ISIS has long vowed to expand its operations beyond Iraq and the Levant, and they are well on their way to accomplishing that goal, with horrific results.
As we write this, Paris is reeling from a string of deadly terrorist attacks at the city's main soccer stadium, a concert hall and a sidewalk cafe. Sky News reports at 120 people were killed, mainly at the music venue. So far, ISIS has not officially claimed responsibility, but one of the surviving terrorists told French police that he was recruited for the operation by the terror group.
The carnage in France comes on the heels of this week's attacks in Beirut and the recent downing of a Russian jetliner over the Sinai Peninsula. ISIS is suspected in both attacks, which underscore the group's growing capabilities outside its original operating areas.
At first, there was a certain tendency among so-called "experts" to downplay the significance of the earlier strikes. The Russian flight originated from Sharm el Sheik, the Egyptian resort on the Red Sea where security had been questioned before the Metrojet A320 went down, killing all 224 passengers and crew on board. That was followed by the bombings in Beirut, which some suggested were a renewal of the long-standing conflict between the Sunni terrorists of ISIS and Shia of Hezbollah, and a sign that ISIS is under "pressure" from its simultaneous conflicts with Iran, Russian, the U.S. and its western partners and Hezbollah.
Such claims seem laughable in light of tonight's terrorist rampage in France. The attack was complex, well-planned and expertly coordinated--a blended strike similar to the one that occurred in Mumbai, India in 2008. More than 160 people died in that attack; the death toll in Paris may likely be higher. Carrying out that type of assault required at least two dozen operatives, along with a large support network of safe houses, logisticians, drivers, financiers and others.
Apparently, there were no advance indications that an attack was imminent. As one analyst bitterly noted, "they read Snowden," underscoring how terrorists learned about NSA surveillance techniques from his massive disclosure of sensitive intelligence. The signals intelligence branch of the DGSE uses similar measures, so the counter-measures applied to NSA can be used against a variety of western SIGINT organizations.
In the hours following the Paris attacks, there was predictable chatter among terrorists and their sympathizers. One message, quoted by Fox News, left little doubt as to ISIS's ultimate goal. "American blood is the sweetest," one terrorist tweeted, "and we will taste it soon." There was also a reference to terrorists in cars, an obvious reference to VBIED attacks.
While security was reportedly increased in New York City and Washington, D.C., Americans officials said late Friday night there was "no known threat" to the CONUS at this time. A few hours earlier, President Obama told ABC News that ISIS had been "contained."
Meanwhile, the FBI says more than 1,000 ISIS-related investigations are underway in the U.S. In the coming days, expect to see the usual, strange dichotomy that often occurs at times like these. Officially, we will be told that "everything is being done" to deter a possible attack, while privately, other sources will warn that the nation remains highly vulnerable, with genuine fears that ISIS teams are in place and will strike very, very soon.
In this environment, that latter scenario is probably closer to the truth. We are two weeks from Black Friday, and the start of the Christmas shopping season. Attacks during the holiday period, when stores, airports and other public places are jammed, has always represented a nightmare scenario for federal, state and local law enforcement.
This may well be the year the nightmare comes true. Far from being "contained," ISIS has staged a spectacular "breakout," and the threat (in all likelihood) is already here.
***ADDENDUM***
During Saturday night's Democratic candidate presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said she supports plans to bring up to 65,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S., despite the fact that the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) have warned there is no way to properly vet those individuals.
Tellingly, Mrs. Clinton made the remarks after French authorities announced that two of the terrorists involved in Friday's attacks entered Europe through the recent waves of migrants that have made their way from the Middle East. She also refused to say the U.S. is at war with radical Islam. Go figure.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Sunday, November 08, 2015
The Eagles Have Landed
While much of the nation was focused on Ben Carson's West Point kerfuffle--or the weekend round of college and pro football games--our military involvement in Syria took a rather unusual turn.
With little media fanfare (save a few blogs), the U.S. deployed at least six F-15C Eagles to Incirlik AB, to help protect Turkish airspace from possible intruders. At first blush, the move hardly seems significant. In recent months, the Air Force has dispatched a number of fighters to bases near the Syrian border, attempting to show American support for a key NATO ally and deter potential violations by Russian and Syrian pilots supporting the regime of dictator Bashir al-Assad.
To date, most of the NATO and U.S. aircraft operating from southern Turkey have been multi-role jets like the F-16C/D and the F-15E Strike Eagle, capable of striking ground targets or patrolling the skies along the Syrian border.
But the F-15s that landed in Turkey today have a single mission: ensure air superiority by challenging adversary fighters. And, since ISIS doesn't have an Air Force, it seems abundantly clear that the F-15Cs have been dispatched to deal with Russian and Syrian MiGs and Sukhoi fighters that stray into Turkish territory. Unlike U.S. and Turkish F-16s--which can transition from air-to-ground to air-to-air at the flick of the switch--the F-15Cs are designed solely for blasting enemy fighters out of the sky.
So why is the Obama Administration, which famously avoids confrontation with its adversaries, suddenly upping the ante along the Turkish border? Did the Commander-in-Chief acquire that "spine of steel" that Joe Biden talked about back in 2008? Is he actually trying to send a message to Vladimir Putin and Bashir Assad?
A closer review suggests the answers to those questions is a resounding "no." First, consider the size of the deployment: a total of six F-15s, plus support personnel. In today's undersized Air Force, that's less than half a squadron, a force that is incapable of round-the-clock operations over southern Turkey or northern Syria. F-15s typically operate in a four-ship "Eagle wall," so sending a half-dozen gives you the ability to generate two-four sorties a day, assuming the squadron (normally based at RAF Lakenheath in Great Britain) sent along enough pilots, mechanics and support specialists to sustain that modest operations tempo. By comparison, the 1st Fighter Wing sent 48 F-15s to Saudi Arabia in the early days of Operation Desert Shield and other Eagle units sent similar, squadron-sized packages. Round-the-clock operations commenced almost immediately and continued through Desert Storm. Flash forward 25 years and six F-15s isn't a token force, but it's pretty darn close.
There's also the matter of the ROE imposed on the Eagle detachment by Mr. Obama and NATO. Aircrews operating along the Turkey-Syria border have the inherent right of self defense, or at least that's the policy being employed by the Turkish Air Force. A few weeks ago, a TAF F-16 shot down a MiG-29 Fulcrum that violated its airspace, after a series of provocations by Russian and Syrian aircraft. We can only hope that our pilots have the similar latitude.
It's also worth noting that F-15s are most effective on the offensive, running fighter sweeps ahead of the strike package. By some indications, the F-15Cs will escort strike aircraft on missions against ISIS targets, but it's difficult to envision them being employed in an aggressive manner. In fact, it's more likely the Eagles will be employed in barrier combat air patrols (BARCAPs) along the border; their first mission will be defending Turkish airspace, with the escort mission representing a secondary tasking.
Actually, that operational scheme would make sense if USAF F-22s are fully engaged over Syria. The Air Force has hinted that Raptors are flying missions as long as 12 hours in hostile airspace, escorting strike packages, providing electronic combat support and collecting intelligence information. The F-22s could dominate the skies over Syria and Iraq, and quickly dispatch any adversary fighters that mount a challenge. But there is little information about the rules of engagement the Raptors are operating under; it would not be surprising to learn they are restrictive in nature.
To be fair, no one wants a shooting war with Russia. But the feckless policies of the Obama Administration gave Mr. Putin an entry point, and the Kremlin leader is fully exploiting that opportunity. Lest anyone forget, Russia's announcement that it was commencing air operations was accompanied by a directive that U.S. and NATO aircraft leave Syrian airspace. So far, Washington and its European allies have ignored that order. But they've also been careful to set up coordination lines with Moscow and it was reported last month that American aircraft were directed away from Russian fighters, to avoid a potential showdown.
With Russia's air campaign now into its second month, Putin is still calling the shots, and our air offensive is more about symbolism and staying out of the Russians' way. That strategy may take on added significance in the days and weeks ahead. Many expect Putin will sharply increase his air offensive in retaliation for ISIS downing that Russian jetliner with a bomb. Some analysts believe that Moscow will deploy more tactical airframes to the region and even send TU-95 Bear strategic bombers on round-robin missions between Russia and Syria. As the pace and intensity of Russian operations increase, the potential for straying into Turkish airspace will increase, as will prospects for an inadvertent confrontation between Russia's aircraft and our own.
At that point, perhaps Mr. Obama will declare a safety stand-down or something very similar. Or maybe he'll send the F-15s back to Lakenheath, as a gesture of our goodwill.
With little media fanfare (save a few blogs), the U.S. deployed at least six F-15C Eagles to Incirlik AB, to help protect Turkish airspace from possible intruders. At first blush, the move hardly seems significant. In recent months, the Air Force has dispatched a number of fighters to bases near the Syrian border, attempting to show American support for a key NATO ally and deter potential violations by Russian and Syrian pilots supporting the regime of dictator Bashir al-Assad.
To date, most of the NATO and U.S. aircraft operating from southern Turkey have been multi-role jets like the F-16C/D and the F-15E Strike Eagle, capable of striking ground targets or patrolling the skies along the Syrian border.
But the F-15s that landed in Turkey today have a single mission: ensure air superiority by challenging adversary fighters. And, since ISIS doesn't have an Air Force, it seems abundantly clear that the F-15Cs have been dispatched to deal with Russian and Syrian MiGs and Sukhoi fighters that stray into Turkish territory. Unlike U.S. and Turkish F-16s--which can transition from air-to-ground to air-to-air at the flick of the switch--the F-15Cs are designed solely for blasting enemy fighters out of the sky.
So why is the Obama Administration, which famously avoids confrontation with its adversaries, suddenly upping the ante along the Turkish border? Did the Commander-in-Chief acquire that "spine of steel" that Joe Biden talked about back in 2008? Is he actually trying to send a message to Vladimir Putin and Bashir Assad?
A closer review suggests the answers to those questions is a resounding "no." First, consider the size of the deployment: a total of six F-15s, plus support personnel. In today's undersized Air Force, that's less than half a squadron, a force that is incapable of round-the-clock operations over southern Turkey or northern Syria. F-15s typically operate in a four-ship "Eagle wall," so sending a half-dozen gives you the ability to generate two-four sorties a day, assuming the squadron (normally based at RAF Lakenheath in Great Britain) sent along enough pilots, mechanics and support specialists to sustain that modest operations tempo. By comparison, the 1st Fighter Wing sent 48 F-15s to Saudi Arabia in the early days of Operation Desert Shield and other Eagle units sent similar, squadron-sized packages. Round-the-clock operations commenced almost immediately and continued through Desert Storm. Flash forward 25 years and six F-15s isn't a token force, but it's pretty darn close.
There's also the matter of the ROE imposed on the Eagle detachment by Mr. Obama and NATO. Aircrews operating along the Turkey-Syria border have the inherent right of self defense, or at least that's the policy being employed by the Turkish Air Force. A few weeks ago, a TAF F-16 shot down a MiG-29 Fulcrum that violated its airspace, after a series of provocations by Russian and Syrian aircraft. We can only hope that our pilots have the similar latitude.
It's also worth noting that F-15s are most effective on the offensive, running fighter sweeps ahead of the strike package. By some indications, the F-15Cs will escort strike aircraft on missions against ISIS targets, but it's difficult to envision them being employed in an aggressive manner. In fact, it's more likely the Eagles will be employed in barrier combat air patrols (BARCAPs) along the border; their first mission will be defending Turkish airspace, with the escort mission representing a secondary tasking.
Actually, that operational scheme would make sense if USAF F-22s are fully engaged over Syria. The Air Force has hinted that Raptors are flying missions as long as 12 hours in hostile airspace, escorting strike packages, providing electronic combat support and collecting intelligence information. The F-22s could dominate the skies over Syria and Iraq, and quickly dispatch any adversary fighters that mount a challenge. But there is little information about the rules of engagement the Raptors are operating under; it would not be surprising to learn they are restrictive in nature.
To be fair, no one wants a shooting war with Russia. But the feckless policies of the Obama Administration gave Mr. Putin an entry point, and the Kremlin leader is fully exploiting that opportunity. Lest anyone forget, Russia's announcement that it was commencing air operations was accompanied by a directive that U.S. and NATO aircraft leave Syrian airspace. So far, Washington and its European allies have ignored that order. But they've also been careful to set up coordination lines with Moscow and it was reported last month that American aircraft were directed away from Russian fighters, to avoid a potential showdown.
With Russia's air campaign now into its second month, Putin is still calling the shots, and our air offensive is more about symbolism and staying out of the Russians' way. That strategy may take on added significance in the days and weeks ahead. Many expect Putin will sharply increase his air offensive in retaliation for ISIS downing that Russian jetliner with a bomb. Some analysts believe that Moscow will deploy more tactical airframes to the region and even send TU-95 Bear strategic bombers on round-robin missions between Russia and Syria. As the pace and intensity of Russian operations increase, the potential for straying into Turkish airspace will increase, as will prospects for an inadvertent confrontation between Russia's aircraft and our own.
