You'd think the discovery of 500 chemical weapons in Iraq would be a big story, even if they are leftovers from Saddam's arsenal in the 1980s. This discovery confirms that WMD remained present in Iraq, despite the old regime's proclamation that such weapons had been destroyed, and fruitless searches conducted by U.N. inspectors, and later, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). These weapons, which include artillery shells and rockets, were filled with mustard gas and nerve agents of varying toxicity. The discovery of these weapons suggests (surprise, surprise) that Saddam planned to retain at least a portion of his WMD capability, and would have likely resumed full-scale development and production, had UN sanctions been removed.
More importantly, these weapons remain a threat to coalition forces in Iraq. True, insurgents aren't likely to get their hands on a howitzer or rocket launcher and bombard a base with chemical rounds. But in the hands of terrorists, these chemical weapons could easily be used in IEDs or VBIEDs, daisy-chained together for increased effectiveness. According to Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan (who announced the discovery yesterday), these chemical weapons have recovered by coalition forces over the past two years, on a regular basis. More of these weapons remain unrecovered, and could possibly wind up in the hands of terrorists. So much for the "no WMD in Iraq" mantra that has dominated coverage of our military operations in that country since 2003.
Big story? Guess again. Drudge has links to coverage from Fox News and AFP, but that's about it. You won't find a mention of this story on MSM sites; MSNBC is pre-occupied with the latest combat casualties from Iraq and Senate debate on John Kerry's "cut-and-run" resolution. Ditto for CNN. The Washington Post buried the story on page A10. Guess that unambiguous evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq doesn't fit too well with their editorial and reportorial assertions that "Bush lied" about WMD. Refusing to even acknowledge the Santorum-Hoekstra announcement is another black eye for American journalism, and furhter evidence that the MSM is (thankfully) on its last legs.
***
While a number of bloggers, including Captain's Quarters and Powerline, have done an excellent job in tracking yesterday's announcement (and the underwhelming media response), there is a back story that must be told. It's a story of brueaucratic inepitude, apparent political and personal agendas, and the efforts of a few courageous individuals to get the truth out.
The story begins in April of this year, when a team of intelligence analysts, assigned to the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) published an exhaustive report on the continued recovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. Their report clearly noted that the weapons were clearly manufactured before the first Gulf War. However, the NGIC analysts also observed that some of the weapons remained in good condition (suggesting an Iraqi effort to preserve them), and posed a potential threat to coalition forces, if they fell into the hands of insurgents. From what I'm told, the report contained a full listing of all chemical weapons discovered in Iraq since the fall of Saddam, cut-away diagrams of the weapons, locations where they were found, and their potential lethality if employed by terrorists.
Obviously, the NGIC report ran against the conventional wisdom that "Iraq had no WMD" after the U.S.-led invasion, and (to its credit), the organization published the report, which was posted on INTELINK (the intelligence community's classified intranet) in April of this year. In that forum, the report could be easily accessed by anyone with access to the system, the proper security clearance, and a valid need-to-know. From an analytical standpoint, the team at NGIC did their job, and they deserve tremendous credit for publishing their report. That's what analysts are supposed to do--tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may, even if their findings run contrary to popular assumptions and political agendas.
Shortly after the NGIC item was posted on INTELINK, Senator Santorum learned of its existence, and began pressing the Army for more information, and declassification of the report's key findings. At this juncture, however, political agendas and bureaucratic tail-covering became a factor. A GOP source sent me a copy of Senator Santorum's letter, requesting information on chemical weapons in Iraq, back in April. Amazing (or, perhaps not-so-amazingly), both NGIC and the Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) ignored Santorum's request. Normally, DOD agencies are supposed to respond to a request from a member of Congress within 48 hours; the Army ignored Santorum's request for more than a month. In fact, Santorum and Hoekstra didn't get their information until the Intelligence Committee chairman obtained a copy of the NGIC report and reportedly "hit the ceiling." After that, the Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador John Negroponte, agreed to declassify portions of the report, which were released yesterday.
Why did the Army ignore Senator Santorum's initial request? That's an issue that the INSCOM commander, Major General John D. Freitas III, may be asked to explain the next time he's on the Hill. The same holds true for the NGIC Commander, an Army Colonel. But beyond the DOD's efforts to "slow-roll" Senator Santorum and Chairman Hoekstra, there's the larger issue of why the Defense Department and Intelligence Community "sat" on this information. Sources tell me that there is no evidence of the NGIC report making its way into high-visibility intelligence products, such as the daily update for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA's flagship National Intelligence Daily (NID), or the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), now handled by Negroponte's staff. Additionally, there was no effort to inform key members of Congress on this issue, until they began demanding answers. Congressman Hoekstra has every right to be pissed; the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee should not learn about the discovery of WMD in Iraq via an "under-the-table" copy of an Army report that was published almost two months earlier.
As a young intelligence officer, I was drilled that important information should make its way up the chain of command as soon as possible. Apparently, things have changed since I left the business. Information that contradicts prevailing judgements can be ignored, or simply buried on an intelligence website--let the customer find out on his own. If members of Congress want information, simply delay your response as long as possible, and provide data only when someone with enough horsepower (in this case, the HPSCI chairman) demands answers. Then, provide only a fraction of what they ask for.
If all this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Such tactics have been part-and-parcel of how the intel community does business for decades. It's the sort of behavior that has created barriers between various intelligence agencies, and generated lingering suspicion and distrust between the community, the Congress, and (ultimately) the American people. More than a year into his tenure as DNI, Negroponte's intelligence community is still operating a lot like its predecessor. The American people have a right to know that we've been uncovering WMD in Iraq--just as they were led to believe that none still existed. Withholding that information is inexcusable; intel bureaucrats were apparently uncomfortable with the revelation that they had been wrong on Iraqi WMD, not once, not twice, but a total of three times.
The MSM--if it ever gets around to this story--will likely claim that Santorum and Hoekstra are playing politics with intelligence. This blog has been critical of Congress playing fast-and-loose with intel information in the past, but that doesn't appear to be the case this time. Santorum and Hoekstra played by the rules, made their requests through proper channels, and only released declassified portions of the document, with the approval of the DNI. Compare that to the antics of Vermont Senator Pat Leahy--who was booted from the Senate intel committee for leaking classified information--and you'll see that Santorum and Hoekstra were models of patience and decorum.
Kudos to the NGIC team for publishing this discovery, and to the members of Congress--Santorum, Hoekstra (and Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon)--who pushed for its public release. Our elected officials should demand answers on why this important data never made its way up the chain of command, and why their requests for information were apparently stone-walled by the Pentagon and the intel community.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Let's Talk
Just hours after declaring its right to launch a long-range missile, North Korea has indicated that it wants direct talks with the U.S. on the missile issue. With preparations for the launch largely complete, Pyongyang appears to be playing one of its main cards, hinting vaguely that the missile launch might be postponed or even scrubbed, if Washington agrees to its demand for one-on-one negotiations.
Pyongyang has long sought bilateral talks with Washington, but the Bush Administration has (correctly) refused, preferring to deal with North Korea through a regional, six-party forum that also includes South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Thomas Scheiffer (brother of the CBS anchorman) , called on North Korea to return to the six-nation talks, observing that Pyongyang "doesn't have to undertake bad policies in order to talk to the U.S." North Korea withdrew from the six-party process last November, because of a U.S. crackdown on Pyongyang's illicit financial activity. While the six-party talks have been remarkably unproductive, the U.S. remains committed to the process, because it engages other nations with a stake in the North Korean "outcome," and (in the case of China and Russia), it leverages governments that have some influence with Kim Jong-il.
Speaking of diplomacy, Tuesday's "overture" should not be interpreted as some sort of capitulation or face-saving measure by Kim Jong-il. Long before the TD-2 was mounted on its launch pad, the North Koreans carefully considered all possible scenarios and outcomes. Their latest gambit will allow Pyongyang to "blame' the launch on the United States (if it occurs), claiming that direct talks between the two countries could have prevented it. And, if the U.S. decides to engage the TD-2, Pyongyang will claim a propaganda windfall, asserting that the imperialists interrupted a legitimate space launch and using the incident to further its missile and WMD programs. On the other hand, in a best-case scenario Kim Jong-il gets what he wants (direct talks with the U.S.), at the minor cost of moving one missile to the launch site, and filling it with fuel.
However, the odds of Washington agreeing to bilateral talks (in order to stop the TD-2 launch) are decidedly remote. North Korea's development of WMD and long-range delivery systems is a regional problem--at the very least--and will become a global issue in the very near future. Other nations (specifically China) need to be more actively involved in pressuring Pyongyang to get rid of its nuclear program and long-range missile systems, or face serious consequences. In response to Tuesday's developments, Beijing urged "calm." Not exactly helpful, given the gravity of the current situation.
With the TD-2 sitting on the pad, fueled and apparently ready to go, there will be calls for the U.S. to enter direct talks with North Korea, to "defuse" a tense situation. So far, the Bush Administration is playing its hand correctly. The North Korean crisis is a regional issue that should first be dealt with at that level, with participation by all relevant parties. If Pyongyang elects to go ahead with the missile launch, then the U.S. reserves the right to knock it down, since the apparent flight path would carry it toward our regional allies (i.e., Japan) and American possessions in the Pacific.
The United States appears to be drawing a line in the sand with North Korea over the TD-2 issue. After a decade of appeasement (and more than two years of unproductive, six-party talks), the Bush Administration appears to be calling Pyongyang's bluff, and responding to threats (in this case, an ICBM launch) with an appropriate military response--in this case, engaging the TD-2 with interceptor missiles. It's a sea change in dealing with North Korea, and quite frankly, it's about time.
Pyongyang has long sought bilateral talks with Washington, but the Bush Administration has (correctly) refused, preferring to deal with North Korea through a regional, six-party forum that also includes South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Thomas Scheiffer (brother of the CBS anchorman) , called on North Korea to return to the six-nation talks, observing that Pyongyang "doesn't have to undertake bad policies in order to talk to the U.S." North Korea withdrew from the six-party process last November, because of a U.S. crackdown on Pyongyang's illicit financial activity. While the six-party talks have been remarkably unproductive, the U.S. remains committed to the process, because it engages other nations with a stake in the North Korean "outcome," and (in the case of China and Russia), it leverages governments that have some influence with Kim Jong-il.
Speaking of diplomacy, Tuesday's "overture" should not be interpreted as some sort of capitulation or face-saving measure by Kim Jong-il. Long before the TD-2 was mounted on its launch pad, the North Koreans carefully considered all possible scenarios and outcomes. Their latest gambit will allow Pyongyang to "blame' the launch on the United States (if it occurs), claiming that direct talks between the two countries could have prevented it. And, if the U.S. decides to engage the TD-2, Pyongyang will claim a propaganda windfall, asserting that the imperialists interrupted a legitimate space launch and using the incident to further its missile and WMD programs. On the other hand, in a best-case scenario Kim Jong-il gets what he wants (direct talks with the U.S.), at the minor cost of moving one missile to the launch site, and filling it with fuel.
However, the odds of Washington agreeing to bilateral talks (in order to stop the TD-2 launch) are decidedly remote. North Korea's development of WMD and long-range delivery systems is a regional problem--at the very least--and will become a global issue in the very near future. Other nations (specifically China) need to be more actively involved in pressuring Pyongyang to get rid of its nuclear program and long-range missile systems, or face serious consequences. In response to Tuesday's developments, Beijing urged "calm." Not exactly helpful, given the gravity of the current situation.
With the TD-2 sitting on the pad, fueled and apparently ready to go, there will be calls for the U.S. to enter direct talks with North Korea, to "defuse" a tense situation. So far, the Bush Administration is playing its hand correctly. The North Korean crisis is a regional issue that should first be dealt with at that level, with participation by all relevant parties. If Pyongyang elects to go ahead with the missile launch, then the U.S. reserves the right to knock it down, since the apparent flight path would carry it toward our regional allies (i.e., Japan) and American possessions in the Pacific.
The United States appears to be drawing a line in the sand with North Korea over the TD-2 issue. After a decade of appeasement (and more than two years of unproductive, six-party talks), the Bush Administration appears to be calling Pyongyang's bluff, and responding to threats (in this case, an ICBM launch) with an appropriate military response--in this case, engaging the TD-2 with interceptor missiles. It's a sea change in dealing with North Korea, and quite frankly, it's about time.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Cleared to Engage?
The estimable Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has provided a bit of clarity regarding North Korea's impending missile launch, and a potential U.S. military response.
In today's edition of the Times, Gertz reports that the U.S. has activated its limited missile defense sites in Alaska and California, apparently in reaction to developments in North Korea. According to unnamed Pentagon officials, the U.S. has 9 interceptor missiles in Alaska, and two others at Vandenburg AFB in California, deployed to provide some protection against a limited missile attack. Deployment of the missiles began about two years ago, but efforts to make the sites operational apparently took on added urgency, due to North Korea's expected launch of a TD-2 missile that can reach much of the CONUS, depending on the variant employed.
Defense department officials refuse to speculate as to whether the U.S. might attempt to shoot down the missile, but that option is clearly on the table. In addition to the interceptor missiles in Alaska and California, the U.S. Navy has deployed AEGIS-equipped vessels to the Sea of Japan. Some of these vessels are being modified to provide a mid-course and terminal ballistic missile defense capability. However, the Pentagon has not revealed if any of these ships are on station near the North Korean coast, and could provide an additional intercept capability.
A decision on engaging the missile would be made at the highest levels of government, probably by the President himself. However, the window for making such a decision is predictably small, and dependent (in large part) on an accurate intelligence assessment of North Korean intentions. Pyongyang has indicated that the TD-2 will be used for a space launch, rather than a missile test. From a legal perspective, the U.S. might be on shaky ground if it interrupts the legitimate launch of satellite; on the other hand, the U.S. has an inherent right to defend itself from a ballistic missile heading in the general direction of our territory.
Judging from Gertz's article, it appears the U.S. has been unable to clearly identify the purpose behind the TD-2 test, forcing us to prepare for both scenarios. If we can ascertain that the TD-2 is being used to launch a satellite, we will probably let the test proceed; if it is determined that the launch is an ICBM test, the probability of an intercept attempt increases dramatically. Determining North Korea's intentions has likely been complicated by Pyongyang's proficiency at denial and deception. It is certainly in Kim Jong-il's interest to keep Washington guessing, delaying any engagement decision to the last possible moment.
How would North Korea react to a U.S. attempt at engaging their missile? That's the $64,000 question. Beyond the usual propaganda barrage and diplomatic bluster, Pyongyang might employ some military options of its own, ranging from the intercept of U.S. reconnaissance aircraft near its borders, to the engagement of ROK naval forces along the Northern Limit Line (NLL), the maritime extension of the DMZ. Potential warning time for these events would be limited, given that much of North Korea's armed forces are positioned along their coastlines, or near the DMZ.
Ironically, one factor limiting a military response is the DPRK's bankrupt economy and inefficient agricultural sector. This time of year, most North Korean military units are engaged in agricultural activities, assisting farmers with this year's rice crop (it's one of the few ways North Korean units can a food supply for the winter months). With most soldiers, airmen and sailors in the field (literally), military readiness is typically low, inhibiting a larger-scale response, such as a limited attack across the DMZ. However, North Korea remains able to launch more limited strikes, including naval attacks along the NLL, or the engagement of U.S. aircraft near its territory.
In today's edition of the Times, Gertz reports that the U.S. has activated its limited missile defense sites in Alaska and California, apparently in reaction to developments in North Korea. According to unnamed Pentagon officials, the U.S. has 9 interceptor missiles in Alaska, and two others at Vandenburg AFB in California, deployed to provide some protection against a limited missile attack. Deployment of the missiles began about two years ago, but efforts to make the sites operational apparently took on added urgency, due to North Korea's expected launch of a TD-2 missile that can reach much of the CONUS, depending on the variant employed.
Defense department officials refuse to speculate as to whether the U.S. might attempt to shoot down the missile, but that option is clearly on the table. In addition to the interceptor missiles in Alaska and California, the U.S. Navy has deployed AEGIS-equipped vessels to the Sea of Japan. Some of these vessels are being modified to provide a mid-course and terminal ballistic missile defense capability. However, the Pentagon has not revealed if any of these ships are on station near the North Korean coast, and could provide an additional intercept capability.
