end of the road, President Obama will soon face a tough decision. Find some way to neutralize the Syrian WMD threat, or watch those weapons be used against anti-government forces--along with innocent civilians in Israel, Turkey and Jordan. He can out-source the job to the Israelis (or the Syrian rebels); launch a U.S. military operation, or mount some sort of coalition effort. Whatever he chooses, the outcome won't be very clean, and the potential loss of life could be significant. But there are few good options in Syria right now, and postponing the decision won't make them any better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)