At that point, perhaps Mr. Obama will declare a safety stand-down or something very similar. Or maybe he'll send the F-15s back to Lakenheath, as a gesture of our goodwill.
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Audiences Nix Rather Pix
Like most conservatives, I must confess to a bit of schadenfreude over the utter failure of Truth.
Based on box office receipts, audiences have completely rejected the Robert Redford drama, which is based on Dan Rather's failed (and fraudulent) "expose" of George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. According to Box Office Mojo, Truth has grossed barely $1 million since its limited opening in mid-October and fared poorly in its first weekend of wide release. On its current trajectory, the film won't even recoup its modest marketing budget, let alone production costs.
And better yet, some of the reviews have been scathing. From The Atlantic, not exactly a house organ of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy:
"..Late in the movie Truth, the former 60 Minutes Wednesday producer Mary Mapes (played by Cate Blanchett) offers a Big Speech about the state of journalism, decrying the fact that all that people want to read or watch on television these days is “conspiracy theories.” The irony apparently lost on her (or at least on the writer-director James Vanderbilt) is that she makes this charge while she herself is in the midst of presenting a conspiracy theory.
[snip]
The film concerns 60 Minutes’s 2004 pre-election reporting on George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. Two documents central to the news program’s contention that Bush was granted preferential treatment were subsequently revealed to be almost certainly fraudulent. This error ultimately resulted in the retirement from CBS of Dan Rather (played here with likable understatement by Robert Redford) and the firing of Mapes and others. It’s in the midst of her “conspiracy theory” speech that Mapes suggests that the fraudulent documents were a cunning ploy by pro-Bush forces—immaculately sophisticated in some respects, but childishly certain to be recognized as fake in others—intended to discredit further reporting into his military record. Could this be true? Stranger things have happened, I suppose. But it’s pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory.
This is, alas, of a piece with Truth, one of the worst films about journalism (and there have been plenty of bad ones) to come down the pike in a long while. The movie loudly, hectoringly stresses the importance of always “asking questions”—my notes include, among others, the lines “Questions help us get to the truth,” “You stop asking questions, that’s when the American people lose,” and “You’re supposed to question everything, that’s your job”—and yet the very quality it celebrates in its protagonist is that she never questions whether or not her reporting might have been wrong. This is a film in which acknowledging error is treated as some terrible surrender and betrayal of trust; in actual journalism, it’s considered a moral obligation—one that, sadly, most people in the field have had some experience with, in one capacity or another.
Similar thoughts from The Oregonian, another MSM outlet that should not be confused with say, National Review:
"The less obvious reason is "Truth" wants to be a movie like "All the President's Men" or the upcoming "Spotlight" that shows journalists fighting powerful interests in pursuit of a story that could change history. They lost -- but it wasn't their fault. It was the Internet -- those pesky bloggers distracting everyone with their obsession with fonts and superscript -- or it was a conspiracy between Viacom and the White House, or both. The Bush administration was furious at Rather and Mapes for breaking the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, reporting that won a Peabody Award after they were gone from CBS, and wanted to get even.
But it was their fault. Rather, by all accounts, was detached, uninvolved in the reporting process until the end. Mapes and her team felt under competitive pressure and didn't do enough to verify the documents or their sources. The reporting was sloppy under any circumstances; on such a crucial piece, it is inexcusable."
Beyond the fatal flaws of the film (and its underlying "story") there are elementary questions that bear asking. Namely, why would any studio--in this case, Sony--elect to spend millions on a film that is based on lies and bound to fail? Why would Hollywood "A" list talent (led by Robert Redford as Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes) sign on to such a project? And for that matter, why did a couple of publishing houses give Ms. Mapes hefty advances for the hard copy and paperback editions of her book, which serves as the basis for the film?
The answers, of course, lie in the politics of the news business and the entertainment industry. Needless to say, there aren't any conservatives on the creative team that gave us Truth, and I'm guessing registered Republicans are a closeted minority in the executive suite at Sony Pictures, which released the film. For members of those groups, George W. Bush is still a target of opportunity; after all, he stole the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore; helped arrange the 9-11 attacks and used falsified intelligence to send us into Iraq. Surely those rumors about Bush using family connections to join the Texas Air National Guard (and avoid service in Vietnam) must be true. And if you believe all that, it only stands to reason that Mr. Bush would avoid fulfilling his ANG service obligations.
Unfortunately, there isn't a speck of real evidence to back up the guard story. Ms. Mapes reporteldy began pursuing the story in 1999, before Bush entered his first presidential primary. There were tantalizing rumors but no documentation until she encountered Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer with an axe to grind against his superiors and the Bush family. The "memos" that supposedly proved Bush had been AWOL from the ANG turned out to be crude fakes, created on a computer and easily replicated by anyone with a copy of Microsoft Word and a printer.
After that, the story quickly fell apart, and the subsequent CBS investigation (headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired AP chairman Louis Bocardi) exposed just how shoddy the "reporting" had been. Mapes was rightfully fired and Rather left the network as well, after working at CBS for 43 years. He later spent millions suing his former employer, but the case was dismissed.
So why perpetuate an obvious fiction--beyond the pathological hatred for Mr. Bush and his administration? It's no secret the left is adept at re-writing history, or at least the popular interpretation of key events. Making a movie out of Truth allows the media wing of the progressive movement to place a new spin on an embarrassing moment. Instead of (rightly) focusing on the deficiencies in the original reporting, the new film takes a different tack: suggesting that Mapes and Rather were dismissed for asking the wrong questions about the wrong people at the wrong time.
Clearly, movie audiences aren't buying this revisionist tripe, but dont' underestimate the film's long-term staying power. It will become required viewing in journalism schools around the nation, with sympathetic professors suggesting that Redford, Blanchett and director James Vanderbilt actually "got it right." In time, the "new" version of events will largely supplant the truth, making it easier for fraudulent journalists to try similar stunts in the future. After all, Dan Rather himself suggested back in 2004 it was acceptable to use phony evidence "if the major thrust of the story was true." That led to the infamous characterization of the ANG memos as "fake, but accurate."
Following that line of logic, it's almost as important to have the final say on something, particularly if you can alter long-term perceptions and opinions. As entertainment, Truth is an absolute bust (and deservedly so). As an attempt to change perceptions among key, liberal constituencies, the jury is still out.
***
ADDENDUM: Despite poor reviews, Truth is actually being touted as an Oscar contender, with Redford and Blanchett has potential nominees. Nothing like a gold statue (or two) to burnish the latest lie from Hollywood.
Based on box office receipts, audiences have completely rejected the Robert Redford drama, which is based on Dan Rather's failed (and fraudulent) "expose" of George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. According to Box Office Mojo, Truth has grossed barely $1 million since its limited opening in mid-October and fared poorly in its first weekend of wide release. On its current trajectory, the film won't even recoup its modest marketing budget, let alone production costs.
And better yet, some of the reviews have been scathing. From The Atlantic, not exactly a house organ of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy:
"..Late in the movie Truth, the former 60 Minutes Wednesday producer Mary Mapes (played by Cate Blanchett) offers a Big Speech about the state of journalism, decrying the fact that all that people want to read or watch on television these days is “conspiracy theories.” The irony apparently lost on her (or at least on the writer-director James Vanderbilt) is that she makes this charge while she herself is in the midst of presenting a conspiracy theory.
[snip]
The film concerns 60 Minutes’s 2004 pre-election reporting on George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. Two documents central to the news program’s contention that Bush was granted preferential treatment were subsequently revealed to be almost certainly fraudulent. This error ultimately resulted in the retirement from CBS of Dan Rather (played here with likable understatement by Robert Redford) and the firing of Mapes and others. It’s in the midst of her “conspiracy theory” speech that Mapes suggests that the fraudulent documents were a cunning ploy by pro-Bush forces—immaculately sophisticated in some respects, but childishly certain to be recognized as fake in others—intended to discredit further reporting into his military record. Could this be true? Stranger things have happened, I suppose. But it’s pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory.
This is, alas, of a piece with Truth, one of the worst films about journalism (and there have been plenty of bad ones) to come down the pike in a long while. The movie loudly, hectoringly stresses the importance of always “asking questions”—my notes include, among others, the lines “Questions help us get to the truth,” “You stop asking questions, that’s when the American people lose,” and “You’re supposed to question everything, that’s your job”—and yet the very quality it celebrates in its protagonist is that she never questions whether or not her reporting might have been wrong. This is a film in which acknowledging error is treated as some terrible surrender and betrayal of trust; in actual journalism, it’s considered a moral obligation—one that, sadly, most people in the field have had some experience with, in one capacity or another.
Similar thoughts from The Oregonian, another MSM outlet that should not be confused with say, National Review:
"The less obvious reason is "Truth" wants to be a movie like "All the President's Men" or the upcoming "Spotlight" that shows journalists fighting powerful interests in pursuit of a story that could change history. They lost -- but it wasn't their fault. It was the Internet -- those pesky bloggers distracting everyone with their obsession with fonts and superscript -- or it was a conspiracy between Viacom and the White House, or both. The Bush administration was furious at Rather and Mapes for breaking the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, reporting that won a Peabody Award after they were gone from CBS, and wanted to get even.
But it was their fault. Rather, by all accounts, was detached, uninvolved in the reporting process until the end. Mapes and her team felt under competitive pressure and didn't do enough to verify the documents or their sources. The reporting was sloppy under any circumstances; on such a crucial piece, it is inexcusable."
Beyond the fatal flaws of the film (and its underlying "story") there are elementary questions that bear asking. Namely, why would any studio--in this case, Sony--elect to spend millions on a film that is based on lies and bound to fail? Why would Hollywood "A" list talent (led by Robert Redford as Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes) sign on to such a project? And for that matter, why did a couple of publishing houses give Ms. Mapes hefty advances for the hard copy and paperback editions of her book, which serves as the basis for the film?
The answers, of course, lie in the politics of the news business and the entertainment industry. Needless to say, there aren't any conservatives on the creative team that gave us Truth, and I'm guessing registered Republicans are a closeted minority in the executive suite at Sony Pictures, which released the film. For members of those groups, George W. Bush is still a target of opportunity; after all, he stole the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore; helped arrange the 9-11 attacks and used falsified intelligence to send us into Iraq. Surely those rumors about Bush using family connections to join the Texas Air National Guard (and avoid service in Vietnam) must be true. And if you believe all that, it only stands to reason that Mr. Bush would avoid fulfilling his ANG service obligations.
Unfortunately, there isn't a speck of real evidence to back up the guard story. Ms. Mapes reporteldy began pursuing the story in 1999, before Bush entered his first presidential primary. There were tantalizing rumors but no documentation until she encountered Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer with an axe to grind against his superiors and the Bush family. The "memos" that supposedly proved Bush had been AWOL from the ANG turned out to be crude fakes, created on a computer and easily replicated by anyone with a copy of Microsoft Word and a printer.
After that, the story quickly fell apart, and the subsequent CBS investigation (headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired AP chairman Louis Bocardi) exposed just how shoddy the "reporting" had been. Mapes was rightfully fired and Rather left the network as well, after working at CBS for 43 years. He later spent millions suing his former employer, but the case was dismissed.
So why perpetuate an obvious fiction--beyond the pathological hatred for Mr. Bush and his administration? It's no secret the left is adept at re-writing history, or at least the popular interpretation of key events. Making a movie out of Truth allows the media wing of the progressive movement to place a new spin on an embarrassing moment. Instead of (rightly) focusing on the deficiencies in the original reporting, the new film takes a different tack: suggesting that Mapes and Rather were dismissed for asking the wrong questions about the wrong people at the wrong time.
Clearly, movie audiences aren't buying this revisionist tripe, but dont' underestimate the film's long-term staying power. It will become required viewing in journalism schools around the nation, with sympathetic professors suggesting that Redford, Blanchett and director James Vanderbilt actually "got it right." In time, the "new" version of events will largely supplant the truth, making it easier for fraudulent journalists to try similar stunts in the future. After all, Dan Rather himself suggested back in 2004 it was acceptable to use phony evidence "if the major thrust of the story was true." That led to the infamous characterization of the ANG memos as "fake, but accurate."
Following that line of logic, it's almost as important to have the final say on something, particularly if you can alter long-term perceptions and opinions. As entertainment, Truth is an absolute bust (and deservedly so). As an attempt to change perceptions among key, liberal constituencies, the jury is still out.
***
ADDENDUM: Despite poor reviews, Truth is actually being touted as an Oscar contender, with Redford and Blanchett has potential nominees. Nothing like a gold statue (or two) to burnish the latest lie from Hollywood.
Friday, October 30, 2015
The Offer
Over at Foreign Policy's "Best Defense" blog, guest writer Hank Waggy offers an innovative solution for getting rid of the worst troops in the all-volunteer military: pay them to leave the service at the end of basic training.
Waggy is an active-duty Major in the Army, serving as an intelligence officer. So, it's a fair assumption that Waggy has run across a few troops who had no business in uniform. From his perspective, both the soldier and the service would be better off if they parted ways before the military makes an even greater investment in an individual who probably won't pan out.