A decision on engaging the missile would be made at the highest levels of government, probably by the President himself. However, the window for making such a decision is predictably small, and dependent (in large part) on an accurate intelligence assessment of North Korean intentions. Pyongyang has indicated that the TD-2 will be used for a space launch, rather than a missile test. From a legal perspective, the U.S. might be on shaky ground if it interrupts the legitimate launch of satellite; on the other hand, the U.S. has an inherent right to defend itself from a ballistic missile heading in the general direction of our territory.
Judging from Gertz's article, it appears the U.S. has been unable to clearly identify the purpose behind the TD-2 test, forcing us to prepare for both scenarios. If we can ascertain that the TD-2 is being used to launch a satellite, we will probably let the test proceed; if it is determined that the launch is an ICBM test, the probability of an intercept attempt increases dramatically. Determining North Korea's intentions has likely been complicated by Pyongyang's proficiency at denial and deception. It is certainly in Kim Jong-il's interest to keep Washington guessing, delaying any engagement decision to the last possible moment.
How would North Korea react to a U.S. attempt at engaging their missile? That's the $64,000 question. Beyond the usual propaganda barrage and diplomatic bluster, Pyongyang might employ some military options of its own, ranging from the intercept of U.S. reconnaissance aircraft near its borders, to the engagement of ROK naval forces along the Northern Limit Line (NLL), the maritime extension of the DMZ. Potential warning time for these events would be limited, given that much of North Korea's armed forces are positioned along their coastlines, or near the DMZ.
Ironically, one factor limiting a military response is the DPRK's bankrupt economy and inefficient agricultural sector. This time of year, most North Korean military units are engaged in agricultural activities, assisting farmers with this year's rice crop (it's one of the few ways North Korean units can a food supply for the winter months). With most soldiers, airmen and sailors in the field (literally), military readiness is typically low, inhibiting a larger-scale response, such as a limited attack across the DMZ. However, North Korea remains able to launch more limited strikes, including naval attacks along the NLL, or the engagement of U.S. aircraft near its territory.
The Okinawa Strategy
Michelle Malkin (and others) have noted John Murtha's latest call for redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq to....Okinawa. Appearing on "Meet the Press" over the weekend, Murtha opined that our military forces could easily support combat operations in the Middle East from the relative comfort and security of the Far East. What the heck, it's only 8,000 miles round-trip.
Even Tim Russert had a hard time swallowing that one, but Murtha persisted.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.
REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.
Of course, Murtha's claims are laughable. Froggy at Blackfive has a nice summary of what it would take to get F-16s--like the ones that killed Zarqawi--from Kadena to Iraq and back again. Nothing like a 20-hour, round-robin mission in a single seat, single-engine fighter. And, those dozen or so aerial refuelings (per aircraft) that Froggy describes would tie up a good portion of our KC-135 and KC-10 tanker fleet. Then, there's the question of where the refuelers would operate from, basing rights, airfield security, and all the other issues associated with creating an air bridge from Asia to the Persian Gulf.
It is easy to dismiss Murtha as a political twit who never learned another military lesson after he left 'Nam. In another era, Murtha's remarks would be dismissed as foolish rantings and an embarassment, even by Congressional standards. But, in today's political environment, Murtha is considered a military expert. The MSM is quick to point out that Congressman Murtha is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who served in Vietnam (wonder if he bumped into John Kerry over there?) By the standards of today's Democratic Party and the liberal press, Murtha ranks up there with Clausewitz as a military strategist. When Mr. Murtha loses his re-election bid this fall, perhaps he can find work as a visiting professor at the Naval War College or the Air War College. I'm sure his theories on global airpower projection who (ahem) receive a proper response at one of those institutions.
One final thought: Murtha, like thousands of Vietnam-era Marines, probably passed through Okinawa enroute to Southeast Asia, or on the way home. Perhaps he has fond memories of his time on the island, and somehow assumes that the U.S. will maintain a permanent military presence on Okinawa. Well, here's a little news flash for Jack Murtha; a sizeable number of Okinawans want the U.S. military off their island, and they routinely petition the Japanese government to shut down the sprawling Air Force, Navy and Marine installations located there. So far, Tokyo has resisted calls to eject the U.S. military, but our future on the island is far from assured. At some point, a more liberal Japanese government will capitualate to the Okinawans' request, and the U.S. will receive its eviction notice. That would certainly put a crimp in Murtha's Okinawa strategy.
But, being the strategist that he is, I'm sure that Congressman Murtha has considered that option, and probably has a fall-back plan. If we lose Okinawa, just base everything out of Guam. That's only 5,000 miles or so, just a hop, skip and a jump in Murtha's way of thinking. We'd better get to work on hypersonic attack aircraft, or space-based tactical weapons. I would hate to be a fighter jock or bomber driver in an Air Force subjected to Murtha's airpower "vision."
Even Tim Russert had a hard time swallowing that one, but Murtha persisted.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.
REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.
Of course, Murtha's claims are laughable. Froggy at Blackfive has a nice summary of what it would take to get F-16s--like the ones that killed Zarqawi--from Kadena to Iraq and back again. Nothing like a 20-hour, round-robin mission in a single seat, single-engine fighter. And, those dozen or so aerial refuelings (per aircraft) that Froggy describes would tie up a good portion of our KC-135 and KC-10 tanker fleet. Then, there's the question of where the refuelers would operate from, basing rights, airfield security, and all the other issues associated with creating an air bridge from Asia to the Persian Gulf.
It is easy to dismiss Murtha as a political twit who never learned another military lesson after he left 'Nam. In another era, Murtha's remarks would be dismissed as foolish rantings and an embarassment, even by Congressional standards. But, in today's political environment, Murtha is considered a military expert. The MSM is quick to point out that Congressman Murtha is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who served in Vietnam (wonder if he bumped into John Kerry over there?) By the standards of today's Democratic Party and the liberal press, Murtha ranks up there with Clausewitz as a military strategist. When Mr. Murtha loses his re-election bid this fall, perhaps he can find work as a visiting professor at the Naval War College or the Air War College. I'm sure his theories on global airpower projection who (ahem) receive a proper response at one of those institutions.
One final thought: Murtha, like thousands of Vietnam-era Marines, probably passed through Okinawa enroute to Southeast Asia, or on the way home. Perhaps he has fond memories of his time on the island, and somehow assumes that the U.S. will maintain a permanent military presence on Okinawa. Well, here's a little news flash for Jack Murtha; a sizeable number of Okinawans want the U.S. military off their island, and they routinely petition the Japanese government to shut down the sprawling Air Force, Navy and Marine installations located there. So far, Tokyo has resisted calls to eject the U.S. military, but our future on the island is far from assured. At some point, a more liberal Japanese government will capitualate to the Okinawans' request, and the U.S. will receive its eviction notice. That would certainly put a crimp in Murtha's Okinawa strategy.
But, being the strategist that he is, I'm sure that Congressman Murtha has considered that option, and probably has a fall-back plan. If we lose Okinawa, just base everything out of Guam. That's only 5,000 miles or so, just a hop, skip and a jump in Murtha's way of thinking. We'd better get to work on hypersonic attack aircraft, or space-based tactical weapons. I would hate to be a fighter jock or bomber driver in an Air Force subjected to Murtha's airpower "vision."
Monday, June 19, 2006
Launch Window
The eyes of the world remain focused on North Korea, and the seemingly imminent test of a TD-2 long-range missile. Senior U.S. officials told The New York Times that preparations for a launch are largely complete, including fueling of the missile. It is still unclear whether the TD-2 on the launch pad is a two-stage variant (which can threaten much of the Pacific Basin) or the three-stage version, capable of hitting much of the United States with a small payload.
At this juncture, a launch window for the TD-2 may hinge on environmental factors, notably weather conditions. Anyone who's followed NASA rocket and shuttle launches over the past few decades understands that a number of factors must be "green" for lift-off to occur. On the technical side, there are a number of potential problems that could impede a test launch, ranging from missile propellant and guidance systems, to range communications. So far, there have been no reports of apparent problems with the TD-2 test, and launch preparations appear to be on track. However, technical glitches can happen at literally any moment--both before and after launch.
From an environmental perspective, such factors as surface weather conditions, low altitude winds, and upper level winds must all be within acceptable parameters for launch. I'm not a meterologist, and haven't followed weather reports from that region. But I'm sure an enterprising blogger (or two) could track down weather observations from the area, and (perhaps) compare it with established parameters for ICBM tests. Since the TD-2 is based on old technology, it probably has a smaller "weather window" than newer U.S., Russian and Chinese systems, which have greater tolerance for wind conditions and weather. Officially, North Korea won't say why they haven't launched the TD-2 (so far), so my suppositions are little more than speculation, at this point.
Also unresolved is the issue of how the U.S. might respond to the North Korean missile launch. In a recent press briefing, DOD spokesman Bryan Whitman characterized the event as a "launch" rather than a test. According to Whitman, a "test" would imply that we know Pyongyang's intentions. "We don't know the intentions," he observed.
Whitman also refused to speculate as to whether the U.S. might use its limited ballistic missile defenses to engage the TD-2 after launch. The ballistic missile defense site at Fort Greely, Alaska has up to 15 interceptor missiles, designed to provide a limited capability against a North Korean-style threat. The site is believed to be at least partly operational. Additionally, the U.S. Navy has conducted successful tests with Aegis-equipped vessels, using specially-modified SM-2 Block IV surface-to-air missiles to engage ballistic missiles in mid-course. There are several Aegis cruisers and destroyers currently operating in the Sea of Japan (near the NK test area), but it is unclear if any of these vessels have the necessary computer software or Block IV SM-2s to engage the TD-2 after lift-off.
Publicly, the U.S. is conducting high-level negotiations with regional partners, aimed at dissuading North Korea from launching the TD-2. Those talks will produce a consensus that Pyongyang should refrain from launching the missile, but little else. At this juncture, North Korea remains committed to the launch, and will not bow to pressure from the U.S. (or anyone else). According to Kim Jong-il's strategic calculus, the DPRK has more to gain by launching the missile, and demonstrating its ability to strike targets far beyond northeast Asia. In fact, Pyongyang will probably follow the launch with a "wish list" for re-entering missile test ban protocols.
If this technique sounds vaguely familar, remember the Agreed To framework brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1994. Tha agreement, you'll recall, was supposed to end North Korea's nuclear program, in exchange for South Korean nuclear reactors, U.S. oil deliveries and security guarantees. Washington and Seoul kept their end of the bargain, while Pyongyang maintained a covert research program that eventually produced nuclear weapons. North Korea views its missile and WMD programs as guarantors of state security, and will do whatever it takes to preserve them--even if it means entering another sham deal after the TD-2 launch is concluded.
As the world watches the North Korean missile site, one element is strangely absent from the debate. For the past 20 years, the notion of ballistic missile defense has been dismissed as fantasy by critics, mostly on the left. Now, as North Korea prepares to launch a missile capable of striking much of North America, the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's original vision has been finally affirmed. Mr. Reagan understood that rogue states with theater-range missiles in the 1980s could eventually attain ICBM technology. North Korea has reached that threshhold, and other pariah nations, including Iran and Syria, will gain that capability within the next decade. Critics still deride the notion of BMD, but as North Korea prepares to fire a long-range missile, we should ask ourselves: are we better off with at least a limited defensive capability, or no defenses at all. If the liberals had carried the debate, our defense against the TD-2 would (literally) be no defense at all.
At this juncture, a launch window for the TD-2 may hinge on environmental factors, notably weather conditions. Anyone who's followed NASA rocket and shuttle launches over the past few decades understands that a number of factors must be "green" for lift-off to occur. On the technical side, there are a number of potential problems that could impede a test launch, ranging from missile propellant and guidance systems, to range communications. So far, there have been no reports of apparent problems with the TD-2 test, and launch preparations appear to be on track. However, technical glitches can happen at literally any moment--both before and after launch.
From an environmental perspective, such factors as surface weather conditions, low altitude winds, and upper level winds must all be within acceptable parameters for launch. I'm not a meterologist, and haven't followed weather reports from that region. But I'm sure an enterprising blogger (or two) could track down weather observations from the area, and (perhaps) compare it with established parameters for ICBM tests. Since the TD-2 is based on old technology, it probably has a smaller "weather window" than newer U.S., Russian and Chinese systems, which have greater tolerance for wind conditions and weather. Officially, North Korea won't say why they haven't launched the TD-2 (so far), so my suppositions are little more than speculation, at this point.
Also unresolved is the issue of how the U.S. might respond to the North Korean missile launch. In a recent press briefing, DOD spokesman Bryan Whitman characterized the event as a "launch" rather than a test. According to Whitman, a "test" would imply that we know Pyongyang's intentions. "We don't know the intentions," he observed.
Whitman also refused to speculate as to whether the U.S. might use its limited ballistic missile defenses to engage the TD-2 after launch. The ballistic missile defense site at Fort Greely, Alaska has up to 15 interceptor missiles, designed to provide a limited capability against a North Korean-style threat. The site is believed to be at least partly operational. Additionally, the U.S. Navy has conducted successful tests with Aegis-equipped vessels, using specially-modified SM-2 Block IV surface-to-air missiles to engage ballistic missiles in mid-course. There are several Aegis cruisers and destroyers currently operating in the Sea of Japan (near the NK test area), but it is unclear if any of these vessels have the necessary computer software or Block IV SM-2s to engage the TD-2 after lift-off.
Publicly, the U.S. is conducting high-level negotiations with regional partners, aimed at dissuading North Korea from launching the TD-2. Those talks will produce a consensus that Pyongyang should refrain from launching the missile, but little else. At this juncture, North Korea remains committed to the launch, and will not bow to pressure from the U.S. (or anyone else). According to Kim Jong-il's strategic calculus, the DPRK has more to gain by launching the missile, and demonstrating its ability to strike targets far beyond northeast Asia. In fact, Pyongyang will probably follow the launch with a "wish list" for re-entering missile test ban protocols.
If this technique sounds vaguely familar, remember the Agreed To framework brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1994. Tha agreement, you'll recall, was supposed to end North Korea's nuclear program, in exchange for South Korean nuclear reactors, U.S. oil deliveries and security guarantees. Washington and Seoul kept their end of the bargain, while Pyongyang maintained a covert research program that eventually produced nuclear weapons. North Korea views its missile and WMD programs as guarantors of state security, and will do whatever it takes to preserve them--even if it means entering another sham deal after the TD-2 launch is concluded.
As the world watches the North Korean missile site, one element is strangely absent from the debate. For the past 20 years, the notion of ballistic missile defense has been dismissed as fantasy by critics, mostly on the left. Now, as North Korea prepares to launch a missile capable of striking much of North America, the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's original vision has been finally affirmed. Mr. Reagan understood that rogue states with theater-range missiles in the 1980s could eventually attain ICBM technology. North Korea has reached that threshhold, and other pariah nations, including Iran and Syria, will gain that capability within the next decade. Critics still deride the notion of BMD, but as North Korea prepares to fire a long-range missile, we should ask ourselves: are we better off with at least a limited defensive capability, or no defenses at all. If the liberals had carried the debate, our defense against the TD-2 would (literally) be no defense at all.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Watch the East
The AP headline says it all: "North Korea Appears Close to Long-Range Missile Test." Sometime in the coming days--perhaps in a few hours--Pyongyang will launch a Taepodong-2 missile from a test facility on its eastern coast. The test of the Taepodong-2 (or TD-2, as it's known in the spook world) will create a major international incident, the most serious since the 1998 launch of its predecessor, the TD-1.
During that event, the TD-1 overflew Japan before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean east of Honshu. Tokyo sternly opposed that launch, and indicates it will lodge an even more vigorous protest in response to a TD-2 test shot. Unfortunately, diplomatic notes mean nothing to Kim Jong-il, so the launch will proceed as planned. At last report, one of the missile's stages was reportedly being fueled, suggesting that launch preparations were in the final stages.
However, concerns about the expected TD-2 test extend well beyond Tokyo's diplomatic sensibilities. The upper portion of the three-stage missile may well land outside North Korean borders, coming down (perhaps) on one of Japan's northern islands, or in Russian or Chinese territory. That development would infuriate the Japanese even more, and Moscow or Beijing wouldn't be very happy, either.
From an American perspective, the test launch poses a direct challenge, both militarily and diplomatically. With the six-party talks stalled, Pyongyang will use the event to remind the U.S. (and its partners), that North Korea cannot be ignored. Launch of the TD-2 would likely be followed by a list of demands for Pyongyang, "conditions" for a resumption of talks. Failure to meet those requirements could mean more missile tests, growing regional tensions, and liberal cries for direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea, in hopes of ending the crisis. Fortunately, President Bush pays as much attention to advice from The New York Times editorial page as Kim Jong-il does to Japanese diplomatic notes.
But the prospective TD-2 test creates some real dilemmas for the Bush Administration. If the missile is a three-stage version--and it's not used for a space launch, as some have speculated--the TD-2's RV vehicle could splash down in the vicinity of Hawaii, a daring provocation from Pyongyang. Not even at the height of the Cold War did the U.S. or the Soviet Union arrange for their simulated RVs to land within a few hundred miles of their adversary's shoreline. Parking an RV near Hawaii would remind the U.S. that Pyongyang is now capable of targeting American territory, with weapons of mass destruction.
And that creates another challenge for the White House. The U.S. now has a limited number of anti-missile interceptors on alert in Alaska, deployed specifically for the North Korean threat. Would the United States use those weapons to send its own message to Pyongyang, by knocking down the TD-2? That scenario alone carries significant risks; shooting down the missile could be interpreted as an act of war; a "miss" would be a devastating setback for U.S. BMD efforts. There is also the possibility that NK might retaliate by attempting to intercept (and shoot down) a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over the Sea of Japan.
What will happen in the hours that follow? Almost anything, and virtually all scenarios are problematic for the U.S. In any event, keep an eye on the east, and brace for the diplomatic and military crisis that is almost certain to follow.
During that event, the TD-1 overflew Japan before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean east of Honshu. Tokyo sternly opposed that launch, and indicates it will lodge an even more vigorous protest in response to a TD-2 test shot. Unfortunately, diplomatic notes mean nothing to Kim Jong-il, so the launch will proceed as planned. At last report, one of the missile's stages was reportedly being fueled, suggesting that launch preparations were in the final stages.
However, concerns about the expected TD-2 test extend well beyond Tokyo's diplomatic sensibilities. The upper portion of the three-stage missile may well land outside North Korean borders, coming down (perhaps) on one of Japan's northern islands, or in Russian or Chinese territory. That development would infuriate the Japanese even more, and Moscow or Beijing wouldn't be very happy, either.
From an American perspective, the test launch poses a direct challenge, both militarily and diplomatically. With the six-party talks stalled, Pyongyang will use the event to remind the U.S. (and its partners), that North Korea cannot be ignored. Launch of the TD-2 would likely be followed by a list of demands for Pyongyang, "conditions" for a resumption of talks. Failure to meet those requirements could mean more missile tests, growing regional tensions, and liberal cries for direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea, in hopes of ending the crisis. Fortunately, President Bush pays as much attention to advice from The New York Times editorial page as Kim Jong-il does to Japanese diplomatic notes.
But the prospective TD-2 test creates some real dilemmas for the Bush Administration. If the missile is a three-stage version--and it's not used for a space launch, as some have speculated--the TD-2's RV vehicle could splash down in the vicinity of Hawaii, a daring provocation from Pyongyang. Not even at the height of the Cold War did the U.S. or the Soviet Union arrange for their simulated RVs to land within a few hundred miles of their adversary's shoreline. Parking an RV near Hawaii would remind the U.S. that Pyongyang is now capable of targeting American territory, with weapons of mass destruction.
And that creates another challenge for the White House. The U.S. now has a limited number of anti-missile interceptors on alert in Alaska, deployed specifically for the North Korean threat. Would the United States use those weapons to send its own message to Pyongyang, by knocking down the TD-2? That scenario alone carries significant risks; shooting down the missile could be interpreted as an act of war; a "miss" would be a devastating setback for U.S. BMD efforts. There is also the possibility that NK might retaliate by attempting to intercept (and shoot down) a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over the Sea of Japan.
What will happen in the hours that follow? Almost anything, and virtually all scenarios are problematic for the U.S. In any event, keep an eye on the east, and brace for the diplomatic and military crisis that is almost certain to follow.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Say Goodnight, Dan
Not quite a month ago, we predicted that Dan Rather's tenure at CBS was nearing an end. With his career forever stained by the 2004 docu-gate scandal, his dismal performance as anchor of the CBS Evening News, and Katie Couric's $ 15-million-a-year salary to pay, "The Dan" suddenly became expendable. As we noted in May, talks between CBS and Rather had apparently broken off; depending on which version you cared to believe, either the network refused to give their long-time anchorman a new deal, or the money offered was insultingly low--perhaps intended to drive Rather away.
Now, Rather himself is indicating that his days at CBS may be numbered. In an interview with Philadelphia Inquirer TV columnist Gail Shister, Rather admits that he has been ignored by CBS News President Sean McManus, his workload at 60 Minutes has been cut, and there have been no discussions about his future with the program. In other words, stick a fork in Dan; as far as CBS is concerned, he's done. Dan may still hanker to do "great journalism" (as he told Shister), but the network has made it clear that Rather will pursue that dream somewhere else.
Other men (and women) might quit under such humiliating circumstances, but not Rather. He apparently plans to hang in there at CBS News, even maintaining a "faux office" for his post-60 Minutes career. Other retired CBS correspondents have been given office space in the news division complex, including Mike Wallace, who left 60 Minutes under much happier circumstances a few weeks ago. Wallace's sign-off reflected a man who had done much to enhance the network's ratings and bottom line, so he was allowed to keep working until the age of 88, and given a hero's send-off.
Rather, on the other hand, is more remembered for his recent failures than his past successes, and (as we noted previously), "Docu-gate" was not his gravest sin, at least in the eyes of CBS executives. Many of them are more upset by the ratings decline that occured while Rather anchored the Evening News. When he took the helm from Walter Cronkite in 1981, the CBS Evening News was dominant in the ratings; when he stepped down 24 years later, the network's flagship newscast was mired in last place, costing CBS millions in advertising revenue, and even more in prestige. The "House that Murrow Built" became a ratings shanty with Dan in the anchor chair.
With Rather's depature from CBS apparently looming, it would be easy to say that he deserved better, or note the sad end to a 44-year career in network news. But any sympathy for Rather must always be filtered through his agenda-drive approach to journalism. Rather always went the extra mile in bashing conservatives, and his failed Docu-gate Report was nothing less than an attempt to influence a presidential election. In short, Rather's undoing was largely his own handiwork, and CBS's decision to cut him loose is long overdue.
Rather's decision to soldier on to the bitter end may also indicate that other networks aren't exactly chomping at the bit to acquire his services. In 1980, he forced CBS to give him the Evening News job by flirting with ABC. This time around, there apparently isn't another broadcast or cable network to flirt with, so The Dan is still hanging around CBS, trying to find a way to hang on. If he's finding a chilly reception at the network right now, I can only imagine how his co-workers will treat him when his contract expires, and he becomes a correspondent emeritus, without salary or assignment.
What a bummer. And how appropriate.
Now, Rather himself is indicating that his days at CBS may be numbered. In an interview with Philadelphia Inquirer TV columnist Gail Shister, Rather admits that he has been ignored by CBS News President Sean McManus, his workload at 60 Minutes has been cut, and there have been no discussions about his future with the program. In other words, stick a fork in Dan; as far as CBS is concerned, he's done. Dan may still hanker to do "great journalism" (as he told Shister), but the network has made it clear that Rather will pursue that dream somewhere else.
Other men (and women) might quit under such humiliating circumstances, but not Rather. He apparently plans to hang in there at CBS News, even maintaining a "faux office" for his post-60 Minutes career. Other retired CBS correspondents have been given office space in the news division complex, including Mike Wallace, who left 60 Minutes under much happier circumstances a few weeks ago. Wallace's sign-off reflected a man who had done much to enhance the network's ratings and bottom line, so he was allowed to keep working until the age of 88, and given a hero's send-off.
Rather, on the other hand, is more remembered for his recent failures than his past successes, and (as we noted previously), "Docu-gate" was not his gravest sin, at least in the eyes of CBS executives. Many of them are more upset by the ratings decline that occured while Rather anchored the Evening News. When he took the helm from Walter Cronkite in 1981, the CBS Evening News was dominant in the ratings; when he stepped down 24 years later, the network's flagship newscast was mired in last place, costing CBS millions in advertising revenue, and even more in prestige. The "House that Murrow Built" became a ratings shanty with Dan in the anchor chair.
With Rather's depature from CBS apparently looming, it would be easy to say that he deserved better, or note the sad end to a 44-year career in network news. But any sympathy for Rather must always be filtered through his agenda-drive approach to journalism. Rather always went the extra mile in bashing conservatives, and his failed Docu-gate Report was nothing less than an attempt to influence a presidential election. In short, Rather's undoing was largely his own handiwork, and CBS's decision to cut him loose is long overdue.
Rather's decision to soldier on to the bitter end may also indicate that other networks aren't exactly chomping at the bit to acquire his services. In 1980, he forced CBS to give him the Evening News job by flirting with ABC. This time around, there apparently isn't another broadcast or cable network to flirt with, so The Dan is still hanging around CBS, trying to find a way to hang on. If he's finding a chilly reception at the network right now, I can only imagine how his co-workers will treat him when his contract expires, and he becomes a correspondent emeritus, without salary or assignment.
What a bummer. And how appropriate.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Black Day for the MSM
This may go down as Black Tuesday for members of the White House wing of the MSM. They awakened this morning to learn that Karl Rove will not be indicted in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle, and then discovered that Rove's boss, President Bush, had secretly flown to Baghdad, with only a small media pool in tow. Bush's trip was kept extremely close-hold for security reasons; according to some accounts, only six presidential aides knew about the trip in advance.
In Baghdad, Mr. Bush looked courageous and confident, standing next to Iraq's new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. With the new Iraqi cabinet finally formed--and terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at room temperature--Mr. Bush had plenty of reasons to go to Iraq, and put a positive face on his policies. For a MSM that revels in painting Iraq as a quagimre and Mr. Bush's Vietnam, the unmistakable images of progress must have been hard to report. It was equally difficult for them to note Mr. Bush's courage in going to Iraq. During his brief helicopter flight from the airport to the Green Zone, the president essentially gave the terrorists a shot at him, although the threat from shoulder-fired SAMs and RPGs has actually decreased in recent months.
More galling (from the media perspective) was the news about Karl Rove. Borrowing a phrase from A.J. Strata, special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald apparently decided to quit while he was behind, and decided aginst indicting Rove on charges relating to the Plame case. Readers will note that the AP dutifully recites most of the canards about the scandal, including Rove's alleged role in "outing" CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame, husband of Bush Administration critic (and former Ambassador) Joe Wilson.
Never mind that Ms. Plame was not an undercover operative at the time her identity became known, nor the fact that her CIA affiliation was the agency's worst-kept secret since it operated Air America in Southeast Asia. In fact, Mr. Fitzgerald was unable to indict anyone on the original accusation, because (duh) activities in the Plame affair did not meet the clear legal requirements for illegally outing undercover intelligence operatives. Fitzgerald managed to indict former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in the Plame matter, but that case is anything but a slam-dunk. In fact, with Fitzgerald passing on a Rove indictment, Mr. Libby and his lawyers must be increasingly confident about their chances of winning an acquittal, when that case goes to trial. With the Rove inquiry now over, Libby's legal team will gain access to additional information developed by Fitzgerald's investigators, potentially bolstering the defense's case.
It's all a bit too much for the lefties to bear. Mark Coffey at Decision '08 has compiled their Top 10 Reactions to the End of Fitzmas. Read and enjoy.
In Baghdad, Mr. Bush looked courageous and confident, standing next to Iraq's new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. With the new Iraqi cabinet finally formed--and terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at room temperature--Mr. Bush had plenty of reasons to go to Iraq, and put a positive face on his policies. For a MSM that revels in painting Iraq as a quagimre and Mr. Bush's Vietnam, the unmistakable images of progress must have been hard to report. It was equally difficult for them to note Mr. Bush's courage in going to Iraq. During his brief helicopter flight from the airport to the Green Zone, the president essentially gave the terrorists a shot at him, although the threat from shoulder-fired SAMs and RPGs has actually decreased in recent months.
More galling (from the media perspective) was the news about Karl Rove. Borrowing a phrase from A.J. Strata, special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald apparently decided to quit while he was behind, and decided aginst indicting Rove on charges relating to the Plame case. Readers will note that the AP dutifully recites most of the canards about the scandal, including Rove's alleged role in "outing" CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame, husband of Bush Administration critic (and former Ambassador) Joe Wilson.
Never mind that Ms. Plame was not an undercover operative at the time her identity became known, nor the fact that her CIA affiliation was the agency's worst-kept secret since it operated Air America in Southeast Asia. In fact, Mr. Fitzgerald was unable to indict anyone on the original accusation, because (duh) activities in the Plame affair did not meet the clear legal requirements for illegally outing undercover intelligence operatives. Fitzgerald managed to indict former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in the Plame matter, but that case is anything but a slam-dunk. In fact, with Fitzgerald passing on a Rove indictment, Mr. Libby and his lawyers must be increasingly confident about their chances of winning an acquittal, when that case goes to trial. With the Rove inquiry now over, Libby's legal team will gain access to additional information developed by Fitzgerald's investigators, potentially bolstering the defense's case.
It's all a bit too much for the lefties to bear. Mark Coffey at Decision '08 has compiled their Top 10 Reactions to the End of Fitzmas. Read and enjoy.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Indications and Warning
From today's Financial Times comes word that North Korea may be planning a test-launch of its Tapeo Dong 2 (TD-2) missile from a test site along its northeastern coast. A test launch of the missile's medium-range predecessor (designated the TD-1) created an international incident in 1998, when the missile overflew Japan. The TD-2 has a longer range than the TD-1, with the ability to hit some locations in the CONUS (with a scaled down payload).
My contacts in the intel community have essentially confirmed the FT story. At this point, preparations appear to be well underway, and a launch could occur in a matter of days. Some analysts have speculated that NK may be using the preparations to gain attention from the U.S. and South Korea. With no substantial progress in the six-party nuclear talks, Kim Jong-il may attempt to restart the process--on his terms--by reminding the other parties that he has nuclear weapons, and with the TD-2, a mechanism for striking targets well beyond the peninsula.
There is the possibility that NK may abandon the expected launch at the last moment, particularly if Washington and Seoul respond favorably. But, as defense sources told FT, it will be difficult to discontinue the test once fueling of the missile has begun. Pyongyang has claimed that it plans to use the multi-stage TD-2 as a space launch vehicle. However, such claims are laughable, given NK's lack of prior experience in that arena, and the ready availability of other, proven launch platforms.
One final (albeit remote) possibility is that the potential TD-2 launch is a giant ruse, designed to lure U.S. collection platforms to the area, and (possibly) attempt a forced landing in North Korean territory. In March 2003, the North Korean Air Force (NKAF) executed a surprise intercept of a U.S. RC-135 Cobra Ball reconnaissance aircraft, used to monitor missile tests. The Cobra Ball crew had no idea that NKAF MiGs were in the area until the enemy fighters began flying alongside the American aircraft. North Korea reportedly used several denial-and-deception techniques to mask the intercept, and Pyongyang remains a skilled practitioner of D&D. The 2003 intercept came during a period of missile testing by the north, spurring speculation that a similar operation may again be in the offing.
Hat tip: EagleSpeak.
My contacts in the intel community have essentially confirmed the FT story. At this point, preparations appear to be well underway, and a launch could occur in a matter of days. Some analysts have speculated that NK may be using the preparations to gain attention from the U.S. and South Korea. With no substantial progress in the six-party nuclear talks, Kim Jong-il may attempt to restart the process--on his terms--by reminding the other parties that he has nuclear weapons, and with the TD-2, a mechanism for striking targets well beyond the peninsula.
There is the possibility that NK may abandon the expected launch at the last moment, particularly if Washington and Seoul respond favorably. But, as defense sources told FT, it will be difficult to discontinue the test once fueling of the missile has begun. Pyongyang has claimed that it plans to use the multi-stage TD-2 as a space launch vehicle. However, such claims are laughable, given NK's lack of prior experience in that arena, and the ready availability of other, proven launch platforms.
One final (albeit remote) possibility is that the potential TD-2 launch is a giant ruse, designed to lure U.S. collection platforms to the area, and (possibly) attempt a forced landing in North Korean territory. In March 2003, the North Korean Air Force (NKAF) executed a surprise intercept of a U.S. RC-135 Cobra Ball reconnaissance aircraft, used to monitor missile tests. The Cobra Ball crew had no idea that NKAF MiGs were in the area until the enemy fighters began flying alongside the American aircraft. North Korea reportedly used several denial-and-deception techniques to mask the intercept, and Pyongyang remains a skilled practitioner of D&D. The 2003 intercept came during a period of missile testing by the north, spurring speculation that a similar operation may again be in the offing.