From Waggy's column:
As a leader, 90 percent of your problems are caused by 10 percent of your subordinates, or so says the old wisdom. A lone service member on the wrong end of the performance spectrum can monopolize multiple leaders’ time. In extreme cases, young, disgruntled soldiers can jeopardize lives and risk national security. Sorting out the military’s future problem children would benefit the organization as a whole. Identifying who the problems will be presents a challenge only answerable in hindsight. Fortunately, the private sector provides a ready solution perfectly scalable for the military: pay people to quit very early in their career.
Zappos, the on-line shoe retailer, garnered attention in 2008 when Harvard Business Review detailed what Zappos called “The Offer.” During an employee’s initial training, Zappos offered the employee cash to quit, a sum that grew over time from just $100 to $4,000. The logic behind the offer: any employee willing to forego employment for the payout would likely be a poor fit for the company in the future and lacked the strong commitment to the company’s vision. For a company like Zappos that prides itself on its customer service, a disgruntled employee costs money. Reportedly, about 97 percent of trainees decline The Offer.
An on-line shoe retailer may not be perfectly analogous to the military, but both organizations benefit from a motivated workforce. The strength of the all-volunteer military is the combination of dedicated volunteers and the elimination of disgruntled conscripts. For military volunteers, the chance to join the military may fulfill a lifelong dream, provide excitement, pay for school, continue a family tradition, acquire marketable skills, build discipline, or any of the practically innumerable reasons folks join the military. But for a (hopefully) small cohort, joining the military is a decision they soon regret. Perceived as trapped by their initial enlistment contract, the disgruntled trainees soon bring bad attitudes and poor performance to their first duty station. Their organizations will soon pay the price.
To illustrate this problem, Waggy offers the examples of Bo Berghdahl and Bradley Manning. From Day One of basic training, it was apparent that both were a poor fit for the Army. By releasing them from service during or after basic, the nation would have been spared Berghdahl's traitorous turn in Afghanistan, or Manning passing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.
To get rid of the slackers, malcontents and poor performers, Major Waggy suggests offering a "separation payment" to the bottom 10% of each basic training class. The stipend would be equal to one or two months' of basic pay, providing a small sum to help the former soldiers get on with their lives.
The concept is not without merit; if their basic training performance is any indication, many of these soldiers will remain sub-standard performers, creating problems for their commanders, platoon sergeants and anyone else in their chain of command. Many of these laggards will be denied reenlistment and by the time the Army reaches that point, the taxpayer will have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay, benefits and training, with little to show for that outlay.
But why pay a soldier, sailor, airman, Marine or coastie who can't cut the mustard? There are procedures in place to help "cull the herd," from the recruiting station to the operational unit. The late, great Chief Buddy used to preach that all supervisors had an obligation to "flush early and often," and you can't fault his logic. Contrary to what some believe, the military is not a social welfare project and the armed services do not have an obligation to retain troops who can't pull their weight. So, instead of "wash-out bonuses," perhaps the answer is better enforcement of existing standards.
To be fair, that is not as easy as it sounds. If the Army (or any other branch) is going to eliminate the bottom 10% in basic training, then recruiters will have to increase the number of accessions, to ensure required manning levels are maintained. And obviously, the cost of recruiting and training new soldiers will increase, in an era when the military is finding it increasingly difficult to meet enlistment quotas. But we believe the service should hold the line at offering separation payments for those unable to meet fundamental standards in basic training. A few weeks of unsatisfactory performance should not be worth a small payout, even if it is only $2,000.
Besides, what sort of message does it send to recruits who make the grade? True, most of them will serve at least four years in the military, but the thought of wash-outs being sent off with a stipend is bound to create resentment. Additionally, it represents an unnecessary expense in an era when defense dollars would be better spent on those who will actually contribute--not those who fail to measure up.
Waggy is an active-duty Major in the Army, serving as an intelligence officer. So, it's a fair assumption that Waggy has run across a few troops who had no business in uniform. From his perspective, both the soldier and the service would be better off if they parted ways before the military makes an even greater investment in an individual who probably won't pan out.
From Waggy's column:
As a leader, 90 percent of your problems are caused by 10 percent of your subordinates, or so says the old wisdom. A lone service member on the wrong end of the performance spectrum can monopolize multiple leaders’ time. In extreme cases, young, disgruntled soldiers can jeopardize lives and risk national security. Sorting out the military’s future problem children would benefit the organization as a whole. Identifying who the problems will be presents a challenge only answerable in hindsight. Fortunately, the private sector provides a ready solution perfectly scalable for the military: pay people to quit very early in their career.
Zappos, the on-line shoe retailer, garnered attention in 2008 when Harvard Business Review detailed what Zappos called “The Offer.” During an employee’s initial training, Zappos offered the employee cash to quit, a sum that grew over time from just $100 to $4,000. The logic behind the offer: any employee willing to forego employment for the payout would likely be a poor fit for the company in the future and lacked the strong commitment to the company’s vision. For a company like Zappos that prides itself on its customer service, a disgruntled employee costs money. Reportedly, about 97 percent of trainees decline The Offer.
An on-line shoe retailer may not be perfectly analogous to the military, but both organizations benefit from a motivated workforce. The strength of the all-volunteer military is the combination of dedicated volunteers and the elimination of disgruntled conscripts. For military volunteers, the chance to join the military may fulfill a lifelong dream, provide excitement, pay for school, continue a family tradition, acquire marketable skills, build discipline, or any of the practically innumerable reasons folks join the military. But for a (hopefully) small cohort, joining the military is a decision they soon regret. Perceived as trapped by their initial enlistment contract, the disgruntled trainees soon bring bad attitudes and poor performance to their first duty station. Their organizations will soon pay the price.
To illustrate this problem, Waggy offers the examples of Bo Berghdahl and Bradley Manning. From Day One of basic training, it was apparent that both were a poor fit for the Army. By releasing them from service during or after basic, the nation would have been spared Berghdahl's traitorous turn in Afghanistan, or Manning passing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.
To get rid of the slackers, malcontents and poor performers, Major Waggy suggests offering a "separation payment" to the bottom 10% of each basic training class. The stipend would be equal to one or two months' of basic pay, providing a small sum to help the former soldiers get on with their lives.
The concept is not without merit; if their basic training performance is any indication, many of these soldiers will remain sub-standard performers, creating problems for their commanders, platoon sergeants and anyone else in their chain of command. Many of these laggards will be denied reenlistment and by the time the Army reaches that point, the taxpayer will have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay, benefits and training, with little to show for that outlay.
But why pay a soldier, sailor, airman, Marine or coastie who can't cut the mustard? There are procedures in place to help "cull the herd," from the recruiting station to the operational unit. The late, great Chief Buddy used to preach that all supervisors had an obligation to "flush early and often," and you can't fault his logic. Contrary to what some believe, the military is not a social welfare project and the armed services do not have an obligation to retain troops who can't pull their weight. So, instead of "wash-out bonuses," perhaps the answer is better enforcement of existing standards.
To be fair, that is not as easy as it sounds. If the Army (or any other branch) is going to eliminate the bottom 10% in basic training, then recruiters will have to increase the number of accessions, to ensure required manning levels are maintained. And obviously, the cost of recruiting and training new soldiers will increase, in an era when the military is finding it increasingly difficult to meet enlistment quotas. But we believe the service should hold the line at offering separation payments for those unable to meet fundamental standards in basic training. A few weeks of unsatisfactory performance should not be worth a small payout, even if it is only $2,000.
Besides, what sort of message does it send to recruits who make the grade? True, most of them will serve at least four years in the military, but the thought of wash-outs being sent off with a stipend is bound to create resentment. Additionally, it represents an unnecessary expense in an era when defense dollars would be better spent on those who will actually contribute--not those who fail to measure up.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Between the Lines
Somewhere in the Big Hangar in the Sky, Jack Northrop must be smiling.
The aviation pioneer, aircraft designer and visionary is probably pleased as punch, since the company he founded--now a part of Northrop-Grumman--has won the contract to build the next-generation long-range strike/bomber (LRS-B) for the U.S. Air Force. Defense Secretary Ash Carter made the announcement this afternoon, revealing that Northrop-Grumman won the $21.4 billion contract over a rival team, which paired Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.
"Concern about that emerging challenge explains why the Obama
Administration declared in 2012 that the main focus of U.S. military
planning was shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. It is no coincidence
that President Obama in the same timeframe enunciated the need for a new
long-range bomber. Discussion of specific weapon programs seldom rises
to the presidential level, so the fact that the president singled out
the bomber as a pressing military need is portentous. The simple truth
is that if the United States does not revitalize its dwindling fleet of
heavy bombers, it probably cannot prevail in a war against China.
The main vehicle for bringing about that revitalization is the LRS-B. Despite frequent public discussion of the program, though, much of official Washington does not understand that America’s future as a world power may hinge on its success. So here is a concise explanation of why America can’t beat back the next great challenge to its global influence without a new bomber.
...any U.S. war plan for defeating China would have to consist mainly of the skillful application of air power and sea power. The basic goal would be to threaten the Chinese Communist Party with the loss of its political power, military might and economic strength by holding several thousand high-value targets at risk. Nuclear weapons probably can’t be used without provoking retaliation in kind, so aside from the moral objections there are practical reasons why the campaign would need to rely on large numbers of precision-guided conventional munitions launched by aircraft and warships (U.S. war plans would need to include mechanisms for discouraging any Chinese use of nuclear weapons)."
Of course, it will be almost a decade before the first LRS-B enters operational service and a lot can happen between now and 2025, including annual installments of the budget wars between Congress and succeeding administrations. With the pressure to make more cuts in a defense budget that is already hollow, the new bomber program will make a tempting target. Lest we forget, the Air Force originally envisioned a B-2 fleet of more than 100 airframes, but the end of the Cold War (and pressures to cut Pentagon spending) reduced the production run to only 21 aircraft, all based at Whiteman AFB, Missouri. The contract awarded today covers only engineering and development costs for LRS-B; DoD and the Air Force will have to go back to Congress and the White House in a few years and convince our political leaders to fund actual production.
In the interim, there will be plenty of speculation over why Northrop-Grumman got the nod over its competitors. Obviously, the company has experience with stealth designs and production, dating back to the B-2. But so does Lockheed-Martin, which developed the Air Force's original very low observable prototype (Have Blue) and its operational offspring, the F-117. Since then, Lockheed has developed and produced the F-22 Raptor and has begun limited production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), another stealth design.
The Nighthawk was a game-changer in aerial warfare and the Raptor (as a multi-role fighter) has even more impressive capabilities. In missions over Syria, F-22s often perform multiple tasks on the same mission, including escorting strike aircraft; employing their own ordnance against ground targets, providing electronic warfare support for allied formations and collecting intelligence data from the battlefield. When the F-35 enters operational service, it will perform many of the same duties and will be fully "networked" with the Raptor and other platforms. With all that expertise, why did Lockheed-Martin (and partner Boeing) come up short?
One explanation may lie in rising costs and delayed deliveries of the JSF. Now billions over its original budget, the F-35 won't be available in significant numbers until the end of this decade, and at a much-higher-than-originally-projected price tag. With so much riding on LRS-B, the Pentagon's procurement managers may have determined they can't afford a repeat of the JSF's development woes in the new program.
There's also a desire to "share the wealth," to help maintain the industrial base and intellectual talent required to produce state-of-the-art defense systems. With the exception of the Navy's X-47B UAV and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, Northrop-Grumman has been largely absent as a producer of military aircraft over the past two decades, concentrating instead on its growing (and profitable) electronics, technical services and IT businesses. However, the company continues to maintain and update older, legacy systems such as the B-2 and the Navy's E-2D Hawkeye radar plane. Northrop-Grumman has been trying to re-establish itself as a military aircraft manufacturer, and securing the LRS-B contract will help cement that "comeback."
Ironically, the company's diversification efforts may have buttressed its case to build the new bomber. Like the F-22, the LRS-B will truly be a "system of systems," designed to preform multiple roles during a single mission. Northrop-Grumman's expertise in such disciplines as electronic warfare, cyber-security, radar technology and systems integration represent the skills that will be needed to field the new bomber. Maybe that was the edge that tilted the contract in favor of Northrop-Grumman, although that claim can be disputed, since Lockheed-Martin has considerable experience in those fields as well.
The aviation pioneer, aircraft designer and visionary is probably pleased as punch, since the company he founded--now a part of Northrop-Grumman--has won the contract to build the next-generation long-range strike/bomber (LRS-B) for the U.S. Air Force. Defense Secretary Ash Carter made the announcement this afternoon, revealing that Northrop-Grumman won the $21.4 billion contract over a rival team, which paired Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.
"Calling the Long Range Strike Bomber the
"back bone" of the Air Force's future strike and deterrence
capabilities, Mr. Carter said the new aircraft
allows the U.S. to "project power across the globe now and into the
future."
"The
age of our bomber fleet requires new thinking and new capabilities,"
Carter said. "Building this bomber is a strategic investment for the
next 50 years."
Officials have been
tight-lipped as to the specific capability expectations for the LRS-B,
but indications are that it will be stealth, able to carry conventional
and nuclear weapons and could possibly operate both with and without a
pilot.
At $550 million a copy, LRS-B represents an expensive, but necessary investment. The last bomber to join the USAF fleet, the B-2 Spirit, rolled off the Northrop assembly line almost 25 years ago. Air Force B-1 Lancers--which can only carry conventional weapons--date to the early 1980s, and the "newest" B-52 Stratofortress entered the inventory in 1962. With both the B-1 and B-2 scheduled for retirement by 2030, introduction of a modern, long-range strike platform has become imperative. The Air Force hopes to buy 100 of the new bombers, providing sufficient numbers (and capabilities) to replace airframes nearing the end of their service lives.
The LRS-B will also occupy a key role in U.S. power projection, particularly in Asia. In a commentary posted at Forbes.com earlier this month, Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute noted current deficiencies in American military capabilities to deal with the growing threat from China:
The main vehicle for bringing about that revitalization is the LRS-B. Despite frequent public discussion of the program, though, much of official Washington does not understand that America’s future as a world power may hinge on its success. So here is a concise explanation of why America can’t beat back the next great challenge to its global influence without a new bomber.
...any U.S. war plan for defeating China would have to consist mainly of the skillful application of air power and sea power. The basic goal would be to threaten the Chinese Communist Party with the loss of its political power, military might and economic strength by holding several thousand high-value targets at risk. Nuclear weapons probably can’t be used without provoking retaliation in kind, so aside from the moral objections there are practical reasons why the campaign would need to rely on large numbers of precision-guided conventional munitions launched by aircraft and warships (U.S. war plans would need to include mechanisms for discouraging any Chinese use of nuclear weapons)."
Of course, it will be almost a decade before the first LRS-B enters operational service and a lot can happen between now and 2025, including annual installments of the budget wars between Congress and succeeding administrations. With the pressure to make more cuts in a defense budget that is already hollow, the new bomber program will make a tempting target. Lest we forget, the Air Force originally envisioned a B-2 fleet of more than 100 airframes, but the end of the Cold War (and pressures to cut Pentagon spending) reduced the production run to only 21 aircraft, all based at Whiteman AFB, Missouri. The contract awarded today covers only engineering and development costs for LRS-B; DoD and the Air Force will have to go back to Congress and the White House in a few years and convince our political leaders to fund actual production.
In the interim, there will be plenty of speculation over why Northrop-Grumman got the nod over its competitors. Obviously, the company has experience with stealth designs and production, dating back to the B-2. But so does Lockheed-Martin, which developed the Air Force's original very low observable prototype (Have Blue) and its operational offspring, the F-117. Since then, Lockheed has developed and produced the F-22 Raptor and has begun limited production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), another stealth design.
The Nighthawk was a game-changer in aerial warfare and the Raptor (as a multi-role fighter) has even more impressive capabilities. In missions over Syria, F-22s often perform multiple tasks on the same mission, including escorting strike aircraft; employing their own ordnance against ground targets, providing electronic warfare support for allied formations and collecting intelligence data from the battlefield. When the F-35 enters operational service, it will perform many of the same duties and will be fully "networked" with the Raptor and other platforms. With all that expertise, why did Lockheed-Martin (and partner Boeing) come up short?
One explanation may lie in rising costs and delayed deliveries of the JSF. Now billions over its original budget, the F-35 won't be available in significant numbers until the end of this decade, and at a much-higher-than-originally-projected price tag. With so much riding on LRS-B, the Pentagon's procurement managers may have determined they can't afford a repeat of the JSF's development woes in the new program.
There's also a desire to "share the wealth," to help maintain the industrial base and intellectual talent required to produce state-of-the-art defense systems. With the exception of the Navy's X-47B UAV and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, Northrop-Grumman has been largely absent as a producer of military aircraft over the past two decades, concentrating instead on its growing (and profitable) electronics, technical services and IT businesses. However, the company continues to maintain and update older, legacy systems such as the B-2 and the Navy's E-2D Hawkeye radar plane. Northrop-Grumman has been trying to re-establish itself as a military aircraft manufacturer, and securing the LRS-B contract will help cement that "comeback."
Ironically, the company's diversification efforts may have buttressed its case to build the new bomber. Like the F-22, the LRS-B will truly be a "system of systems," designed to preform multiple roles during a single mission. Northrop-Grumman's expertise in such disciplines as electronic warfare, cyber-security, radar technology and systems integration represent the skills that will be needed to field the new bomber. Maybe that was the edge that tilted the contract in favor of Northrop-Grumman, although that claim can be disputed, since Lockheed-Martin has considerable experience in those fields as well.
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Mr. Putin's No-Fly Zone
From the earliest days of the Syrian conflict, the U.S. and its so-called "coalition partners" have debated creation of a no-fly zone over that war-torn country. Years of discussions and trial balloons have led to...nothing.
Now, barely a week after his warplanes began combat missions over Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be on the verge of creating--you guessed it--a no-fly zone. Russian jets have become increasingly aggressive as they patrol the country's skies, conduct bombing missions against forces opposing their ally, Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, and even intrude into the airspace of neighboring Turkey.
Officially, the Russians have only a handful of air-to-air capable jets at their base near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, but those six SU-30 Fullbacks have been busy. By various accounts, they chased away a four-ship formation of Israeli F-15s over Latakia, and entered Turkey's airspace as well, locking onto a Turkish F-16 for a reported five minutes (emphasis ours). Readers will note these claims have not been verified and read more like Russian propaganda than reliable reporting:
Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU – 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15’s fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast. The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea.
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back south at high speed over Lebanon.
This ‘incident’ between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
But another incident has been confirmed. U.S. authorities report that Russian fighters--perhaps the same SU-30s--intercepted Predator drones over Syria on several occasions last week. More from Fox News:
Russian fighter jets shadowed U.S. predator drones on at least three separate occasions high above Syria since the start of Russia’s air campaign last week, according to two U.S. officials briefed on this latest intelligence from the region.
[snip]
U.S. officials tell Fox News the drone encounters took place over ISIS-controlled Syria, including its de facto headquarters in Raqqa, as well as along the Turkish-Syrian border near Korbani. Another occurred in the northwest, near the highly contested city of Aleppo.
“The first time it happened, we thought the Russians got lucky. Then it happened two more times,” said one official.
The U.S. military's MQ-1 Predator drone is not a stealth aircraft.
"It is easy to see a predator on radar," said one official.
Well, maybe not as easy as the unnamed official suggests. U.S. drones flew over Iraq during much of the 1990s--when Saddam was still in power--and his Air Force had virtually no success tracking or intercepting our UAVs. There is also evidence that American and Israeli drones have been active over Iran, and Tehran has tried to shoot them down, but their efforts have been equally futile.
Moscow's ability to track and intercept American drones over Syria indicates that Russia has a very robust SIGINT capability in the region, utilizing ground, sea-based and (possibly) airborne platforms. The Russians obviously have the ability to "meld" such information with their air picture, allowing controllers to steer fighters towards adversary aircraft.
Meanwhile, NATO is still smarting from that recent intercept of Turkish F-16s inside that country's airspace by Russian-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, probably operated by the Syrian Air Force. According to multiple reports, the Fulcrums "locked up" an F-16 for more than five minutes with its air intercept radar. That account suggests that the Turkish jets were turning away from the threat as the MiG-29s gave chase. Locking onto another aircraft with a fighter's AI radar is considered an act of war. It is virtually unheard of for a warplane to maintain radar lock for that length of time. Ask a fighter pilot to describe someone who is locked on for that long, and he (or she) will probably use one word: dead. But the MiG-29s did not open fire, though the incident has further exacerbated tensions in the region.
These episodes are anything but a coincidence. Putin is clearly spoiling for a fighter, hoping to create an incident that would cause the U.S. and its allies to cease operations over Syria, while highlighting the capabilities of his own forces. At this juncture, the Russians seem to have free reign in the skies; earlier today, a Pentagon spokesman announced that U.S. aircraft were rerouted in Syrian airspace, to avoid a nearby formation of Russian jets.
And there's one more element that Moscow may use to reinforce a potential no-fly zone. Eleven days ago, Russian TV released video of the cruiser Moskva leaving its Black Sea port, enroute to the Mediterranean, and most likely, a port call at the naval base in Tartus. The Moskva carries the SA-N-6, the naval version of the SA-10 surface-to-air missile system.
From positions in port or off the Syrian coast, the Moskva could engage targets at ranges up to 200 miles, covering a good portion of southwestern Turkey, western Syria, all of Lebanon and northern Israel. How will the U.S. or Israel respond when the Moskva locks up one of our aircraft, or shoots down a drone? We may soon find out.
Now, barely a week after his warplanes began combat missions over Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be on the verge of creating--you guessed it--a no-fly zone. Russian jets have become increasingly aggressive as they patrol the country's skies, conduct bombing missions against forces opposing their ally, Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, and even intrude into the airspace of neighboring Turkey.
Officially, the Russians have only a handful of air-to-air capable jets at their base near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, but those six SU-30 Fullbacks have been busy. By various accounts, they chased away a four-ship formation of Israeli F-15s over Latakia, and entered Turkey's airspace as well, locking onto a Turkish F-16 for a reported five minutes (emphasis ours). Readers will note these claims have not been verified and read more like Russian propaganda than reliable reporting:
Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU – 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15’s fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast. The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea.
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back south at high speed over Lebanon.
The Lebanese army has officially announced at 2313 Z (local time) that four “enemy aircraft” (Israeli) had crossed the airspace of the Lebanon.
This ‘incident’ between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
But another incident has been confirmed. U.S. authorities report that Russian fighters--perhaps the same SU-30s--intercepted Predator drones over Syria on several occasions last week. More from Fox News:
Russian fighter jets shadowed U.S. predator drones on at least three separate occasions high above Syria since the start of Russia’s air campaign last week, according to two U.S. officials briefed on this latest intelligence from the region.
[snip]
U.S. officials tell Fox News the drone encounters took place over ISIS-controlled Syria, including its de facto headquarters in Raqqa, as well as along the Turkish-Syrian border near Korbani. Another occurred in the northwest, near the highly contested city of Aleppo.
“The first time it happened, we thought the Russians got lucky. Then it happened two more times,” said one official.
The U.S. military's MQ-1 Predator drone is not a stealth aircraft.
"It is easy to see a predator on radar," said one official.
Well, maybe not as easy as the unnamed official suggests. U.S. drones flew over Iraq during much of the 1990s--when Saddam was still in power--and his Air Force had virtually no success tracking or intercepting our UAVs. There is also evidence that American and Israeli drones have been active over Iran, and Tehran has tried to shoot them down, but their efforts have been equally futile.
Moscow's ability to track and intercept American drones over Syria indicates that Russia has a very robust SIGINT capability in the region, utilizing ground, sea-based and (possibly) airborne platforms. The Russians obviously have the ability to "meld" such information with their air picture, allowing controllers to steer fighters towards adversary aircraft.
Meanwhile, NATO is still smarting from that recent intercept of Turkish F-16s inside that country's airspace by Russian-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, probably operated by the Syrian Air Force. According to multiple reports, the Fulcrums "locked up" an F-16 for more than five minutes with its air intercept radar. That account suggests that the Turkish jets were turning away from the threat as the MiG-29s gave chase. Locking onto another aircraft with a fighter's AI radar is considered an act of war. It is virtually unheard of for a warplane to maintain radar lock for that length of time. Ask a fighter pilot to describe someone who is locked on for that long, and he (or she) will probably use one word: dead. But the MiG-29s did not open fire, though the incident has further exacerbated tensions in the region.
These episodes are anything but a coincidence. Putin is clearly spoiling for a fighter, hoping to create an incident that would cause the U.S. and its allies to cease operations over Syria, while highlighting the capabilities of his own forces. At this juncture, the Russians seem to have free reign in the skies; earlier today, a Pentagon spokesman announced that U.S. aircraft were rerouted in Syrian airspace, to avoid a nearby formation of Russian jets.
And there's one more element that Moscow may use to reinforce a potential no-fly zone. Eleven days ago, Russian TV released video of the cruiser Moskva leaving its Black Sea port, enroute to the Mediterranean, and most likely, a port call at the naval base in Tartus. The Moskva carries the SA-N-6, the naval version of the SA-10 surface-to-air missile system.
From positions in port or off the Syrian coast, the Moskva could engage targets at ranges up to 200 miles, covering a good portion of southwestern Turkey, western Syria, all of Lebanon and northern Israel. How will the U.S. or Israel respond when the Moskva locks up one of our aircraft, or shoots down a drone? We may soon find out.
Strategika 51: Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole
Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15's
fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli
F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in
particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian
forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.
The Lebanese army has officially announced at 2313 Z (local time) that four "enemy aircraft" (Israeli) had crossed the airspace of the Lebanon.
This 'incident' between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
- See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/6russian.html#sthash.Xul19Msa.dpuf
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.
The Lebanese army has officially announced at 2313 Z (local time) that four "enemy aircraft" (Israeli) had crossed the airspace of the Lebanon.
This 'incident' between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
- See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/6russian.html#sthash.Xul19Msa.dpuf
Strategika 51: Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole
Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15's
fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli
F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in
particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian
forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.