Hat tip: EagleSpeak.
An Act of Desperation
It's no secret that MSNBC is, ahem, ratings-challenged. Put more bluntly, the cable news channel has been mired in last place for most of its history (at least, since Fox News Channel hit the airwaves), despite a staggering investment of money by NBC and Microsoft, and a veritable revolving door of news anchors and hosts. Borrowing a page from the late Andy Warhol, everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame--as a primetime host on MSNBC.
When former programming honcho Rick Kaplan (that famous Friend of Bill) stepped down last week, there was some speculation among the chattering class as to who might take charge of the sinking ship. Today, NBC answered that question by appointing Dan Abrams, who currently hosts a nightly legal show on the network, as its next general manager. Abrams has been with NBC News since 1997, but has no prior experience as a producer or programmer.
But he does write one hell of a memo. At least, that's what NBC News President Steve Capus said in making the announcement. Seems that Abrams has been peppering Capus with suggestions for improving the network for the past year. "His memos were thoughtful and insightful and provocative," Capus observed, "there was one that was eight pages long. That was the mone that made it clear to me he was serious about an examination of the channel."
Gee, if that's all it takes to get a six-figure job at MSNBC, maybe I should fax some of my old terms papers and my master's thesis to Capus. Given their length, that should put me in line for Bob Wright's job as NBC President. Never mind the fact that I haven't worked in broadcasting since the early 1980s. If executive qualifications at NBC News are based on one's ability to crank out a lengthy memo, then, Steve, I'm your guy.
Not that it really matters. As long as FNC and CNN are on the air, MSNBC will remain a laggard, no matter how many executives they hire and fire. And the reason is really quite simple, in case Mr. Capus and Mr. Abrams are wondering.
From: The Former Spook
To: Steve Capus, President, NBC News
Phil Griffin, Vice-President, MSNBC
Dan Abrams, General Manager, MSNBC
Subject: Improving Ratings
Gentlemen:
First off, congratulations to Phil and Dan on your new jobs. Hope your agents negotiated cushy severance benefits, because you're going to need them in a couple of years. But I digress.
This memo isn't long enough to get me into the executive suite, but I don't need that much space to tell you what's wrong with MSNBC.
A. Your news coverage is nothing more than the same old liberal pap we see on NBC, and in the rest of the drive-by media. Your audience would like something a little more lively and balanced. Ever hear of FNC?
B. Your talk show hosts suck. Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are pompous jerks; Rita Cosby's voice grates on my nerves, and Joe Scarborough is nothing more than a poor imitation of Bill O'Reilly. So much for innovative programming. But hey, they're still better than Donny Deutch, if that's any consolation.
C. Judging from his appearance and demeanor, Don Imus apparently died several years ago, but someone keeps propping him up in front of the camera in the morning. You might try an actual living, breathing host in that timeslot. Couldn't hurt.
D. If all else fails, you might try some kind of activist consumer news, like investigating exploding fuel tanks on pick-up trucks, or convicting security guards of heinous crimes in the court of electronic opinion. Ooops, I forgot. NBC's already been there, done that.
E. "Pervert Round-Up with Chris Hansen." Hey, it's kept Dateline on the air for the past six months.
Lots more where these ideas came from. If you need a new consultant, let me know. I'm a lot cheaper than Magid, and besides, ratings can't get any lower--or can they?
Cordially,
TFS
P.S.--Steve/Phil: When are you going to tell Abrams he got the job because no one else wanted it?
When former programming honcho Rick Kaplan (that famous Friend of Bill) stepped down last week, there was some speculation among the chattering class as to who might take charge of the sinking ship. Today, NBC answered that question by appointing Dan Abrams, who currently hosts a nightly legal show on the network, as its next general manager. Abrams has been with NBC News since 1997, but has no prior experience as a producer or programmer.
But he does write one hell of a memo. At least, that's what NBC News President Steve Capus said in making the announcement. Seems that Abrams has been peppering Capus with suggestions for improving the network for the past year. "His memos were thoughtful and insightful and provocative," Capus observed, "there was one that was eight pages long. That was the mone that made it clear to me he was serious about an examination of the channel."
Gee, if that's all it takes to get a six-figure job at MSNBC, maybe I should fax some of my old terms papers and my master's thesis to Capus. Given their length, that should put me in line for Bob Wright's job as NBC President. Never mind the fact that I haven't worked in broadcasting since the early 1980s. If executive qualifications at NBC News are based on one's ability to crank out a lengthy memo, then, Steve, I'm your guy.
Not that it really matters. As long as FNC and CNN are on the air, MSNBC will remain a laggard, no matter how many executives they hire and fire. And the reason is really quite simple, in case Mr. Capus and Mr. Abrams are wondering.
From: The Former Spook
To: Steve Capus, President, NBC News
Phil Griffin, Vice-President, MSNBC
Dan Abrams, General Manager, MSNBC
Subject: Improving Ratings
Gentlemen:
First off, congratulations to Phil and Dan on your new jobs. Hope your agents negotiated cushy severance benefits, because you're going to need them in a couple of years. But I digress.
This memo isn't long enough to get me into the executive suite, but I don't need that much space to tell you what's wrong with MSNBC.
A. Your news coverage is nothing more than the same old liberal pap we see on NBC, and in the rest of the drive-by media. Your audience would like something a little more lively and balanced. Ever hear of FNC?
B. Your talk show hosts suck. Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are pompous jerks; Rita Cosby's voice grates on my nerves, and Joe Scarborough is nothing more than a poor imitation of Bill O'Reilly. So much for innovative programming. But hey, they're still better than Donny Deutch, if that's any consolation.
C. Judging from his appearance and demeanor, Don Imus apparently died several years ago, but someone keeps propping him up in front of the camera in the morning. You might try an actual living, breathing host in that timeslot. Couldn't hurt.
D. If all else fails, you might try some kind of activist consumer news, like investigating exploding fuel tanks on pick-up trucks, or convicting security guards of heinous crimes in the court of electronic opinion. Ooops, I forgot. NBC's already been there, done that.
E. "Pervert Round-Up with Chris Hansen." Hey, it's kept Dateline on the air for the past six months.
Lots more where these ideas came from. If you need a new consultant, let me know. I'm a lot cheaper than Magid, and besides, ratings can't get any lower--or can they?
Cordially,
TFS
P.S.--Steve/Phil: When are you going to tell Abrams he got the job because no one else wanted it?
Another Black Eye
I recently had a conversation with a senior DOD civilian. He's retired Air Force (a former Chief Master Sergeant) who is absolutely hard-wired into the defense establishment and its leadership, from the E-Ring to the combatant commands. During our talk, I broached the subject of how the Air Force is regarded at the highest levels of leadership, namely the SecDef's office.
His reply was short and direct: "In his (Rumsfeld's) eyes, we're lower than whale s***.
As evidence of that assessment, he offered the list the scandals that have plagued the Air Force in recent years, beginning with the prosecution (and imprisonment) of the service's senior civilian contracting officer, Darlene Druyun, who provided preferential treatment to Boeing in bidding competition for a new tanker contract. Then, there was the rape scandal and religion controversy at the U.S. Air Force Academy. While the religion issue has been clearly overblown, the rape scandal was genuine, prompting the punishment of several cadets, and major reforms at the institution.
If that weren't bad enough, the contracting and academy scandals were quickly followed by more controversies involving high-ranking officers. Major General Thomas Fiscus, the service's top Judge Advocate General (JAG) was reduced in rank to Colonel (and forced to retire) in January 2005, after an investigation found him involved in several affairs and improper conduct around more than a dozen women. A few months later, Brigadier General Richard Hassan (who ran the Air Force Senior Leadership Management Office in Washington), suddenly stepped down, amid allegations he carried out a foot fetish with female subordinates. Hassan also retired as a Colonel, after receiving non-judicial punishment.
But the problems don't stop there. A retired Air Force four-star general, Hal Hornburg, is under investigation by the FBI for his role in the awarding of a contract for a video screen for the Thunderbirds aerial demonstration team. A firm in which Hornburg is a partner won the contract barely six months after he retired from service. While on active duty, General Hornburg led the Air Force command which includes the Thunderbirds. The contract was later cancelled, after competitors claimed that Hornburg's firm received preferential treatment.
And, just over the weekend, there was word of a new scandal involving Air Force personnel. A Chief Master Sergeant assigned to the Inspector General (IG) team at Air Force Space Command has been reduced in grade after engaging in sex with a woman assigned to a security forces unit he was inspecting at Patrick AFB, FL. Chief Master Sergeant Troy Parker was reduced to E-8, sentenced to 45 days at hard labor, reprimanded and fined $3,000 for having several trysts with a female reserve staff sergeant assiged to Patrick's 45th Security Forces Squadron. As a chief--and an IG inspector to boot--Parker was supposed to set and enforce standards in the units he inspected.
But the Patrick controversy doesn't end there. The security forces unit's top enlisted member, Senior Master Sergeant Michael Sydney, is accused of arranging the trysts between the female member and the inspector. According to a charge sheet obtained by Florida Today, Sydney threatened to extend the woman's reserve tour unless she performed sexual favors on Parker and one of the squadron's officers, Captain Philip Sting. Captain Sting is now facing charges on indecency and obstruction of justice; he reportedly told the reservist to lie about what happened in her conversations with investigators. In addition to solicitation charges, Sergeant Sydney is also accused of having sex with female subordinates, and using a government computer to store pornography.
Is there a common threat linking all these events, or is the Air Force simply having a run of bad luck? Afterall, the military reflects the society it serves, and if sexual misconduct and financial hijinks are rampant in the public sector, then (the theory goes), you'll see some of the same activity in the armed forces.
But that "explanation" is a bit too pat and easy. Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought the military should hold itself to higher standards than the civilian sector. Indeed, the Air Force once advertised its "core values" as "Integrity First," "Service Before Self," and "Excellence in All We Do." It's hard to find any semblance of those values in the escapades I've just described.
And that brings me back to the search for a common thread that links these various scandals. I think the underlying cause can be summed by two explanations: (1) A lack of leadership, beginning at the very top, and (2) a pervasive double standard of accountability and punishment for senior personnel and "everyone else."
For more than 20 years, the Air Force has been run by fighter pilots. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, since fighter aircraft represent much of the service's combat capabilities. And, in fairness, the majority of fighter pilot generals are hard-working, honorable men, and more than a few are outstanding leaders in their own right. But a small minority within this group carry a sense of entitlement and a belief that the rules apply to "the other guys." Over my 20-plus year career, I saw more than a few fighter jocks-turned-flag officers get by with misdeeds that would have destroyed the careers of mere mortals. Regrettably, that sense of entitlement seems to have spread to other senior officials, as evidenced by the Druyun, Fiscus and Hassan scandals.
And, that same aura of invincibility now seems to be entering the senior enlisted ranks as well. As a Chief Master Sergeant, Parker knew better, but that didn't stop him. Ditto for Senior Master Sergeant Sydney, the alleged "pimp" in this case. The senior NCO reportedly arranged for the female reservist to perform oral sex on Capt Sting while Sydney watched. Amazingly (or, perhaps not-so-amazingly) the 45th Security Forces Squadron earned the highest possible rating--"Outstanding"--during their recent IG inspection. In the ethical climate of today's Air Force, apparently the only thing that matters is results; how you get them is another matter (just don't get caught).
The Air Force is probably hoping that Sydney and Sting cop their own plea deals, avoiding the embarassment of a public courts-martial. Such a proceeding will doubtlessly raise questions about why Sydney and Sting are being hammered, while deviants like Fiscus and Hassan got off relatively scot-free. The Air Force claims that Fiscus "lost" more than $500,000 in retired pay by stepping down as a Colonel, rather than a two-star general. What the service won't say is that Fiscus will only lose that much money if he lives to be 100. Meanwhile, he still has a law license and a long list of contacts that will give him a six-figure job with a legal firm or a defense contractor. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Hassan won't wind up in the food stamp line, either.
More disturbingly, the Air Force seems to be ignoring the root causes behind these scandals. Historians note that the service has never court-martialed a general officer in its 60 year-history. Well, maybe it's time to start. No wonder Secretary Rumsfeld holds the Air Force in such low regard. And that opinion won't change until the Air Force finds a few leaders willing to set the correct, unswerving example--and hold everyone to the same high standards of accountability.
His reply was short and direct: "In his (Rumsfeld's) eyes, we're lower than whale s***.
As evidence of that assessment, he offered the list the scandals that have plagued the Air Force in recent years, beginning with the prosecution (and imprisonment) of the service's senior civilian contracting officer, Darlene Druyun, who provided preferential treatment to Boeing in bidding competition for a new tanker contract. Then, there was the rape scandal and religion controversy at the U.S. Air Force Academy. While the religion issue has been clearly overblown, the rape scandal was genuine, prompting the punishment of several cadets, and major reforms at the institution.
If that weren't bad enough, the contracting and academy scandals were quickly followed by more controversies involving high-ranking officers. Major General Thomas Fiscus, the service's top Judge Advocate General (JAG) was reduced in rank to Colonel (and forced to retire) in January 2005, after an investigation found him involved in several affairs and improper conduct around more than a dozen women. A few months later, Brigadier General Richard Hassan (who ran the Air Force Senior Leadership Management Office in Washington), suddenly stepped down, amid allegations he carried out a foot fetish with female subordinates. Hassan also retired as a Colonel, after receiving non-judicial punishment.
But the problems don't stop there. A retired Air Force four-star general, Hal Hornburg, is under investigation by the FBI for his role in the awarding of a contract for a video screen for the Thunderbirds aerial demonstration team. A firm in which Hornburg is a partner won the contract barely six months after he retired from service. While on active duty, General Hornburg led the Air Force command which includes the Thunderbirds. The contract was later cancelled, after competitors claimed that Hornburg's firm received preferential treatment.
And, just over the weekend, there was word of a new scandal involving Air Force personnel. A Chief Master Sergeant assigned to the Inspector General (IG) team at Air Force Space Command has been reduced in grade after engaging in sex with a woman assigned to a security forces unit he was inspecting at Patrick AFB, FL. Chief Master Sergeant Troy Parker was reduced to E-8, sentenced to 45 days at hard labor, reprimanded and fined $3,000 for having several trysts with a female reserve staff sergeant assiged to Patrick's 45th Security Forces Squadron. As a chief--and an IG inspector to boot--Parker was supposed to set and enforce standards in the units he inspected.
But the Patrick controversy doesn't end there. The security forces unit's top enlisted member, Senior Master Sergeant Michael Sydney, is accused of arranging the trysts between the female member and the inspector. According to a charge sheet obtained by Florida Today, Sydney threatened to extend the woman's reserve tour unless she performed sexual favors on Parker and one of the squadron's officers, Captain Philip Sting. Captain Sting is now facing charges on indecency and obstruction of justice; he reportedly told the reservist to lie about what happened in her conversations with investigators. In addition to solicitation charges, Sergeant Sydney is also accused of having sex with female subordinates, and using a government computer to store pornography.
Is there a common threat linking all these events, or is the Air Force simply having a run of bad luck? Afterall, the military reflects the society it serves, and if sexual misconduct and financial hijinks are rampant in the public sector, then (the theory goes), you'll see some of the same activity in the armed forces.
But that "explanation" is a bit too pat and easy. Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought the military should hold itself to higher standards than the civilian sector. Indeed, the Air Force once advertised its "core values" as "Integrity First," "Service Before Self," and "Excellence in All We Do." It's hard to find any semblance of those values in the escapades I've just described.
And that brings me back to the search for a common thread that links these various scandals. I think the underlying cause can be summed by two explanations: (1) A lack of leadership, beginning at the very top, and (2) a pervasive double standard of accountability and punishment for senior personnel and "everyone else."
For more than 20 years, the Air Force has been run by fighter pilots. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, since fighter aircraft represent much of the service's combat capabilities. And, in fairness, the majority of fighter pilot generals are hard-working, honorable men, and more than a few are outstanding leaders in their own right. But a small minority within this group carry a sense of entitlement and a belief that the rules apply to "the other guys." Over my 20-plus year career, I saw more than a few fighter jocks-turned-flag officers get by with misdeeds that would have destroyed the careers of mere mortals. Regrettably, that sense of entitlement seems to have spread to other senior officials, as evidenced by the Druyun, Fiscus and Hassan scandals.