The Lebanese army has officially announced at 2313 Z (local time) that four "enemy aircraft" (Israeli) had crossed the airspace of the Lebanon.
This 'incident' between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
- See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/6russian.html#sthash.Xul19Msa.dpuf
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.
The Lebanese army has officially announced at 2313 Z (local time) that four "enemy aircraft" (Israeli) had crossed the airspace of the Lebanon.
This 'incident' between the Russian and Israeli combat aircraft struck with amazement the command of the Israeli air force, which has estimated that a possible dogfight between F-15 Israelis and the Russian Su-30 would have led to the destruction of the four aircraft Israelis.
- See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/6russian.html#sthash.Xul19Msa.dpuf
Saturday, October 03, 2015
Collateral Damage
The Pentagon has launched a formal investigation into an accidental strike on a Doctors Without Borders medical facility in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz.
A spokesman for the international charity said that twelve staff members and seven patients--including three children--were killed in a "sustained" bombing attack on the complex that began early Saturday morning and reportedly continued for more than 20 minutes. Doctors Without Borders claims that the location of their facility had been provided to both sides in the Afghan conflict as recently as Tuesday of last week, to prevent a possible attack.
This much we know: Afghan Army troops, supported by U.S. special forces and airpower, have been attempting to dislodge terrorists from Kunduz, which was captured by Taliban forces last week. Areas around the hospital were still in Taliban control late Friday night (and engaging coalition forces), prompting a call for air support. An AC-130 gunship was dispatched to the scene and may have been the aircraft that mistakenly struck the medical complex on Saturday morning. Taliban fighters were being treated at the hospital at the time of the attack; Doctors Without Borders provides treatment to personnel from both sides, along with civilians caught in the cross-fire.
But here's what we don't know, and answers these questions will go a long way in determining what happened. First, no one has confirmed that the Doctors Without Borders facility was displaying the Red Cross, Red Crescent or other symbol used by protected facilities. Hospitals in war zones typically show one of those symbols to prevent inadvertent attacks.
However, those symbols are sometimes deliberately misused to protect ammo dumps, command and control sites and other military facilities. The Palestinian Authority has a long history of hiding military assets inside medical buildings and cultural landmarks that are normally protected from attack. Such violations of the laws of armed conflict further complicate the targeting process.
Enemies like the Taliban (and others) also have a history of operating inside or adjacent to protected facilities, hoping to create collateral damage incidents. At this point, it's unclear if the Taliban was firing on Afghan troops and U.S. special forces from inside the compound, but it is certainly a possibility.
The AC-130 carriers a variety of sensors to help it identify and strike ground targets, including low-light TV and IR. It's a safe bet the investigation team will take an early look at what those sensors captured, before and during the engagement. And if the data confirms the Taliban caused the attack on the hospital, the military should quickly release the video or FLIR footage and show how enemy actions led to the tragedy.
Unfortunately, investigations of this type take time--usually months--to complete. By that time, the incident will have been largely forgotten by the global media, which will use the ensuring weeks to set the coverage template.
A spokesman for the international charity said that twelve staff members and seven patients--including three children--were killed in a "sustained" bombing attack on the complex that began early Saturday morning and reportedly continued for more than 20 minutes. Doctors Without Borders claims that the location of their facility had been provided to both sides in the Afghan conflict as recently as Tuesday of last week, to prevent a possible attack.
This much we know: Afghan Army troops, supported by U.S. special forces and airpower, have been attempting to dislodge terrorists from Kunduz, which was captured by Taliban forces last week. Areas around the hospital were still in Taliban control late Friday night (and engaging coalition forces), prompting a call for air support. An AC-130 gunship was dispatched to the scene and may have been the aircraft that mistakenly struck the medical complex on Saturday morning. Taliban fighters were being treated at the hospital at the time of the attack; Doctors Without Borders provides treatment to personnel from both sides, along with civilians caught in the cross-fire.
But here's what we don't know, and answers these questions will go a long way in determining what happened. First, no one has confirmed that the Doctors Without Borders facility was displaying the Red Cross, Red Crescent or other symbol used by protected facilities. Hospitals in war zones typically show one of those symbols to prevent inadvertent attacks.
However, those symbols are sometimes deliberately misused to protect ammo dumps, command and control sites and other military facilities. The Palestinian Authority has a long history of hiding military assets inside medical buildings and cultural landmarks that are normally protected from attack. Such violations of the laws of armed conflict further complicate the targeting process.
Enemies like the Taliban (and others) also have a history of operating inside or adjacent to protected facilities, hoping to create collateral damage incidents. At this point, it's unclear if the Taliban was firing on Afghan troops and U.S. special forces from inside the compound, but it is certainly a possibility.
The AC-130 carriers a variety of sensors to help it identify and strike ground targets, including low-light TV and IR. It's a safe bet the investigation team will take an early look at what those sensors captured, before and during the engagement. And if the data confirms the Taliban caused the attack on the hospital, the military should quickly release the video or FLIR footage and show how enemy actions led to the tragedy.
Unfortunately, investigations of this type take time--usually months--to complete. By that time, the incident will have been largely forgotten by the global media, which will use the ensuring weeks to set the coverage template.
Friday, October 02, 2015
Coming Home
Borrowing a phrase from Jeremiah Wright, it looks like President Obama's foreign policy chickens have come home to roost.
We'll start with the ugliest rooster in the bunch, our debacle in Syria. As of this writing, the Russian Air Force is two days into a bombing campaign against "terrorist" targets, in support Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. According to satellite imagery, there are more than two dozen Russian warplanes at an airfield in Latakia, near the Mediterranean Coast; the jets began arriving there two weeks ago and initiated combat operations this week:
Russian SU-30 Flanker multi-role fighters (left) and SU-25 Frogfoot ground attack aircraft on the ground in Syria. These assets are now flying ground attack missions in support of Moscow's objectives in the region (AllSource Analysis imagery via ABC News)
Of course, it's bad enough that Mr. Obama's dawdling--and sheer incompetence--have created a power vacuum that Vladimir Putin was happy to fill. But the Russian leader added insult to injury by targeting U.S.-supported "moderate" rebels in the first missions flown by his aircraft. That put the President in a rather embarrassing position; after initially telling Russia's military to stay out of the conflict, Mr. Obama's national security team had to scramble and develop a plan for "de-conflicting" operations between U.S. and Russia aircraft. At last report, those talks are still on-going, and until some sort of agreement is reached, there is the possibility of an engagement between American fighter jets and their Russian counterparts.
Making matters worse, Russia issued its own ultimatum to Washington just before its air campaign began. A Russian general delivered the message: American aircraft were to depart Syrian airspace immediately and remain outside the country's borders. Of course, the U.S. ignored Moscow's directive, but the directive underscored the contempt Mr. Putin has for President Obama and the United States.
Meanwhile, the smart boys and girls at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have another Syria-related problem on their hands: what to do about Russian airstrikes against our erstwhile allies on the ground? According to media reports, discussions are underway about possibly creating a "no-fly zone" over areas occupied by U.S.-supported rebels.
Presumably, that area would be very small, given the wholesale failure of American efforts to vet, train and equip moderates to fight against ISIS. The Associated Press estimates that about 80 U.S.-trained fighters are currently battling terrorist elements in Syria, after an investment of more than $500 million. And late last month, Reuters reported that one group of American-backed rebels gave a portion of their equipment to the Al Qaida-affiliated Al Nusra Front, in exchange for safe passage.
That disturbing development eliminates another option for protecting the rebels, by equipping them with advanced, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. Obviously, if our carefully trained and vetted rebels are willing to hand over tons of equipment (including six new pick-up trucks), they'd have no qualms about surrendering MANPAD SAMs to their buddies in Al Qaida, which would use the weapons against U.S. warplanes operating over Syria (and elsewhere).
But the real concerns lie with those Russian jets at Latakia. ISIS doesn't have an air force, but Moscow's airpower contingent includes at least four SU-30 Flankers which have excellent air-to-air and ground attack capabilities. Why send the Flankers--roughly equivalent to a U.S. F-15E--if Putin wasn't preparing for all eventualities, including a potential dogfight with coalition aircraft.
And make no mistake: the Russian dictator isn't backing away from that contingency. If Moscow were truly interested in coordinating the air campaign, they would provide a list of missions, callsigns, targets and IFF "squawks" that could be incorporated into an overall air tasking order, and directed by AWACS. But Mr. Putin has a different agenda at work in Syria and partnering with the allied coalition is somewhere near the bottom of his priority list.
In fact, the Russians would like to inflict some sort of humiliation on western air assets. Along with bailing out the Assad regime; protecting Iran's western flank, and extending Russian influence to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea (among other objectives), Mr. Putin wants to drive the U.S. out of the region and sell some military hardware to boot. If a Russian pilot "accidentally" shot down an American jet-- or one belonging to our partners--the Kremlin won't lose much sleep, figuring correctly that Mr. Obama will never hold them accountable.
That's the price you pay for empty threats, endless vacillation and leading from behind. Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has rightly sized up his adversary in Washington and finds him weak, feckless and incompetent. It's an ideal environment for advancing Russia's aims, and Mr. Putin plans to take full advantage of the situation. Having been largely banished from the key states of the Middle East over the past 30 years, Russia now finds itself as the new king-maker, supporting friends and allies and taking the fight to the terrorists while the U.S. slinks from the regional stage.
It is a positively stunning and frightening turn of events. What's worse, some in the GOP see nothing wrong with this changing of the guard. In a recent interview with CNN, Republican front runner Donald Tump seemed quite content to let Putin take on the Syrian problem. In fairness, he has a point; our current Syria policy is an absolute disaster, and it makes little sense to continue programs that aren't working.
But Mr. Trump is missing the bigger picture. Someone ought to ask him about the ramifications of a new Russian sphere of influence, extending southward into the Persian Gulf, across Iraq (which has grown closer to Moscow and Tehran in recent weeks) and westward through the Black Sea into the eastern Mediterranean. With that move, the Russians gain access to even greater energy reserves, allowing them to increase their leverage with western Europe, and at some point, potentially fracture NATO.
Sadly, all of this might have been prevented, by following the recommendations of our generals in Iraq; avoiding encouragement of the Arab Spring, with no regard for the forces behind it and their long-term consequences, and pursuing coherent strategies in places like Libya and Syria. Instead, Barack Obama has made a total hash of the region; Vladimir Putin is moving in and a man who wants to be the next President sees little wrong with that tectonic shift.
We'll start with the ugliest rooster in the bunch, our debacle in Syria. As of this writing, the Russian Air Force is two days into a bombing campaign against "terrorist" targets, in support Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. According to satellite imagery, there are more than two dozen Russian warplanes at an airfield in Latakia, near the Mediterranean Coast; the jets began arriving there two weeks ago and initiated combat operations this week:
Russian SU-30 Flanker multi-role fighters (left) and SU-25 Frogfoot ground attack aircraft on the ground in Syria. These assets are now flying ground attack missions in support of Moscow's objectives in the region (AllSource Analysis imagery via ABC News)
Of course, it's bad enough that Mr. Obama's dawdling--and sheer incompetence--have created a power vacuum that Vladimir Putin was happy to fill. But the Russian leader added insult to injury by targeting U.S.-supported "moderate" rebels in the first missions flown by his aircraft. That put the President in a rather embarrassing position; after initially telling Russia's military to stay out of the conflict, Mr. Obama's national security team had to scramble and develop a plan for "de-conflicting" operations between U.S. and Russia aircraft. At last report, those talks are still on-going, and until some sort of agreement is reached, there is the possibility of an engagement between American fighter jets and their Russian counterparts.
Making matters worse, Russia issued its own ultimatum to Washington just before its air campaign began. A Russian general delivered the message: American aircraft were to depart Syrian airspace immediately and remain outside the country's borders. Of course, the U.S. ignored Moscow's directive, but the directive underscored the contempt Mr. Putin has for President Obama and the United States.
Meanwhile, the smart boys and girls at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have another Syria-related problem on their hands: what to do about Russian airstrikes against our erstwhile allies on the ground? According to media reports, discussions are underway about possibly creating a "no-fly zone" over areas occupied by U.S.-supported rebels.
Presumably, that area would be very small, given the wholesale failure of American efforts to vet, train and equip moderates to fight against ISIS. The Associated Press estimates that about 80 U.S.-trained fighters are currently battling terrorist elements in Syria, after an investment of more than $500 million. And late last month, Reuters reported that one group of American-backed rebels gave a portion of their equipment to the Al Qaida-affiliated Al Nusra Front, in exchange for safe passage.
That disturbing development eliminates another option for protecting the rebels, by equipping them with advanced, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. Obviously, if our carefully trained and vetted rebels are willing to hand over tons of equipment (including six new pick-up trucks), they'd have no qualms about surrendering MANPAD SAMs to their buddies in Al Qaida, which would use the weapons against U.S. warplanes operating over Syria (and elsewhere).
But the real concerns lie with those Russian jets at Latakia. ISIS doesn't have an air force, but Moscow's airpower contingent includes at least four SU-30 Flankers which have excellent air-to-air and ground attack capabilities. Why send the Flankers--roughly equivalent to a U.S. F-15E--if Putin wasn't preparing for all eventualities, including a potential dogfight with coalition aircraft.
And make no mistake: the Russian dictator isn't backing away from that contingency. If Moscow were truly interested in coordinating the air campaign, they would provide a list of missions, callsigns, targets and IFF "squawks" that could be incorporated into an overall air tasking order, and directed by AWACS. But Mr. Putin has a different agenda at work in Syria and partnering with the allied coalition is somewhere near the bottom of his priority list.
In fact, the Russians would like to inflict some sort of humiliation on western air assets. Along with bailing out the Assad regime; protecting Iran's western flank, and extending Russian influence to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea (among other objectives), Mr. Putin wants to drive the U.S. out of the region and sell some military hardware to boot. If a Russian pilot "accidentally" shot down an American jet-- or one belonging to our partners--the Kremlin won't lose much sleep, figuring correctly that Mr. Obama will never hold them accountable.
That's the price you pay for empty threats, endless vacillation and leading from behind. Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has rightly sized up his adversary in Washington and finds him weak, feckless and incompetent. It's an ideal environment for advancing Russia's aims, and Mr. Putin plans to take full advantage of the situation. Having been largely banished from the key states of the Middle East over the past 30 years, Russia now finds itself as the new king-maker, supporting friends and allies and taking the fight to the terrorists while the U.S. slinks from the regional stage.
It is a positively stunning and frightening turn of events. What's worse, some in the GOP see nothing wrong with this changing of the guard. In a recent interview with CNN, Republican front runner Donald Tump seemed quite content to let Putin take on the Syrian problem. In fairness, he has a point; our current Syria policy is an absolute disaster, and it makes little sense to continue programs that aren't working.
But Mr. Trump is missing the bigger picture. Someone ought to ask him about the ramifications of a new Russian sphere of influence, extending southward into the Persian Gulf, across Iraq (which has grown closer to Moscow and Tehran in recent weeks) and westward through the Black Sea into the eastern Mediterranean. With that move, the Russians gain access to even greater energy reserves, allowing them to increase their leverage with western Europe, and at some point, potentially fracture NATO.
Sadly, all of this might have been prevented, by following the recommendations of our generals in Iraq; avoiding encouragement of the Arab Spring, with no regard for the forces behind it and their long-term consequences, and pursuing coherent strategies in places like Libya and Syria. Instead, Barack Obama has made a total hash of the region; Vladimir Putin is moving in and a man who wants to be the next President sees little wrong with that tectonic shift.
Monday, September 28, 2015
How and Why
You can count Hillary Clinton among the politicians who are glad that Pope Francis is visiting the U.S. this week. And we're guessing that her "joy" has little to do with the Pontiff's presence on American soil, or his stated support for such liberal causes as immigration reform and climate change.
No, we're guessing that Hillary's happiness is rooted in the saturation, non-stop coverage of the papal visit. With the news media--and public--so focused on the Pope, relatively little attention has been paid to the latest bombshell in the Clinton e-mail scandal.
Turns out that efforts to "wipe" her private server (you mean with a cloth?) may have been in vain. According to Bloomberg, The New York Times and Fox News, FBI experts have been able to recover both personal and business-related e-mails from Hillary's homebrew server, messages that supposedly deleted, according to the former Secretary of State and her advisers. As FNC reported:
"It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.
The FBI is investigating whether classified information that passed through Clinton's so-called "homebrew" server during her time as secretary of state was mishandled. Clinton turned over approximately 30,000 copies of messages she deemed work-related to the State Department this past December. Clinton said earlier this year that the emails she deleted from the private server she kept at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home mostly pertained to personal matters such as her daughter Chelsea’s wedding and the secretary’s yoga routines.
An intelligence source told Fox News earlier this month that investigators were "confident" they could recover the deleted records. The source said that whoever had been deputized to scrub the server must "not be a very good IT guy. There are different standards to scrub when you do it for government versus commercial."
In many respects, this latest revelation represents a nightmare scenario for Mrs. Clinton. While she claims all of the deleted e-mails were personal in nature, the latest leak from inside the FBI has demolished that flimsy excuse. And given the bureau's superb capabilities in computer forensics, there's a good chance that most--if not all--of the "missing" e-mails may be recovered. That means the files that Mrs. Clinton tried so hard to protect (and eliminate) may soon be a part of the public record.
From Josh Gerstein and Rachel Bade at Politico:
"..Hillary Clinton's decision to have a tech firm she hired turn the server over to the FBI last month at its request greatly raises the potential that messages she has claimed to be private will eventually make it into the public domain, lawyers tracking the case said. Clinton has said that she had tens of thousands of emails deleted after determining that they contained personal information, but now the FBI appears to have at least some of those in its possession.
“This is enormously significant,” said Dan Metcalfe, a former top Justice Department official handling disclosure issues. “It’s one thing for the bureau to have taken control of the server itself, and when you add to that their technical capabilities to glean information from it, if there is information there that transcends what [Clinton] furnished to State, I think the odds are exceedingly high that that at least some if not all of that information will ultimately enter the public domain.”
Of course, we officially don't know what manner of correspondence may eventually see the light of day, but you don't need to be an FBI agent to follow the money trail. As in Bill collecting big bucks for speeches around the globe (and offering favors), which Hillary delivered as Secretary of State, or would deliver as a future president. Any documentation of that type of arrangement would spell doom for her political prospects and place her in even greater legal jeopardy.
However, the Clintons won't go down without a fight. During a Sunday morning interview, Hillary claimed she has been as "transparent as possible" about her e-mails, a claim that is not only demonstrably false, but downright laughable. Meanwhile, Bill is trotting out the vast, right-wing conspiracy" card, blaming Republicans for extending the crisis. Borrowing a phrase from Bob Kerry, not only are the Clintons exceptionally skilled liars, they are equally predictable in their deception. Faced with scandal yet again, they simply revert back to the Lewinsky playbook, and utter the same, focus-group tested lines, reinforced by the usual crew of toadies and sycophants.
Meanwhile, the FBI is reportedly focusing on how classified information wound up on Hillary's private e-mail network. We're guessing the bureau already knows the answer to that one; files were either uploaded to the system, or various users of the system simply copied sensitive data from reports into their e-mails, minus the classification markings.
We've long favored that latter scenario, for two reasons. First, the classified data almost certainly originated on networks set up to handle that type of information, specifically SIPRNET (for secret-level information) and JWICS, for material at the TS/SCI level. In the wake of the Manning and Snowden scandals, the government has made it extremely difficult to upload or download files from those systems. In many cases, moving a document from SIPRNET to JWICS requires the assistance of a network administrator and must be approved in advance.
On the other hand, it would be very easy for Mrs. Clinton (or a member of her cabal) to simply look at a classified report and then summarize the important findings in an e-mail, created and disseminated on the private, unsecure network. Ask anyone who has held a clearance and worked with classified data and they will tell you: such practices are unpardonable sins, deserving of prosecution and punishment to the full letter of the law. The fact that the former SecState (and her senior aides) held clearances for years--and deliberately chose to place classified information on an open network--gives you some idea of the contempt they hold for the nation's secrets and our laws.
And why not? The final decision on a potential prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her aides rests with political appointees at the Obama Justice Department.
No, we're guessing that Hillary's happiness is rooted in the saturation, non-stop coverage of the papal visit. With the news media--and public--so focused on the Pope, relatively little attention has been paid to the latest bombshell in the Clinton e-mail scandal.
Turns out that efforts to "wipe" her private server (you mean with a cloth?) may have been in vain. According to Bloomberg, The New York Times and Fox News, FBI experts have been able to recover both personal and business-related e-mails from Hillary's homebrew server, messages that supposedly deleted, according to the former Secretary of State and her advisers. As FNC reported:
"It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.
The FBI is investigating whether classified information that passed through Clinton's so-called "homebrew" server during her time as secretary of state was mishandled. Clinton turned over approximately 30,000 copies of messages she deemed work-related to the State Department this past December. Clinton said earlier this year that the emails she deleted from the private server she kept at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home mostly pertained to personal matters such as her daughter Chelsea’s wedding and the secretary’s yoga routines.
An intelligence source told Fox News earlier this month that investigators were "confident" they could recover the deleted records. The source said that whoever had been deputized to scrub the server must "not be a very good IT guy. There are different standards to scrub when you do it for government versus commercial."
In many respects, this latest revelation represents a nightmare scenario for Mrs. Clinton. While she claims all of the deleted e-mails were personal in nature, the latest leak from inside the FBI has demolished that flimsy excuse. And given the bureau's superb capabilities in computer forensics, there's a good chance that most--if not all--of the "missing" e-mails may be recovered. That means the files that Mrs. Clinton tried so hard to protect (and eliminate) may soon be a part of the public record.
From Josh Gerstein and Rachel Bade at Politico:
"..Hillary Clinton's decision to have a tech firm she hired turn the server over to the FBI last month at its request greatly raises the potential that messages she has claimed to be private will eventually make it into the public domain, lawyers tracking the case said. Clinton has said that she had tens of thousands of emails deleted after determining that they contained personal information, but now the FBI appears to have at least some of those in its possession.
“This is enormously significant,” said Dan Metcalfe, a former top Justice Department official handling disclosure issues. “It’s one thing for the bureau to have taken control of the server itself, and when you add to that their technical capabilities to glean information from it, if there is information there that transcends what [Clinton] furnished to State, I think the odds are exceedingly high that that at least some if not all of that information will ultimately enter the public domain.”
Of course, we officially don't know what manner of correspondence may eventually see the light of day, but you don't need to be an FBI agent to follow the money trail. As in Bill collecting big bucks for speeches around the globe (and offering favors), which Hillary delivered as Secretary of State, or would deliver as a future president. Any documentation of that type of arrangement would spell doom for her political prospects and place her in even greater legal jeopardy.
However, the Clintons won't go down without a fight. During a Sunday morning interview, Hillary claimed she has been as "transparent as possible" about her e-mails, a claim that is not only demonstrably false, but downright laughable. Meanwhile, Bill is trotting out the vast, right-wing conspiracy" card, blaming Republicans for extending the crisis. Borrowing a phrase from Bob Kerry, not only are the Clintons exceptionally skilled liars, they are equally predictable in their deception. Faced with scandal yet again, they simply revert back to the Lewinsky playbook, and utter the same, focus-group tested lines, reinforced by the usual crew of toadies and sycophants.
Meanwhile, the FBI is reportedly focusing on how classified information wound up on Hillary's private e-mail network. We're guessing the bureau already knows the answer to that one; files were either uploaded to the system, or various users of the system simply copied sensitive data from reports into their e-mails, minus the classification markings.
We've long favored that latter scenario, for two reasons. First, the classified data almost certainly originated on networks set up to handle that type of information, specifically SIPRNET (for secret-level information) and JWICS, for material at the TS/SCI level. In the wake of the Manning and Snowden scandals, the government has made it extremely difficult to upload or download files from those systems. In many cases, moving a document from SIPRNET to JWICS requires the assistance of a network administrator and must be approved in advance.
On the other hand, it would be very easy for Mrs. Clinton (or a member of her cabal) to simply look at a classified report and then summarize the important findings in an e-mail, created and disseminated on the private, unsecure network. Ask anyone who has held a clearance and worked with classified data and they will tell you: such practices are unpardonable sins, deserving of prosecution and punishment to the full letter of the law. The fact that the former SecState (and her senior aides) held clearances for years--and deliberately chose to place classified information on an open network--gives you some idea of the contempt they hold for the nation's secrets and our laws.
And why not? The final decision on a potential prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her aides rests with political appointees at the Obama Justice Department.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Send in the Marines
A computer-generated image of the HMS Queen Elizabeth leaving Portsmouth harbor. The Royal Navy has announced that USMC F-35s will be the first attack jets to operate from the new carrier, while British squadrons attain initial operational capability (IOC) with the aircraft (BAE Systems image via UK Telegraph)
Suppose you have a brand-new aircraft carrier, but the jets that will operate from that ship won't be available in sufficient quantities for another five years. How do you utilize that platform to its full capabilities in the interim, without its primary strike asset?
For Britain's Royal Navy, that is the near-term challenge: their new fleet carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is in the final stages of construction and will begin sea trials next summer, with initial flight training in 2017-2018. But with the RN's first F-35 squadrons not scheduled to achieve their initial operating capability until 2020 (at the earliest), the Brits are looking for aircraft that can embark earlier and provide a combat punch before their own Lightning IIs are ready for action.
The solution is a lesson in creativity and coalition warfare. According to the U.S. Naval Institute, the RN has reached agreement with the U.S. Marine Corps to deploy F-35 squadrons on the Queen Elizabeth until British units achieve their IOC in the jet:
The U.S. Marine Corps will deploy its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II strike fighters on combat sorties from Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, a senior U.K. Royal Navy officer has confirmed.
Rear Adm. Keith Blount, who is responsible for delivering the two 65,000 ton ships, said that using Marine aircraft and pilots to bolster the U.K.’s nascent carrier strike capability would be a natural extension of coalition doctrine.