And, that same aura of invincibility now seems to be entering the senior enlisted ranks as well. As a Chief Master Sergeant, Parker knew better, but that didn't stop him. Ditto for Senior Master Sergeant Sydney, the alleged "pimp" in this case. The senior NCO reportedly arranged for the female reservist to perform oral sex on Capt Sting while Sydney watched. Amazingly (or, perhaps not-so-amazingly) the 45th Security Forces Squadron earned the highest possible rating--"Outstanding"--during their recent IG inspection. In the ethical climate of today's Air Force, apparently the only thing that matters is results; how you get them is another matter (just don't get caught).
The Air Force is probably hoping that Sydney and Sting cop their own plea deals, avoiding the embarassment of a public courts-martial. Such a proceeding will doubtlessly raise questions about why Sydney and Sting are being hammered, while deviants like Fiscus and Hassan got off relatively scot-free. The Air Force claims that Fiscus "lost" more than $500,000 in retired pay by stepping down as a Colonel, rather than a two-star general. What the service won't say is that Fiscus will only lose that much money if he lives to be 100. Meanwhile, he still has a law license and a long list of contacts that will give him a six-figure job with a legal firm or a defense contractor. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Hassan won't wind up in the food stamp line, either.
More disturbingly, the Air Force seems to be ignoring the root causes behind these scandals. Historians note that the service has never court-martialed a general officer in its 60 year-history. Well, maybe it's time to start. No wonder Secretary Rumsfeld holds the Air Force in such low regard. And that opinion won't change until the Air Force finds a few leaders willing to set the correct, unswerving example--and hold everyone to the same high standards of accountability.
For the Record
This Air Force press release provides only bare-bones information about last week's strike that took out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, so let me fill in a few operational details.
For the record, the F-16 that took out the terrorist lead is a Block 30 jet, assigned to the Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Fighter Wing, normally based at the Montgomery Regional Airport. The Block 30 is one of the tried-and-true variants of the Viper, best known as the first F-16 with a General Electric engine. Block 30 jets have one of the best thrust-to-weight ratios of any of the F-16 variants, since the GE powerplant produces 5,000 pounds more thrust that comparable Pratt and Whitney models. Most of the Block 30s rolled off the General Dynamics assembly line in the late 80s, but will remain in service with the ANG for years to come.
While the jet that dropped those 500-lb bombs came from the Alabama Guard, the pilot in the cockpit on the Zarqawi mission was a member of the Wisconsin ANG's 115th Fighter Wing, located in that liberal mecca, Madison, Wisconsin. A rather delicious irony, wouldn't you say? I wonder if the Madison City Council or University of Wisconsin faculty senate will pass a resolution condemning the "use" of state ANG personnel in "George Bush's illegal war."
Personally, I'm hoping the jet's crew chief paints a little picture of Zarqawi beneath the canopy, in commeration of the F-16's "victory" over the terrorist mastermind.
For the record, the F-16 that took out the terrorist lead is a Block 30 jet, assigned to the Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Fighter Wing, normally based at the Montgomery Regional Airport. The Block 30 is one of the tried-and-true variants of the Viper, best known as the first F-16 with a General Electric engine. Block 30 jets have one of the best thrust-to-weight ratios of any of the F-16 variants, since the GE powerplant produces 5,000 pounds more thrust that comparable Pratt and Whitney models. Most of the Block 30s rolled off the General Dynamics assembly line in the late 80s, but will remain in service with the ANG for years to come.
While the jet that dropped those 500-lb bombs came from the Alabama Guard, the pilot in the cockpit on the Zarqawi mission was a member of the Wisconsin ANG's 115th Fighter Wing, located in that liberal mecca, Madison, Wisconsin. A rather delicious irony, wouldn't you say? I wonder if the Madison City Council or University of Wisconsin faculty senate will pass a resolution condemning the "use" of state ANG personnel in "George Bush's illegal war."
Personally, I'm hoping the jet's crew chief paints a little picture of Zarqawi beneath the canopy, in commeration of the F-16's "victory" over the terrorist mastermind.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Bad Timing
For a blogger who focuses on military and intelligence issues, there was no worse time to be on the road--and without my trusty laptop--that yesterday, when the world learned that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been "terminated" by U.S. and coalition military forces.
But there is sweet justice in knowing that Iraq's most nortorious terrorist is dead, and better yet, he was actually alive when U.S. and Polish military personnel arrived on the scene. According to some press reports, Zarqawi actually tried to climb off his stretcher when he realized he was in coalition hands, then died a short time later. It's actually a bit of a shame that Zarqawi wasn't in better shape, and might have tried to engage those Task Force 145 operators who were watching from across the street. But, after watching Zarqawi's famous "SAW" video, we know it wouldn't be been a fair fight.
With Zarqawi now roasting on his own special spit, the MSM (and its various "experts") are already downplaying the significance of his demise. True, Zarqawi wasn't the only terrorist leader in Iraq--only the most famous; the man who literally put a face on the murdering savages who have killed hundreds of U.S. troops, and thousands of Iraqi civilians. If you believe Richard Clark, Zarqawi and his minions represent only about 5% of the "insurgency," but such statements ignore an obvious fact--Al Qaida in Iraq was responsible for some of the most spectacular attacks and brutal acts perpetuated by the terrorists, including the bombing of the U.N. complex in Baghdad, and the beheading deaths of several western hostages, including American businessman Nicholas Berg.
At this point, the focus ought to be on the spooks and troops who arranged the meeting between Zarqawi and his maker. But, alas, too much talk of a "successful" operation might translate into higher poll numbers for George Bush, so the pictures of Zarqawi's battered body must be "balanced" by John Kerry and John Murtha declaring "mission complete," and demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of the year. It's tantamount to proclaiming victory on June 7, 1944. But, it's part-and-parcel of what passes for national security policy in most quarters of the Democratic Party. Somewhere, Harry Truman and Henry "Spook" Jackson are spinning in their graves.
But rather that focus on the nay-sayers, I'll offer one more tip of the hat to the young men and women responsible for finding and eliminating Zarqawi. Ironically, I spent part of the day Thursday in their company, as part of a group touring an Air Force DCGS site. I've written about DCGS before; it's the ground site where images and other data from various airbreather platforms (aircraft and UAVs) is analyzed, exploited, and forwarded to the operators and in the skies.
Sites like the one I visited play an important role in the War on Terror, providing real-time support to troops in harm's way. I was told (unofficially) the site had played a minor role in monitoring Zarqawi's final hideout. "There wasn't much to see," one officer told me. "We kept an eye on the house, to make sure he didn't leave." With confirmation that Zarqawi was in the house, U.S. special forces, Iraqi security units and Air Force F-16s did the rest. The Iraqis quietly cordoned off the area; SOF troops took up positions across the street from the Al-Qaida hideout, and at the appointed moment, the F-16s dropped two 500-lb bombs. Inside the DGS facility on Thursday morning, the war had already moved on. Young officers, NCOs and airmen were monitoring other missions on the war zone. But on a video monitor inside their operations center, Fox News Channel was re-playing the F-16 video from the night before, a mission that they had played a role in.
There wasn't any cheering or outward celebration in the ops center that morning--just professionals doing their job, and doing it exceptionally well. As we watched missions unfold, our escort officer pointed to the computer terminal of an Air Force lieutenant who was probably in his mid-20s. Watching the feeds from various surveillance platforms, the lieutenant (in turn) orchestrated his team while relaying data to other intel nodes and operational customers via a series of secure chat rooms. By my count, the lieutenant was monitoring at least a dozen chat rooms, connecting the front lines to ops centers and intel facilities around the world. "I don't think I could do that," whispered our escort officer, as he watched the lieutenant work.
I don't think I could, either. And ditto for the work done by the intel troops on the ground, the SOF operators on the streets of Baghdad, and the F-16 pilots who delivered Zarqawi's coup de grace. Military and intelligence service is a young person's game, and we are fortunate to have such able men and women defending our freedom, both in Iraq and in those DGS trailers where critical information is gathered and disseminated. Our country and the people of Iraq--no, make that free people everywhere--owe them a debt of gratitude. Most of them would probably settle for a simple "thank you."
But there is sweet justice in knowing that Iraq's most nortorious terrorist is dead, and better yet, he was actually alive when U.S. and Polish military personnel arrived on the scene. According to some press reports, Zarqawi actually tried to climb off his stretcher when he realized he was in coalition hands, then died a short time later. It's actually a bit of a shame that Zarqawi wasn't in better shape, and might have tried to engage those Task Force 145 operators who were watching from across the street. But, after watching Zarqawi's famous "SAW" video, we know it wouldn't be been a fair fight.
With Zarqawi now roasting on his own special spit, the MSM (and its various "experts") are already downplaying the significance of his demise. True, Zarqawi wasn't the only terrorist leader in Iraq--only the most famous; the man who literally put a face on the murdering savages who have killed hundreds of U.S. troops, and thousands of Iraqi civilians. If you believe Richard Clark, Zarqawi and his minions represent only about 5% of the "insurgency," but such statements ignore an obvious fact--Al Qaida in Iraq was responsible for some of the most spectacular attacks and brutal acts perpetuated by the terrorists, including the bombing of the U.N. complex in Baghdad, and the beheading deaths of several western hostages, including American businessman Nicholas Berg.
At this point, the focus ought to be on the spooks and troops who arranged the meeting between Zarqawi and his maker. But, alas, too much talk of a "successful" operation might translate into higher poll numbers for George Bush, so the pictures of Zarqawi's battered body must be "balanced" by John Kerry and John Murtha declaring "mission complete," and demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of the year. It's tantamount to proclaiming victory on June 7, 1944. But, it's part-and-parcel of what passes for national security policy in most quarters of the Democratic Party. Somewhere, Harry Truman and Henry "Spook" Jackson are spinning in their graves.
But rather that focus on the nay-sayers, I'll offer one more tip of the hat to the young men and women responsible for finding and eliminating Zarqawi. Ironically, I spent part of the day Thursday in their company, as part of a group touring an Air Force DCGS site. I've written about DCGS before; it's the ground site where images and other data from various airbreather platforms (aircraft and UAVs) is analyzed, exploited, and forwarded to the operators and in the skies.
Sites like the one I visited play an important role in the War on Terror, providing real-time support to troops in harm's way. I was told (unofficially) the site had played a minor role in monitoring Zarqawi's final hideout. "There wasn't much to see," one officer told me. "We kept an eye on the house, to make sure he didn't leave." With confirmation that Zarqawi was in the house, U.S. special forces, Iraqi security units and Air Force F-16s did the rest. The Iraqis quietly cordoned off the area; SOF troops took up positions across the street from the Al-Qaida hideout, and at the appointed moment, the F-16s dropped two 500-lb bombs. Inside the DGS facility on Thursday morning, the war had already moved on. Young officers, NCOs and airmen were monitoring other missions on the war zone. But on a video monitor inside their operations center, Fox News Channel was re-playing the F-16 video from the night before, a mission that they had played a role in.
There wasn't any cheering or outward celebration in the ops center that morning--just professionals doing their job, and doing it exceptionally well. As we watched missions unfold, our escort officer pointed to the computer terminal of an Air Force lieutenant who was probably in his mid-20s. Watching the feeds from various surveillance platforms, the lieutenant (in turn) orchestrated his team while relaying data to other intel nodes and operational customers via a series of secure chat rooms. By my count, the lieutenant was monitoring at least a dozen chat rooms, connecting the front lines to ops centers and intel facilities around the world. "I don't think I could do that," whispered our escort officer, as he watched the lieutenant work.
I don't think I could, either. And ditto for the work done by the intel troops on the ground, the SOF operators on the streets of Baghdad, and the F-16 pilots who delivered Zarqawi's coup de grace. Military and intelligence service is a young person's game, and we are fortunate to have such able men and women defending our freedom, both in Iraq and in those DGS trailers where critical information is gathered and disseminated. Our country and the people of Iraq--no, make that free people everywhere--owe them a debt of gratitude. Most of them would probably settle for a simple "thank you."
Thursday, June 08, 2006
What’s Going on in Iran?
Michael Barone was one of the first to note the U.S. media’s lack of interest in recent unrest and demonstrations in Iran. While the MSM remains preoccupied with the nuclear issue and the antics of President Ahmadinejad (will he go to the World Cup?), there have been reports of violent clashes between police and demonstrators in several Iranian cities, including Tabriz.
From what I can gather, many of the confrontations occurred in northwest Iran (where Tabriz is the largest city), and home to a large number of ethnic Azeris. Many of Iran’s Azeri minority would like to be reunited with neighboring Azerbaijan, a prospect that Tehran has summarily rejected. According to Azeri TV in Baku, clashes with Iranian police have claimed the lives of at least five Azeris over the past week, and as many as 11,000 Azeris have been detained. Iranian authorities also temporarily suspended cell phone service in the region, in an effort to prevent unrest from spreading, and keep the story from getting out.
Admittedly, Baku TV isn’t the most accurate or reliable of sources, but at least they’re covering the story. Since Iran’s student movement fizzled in the late 1990s, the U.S. media has all-but-ignored discontent and unrest within Iran’s borders. Time magazine even postulated that student demonstrators had been co-opted by the regime, and were more interested in better paying jobs and creature comforts, than genuine political reform.
In reality, there been a persistent undercurrent of discontent in Iran for years. The student demonstrations of 1999 were followed by a regime crackdown. But there was a second, substantial wave of protests (and some violence) in 2003, followed by another government backlash. Now, public dissatisfaction (particularly among ethnic minorities) seems to be bubbling over again.
It is possible to make too much of this story. Opposition within Iran remains fragmented along ethnic and other demographic lines; at this point, it seems unlikely that opposition groups can coalesce around a central figure or leader and effectively challenge the regime.
But, on the other hand, Iran is hardly the fundamentalist monlith so often potrayed in the western press. There is something going on in Iran, but you wouldn’t know it from the U.S. media.
From what I can gather, many of the confrontations occurred in northwest Iran (where Tabriz is the largest city), and home to a large number of ethnic Azeris. Many of Iran’s Azeri minority would like to be reunited with neighboring Azerbaijan, a prospect that Tehran has summarily rejected. According to Azeri TV in Baku, clashes with Iranian police have claimed the lives of at least five Azeris over the past week, and as many as 11,000 Azeris have been detained. Iranian authorities also temporarily suspended cell phone service in the region, in an effort to prevent unrest from spreading, and keep the story from getting out.
Admittedly, Baku TV isn’t the most accurate or reliable of sources, but at least they’re covering the story. Since Iran’s student movement fizzled in the late 1990s, the U.S. media has all-but-ignored discontent and unrest within Iran’s borders. Time magazine even postulated that student demonstrators had been co-opted by the regime, and were more interested in better paying jobs and creature comforts, than genuine political reform.
In reality, there been a persistent undercurrent of discontent in Iran for years. The student demonstrations of 1999 were followed by a regime crackdown. But there was a second, substantial wave of protests (and some violence) in 2003, followed by another government backlash. Now, public dissatisfaction (particularly among ethnic minorities) seems to be bubbling over again.
It is possible to make too much of this story. Opposition within Iran remains fragmented along ethnic and other demographic lines; at this point, it seems unlikely that opposition groups can coalesce around a central figure or leader and effectively challenge the regime.
But, on the other hand, Iran is hardly the fundamentalist monlith so often potrayed in the western press. There is something going on in Iran, but you wouldn’t know it from the U.S. media.
Failing the Aggie Test
Like other elements within DOD, the Air Force is struggling with budget shortfalls and accompanying personnel cutbacks. At least 40,000 enlisted personnel, officers and civilians will be trimmed from the ranks over the next four years, to achieve required savings and help fund weapons upgrades.
In military circles, it’s called a Reduction in Force (RIF) and most of us have lived through one or more. The Air Force has already announced plans to involuntarily separate several hundred junior officers by the end of the current fiscal year, and more cuts may be on the way. A senior officer told me the other day that he expects that 20,000 additional personnel will be eventually eliminated, on top of the 40,000 currently projected. The ramifications of these cutbacks will be felt for years to come; today’s airmen and lieutenants are tomorrow’s Chief Master Sergeants and Colonels. In other words, we may face an experience gap in the future, thanks to personnel decisions being made today.