“We are forever operating with allies and within coalitions. It’s the way wars are fought”, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Aviation, Amphibious Capability and Carriers) and Rear Adm. Fleet Air Arm told an audience at the DSEI defence exhibition in London on Wednesday.
“In order to get the best out of [the U.K. carrier program] we have to be able to situate it in a coalition context. That could mean that we operate with an American ship as one of the protecting escorts”, Blount said.
“But … given the fact that the U.S. Marine Corps are buying and will operate the same type of aircraft as we are buying and operating, it would make no sense whatsoever if we were to close down the opportunity and potential of the U.S. Marine Corps working from this flight deck.
“So yes, I expect the U.S. Marine Corps to operate and work from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. We are going to get the most bang for the buck we can for the U.K. taxpayer, and that’s one of the ways in which we’ll achieve it.”
A Marine Corps fighter attack squadron (VMFA-121) became the first unit to achieve an initial operating capability with the F-35B in late July; the squadron--based at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, currently has 10 Lightning IIs available for worldwide deployment, and might be an early candidate for for a visit to the RN's new carrier. Two other Yuma-based squadrons are scheduled to convert to the F-35 by 2018.
While British pilots and ground crews are currently training on the Lightning II in the U.S., the first UK-based squadrons won't begin forming until 2018. Without the Marine presence, the Queen Elizabeth would be little more than an over-sized helicopter carrier for a couple of years, until the RN's first F-35 squadrons become fully operational.
The interim combination could also provide a little more punch in places like the Persian Gulf and the Baltics, where the down-sized U.S. Navy is already stretched thin. As we've noted previously, the American fleet suffered a "carrier gap" in the western Pacific this summer, and for the first time in recent memory, there will not be a U.S. carrier operating this fall in the Persian Gulf. While the Queen Elizabeth is about two-thirds the size of a Nimitz-class carrier (and can embark no more than three dozen F-35s), it could be a useful gap-filler, or extend the coalition presence into areas where U.S. carrier groups aren't patrolling.
At one point, the British government contemplated scrapping the ski ramp/VSTOL aircraft combination for the Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship, the Prince of Wales (still under construction). Switching to a catapult/arresting gear system for launch and recovery would have allowed the UK to buy a more capable version of the F-35. But adding the catapults, arresting gear and related hardware would have stretched construction times and increased costs. With the Marine Corps already at IOC with the F-35B--and capable of operating from a ski-ramp carrier--the notion of embarking USMC squadrons on the Queen Elizabeth makes a great deal of sense.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Securing the Flank
Fresh from his Lord Halifax moment with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry wants to talk with Russia about its military build-up in Syria.
Seems that Mr. Kerry, along with the rest of Team Obama, is perplexed over Moscow's deployment of more troops and military hardware to bolster the faltering regime of Syrian Dictator Bashir Al-Asad. In recent weeks, the Russians have dispatched hundreds of troops, along with tanks, support equipment, portable shelters and other items to Syria.
While there have been some reports of Russian advisers fighting alongside Assad's troops, much of Putin's efforts have been focused on bolstering (and protecting) the naval base at Lattakia, a long-time Russian hub on the Mediterranean. Intelligence and press accounts suggest the installation is getting a major upgrade; Russian military engineers are currently building an airfield at Lattakia, allowing Moscow to establish an even greater presence in the region.
As Lee Smith writes at The Weekly Standard, this latest push by Mr. Putin is hardly surprising--given his astute take on Obama's disastrous foreign policy:
"Putin is making his move in Syria now, says Tony Badran, research fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “because he understands not only that Obama would never intervene militarily in Syria, but also because the [deal with Iran] means that the White House wouldn’t challenge Iranian, and by extension Russian, holdings in the region. Moreover, Putin saw that Obama continued to disregard the concerns of his traditional allies, both on the Iranian nuclear program and Syria, when they sought a more active policy to bring down Assad.
Putin read the tea leaves and apparently concluded that no matter how much he and Obama disliked each other, they were in agreement on one big thing: The Middle East’s traditional security architecture is a problem. Putin doesn’t like it because it’s the legacy of an order in the region upheld by America. Obama sees it similarly—it costs the United States too much, and we need to minimize the American footprint in the region. As the White House has said, other stakeholders need to pitch in and do their share. So Moscow is stepping up. Pity all those poor Russian mothers whose boys are going to be going home in body bags, but if Putin wants the job of Syria foreman, Obama all but offered him the post. The way the White House sees it, Putin is now doing the heavy lifting in the “new geopolitical equilibrium.”
From the perspective of the Russian president, his combat losses won't be in vain. He is re-establishing Moscow's presence in the eastern Mediterranean, giving him a perfect pressure point to exert more influence in western Europe. If the French and Germans want more natural gas from Russia--and fewer "refugees" from war-torn Syria and points beyond--they will have to play ball with Mr. Putin.
Mr. Smith argues that Russia's latest adventure in Syria is actually a dress rehearsal for the biggest regional prize of all: the Persian Gulf. Iran, of course, is already aligned with Moscow and Putin may offer his military hardware (and protection) to countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have long been allied with the United States. With Washington retreating from the region, those nations may decide to throw in with Putin, who is presenting Russia as a much more reliable ally.
That's why we shouldn't expect too much from Mr. Kerry's talks with his Russian counterpart--if they actually occur. Determined to protect the Iranian nuclear deal at all costs, President Obama seems quite content with the changing order in the Middle East. Secretary Kerry may bluster a bit for public consumption--or send a sharply worded diplomatic note--but Moscow won't pay any price for its latest gambit. Meanwhile, Russian troops and military equipment will keep pouring into Syria, ensuring that Lattakia remains secure and helping Assad maintain a corridor from Damascus to the Mediterranean.
Mr. Putin has one more reason for strengthening his position in Syria, and it will play out quietly over the weeks ahead. Analysts are already watching for signs of an S-300 deployment to Lattakia, or other hubs supporting the Russian deployment.
Why would Moscow need an advanced air defense system, since ISIS doesn't have an Air Force? The answer lies not in Damascus, but to the east. By positioning S-300 batteries at permissive locations across Syria, Putin will greatly complicate Israeli planning for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Many military observers have long speculated the IAF would send strike packages across Syria and southern Turkey to reach Iran, following air corridors normally used by commercial aircraft. With the S-300 (and more Russian intel assets) in Syria, the Syria/Turkey route just became much more problematic. And with the system's extended range, a route across Jordan and Iraq would also prove more difficult. With limited air refueling assets (the IAF has only seven KC-707 tankers), any increase in flight time/distance to avoid potential threats means a smaller strike package and fewer bombs on target.
Securing the northern flight corridors to Iran was not a primary consideration when Putin executed his latest military move. But with American leadership all-but-gone in the region, he will maximize his opportunities--and his leverage in Tehran will only grow.
Seems that Mr. Kerry, along with the rest of Team Obama, is perplexed over Moscow's deployment of more troops and military hardware to bolster the faltering regime of Syrian Dictator Bashir Al-Asad. In recent weeks, the Russians have dispatched hundreds of troops, along with tanks, support equipment, portable shelters and other items to Syria.
While there have been some reports of Russian advisers fighting alongside Assad's troops, much of Putin's efforts have been focused on bolstering (and protecting) the naval base at Lattakia, a long-time Russian hub on the Mediterranean. Intelligence and press accounts suggest the installation is getting a major upgrade; Russian military engineers are currently building an airfield at Lattakia, allowing Moscow to establish an even greater presence in the region.
As Lee Smith writes at The Weekly Standard, this latest push by Mr. Putin is hardly surprising--given his astute take on Obama's disastrous foreign policy:
"Putin is making his move in Syria now, says Tony Badran, research fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “because he understands not only that Obama would never intervene militarily in Syria, but also because the [deal with Iran] means that the White House wouldn’t challenge Iranian, and by extension Russian, holdings in the region. Moreover, Putin saw that Obama continued to disregard the concerns of his traditional allies, both on the Iranian nuclear program and Syria, when they sought a more active policy to bring down Assad.
Putin read the tea leaves and apparently concluded that no matter how much he and Obama disliked each other, they were in agreement on one big thing: The Middle East’s traditional security architecture is a problem. Putin doesn’t like it because it’s the legacy of an order in the region upheld by America. Obama sees it similarly—it costs the United States too much, and we need to minimize the American footprint in the region. As the White House has said, other stakeholders need to pitch in and do their share. So Moscow is stepping up. Pity all those poor Russian mothers whose boys are going to be going home in body bags, but if Putin wants the job of Syria foreman, Obama all but offered him the post. The way the White House sees it, Putin is now doing the heavy lifting in the “new geopolitical equilibrium.”
From the perspective of the Russian president, his combat losses won't be in vain. He is re-establishing Moscow's presence in the eastern Mediterranean, giving him a perfect pressure point to exert more influence in western Europe. If the French and Germans want more natural gas from Russia--and fewer "refugees" from war-torn Syria and points beyond--they will have to play ball with Mr. Putin.
Mr. Smith argues that Russia's latest adventure in Syria is actually a dress rehearsal for the biggest regional prize of all: the Persian Gulf. Iran, of course, is already aligned with Moscow and Putin may offer his military hardware (and protection) to countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have long been allied with the United States. With Washington retreating from the region, those nations may decide to throw in with Putin, who is presenting Russia as a much more reliable ally.
That's why we shouldn't expect too much from Mr. Kerry's talks with his Russian counterpart--if they actually occur. Determined to protect the Iranian nuclear deal at all costs, President Obama seems quite content with the changing order in the Middle East. Secretary Kerry may bluster a bit for public consumption--or send a sharply worded diplomatic note--but Moscow won't pay any price for its latest gambit. Meanwhile, Russian troops and military equipment will keep pouring into Syria, ensuring that Lattakia remains secure and helping Assad maintain a corridor from Damascus to the Mediterranean.
Mr. Putin has one more reason for strengthening his position in Syria, and it will play out quietly over the weeks ahead. Analysts are already watching for signs of an S-300 deployment to Lattakia, or other hubs supporting the Russian deployment.
Why would Moscow need an advanced air defense system, since ISIS doesn't have an Air Force? The answer lies not in Damascus, but to the east. By positioning S-300 batteries at permissive locations across Syria, Putin will greatly complicate Israeli planning for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Many military observers have long speculated the IAF would send strike packages across Syria and southern Turkey to reach Iran, following air corridors normally used by commercial aircraft. With the S-300 (and more Russian intel assets) in Syria, the Syria/Turkey route just became much more problematic. And with the system's extended range, a route across Jordan and Iraq would also prove more difficult. With limited air refueling assets (the IAF has only seven KC-707 tankers), any increase in flight time/distance to avoid potential threats means a smaller strike package and fewer bombs on target.
Securing the northern flight corridors to Iran was not a primary consideration when Putin executed his latest military move. But with American leadership all-but-gone in the region, he will maximize his opportunities--and his leverage in Tehran will only grow.
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Moscow Moves In
Between wind-surfing sessions and waiting for his Nobel Peace Prize, Secretary of State John Kerry took time over the weekend to chat with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergy Lavrov. The topic of conversation was Moscow's heightened military presence in Syria.
Like the proverbial blind hog that stumbles across an acorn, Mr. Kerry (along with the rest of the Obama foreign policy team) have suddenly realized that Vladimir Putin is significantly increasing military support for the government of Bashir Assad. While Moscow has been training and providing logistical assistance for Assad's army for many years, Putin's support appears to be entering a new phase, with recent reports of Russian troops fighting alongside Syrian forces; the delivery of additional equipment and supplies, and claims that Moscow is preparing an airfield to serve as an operations hub in Syria.
From the U.K. Telegraph:
Russian drones over Syria last week (photo posted at Twitter account linked to Syria Al Qaida affiliate and published by U.K. Telegraph)
Why the sudden escalation by Putin? There are several factors at work. First, the war continues to go badly for Bashar al-Assad; as ISIS steadily gains ground, Mr. Putin and his military advisers may have decided they had no choice but direct intervention, otherwise, the Syrian regime would face near-term collapse, giving terrorists full control of the country and its military resources.
Moscow may also be concerned about Assad's weakened grip on weapons of mass destruction within his arsenal, specifically, chemical and biological rounds. There have been several chemical attacks by ISIS forces in recent weeks; on-line postings from various terror groups suggest the weapons came from Syria's military stockpile. The introduction of Russian troops could improve security of Assad's remaining assets.
But Moscow may have another strategy in mind, with regard to Syrian WMD. Russia currently holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and it has delayed efforts to assign blame for chemical attacks in Syria. Putin's decision to stonewall the inquiry may reflect efforts to hide the responsibility for recent attacks, particularly if Russian advisers and combat forces played any role in carrying out those strikes.
Another possibility? Assad is planning a heightened chemical warfare campaign against insurgents, and will utilize Moscow's technical expertise to carry it out. If more chemical attacks are in the offing, Putin certainly doesn't want UN inspectors nosing around the countryside, or debating responsibility at hearings in New York or Geneva. However, the timeline for that sort of strategy is very limited, since Russia will hold the Security Council presidency for only one month, before handing it off to Spain in October.