If the service is facing tough times in terms of manning and personnel—and it is—perhaps someone can explain the logic of this Air Force decision, outlined in a recent press release:
6/7/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Some previously restricted Airmen now may be assigned permanently or on temporary duty to any stateside base with a medical facility or to certain overseas bases with a medical facility because of recent changes to Air Force Instruction 41-210, “Patient Administration Functions,” and the initiation of a Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C.
Airmen diagnosed with medical conditions that are potentially disqualifying from continued military service undergo a medical evaluation board. Many are not discharged, but are returned to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code-C, or ALC-C. The code is issued by the Air Force Personnel Center's Medical Standards Branch in the Medical Service Officer Management Division.
This code restricts permanent and TDY assignments to areas where appropriate medical care is available to the member. The intent of the ALC-C is to protect members from being placed in an environment where adequate medical care is not available.
Under the Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C program, Airmen placed on Code C restriction now fall into one of three stratification levels:
C1: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to global Department of Defense installations with medical treatment facilities. Generally, approvals are for conditions that are stable and found as a result of a medical review and not likely to worsen suddenly.
C2: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to CONUS installations. They could also be deployable or assignable to overseas bases or non-fixed facilities if appropriate care is available. This is generally approved for temporary or mild conditions requiring follow-up but clinically inactive and managed without frequent visits or unique medication regimen or prescriptions.
C3: Airmen who are TDY non-deployable and assignment-limited to a specific installation based on medical need and availability of care. Approval authority is the Medical Standards Branch. The member’s commander may request waivers to send a member on deployment or permanent assignment in support of unit operations.
“Airmen with certain conditions, such as mild asthma, may now be eligible for permanent or TDY assignments to locations never before possible," said Lt. Col. (Dr.) Lane Wall, Air Force Medical Operations Agency in Washington, D.C.
Asthma accounts for the highest number of Airmen restricted from assignments.
“Roughly 2,000 Airmen with asthma could be affected by the change,” Colonel Wall said. “These Airmen with asthma may deploy to places such as Germany and Japan.”
Assignment or deployment to these locations will depend on the availability of primary care physicians to manage the disease-associated routine medication issues, and assurance that additional care is available should the Airman’s condition worsen.
“All Airmen going through the medical review process will be assigned using the new stratification levels,” Colonel Wall said. “Airmen who are already on Code C will be assigned the new stratification levels during their next scheduled update or when they’re selected for a permanent or TDY deployment assignment.”
In other words, the Air Force is kicking 40,000 healthy folks to the curb, while bending over backwards to retain 2,000 airmen, NCOs and officers whose health conditions prevent them from deploying to a combat zone. Perhaps I’m a bit unschooled in the finer points of military medicine and personnel assignments, but this one simply flunks the Aggie test.
And I’m not the only one concerned by this trend. A retired Air Force E-9, a former senior enlisted advisor (and one of the truly great Chiefs to ever wear the uniform) believes that medical restrictions have become a dodge for airmen who want to avoid deployments to combat zones or other undesirable locations. He remembers one case where a string of senior NCOs suddenly developed medical problems to avoid an assignment to a small base in northern Italy. With airmen now pulling duty at such garden spots as Bagram, Balad and Baghdad, I’m sure this trend has only accelerated.
The solution is painfully obvious. If these airmen aren’t healthy enough for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should they be retained for assignments stateside, or at overseas locations with “adequate” medical facilities. If their problems are chronic or long-term, convene a medical board, and give them early retirement or involuntary separation. Then, fill their spot with a healthy airman who would be otherwise forced out by personnel reductions.
There’s nothing wrong with the Air Force making an occasional exception for personnel with medical conditions that limit deployments. But the number of airmen currently on the Code C program is entirely too high, and members of the “Profile Corps” are sending other airmen downrange for a second, third or fourth tour in the sandbox. Get rid of some of these medical goldbricks and you’ll see an immediate improvement across the board. Faced with an early exit from the Air Force, some of the Code C’rs will suddenly find their health improved; there will be less work for the admin troops, medical folks and commanders (who now spend too much time on medical restriction issues), and fully-qualified airmen will get more of a break from combat deployments.
It’s time for the Air Force to get serious about this issue. Or, as Chief Buddy would say, flush early and often.
In military circles, it’s called a Reduction in Force (RIF) and most of us have lived through one or more. The Air Force has already announced plans to involuntarily separate several hundred junior officers by the end of the current fiscal year, and more cuts may be on the way. A senior officer told me the other day that he expects that 20,000 additional personnel will be eventually eliminated, on top of the 40,000 currently projected. The ramifications of these cutbacks will be felt for years to come; today’s airmen and lieutenants are tomorrow’s Chief Master Sergeants and Colonels. In other words, we may face an experience gap in the future, thanks to personnel decisions being made today.
If the service is facing tough times in terms of manning and personnel—and it is—perhaps someone can explain the logic of this Air Force decision, outlined in a recent press release:
6/7/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Some previously restricted Airmen now may be assigned permanently or on temporary duty to any stateside base with a medical facility or to certain overseas bases with a medical facility because of recent changes to Air Force Instruction 41-210, “Patient Administration Functions,” and the initiation of a Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C.
Airmen diagnosed with medical conditions that are potentially disqualifying from continued military service undergo a medical evaluation board. Many are not discharged, but are returned to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code-C, or ALC-C. The code is issued by the Air Force Personnel Center's Medical Standards Branch in the Medical Service Officer Management Division.
This code restricts permanent and TDY assignments to areas where appropriate medical care is available to the member. The intent of the ALC-C is to protect members from being placed in an environment where adequate medical care is not available.
Under the Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C program, Airmen placed on Code C restriction now fall into one of three stratification levels:
C1: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to global Department of Defense installations with medical treatment facilities. Generally, approvals are for conditions that are stable and found as a result of a medical review and not likely to worsen suddenly.
C2: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to CONUS installations. They could also be deployable or assignable to overseas bases or non-fixed facilities if appropriate care is available. This is generally approved for temporary or mild conditions requiring follow-up but clinically inactive and managed without frequent visits or unique medication regimen or prescriptions.
C3: Airmen who are TDY non-deployable and assignment-limited to a specific installation based on medical need and availability of care. Approval authority is the Medical Standards Branch. The member’s commander may request waivers to send a member on deployment or permanent assignment in support of unit operations.
“Airmen with certain conditions, such as mild asthma, may now be eligible for permanent or TDY assignments to locations never before possible," said Lt. Col. (Dr.) Lane Wall, Air Force Medical Operations Agency in Washington, D.C.
Asthma accounts for the highest number of Airmen restricted from assignments.
“Roughly 2,000 Airmen with asthma could be affected by the change,” Colonel Wall said. “These Airmen with asthma may deploy to places such as Germany and Japan.”
Assignment or deployment to these locations will depend on the availability of primary care physicians to manage the disease-associated routine medication issues, and assurance that additional care is available should the Airman’s condition worsen.
“All Airmen going through the medical review process will be assigned using the new stratification levels,” Colonel Wall said. “Airmen who are already on Code C will be assigned the new stratification levels during their next scheduled update or when they’re selected for a permanent or TDY deployment assignment.”
In other words, the Air Force is kicking 40,000 healthy folks to the curb, while bending over backwards to retain 2,000 airmen, NCOs and officers whose health conditions prevent them from deploying to a combat zone. Perhaps I’m a bit unschooled in the finer points of military medicine and personnel assignments, but this one simply flunks the Aggie test.
And I’m not the only one concerned by this trend. A retired Air Force E-9, a former senior enlisted advisor (and one of the truly great Chiefs to ever wear the uniform) believes that medical restrictions have become a dodge for airmen who want to avoid deployments to combat zones or other undesirable locations. He remembers one case where a string of senior NCOs suddenly developed medical problems to avoid an assignment to a small base in northern Italy. With airmen now pulling duty at such garden spots as Bagram, Balad and Baghdad, I’m sure this trend has only accelerated.
The solution is painfully obvious. If these airmen aren’t healthy enough for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should they be retained for assignments stateside, or at overseas locations with “adequate” medical facilities. If their problems are chronic or long-term, convene a medical board, and give them early retirement or involuntary separation. Then, fill their spot with a healthy airman who would be otherwise forced out by personnel reductions.
There’s nothing wrong with the Air Force making an occasional exception for personnel with medical conditions that limit deployments. But the number of airmen currently on the Code C program is entirely too high, and members of the “Profile Corps” are sending other airmen downrange for a second, third or fourth tour in the sandbox. Get rid of some of these medical goldbricks and you’ll see an immediate improvement across the board. Faced with an early exit from the Air Force, some of the Code C’rs will suddenly find their health improved; there will be less work for the admin troops, medical folks and commanders (who now spend too much time on medical restriction issues), and fully-qualified airmen will get more of a break from combat deployments.
It’s time for the Air Force to get serious about this issue. Or, as Chief Buddy would say, flush early and often.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The Next Space Race
The Pentagon has just released its annual report on Chinese space power, and it's a disturbing document, in several respects. Not only is Beijing spending heavily to develop space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems, it is also investing in navigation warfare and anti-satellite capabilities that pose a direct threat to U.S. and its ability to wage future wars.
Space.com has a summary of the report, which focuses on China's efforts to expand its manned space program, develop its own, space-based navigation systems (similar to GPS), improve launch capabilities and create viable anti-satellite technologies that could threaten U.S. reconnaissance satellites in low earth orbit, and deny information to military commanders.
From an intelligence perspective, China's emerging navigation warfare (NAVWAR) strategy is a clear concern to American defense analysts and military planners. Beijing clearly understands that the U.S. has grown increasingly dependent on precision-guided munitions, and the satellites required to guide them to their targets. As a hedge against our precision strike systems, China is developing a two-phased approach. Within their own territory, they plan to deploy GPS jammers, making it more difficult for satellite-guided bombs to find their mark. While military systems use a "secure" mode of GPS, advanced jammers (deployed properly) could have some impact on that system, creating miss distances that would ensure target survival, or minimize damage, and force a re-strike, against an increasingly defense Chinese air defense array.
At the same time, Beijing is also investing in its own satellite-guided weapons, capable of using GPS, Russia's GLOSNASS, the European Galileo system, or China's own Beidou navigation satellites. The Chinese assume that signals from at least one of these systems would be accessible in the skies over Taiwan, allowing short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to still find their targets. In essence, China hopes to deny use of space-based navigation and strike capabilities to an adversary operating over their territory, while using the same technology to conduct attacks against Taiwan. While there are some problems with this approach (namely in the technical capabilities of the Beidou system), development of this NAVWAR strategy illustrates how far China's space program has come over the past decade.
More disturbing is China's efforts to field anti-satellite systems, capable of targeting adversary platforms in low earth orbit (LEO). That's the arena where many U.S. spy satellites operate. And while our reconnaissance platforms are technical marvels, they are also limited in terms of numbers, and it's extremely expensive and time-consuming to manufacture them. With a robust ASAT system, China could develop the ability to disable or destroy much of our LEO intel constellation, leaving the U.S. with no short-term options for replacing them. Bowing to political pressure, the U.S. essentially abandoned its ASAT program back in the 1980s; meanwhile, Beijing has plowed ahead, and is developing capabilities that could have grave implications for our space-based collection systems.
Predictably, some on the left (notably Harvard's Jeffrey Lewis) have dismissed the report as little more than "a laundry list of Chinese space activities." I would argue that Mr. Lewis can't see the forest for the trees. Beijing clearly has a space plan, designed to challenge U.S. supremacy in that arena, and advance its own interests at the same time. China's NAVWAR strategy and ASAT efforts aren't isolated "science projects," they are integral parts of a comprehensive scheme that should be closely monitored by the U.S. intelligence communities.
How worried should we be about China as a space power? In recent weeks, senior Congressional leaders and the Director of National Intelligence have been briefed on some of the topics outlined in the space report. Thankfully, there are some leaders in our national security establishment who can see the big picture, and view China's space endeavors as an over-arching plan, and not a series of isolated efforts.
Space.com has a summary of the report, which focuses on China's efforts to expand its manned space program, develop its own, space-based navigation systems (similar to GPS), improve launch capabilities and create viable anti-satellite technologies that could threaten U.S. reconnaissance satellites in low earth orbit, and deny information to military commanders.
From an intelligence perspective, China's emerging navigation warfare (NAVWAR) strategy is a clear concern to American defense analysts and military planners. Beijing clearly understands that the U.S. has grown increasingly dependent on precision-guided munitions, and the satellites required to guide them to their targets. As a hedge against our precision strike systems, China is developing a two-phased approach. Within their own territory, they plan to deploy GPS jammers, making it more difficult for satellite-guided bombs to find their mark. While military systems use a "secure" mode of GPS, advanced jammers (deployed properly) could have some impact on that system, creating miss distances that would ensure target survival, or minimize damage, and force a re-strike, against an increasingly defense Chinese air defense array.
At the same time, Beijing is also investing in its own satellite-guided weapons, capable of using GPS, Russia's GLOSNASS, the European Galileo system, or China's own Beidou navigation satellites. The Chinese assume that signals from at least one of these systems would be accessible in the skies over Taiwan, allowing short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to still find their targets. In essence, China hopes to deny use of space-based navigation and strike capabilities to an adversary operating over their territory, while using the same technology to conduct attacks against Taiwan. While there are some problems with this approach (namely in the technical capabilities of the Beidou system), development of this NAVWAR strategy illustrates how far China's space program has come over the past decade.
More disturbing is China's efforts to field anti-satellite systems, capable of targeting adversary platforms in low earth orbit (LEO). That's the arena where many U.S. spy satellites operate. And while our reconnaissance platforms are technical marvels, they are also limited in terms of numbers, and it's extremely expensive and time-consuming to manufacture them. With a robust ASAT system, China could develop the ability to disable or destroy much of our LEO intel constellation, leaving the U.S. with no short-term options for replacing them. Bowing to political pressure, the U.S. essentially abandoned its ASAT program back in the 1980s; meanwhile, Beijing has plowed ahead, and is developing capabilities that could have grave implications for our space-based collection systems.
Predictably, some on the left (notably Harvard's Jeffrey Lewis) have dismissed the report as little more than "a laundry list of Chinese space activities." I would argue that Mr. Lewis can't see the forest for the trees. Beijing clearly has a space plan, designed to challenge U.S. supremacy in that arena, and advance its own interests at the same time. China's NAVWAR strategy and ASAT efforts aren't isolated "science projects," they are integral parts of a comprehensive scheme that should be closely monitored by the U.S. intelligence communities.
How worried should we be about China as a space power? In recent weeks, senior Congressional leaders and the Director of National Intelligence have been briefed on some of the topics outlined in the space report. Thankfully, there are some leaders in our national security establishment who can see the big picture, and view China's space endeavors as an over-arching plan, and not a series of isolated efforts.
The Offer
According to the Associated Press, the United States is prepared to offer “some” nuclear technology to Iran, in exchange for suspension of uranium enrichment efforts. The offer is reportedly part of a package of incentives developed by the U.S. and its European allies, and presented to Iran on Tuesday.
Call me a pessimist, but this package is probably DOA, although Tehran will probably delay formal rejection of the offer until the time is right. Not only has the Iranian regime declared an inherent “right” to nuclear technology, it’s also doubtful that the U.S. would provide the type of advanced technology desired by Tehran—the very type of dual-use systems now being developed by Iran, capable of supporting civilian applications, or nuclear weapons development.
This proposal illustrates how desperate the U.S. and the Europeans have become in trying to keep the diplomatic option alive. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I'd guess that Tehran will not just reject the offer, but come back with a counter-proposal, demanding even more in the way of nuclear technology. Having seen the west's "starting point," Tehran realizes it can press for much more, with some hope of gaining additional concessions from the U.S. and its European partners.
Readers may recall that this "package" also outlines potential penalties for Iranian non-compliance. The AP dispatch makes no mention of those penalties, suggesting that the proposed deal has more carrots than sticks. If that's the case, then perhaps the best scenario for this offer is a quick death, followed by a tougher follow-up offer, balancing rewards and penalties. Call that a diplomatic pipe dream.
Call me a pessimist, but this package is probably DOA, although Tehran will probably delay formal rejection of the offer until the time is right. Not only has the Iranian regime declared an inherent “right” to nuclear technology, it’s also doubtful that the U.S. would provide the type of advanced technology desired by Tehran—the very type of dual-use systems now being developed by Iran, capable of supporting civilian applications, or nuclear weapons development.
This proposal illustrates how desperate the U.S. and the Europeans have become in trying to keep the diplomatic option alive. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I'd guess that Tehran will not just reject the offer, but come back with a counter-proposal, demanding even more in the way of nuclear technology. Having seen the west's "starting point," Tehran realizes it can press for much more, with some hope of gaining additional concessions from the U.S. and its European partners.
Readers may recall that this "package" also outlines potential penalties for Iranian non-compliance. The AP dispatch makes no mention of those penalties, suggesting that the proposed deal has more carrots than sticks. If that's the case, then perhaps the best scenario for this offer is a quick death, followed by a tougher follow-up offer, balancing rewards and penalties. Call that a diplomatic pipe dream.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Blending In
One of the leaders at a mosque attended by those Canadian terror suspects is expressing surprise at their arrest, and their apparent plans to conduct a series of bombings across southern Ontario.
According to Iman Qamrul Khanson, several members of the suspected terror ring prayed daily at his storefont mosque (the Al Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education), but "never spoke of hurting others." The one-room mosque is located in Mississauga, Ontario, a middle-class town west of Toronto. At least 40-50 families attend the mosque; press reports indicate at least three of the suspects prayed there on a regular basis.
The oldest suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was apparently more than a mere worshipper. Khanson told reporters that Jamal often led prayers at the mosque, and described them as "more aggressive" than those of other worship leaders. But Khanson said that Jamal's prayers contained no mention of violence or terrorism.
That description doesn't quite square with other accounts, which suggest that Jamal is a "well-known and fiery figure in Toronto's South Asian community, and iman of the Ar Rahman Quran Learning Center in Mississagua. Tarek Fatah, who runs the Muslim Canadian Congress says Jamal took over "an otherwise peaceful mosque and threw out the old management. There were reports throughout the community of him making hate speeches." Hat tip: Andrew Coyne.
And, if that's not enough, there are those disturbing ties between Jamal's gang and a couple of U.S. terrorism suspects, recently arrested by the FBI. Two other Canadians with ties to Jamal are already in prison, after being apprehended as they attempted to smuggle weapons into that country. That activity, coupled with the group's ideology and attempts to purchase large quantities of amonium nitrate, certainly warranted their surveillance by U.S. and Canadian authorities. When the RCMP learned of their attempt to buy amonium nitrate, a sting was arranged, with officers posing as fertilizer providers, and a harmless powder substituted for the chemical, which becomes a high explosive when mixed with fuel oil or other substances.
The operation that led to last weekend's arrests is already being described as a "sting" and I'm sure that defense attorneys will start using the term "set-up" within the next couple of news cycles. That seems to be part-and-parcel of the domestic terrorist defense strategy, previously observed during terror cases in California and upstate New York. In Lodi, California, friends and neighbors expressed shock and disbelief at the arrests of a five men with alleged Al-Qaida connections, including a 22-year-old Pakistani-American who had attended a terrorist training camp near the Afghanistan border. "They are good people," said one neighbor. We never had any problem with them." Members of the Lackawanna Seven, convicted of providing material support to Al-Qaida, were described in equally, ordinary terms. One of the terrorists was even voted the "friendliest" member of his high school graduating class in 1996. All were long-time residents of the Lackawanna area, who blended seamlessly into their communities.
Which brings us back to that mosque in Ontario and the worshippers arrested over the weekend. It is far too early to determine if these men had any ties to Al-Qaida, but they certainly seem to fit the evolving profile of home-grown Islamic terrorists: Muslim men recruited, indoctrinated and trained in their community, where strong local ties make them all-but-oblivious to law enforcment. If press reports are accurate, the Canadian cell wasn't identified until their internet communications were intercepted by intelligence organizations, highlighting the ability of domestic terrorists to work and plot, literally under the noses of local authorities. It's the type of organizational model that facilitated successful terror attacks in London, Madrid (and elsewhere), and it remains one of the greatest challenges in prosecuting the War on Terror.
The Canadian investigation is continuing, and one issue that remains unresolved is the role Jamal played at that Ontario mosque, and whether his intentions plans were known (to any degree) outside the members of his cell. From what we've learned so far, the disrupted Toronto plot seems to be similar to failed plots in Lodi and Lackawanna in one key respect; in each case, the activities of suspected terrorists seemd all-but-transparent to the members of their communities.
Was the Canadian plot simply a case of terrorists blending easily into their surroundings, or an example of friends and neighbors ignoring potential warning signs, either intentionally or unintentionally. At this point, it's difficult to say, but reports of Jamal's "taking control" of that storefront mosque and preaching hate-filled sermons doesn't exactly match descriptions of a "peaceful" worship center offered by other members of the congregation. I'm guessing that Iman Khanson (and other members of the mosque) may be having some extended conversations with the RCMP in the coming days.
According to Iman Qamrul Khanson, several members of the suspected terror ring prayed daily at his storefont mosque (the Al Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education), but "never spoke of hurting others." The one-room mosque is located in Mississauga, Ontario, a middle-class town west of Toronto. At least 40-50 families attend the mosque; press reports indicate at least three of the suspects prayed there on a regular basis.
The oldest suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was apparently more than a mere worshipper. Khanson told reporters that Jamal often led prayers at the mosque, and described them as "more aggressive" than those of other worship leaders. But Khanson said that Jamal's prayers contained no mention of violence or terrorism.
That description doesn't quite square with other accounts, which suggest that Jamal is a "well-known and fiery figure in Toronto's South Asian community, and iman of the Ar Rahman Quran Learning Center in Mississagua. Tarek Fatah, who runs the Muslim Canadian Congress says Jamal took over "an otherwise peaceful mosque and threw out the old management. There were reports throughout the community of him making hate speeches." Hat tip: Andrew Coyne.
And, if that's not enough, there are those disturbing ties between Jamal's gang and a couple of U.S. terrorism suspects, recently arrested by the FBI. Two other Canadians with ties to Jamal are already in prison, after being apprehended as they attempted to smuggle weapons into that country. That activity, coupled with the group's ideology and attempts to purchase large quantities of amonium nitrate, certainly warranted their surveillance by U.S. and Canadian authorities. When the RCMP learned of their attempt to buy amonium nitrate, a sting was arranged, with officers posing as fertilizer providers, and a harmless powder substituted for the chemical, which becomes a high explosive when mixed with fuel oil or other substances.
The operation that led to last weekend's arrests is already being described as a "sting" and I'm sure that defense attorneys will start using the term "set-up" within the next couple of news cycles. That seems to be part-and-parcel of the domestic terrorist defense strategy, previously observed during terror cases in California and upstate New York. In Lodi, California, friends and neighbors expressed shock and disbelief at the arrests of a five men with alleged Al-Qaida connections, including a 22-year-old Pakistani-American who had attended a terrorist training camp near the Afghanistan border. "They are good people," said one neighbor. We never had any problem with them." Members of the Lackawanna Seven, convicted of providing material support to Al-Qaida, were described in equally, ordinary terms. One of the terrorists was even voted the "friendliest" member of his high school graduating class in 1996. All were long-time residents of the Lackawanna area, who blended seamlessly into their communities.
Which brings us back to that mosque in Ontario and the worshippers arrested over the weekend. It is far too early to determine if these men had any ties to Al-Qaida, but they certainly seem to fit the evolving profile of home-grown Islamic terrorists: Muslim men recruited, indoctrinated and trained in their community, where strong local ties make them all-but-oblivious to law enforcment. If press reports are accurate, the Canadian cell wasn't identified until their internet communications were intercepted by intelligence organizations, highlighting the ability of domestic terrorists to work and plot, literally under the noses of local authorities. It's the type of organizational model that facilitated successful terror attacks in London, Madrid (and elsewhere), and it remains one of the greatest challenges in prosecuting the War on Terror.
The Canadian investigation is continuing, and one issue that remains unresolved is the role Jamal played at that Ontario mosque, and whether his intentions plans were known (to any degree) outside the members of his cell. From what we've learned so far, the disrupted Toronto plot seems to be similar to failed plots in Lodi and Lackawanna in one key respect; in each case, the activities of suspected terrorists seemd all-but-transparent to the members of their communities.
Was the Canadian plot simply a case of terrorists blending easily into their surroundings, or an example of friends and neighbors ignoring potential warning signs, either intentionally or unintentionally. At this point, it's difficult to say, but reports of Jamal's "taking control" of that storefront mosque and preaching hate-filled sermons doesn't exactly match descriptions of a "peaceful" worship center offered by other members of the congregation. I'm guessing that Iman Khanson (and other members of the mosque) may be having some extended conversations with the RCMP in the coming days.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Did Someone Say Domestic Surveillance?
We're beginning to learn some of the details of a terror plot that was foiled by Canadian authorities, notably the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Working from tips developed by the intelligence service (beginning in 2004), the Mounties conducted an exhaustive investigation that, eventually, led them to a home-grown terror cell, apparently plotting large-scale terror attacks in southern Ontario. According to investigators, the suspects "took steps to acquire" three tons of amonium nitrate, the combustible fertilizer that was used in the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The amount sought by the Canadian suspects was roughy three times the amount used in the U.S. attack.
The RCMP hasn't released the names of the suspects (yet), but describes them as either citizens or residents of Canada. The Toronto Star reports that 17 individuals have been arrested, twelve adults and five juveniles. Some of those arrested were reportedly "upset" at the treatment of Muslims worldwide, and had become adherents of a violent, Al-Qaida style ideology. The Star says that some of the suspects trained together at a camp north of Toronto, and produced propaganda videos. Their planned bombing campaign apparently included several targets, including CSIS headquarters in downtown Toronto, near the CN Tower.
You'll note that an important element of this story is being largely ignored by the MSM. According to Canadian press accounts, the investigation began with monitoring of internet trafffic by the CSIS. As the outlines of the plot became obvious, the RCMP became involved. It's similar to the system that's been created in the U.S., where intelligence agencies monitor selected traffic and (as necessary) provide tip-offs to law enforcement for additional surveillance and investigation. When word of the alleged Canadian plot was revealed, I didn't hear any cries about civil liberties from the press or liberal pundits. Perhaps our neighbors up north have learned that vigilance against terrorism requires the full cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies, with an aggressive commitment toward uncovering and identifying potential terror cells.
Those terror suspects in Canada were rounded up, in part, because of heightened domestic surveillance efforts. The same system that worked in Canada is also working here, and will (hopefully) continue to produce desired results.
The RCMP hasn't released the names of the suspects (yet), but describes them as either citizens or residents of Canada. The Toronto Star reports that 17 individuals have been arrested, twelve adults and five juveniles. Some of those arrested were reportedly "upset" at the treatment of Muslims worldwide, and had become adherents of a violent, Al-Qaida style ideology. The Star says that some of the suspects trained together at a camp north of Toronto, and produced propaganda videos. Their planned bombing campaign apparently included several targets, including CSIS headquarters in downtown Toronto, near the CN Tower.
You'll note that an important element of this story is being largely ignored by the MSM. According to Canadian press accounts, the investigation began with monitoring of internet trafffic by the CSIS. As the outlines of the plot became obvious, the RCMP became involved. It's similar to the system that's been created in the U.S., where intelligence agencies monitor selected traffic and (as necessary) provide tip-offs to law enforcement for additional surveillance and investigation. When word of the alleged Canadian plot was revealed, I didn't hear any cries about civil liberties from the press or liberal pundits. Perhaps our neighbors up north have learned that vigilance against terrorism requires the full cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies, with an aggressive commitment toward uncovering and identifying potential terror cells.
Those terror suspects in Canada were rounded up, in part, because of heightened domestic surveillance efforts. The same system that worked in Canada is also working here, and will (hopefully) continue to produce desired results.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Feeling the Pinch
From today's edition of the World Tribune comes word that the Israel's military is feeling a budget squeeze, and the impact is being felt by operational forces.
Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Kenesset member (and former Deputy Defense Minister) told the paper that Israeli defense strength has decreased by up to 30% over the past four years, due to budget cuts. With the current defense budget, "we're scratching the bottom" he observed. Earlier this week, the Israeli cabinet approved a $113 million reduction in the current defense budget, and rejected the defense ministry's request for a multi-year spending plan.
Because of the cutbacks, the Israelis are cancelling or delaying a number of key programs, mostly for the Israeli Army and Navy. The reduction will affect virtually all systems not financed by U.S. military aid (which totals $2.2 billion a year), ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles and naval combatants, to new variants of the Merkava main battle tank.
This is not to say that Israel's national security is in grave jeopardy. The Israeli military remains the preeminent power in the region, and remains more than capable of decisively defeating any regional adversary. But the nation's budget woes will affect both near and long-term modernization efforts, forcing Israeli ground and naval forces to make do with older, albeit proven combat systems.
Readers will also note that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will be relatively unaffected by the cutbacks. And with good reason. With its long-range strike fighters (the F-15I and F-16I) and ballistic missiles the IAF remains the primary guarantor of Israel's national security. As the Iranian threat continues to grow, the Israelis will do nothing that might impair their ability to strike at Tehran, either preemptively or reactively. Israel's missile defense systems also appear to have surived the budget wars, and will remain fully funded.
Beyond belt-tightening, the Israel's defense budget problems will produce other effects as well. It's almost a given that Tel Aviv will ask the U.S. for a substantial hike in defense aid, and there will be more pressure for intelligence sharing. With some UAV programs facing cuts, the argument goes, Israel will need greater access to U.S. intel systems. I'm guessing that Israel will get much of what it asks for. Politically and militarily, we can't afford to let Israel's military power go into a prolonged tail spin, even if some of the "tales of woe" may be a bit exaggerated.
Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Kenesset member (and former Deputy Defense Minister) told the paper that Israeli defense strength has decreased by up to 30% over the past four years, due to budget cuts. With the current defense budget, "we're scratching the bottom" he observed. Earlier this week, the Israeli cabinet approved a $113 million reduction in the current defense budget, and rejected the defense ministry's request for a multi-year spending plan.
Because of the cutbacks, the Israelis are cancelling or delaying a number of key programs, mostly for the Israeli Army and Navy. The reduction will affect virtually all systems not financed by U.S. military aid (which totals $2.2 billion a year), ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles and naval combatants, to new variants of the Merkava main battle tank.
This is not to say that Israel's national security is in grave jeopardy. The Israeli military remains the preeminent power in the region, and remains more than capable of decisively defeating any regional adversary. But the nation's budget woes will affect both near and long-term modernization efforts, forcing Israeli ground and naval forces to make do with older, albeit proven combat systems.
Readers will also note that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will be relatively unaffected by the cutbacks. And with good reason. With its long-range strike fighters (the F-15I and F-16I) and ballistic missiles the IAF remains the primary guarantor of Israel's national security. As the Iranian threat continues to grow, the Israelis will do nothing that might impair their ability to strike at Tehran, either preemptively or reactively. Israel's missile defense systems also appear to have surived the budget wars, and will remain fully funded.
Beyond belt-tightening, the Israel's defense budget problems will produce other effects as well. It's almost a given that Tel Aviv will ask the U.S. for a substantial hike in defense aid, and there will be more pressure for intelligence sharing. With some UAV programs facing cuts, the argument goes, Israel will need greater access to U.S. intel systems. I'm guessing that Israel will get much of what it asks for. Politically and militarily, we can't afford to let Israel's military power go into a prolonged tail spin, even if some of the "tales of woe" may be a bit exaggerated.
Summer of Haditha
Judging from today's headlines, it's pretty clear that the MSM has found its latest template for framing the War in Iraq. This will be the "Summer of Haditha," with wall-to-wall coverage of any "atrocities" (or even suspected atrocities) connected to U.S. troops, no matter how tenuous the relationship might be.
The theme will run something like this: American military personnel have deliberately killed "scores" of Iraqi civilians, and their superiors did nothing to stop it. That presumptionwill, in turn, lead the chattering class back to their standard talking points: the war is a failure, troops are being killed and maimed for nothing, and we need to get out of Iraq now. For affirmation of this assessment, they will turn to the usual suspects, led by Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha and those former generals who staged their anti-Rumsfeld putsch a few months back.
As the Haditha investigation moves toward conclusion, we are being told of "new" atrocities involving U.S. troops. According to the AP, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman are facing murder charges for the slaying of an Iraqi man in April. The men--who could be charged as early as today--served in Iraq as members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. In a seperate case, five other Marines (including a lieutenant) are under investigation for injuring a suspect in their custody.