Russia will also gain brownie points among allies (and potential allies) in the region by stepping up to defend a client state. While the U.S. makes--and breaks--promises, Vladimir Putin looks like a man of his word, something that isn't lost on other countries looking for support against ISIS. So far, he hasn't committed enough forces to make a difference militarily, but the Russian leader understands the power of symbolism and its importance in the Middle East. Against the backdrop of a U.S. retreat in the region, even a token deployment by Moscow projects an image of power and strength.
The Syria expedition can also serve other purposes. As Moscow's military presence grows, it would not be surprising to see a deployment of the S-300 air defense system, ostensibly to protect Russian forces from ISIS drone strikes, or attacks by captured Syrian military aircraft. Never mind the terror group's capabilities in these areas are virtually non-existent; the manufactured "threat" will allow Moscow to extend protection for Iran's nuclear facilities to the edge of Israeli airspace, greatly complicating any potential strike by the IAF. It has long been postulated that Israeli fighters would cross Lebanon and southern Turkey to reach Iran; the presence of S-300 batteries in northern Syria might force the Israelis to abandon that route, forcing them to fly across Jordan and Saudi Arabia, or take a long, over-water route across the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and into the Persian Gulf.
In any event, Putin has once again out-maneuvered the U.S., at minimum cost. He has accurately assessed the weakness and fecklessness of the current administration and is prepared to maximize his opportunities over the last 500 days of Obama's Presidency. It would be nice to say our Commander-in-Chief has some sort of counter-strategy, but he doesn't. Barack Obama helped make a hash of Syria and now he simply doesn't care. There's a library to build and more rounds of golf, far more pleasant tasks for his last 16 months in the Oval Office.
Like the proverbial blind hog that stumbles across an acorn, Mr. Kerry (along with the rest of the Obama foreign policy team) have suddenly realized that Vladimir Putin is significantly increasing military support for the government of Bashir Assad. While Moscow has been training and providing logistical assistance for Assad's army for many years, Putin's support appears to be entering a new phase, with recent reports of Russian troops fighting alongside Syrian forces; the delivery of additional equipment and supplies, and claims that Moscow is preparing an airfield to serve as an operations hub in Syria.
From the U.K. Telegraph:
Russian troops are fighting alongside pro-Assad forces in Syria, state television in Damascus and several reports have claimed.
The video footage claimed to show troops and a Russian armoured vehicle
fighting Syrian rebels alongside President Bashar al-Assad's troops in
Latakia.
It is reportedly possible to hear Russian being spoken by the troops in the footage.
In further indications of Russian "mission creep" in Syria, a Twitter
account linked to Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, published
images of what appeared to be Russian planes and drones flying over
Idlib.
Russian drones over Syria last week (photo posted at Twitter account linked to Syria Al Qaida affiliate and published by U.K. Telegraph)
Why the sudden escalation by Putin? There are several factors at work. First, the war continues to go badly for Bashar al-Assad; as ISIS steadily gains ground, Mr. Putin and his military advisers may have decided they had no choice but direct intervention, otherwise, the Syrian regime would face near-term collapse, giving terrorists full control of the country and its military resources.
Moscow may also be concerned about Assad's weakened grip on weapons of mass destruction within his arsenal, specifically, chemical and biological rounds. There have been several chemical attacks by ISIS forces in recent weeks; on-line postings from various terror groups suggest the weapons came from Syria's military stockpile. The introduction of Russian troops could improve security of Assad's remaining assets.
But Moscow may have another strategy in mind, with regard to Syrian WMD. Russia currently holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and it has delayed efforts to assign blame for chemical attacks in Syria. Putin's decision to stonewall the inquiry may reflect efforts to hide the responsibility for recent attacks, particularly if Russian advisers and combat forces played any role in carrying out those strikes.
Another possibility? Assad is planning a heightened chemical warfare campaign against insurgents, and will utilize Moscow's technical expertise to carry it out. If more chemical attacks are in the offing, Putin certainly doesn't want UN inspectors nosing around the countryside, or debating responsibility at hearings in New York or Geneva. However, the timeline for that sort of strategy is very limited, since Russia will hold the Security Council presidency for only one month, before handing it off to Spain in October.
Russia will also gain brownie points among allies (and potential allies) in the region by stepping up to defend a client state. While the U.S. makes--and breaks--promises, Vladimir Putin looks like a man of his word, something that isn't lost on other countries looking for support against ISIS. So far, he hasn't committed enough forces to make a difference militarily, but the Russian leader understands the power of symbolism and its importance in the Middle East. Against the backdrop of a U.S. retreat in the region, even a token deployment by Moscow projects an image of power and strength.
The Syria expedition can also serve other purposes. As Moscow's military presence grows, it would not be surprising to see a deployment of the S-300 air defense system, ostensibly to protect Russian forces from ISIS drone strikes, or attacks by captured Syrian military aircraft. Never mind the terror group's capabilities in these areas are virtually non-existent; the manufactured "threat" will allow Moscow to extend protection for Iran's nuclear facilities to the edge of Israeli airspace, greatly complicating any potential strike by the IAF. It has long been postulated that Israeli fighters would cross Lebanon and southern Turkey to reach Iran; the presence of S-300 batteries in northern Syria might force the Israelis to abandon that route, forcing them to fly across Jordan and Saudi Arabia, or take a long, over-water route across the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and into the Persian Gulf.
In any event, Putin has once again out-maneuvered the U.S., at minimum cost. He has accurately assessed the weakness and fecklessness of the current administration and is prepared to maximize his opportunities over the last 500 days of Obama's Presidency. It would be nice to say our Commander-in-Chief has some sort of counter-strategy, but he doesn't. Barack Obama helped make a hash of Syria and now he simply doesn't care. There's a library to build and more rounds of golf, far more pleasant tasks for his last 16 months in the Oval Office.
Friday, September 04, 2015
Today's Reading Assignment
From migrant crisis to war, and in two years or less. Today's reading assignment from FleetStreetFox of the U.K. Mirror:
It would be very nice if the world worked the way it ought to.
It doesn't.
The world works the way it always has - vicious and thoughtless, with occasional patches of decency.
That's why when children drown in their thousands in the Mediterranean we don't notice until one washes up under our noses, with a name and a parent.
And because we were surprised, we panicked. We put up fences, conflated refugees with migrants, threatened to deport them, declared we were full then with one dead toddler said: "Oh s***."
Had we thought quicker, and harder, we'd have set up migrant and refugee reception centres at the crossing points. We'd have given those in need a place to wash, visa forms and an option other than relying on the mafia.
[snip]
While you and your politicians are having a moral panic, there's something else you haven't spotted.
War is coming.
And it's not the sort where the most exciting it will get is some video game footage on the evening news.
War, in all its horror. War that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a war of superpowers, of modern technology and medieval cruelty.
The ISIS myth requires a crusade; they actively seek apocalypse, whereafter they expect their desserts in heaven. They will push us until our armies mobilise and give them what they want.
It might be a year or two, it might even be five, but there will come a point where war is our only remaining option. And the only fighting which will work is hand-to-hand, street-by-street, cleaning out the mess we created and allowed to fester for so long.
There are two problems with this. First, our army is one tenth the size of that obliterated at Dunkirk. We have not one operational aircraft carrier. Our air force is relying on decades-old planes and our troops include more officers than there units to command.
Sadly, the view isn't much different on this side of the pond. "Festering" has been our strategy since at least 2011, when President Obama completed our withdrawal from Iraq, with little consideration for what might occur without a residual military U.S. presence.
Indeed, we have subsequently learned that the Commander-in-Chief and his aides sought to downplay the menace posed by Al Qaida in a draft National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) three years ago. The administration claimed (at the time) that the terrorist group no longer posed a direct threat to the United States. Only a strong push-back from Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency--and others--prevented the NIE from being published in its original form.
As for ISIS, everyone recalls Mr. Obama's famous assessment about the burgeoning threat being little more than a "jayvee" team. Three years later, the terror group is on its way to forming a true caliphate, with U.S.-led airstrikes having only a marginal effect on the group's expansion efforts.
And, if you believe President Obama is prepared to expand the war, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. He's quite content to remain on the present course, sustaining just enough military activity to keep marginal pressure on ISIS and refute charges he isn't "doing anything," without antagonizing the anti-war base of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, there's a library to build in Chicago and more rounds of golf.
Even if he were interested in really going after ISIS, Mr. Obama would find his military options limited. The number of Air Force fighter squadrons (and aircraft) have declined by more than 50% over the past 25 years, and the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s that remain are getting long in the tooth, and more difficult to maintain. We have the smallest Army since before Pearl Harbor; claims of a Navy "expansion" under Obama are nothing more than an accounting trick, and we are now experiencing carrier gaps in places like the Persian Gulf and the western Pacific that demand a continuous American naval presence.
What about the Europeans? FleetStreetFox's comments on the U.K. military are slightly misleading, since the Brits are far more capable that most of our NATO allies. Unfortunately, decades of cuts have made the British military a shadow of its former self, and many of our European allies have never funded their armed forces at appropriate levels.
The old adage that NATO will fight "to the last American" has never been more true. Unfortunately, U.S. leadership on the world stage is either non-existent, or directed towards "solutions" (such as the Iran nuclear deal) that actually create more danger.
In 1683, European Armies under John III Sobieski of Poland turned back the Ottoman Turks at the gates of Vienna, stemming the Muslim tide in Europe. As the next invasion unfolds, slithering amid a sea of illegal immigrants and refugees, it will be virtually impossible to find a European leader willing to stand against the tide--and find the forces to defeat it.
It would be very nice if the world worked the way it ought to.
It doesn't.
The world works the way it always has - vicious and thoughtless, with occasional patches of decency.
That's why when children drown in their thousands in the Mediterranean we don't notice until one washes up under our noses, with a name and a parent.
And because we were surprised, we panicked. We put up fences, conflated refugees with migrants, threatened to deport them, declared we were full then with one dead toddler said: "Oh s***."
Had we thought quicker, and harder, we'd have set up migrant and refugee reception centres at the crossing points. We'd have given those in need a place to wash, visa forms and an option other than relying on the mafia.
[snip]
While you and your politicians are having a moral panic, there's something else you haven't spotted.
War is coming.
And it's not the sort where the most exciting it will get is some video game footage on the evening news.
War, in all its horror. War that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a war of superpowers, of modern technology and medieval cruelty.
The ISIS myth requires a crusade; they actively seek apocalypse, whereafter they expect their desserts in heaven. They will push us until our armies mobilise and give them what they want.
It might be a year or two, it might even be five, but there will come a point where war is our only remaining option. And the only fighting which will work is hand-to-hand, street-by-street, cleaning out the mess we created and allowed to fester for so long.
There are two problems with this. First, our army is one tenth the size of that obliterated at Dunkirk. We have not one operational aircraft carrier. Our air force is relying on decades-old planes and our troops include more officers than there units to command.
Sadly, the view isn't much different on this side of the pond. "Festering" has been our strategy since at least 2011, when President Obama completed our withdrawal from Iraq, with little consideration for what might occur without a residual military U.S. presence.
Indeed, we have subsequently learned that the Commander-in-Chief and his aides sought to downplay the menace posed by Al Qaida in a draft National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) three years ago. The administration claimed (at the time) that the terrorist group no longer posed a direct threat to the United States. Only a strong push-back from Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency--and others--prevented the NIE from being published in its original form.
As for ISIS, everyone recalls Mr. Obama's famous assessment about the burgeoning threat being little more than a "jayvee" team. Three years later, the terror group is on its way to forming a true caliphate, with U.S.-led airstrikes having only a marginal effect on the group's expansion efforts.
And, if you believe President Obama is prepared to expand the war, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. He's quite content to remain on the present course, sustaining just enough military activity to keep marginal pressure on ISIS and refute charges he isn't "doing anything," without antagonizing the anti-war base of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, there's a library to build in Chicago and more rounds of golf.
Even if he were interested in really going after ISIS, Mr. Obama would find his military options limited. The number of Air Force fighter squadrons (and aircraft) have declined by more than 50% over the past 25 years, and the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s that remain are getting long in the tooth, and more difficult to maintain. We have the smallest Army since before Pearl Harbor; claims of a Navy "expansion" under Obama are nothing more than an accounting trick, and we are now experiencing carrier gaps in places like the Persian Gulf and the western Pacific that demand a continuous American naval presence.
What about the Europeans? FleetStreetFox's comments on the U.K. military are slightly misleading, since the Brits are far more capable that most of our NATO allies. Unfortunately, decades of cuts have made the British military a shadow of its former self, and many of our European allies have never funded their armed forces at appropriate levels.
The old adage that NATO will fight "to the last American" has never been more true. Unfortunately, U.S. leadership on the world stage is either non-existent, or directed towards "solutions" (such as the Iran nuclear deal) that actually create more danger.
In 1683, European Armies under John III Sobieski of Poland turned back the Ottoman Turks at the gates of Vienna, stemming the Muslim tide in Europe. As the next invasion unfolds, slithering amid a sea of illegal immigrants and refugees, it will be virtually impossible to find a European leader willing to stand against the tide--and find the forces to defeat it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)