As of this writing, none of the personnel implicated in these incidents has been formally charged. But, there has already been a rush to judgment, noted by as defense attorney Jeremiah Sullivan III, who is representing one of the murder suspects.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
I don't envy Mr. Sullivan. As the media feeding frenzy builds, it will be virtually impossible for the military to conduct a fair, impartial courts-martial for any personnel who might be charged in connection with these incidents. Mr. Sullivan may find himself defending a young Marine or Corpsman who has already been convicted in the court of media opinion, even before an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury investigation) is held.
Of course, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is of little concern to reporters who are anxious to embellish their new theme for Iraq. The BBC is claiming to have obtained evidence suggesting that U.S. troops were responsible for the "deliberate killing" of 11 "innocent" Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March. According to the BBC, a video obtained from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what the network says were "clearly gunshot wounds."
Let's see...the tape came from a group opposed to the coalition military presence in Iraq. They wouldn't have an axe to grind, now would they? Additionally, the tape provides no clue as to how the Iraqis were shot. Coalition forces had a firefight in Ishaqi that day, so the BBC presumes that the Americans were responsible. But the terrorists were carrying guns as well, and it's entirely possible that the "atrocity" could have been staged by the bad guys. That possibility is being investigated by the U.S. military, along with other theories on what might have happened that day. But those other possibilities are of little interest to the "Beeb," which accepts the "evidence" of an anti-coalition group without question.
Of course, this isn't the first time the BBC and its MSM companions have ignored inconvenient facts. A few days back, the British network reported that U.S. troops had shot a pregnant Iraqi woman on her way to the hospital. Turns out that the car was traveling in a prohibited area, and failed to heed a warning to stop from U.S. soldiers. To its "credit," the BBC provided those amplifying details in the body of its report, but only couching the story in the current frame of reference: babaric American soldiers shoot an innocent Iraqi woman, who was only trying to get to the hospital to deliver her child.
It's all part and parcel of the Summer of Haditha, and a continuing campaign to undermine the war effort. Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger sums it up well; amid the relentless drumbeat of bad news from Iraq--and dark accusations of "widespread atrocities"--the American public may decide it's time to get out, because every time the U.S. goes in, it gets hung out to dry. Never mind that the alleged atrocities represent less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Never mind that the war is actually being won, and the vast majority of our troops have performed magnificently. In the Summer of Haditha, it's the isolated incident that assumes strategic importance, and becomes the standard reference for an entire war.
The theme will run something like this: American military personnel have deliberately killed "scores" of Iraqi civilians, and their superiors did nothing to stop it. That presumptionwill, in turn, lead the chattering class back to their standard talking points: the war is a failure, troops are being killed and maimed for nothing, and we need to get out of Iraq now. For affirmation of this assessment, they will turn to the usual suspects, led by Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha and those former generals who staged their anti-Rumsfeld putsch a few months back.
As the Haditha investigation moves toward conclusion, we are being told of "new" atrocities involving U.S. troops. According to the AP, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman are facing murder charges for the slaying of an Iraqi man in April. The men--who could be charged as early as today--served in Iraq as members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. In a seperate case, five other Marines (including a lieutenant) are under investigation for injuring a suspect in their custody.
As of this writing, none of the personnel implicated in these incidents has been formally charged. But, there has already been a rush to judgment, noted by as defense attorney Jeremiah Sullivan III, who is representing one of the murder suspects.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
I don't envy Mr. Sullivan. As the media feeding frenzy builds, it will be virtually impossible for the military to conduct a fair, impartial courts-martial for any personnel who might be charged in connection with these incidents. Mr. Sullivan may find himself defending a young Marine or Corpsman who has already been convicted in the court of media opinion, even before an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury investigation) is held.
Of course, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is of little concern to reporters who are anxious to embellish their new theme for Iraq. The BBC is claiming to have obtained evidence suggesting that U.S. troops were responsible for the "deliberate killing" of 11 "innocent" Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March. According to the BBC, a video obtained from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what the network says were "clearly gunshot wounds."
Let's see...the tape came from a group opposed to the coalition military presence in Iraq. They wouldn't have an axe to grind, now would they? Additionally, the tape provides no clue as to how the Iraqis were shot. Coalition forces had a firefight in Ishaqi that day, so the BBC presumes that the Americans were responsible. But the terrorists were carrying guns as well, and it's entirely possible that the "atrocity" could have been staged by the bad guys. That possibility is being investigated by the U.S. military, along with other theories on what might have happened that day. But those other possibilities are of little interest to the "Beeb," which accepts the "evidence" of an anti-coalition group without question.
Of course, this isn't the first time the BBC and its MSM companions have ignored inconvenient facts. A few days back, the British network reported that U.S. troops had shot a pregnant Iraqi woman on her way to the hospital. Turns out that the car was traveling in a prohibited area, and failed to heed a warning to stop from U.S. soldiers. To its "credit," the BBC provided those amplifying details in the body of its report, but only couching the story in the current frame of reference: babaric American soldiers shoot an innocent Iraqi woman, who was only trying to get to the hospital to deliver her child.
It's all part and parcel of the Summer of Haditha, and a continuing campaign to undermine the war effort. Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger sums it up well; amid the relentless drumbeat of bad news from Iraq--and dark accusations of "widespread atrocities"--the American public may decide it's time to get out, because every time the U.S. goes in, it gets hung out to dry. Never mind that the alleged atrocities represent less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Never mind that the war is actually being won, and the vast majority of our troops have performed magnificently. In the Summer of Haditha, it's the isolated incident that assumes strategic importance, and becomes the standard reference for an entire war.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Today's Reading Assignment
In a column posted at Real Clear Politics, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin offers some valuable thoughts on the growing media frenzy over Haditha, and its long-erm consequences for our military.
As Mr. Babbin reminds us, we still don't officially know what happened in that day in Haditha, despite the rush to judgment by anti-war politicians (paging Jack Murtha) and the MSM. Moreover, it is completely inappropriate for senior U.S. officials to speculate on the investigation and its potential outcome; if they offer their thoughts or opinions on the matter, they could be accused of exerting "command influence" on the case, and provide possible legal grounds for dismissal of charges against anyone implicated in the incident. Unfortunately, that legal requirement won't satisfy the media, which is already talking about a Pentagon "cover-up."
Ham-strung by a slow military investigative and judicial process, the Bush Administration has been forced to cede the field to the anti-war left, which (as Babbin notes) will attempt to make Haditha the defining moment of the Iraq War. Think "Abu Ghraib times 10" and you'll get some idea of the media and political firestorm that is now erupting. Never mind the fact that U.S. atrocities in Iraq have been few and far between (even Abu Ghraib was ultimately revealed as the misdeeds of a small band of poorly trained military prison guards); or that our military routinely investigates even minor allegations of misconduct on the battlefield--while our enemies celebrate and revere the killing of innocents.
Ultimately, as Babbin reminds us, all of our military personnel will be affected--to some degree--by the events at Haditha. But there is also a responsibility to minimize that damage, to avoid tarring those men (and women) who serve bravely and honorably.
"Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them."
Sadly, such lessons are completely lost on members of the Murtha caucus and their allies in the press.
As Mr. Babbin reminds us, we still don't officially know what happened in that day in Haditha, despite the rush to judgment by anti-war politicians (paging Jack Murtha) and the MSM. Moreover, it is completely inappropriate for senior U.S. officials to speculate on the investigation and its potential outcome; if they offer their thoughts or opinions on the matter, they could be accused of exerting "command influence" on the case, and provide possible legal grounds for dismissal of charges against anyone implicated in the incident. Unfortunately, that legal requirement won't satisfy the media, which is already talking about a Pentagon "cover-up."
Ham-strung by a slow military investigative and judicial process, the Bush Administration has been forced to cede the field to the anti-war left, which (as Babbin notes) will attempt to make Haditha the defining moment of the Iraq War. Think "Abu Ghraib times 10" and you'll get some idea of the media and political firestorm that is now erupting. Never mind the fact that U.S. atrocities in Iraq have been few and far between (even Abu Ghraib was ultimately revealed as the misdeeds of a small band of poorly trained military prison guards); or that our military routinely investigates even minor allegations of misconduct on the battlefield--while our enemies celebrate and revere the killing of innocents.
Ultimately, as Babbin reminds us, all of our military personnel will be affected--to some degree--by the events at Haditha. But there is also a responsibility to minimize that damage, to avoid tarring those men (and women) who serve bravely and honorably.
"Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them."
Sadly, such lessons are completely lost on members of the Murtha caucus and their allies in the press.
Sergeant Damon Fights Back
If you watched Michael Moore's cinematic lie (Farenheit 9/11), you may remember a brief segment featuring an Army veteran who lost both arms in Iraq. The veteran is Sergeant Peter Damon, who was seriously injured when a tire exploded on the Black Hawk helicopter he was servicing.
Damon, who had his right arm amputated at the shoulder and his left arm at the elbow, is shown strapped to a gurney at Walter Reed Army Hospital, saying he feels like he has hands being crushed in a vice. Sergeant Damon appears moments after Washington Representative "Baghdad" Jim McDermott takes a swipe at the Bush Administration:
"You know they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."
There are more than a few problems with Sergeant Damon's "appearance" in the film. First of all, he never gave Moore permission for the footage to be used. Secondly, Damon's comments were completely distorted by Moore, and taken completely out of context. The video originally aired in an NBC News report on medical care for soldiers wounded in Iraq; Damon's comments were a reference to the pain his injuries caused, and the relief provided by new drugs administered at Walter Reed. In the report, NBC anchor Brian Williams noted that Damon and other soldiers featured in the segment voiced support for President and the war effort.
Now, Sergeant Damon and his family are fighting back; they've filed suit against Moore and his production company, seeking $85 million in damages for "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarassment and personal humiliation." The requested damages include a separate, $10 million suit filed by Damon's wife for mental distress and anguish.
Damon has also launched his own media blitz, letting everyone know that, despite his injuries, he's doing just fine:
Damon was "supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," he added.
Damon has learned to use his artificial arms with the help of military personnel. Veterans groups have helped to build his family a home in Middleboro, Massachusetts.
In an interview in front of his house, Damon told local CBS television: "The original idea was supposed to be something positive about the treatment we were receiving ... not something to be used in a story talking about veterans being left behind because as you can see behind me I'm the last person who can say I am being left behind," he said, gesturing to his home.
Not surprisingly, neither Mr. Moore nor his representatives could be reached for comment. This ought to be an interesting (although brief) court battle. The rich, corpulent film-maker versus a decorated, disabled vet. Even in Massachusetts, it won't take long for a jury to decide against Mr. Moore.
Damon, who had his right arm amputated at the shoulder and his left arm at the elbow, is shown strapped to a gurney at Walter Reed Army Hospital, saying he feels like he has hands being crushed in a vice. Sergeant Damon appears moments after Washington Representative "Baghdad" Jim McDermott takes a swipe at the Bush Administration:
"You know they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."
There are more than a few problems with Sergeant Damon's "appearance" in the film. First of all, he never gave Moore permission for the footage to be used. Secondly, Damon's comments were completely distorted by Moore, and taken completely out of context. The video originally aired in an NBC News report on medical care for soldiers wounded in Iraq; Damon's comments were a reference to the pain his injuries caused, and the relief provided by new drugs administered at Walter Reed. In the report, NBC anchor Brian Williams noted that Damon and other soldiers featured in the segment voiced support for President and the war effort.
Now, Sergeant Damon and his family are fighting back; they've filed suit against Moore and his production company, seeking $85 million in damages for "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarassment and personal humiliation." The requested damages include a separate, $10 million suit filed by Damon's wife for mental distress and anguish.
Damon has also launched his own media blitz, letting everyone know that, despite his injuries, he's doing just fine:
Damon was "supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," he added.
Damon has learned to use his artificial arms with the help of military personnel. Veterans groups have helped to build his family a home in Middleboro, Massachusetts.
In an interview in front of his house, Damon told local CBS television: "The original idea was supposed to be something positive about the treatment we were receiving ... not something to be used in a story talking about veterans being left behind because as you can see behind me I'm the last person who can say I am being left behind," he said, gesturing to his home.
Not surprisingly, neither Mr. Moore nor his representatives could be reached for comment. This ought to be an interesting (although brief) court battle. The rich, corpulent film-maker versus a decorated, disabled vet. Even in Massachusetts, it won't take long for a jury to decide against Mr. Moore.
That Was Fast
***UPDATE***
1324 PDT
The U.S., along with its European allies, Russia, and China have reportedly reached a "substantial agreement" on Iran's nuclear, promising incentives if Tehran cooperates, and penalties if it does not. Details of the accord have not been revealed. One source told Reuters that Iran may be given only a few weeks to accept the deal, or face possible sanctions.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually review the agreement. The idea of a short timetable sounds promising--although Tehran will do all it can to stretch out negotiations (and potential compliance) over a period of months and years. But the most serious concerns lie in such issues as inspections, verification and potential penalties. Carrots are fine, but the international community needs to offer some serious "sticks" as well; otherwise, the proposed deal will be dead on arrival, and Iran's nuclear efforts will continue unfettered.
****
Iran has summarily dismissed a U.S. proposal for direct talks on its nuclear program, describing it as a propaganda ploy. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had indicated that the United States was prepared to enter negotiations with Iran--on the condition Tehran abandon its uranium enrichment efforts and submit to inspections to verify compliance.
The Iranian rejection was speedy--but hardly surprising. Tehran has previously rejected similar demands from the Europeans, one reason that nuclear talks between Iran, Germany, France and Great Britain have stalled. Tehran views its "right" to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel as "non-negotiable," although that process could lead to nuclear weapons.
Iran's rejection came on the eve of scheduled talks in Vienna, aimed at hammering out a "final" U.S.-European proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue. The resolution, as described to the Associated Press, calls for the imposition of unspecified sanctions under the UN Charter, if Iran fails to comply. However, the measure reportedly avoids language that could trigger a use of force against Tehran if it continues its nuclear program.
The Iranian regime has little to fear from that process. Both Russia and China have expressed misgivings about sanctions, so there's no guarantee that the UN will actually "punish" Iran for its nuclear development efforts. That's tantamount to a green light for Tehran's nuclear program; afterall, there's no reason to talk to the U.S., if you can sustain current efforts--with only the slightest chance of punishment by the international community.
Undeterred, the U.S. and its European allies are pressing ahead with diplomacy. The current line of thinking goes somewhat like this: if we offer enough "incentives," we can get them to the table, and eventually get around to hammering out a nuclear deal. Such thinking is not only myopic, it's also very dangerous.
1324 PDT
The U.S., along with its European allies, Russia, and China have reportedly reached a "substantial agreement" on Iran's nuclear, promising incentives if Tehran cooperates, and penalties if it does not. Details of the accord have not been revealed. One source told Reuters that Iran may be given only a few weeks to accept the deal, or face possible sanctions.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually review the agreement. The idea of a short timetable sounds promising--although Tehran will do all it can to stretch out negotiations (and potential compliance) over a period of months and years. But the most serious concerns lie in such issues as inspections, verification and potential penalties. Carrots are fine, but the international community needs to offer some serious "sticks" as well; otherwise, the proposed deal will be dead on arrival, and Iran's nuclear efforts will continue unfettered.
****
Iran has summarily dismissed a U.S. proposal for direct talks on its nuclear program, describing it as a propaganda ploy. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had indicated that the United States was prepared to enter negotiations with Iran--on the condition Tehran abandon its uranium enrichment efforts and submit to inspections to verify compliance.
The Iranian rejection was speedy--but hardly surprising. Tehran has previously rejected similar demands from the Europeans, one reason that nuclear talks between Iran, Germany, France and Great Britain have stalled. Tehran views its "right" to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel as "non-negotiable," although that process could lead to nuclear weapons.
Iran's rejection came on the eve of scheduled talks in Vienna, aimed at hammering out a "final" U.S.-European proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue. The resolution, as described to the Associated Press, calls for the imposition of unspecified sanctions under the UN Charter, if Iran fails to comply. However, the measure reportedly avoids language that could trigger a use of force against Tehran if it continues its nuclear program.
The Iranian regime has little to fear from that process. Both Russia and China have expressed misgivings about sanctions, so there's no guarantee that the UN will actually "punish" Iran for its nuclear development efforts. That's tantamount to a green light for Tehran's nuclear program; afterall, there's no reason to talk to the U.S., if you can sustain current efforts--with only the slightest chance of punishment by the international community.
Undeterred, the U.S. and its European allies are pressing ahead with diplomacy. The current line of thinking goes somewhat like this: if we offer enough "incentives," we can get them to the table, and eventually get around to hammering out a nuclear deal. Such thinking is not only myopic, it's also very dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)