May 31, 2005
Thunder/Lightning Update Tomorrow
News is sparse. I've got a good map picked out but little to put on it. I will wait eagerly for the Early Bird in the morning and then hope to post tomorrow.
Written by Chester at 12:20 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 30, 2005
Memorial Day 2005
Mark Steyn noted the passing of an important date a few days ago:
A week and a half after the VE Day anniversary, here's a date that will get a lot less attention: May 19th 2005. On that day, the war on terror will have outlasted America's participation in the Second World War. In other words, the period since 9/11 will be longer than the period of time between Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945.Does it seem that long? For the most part, no. The war on terror has involved no major mobilization of the population at large. In contrast to Casablanca, Mrs Miniver, I'll Be Seeing You, Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree With Anyone Else But Me, The Last Time I Saw Paris, Victory Polka, Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition and There'll Be A Hot Time In The Town Of Berlin, American popular culture has preferred to sit this one out, aside from Michael Moore's crockumentaries and incoherent soundbites from every Hollywood airhead who gets invited to European film festivals.
Mark's right. American pop culture has largely chosen to sit out this war, though it threatens our civilization in every bit an existential way as World War II did.
But this isn't entirely true. While popular music and films haven't really rallied to the cause, there is another outlet of pure unadulterated vox populi that has proven more than willing to take up the cause of rallying the American people and our allies on to victory.
Of course, I speak of the blogosphere. Where else do you find "Milblogs" -- many of them written by the warriors themselves -- while deployed? Where else can you find the Good News from Iraq series compiled by Australian Arthur Chrenkoff? Where else can you find "Fallujah, The Music Video" [http://boswell.web.aplus.net/falluja.mpg]? Where else can you find a bit -- just a small bit -- of triumphalism at successful Iraqi elections [http://adamkeiper.blogs.com/comparevideo/files/Iraq_Election.wmv]? The blogosphere is where our heroes are most celebrated, where our enemies are most pilloried, and where we keep the unfaithful in check.
While journalists may conceitedly tell themselves that they write the "first draft of history," I predict that future cultural historians will spend much more time reading milblog archives than they will the archives of any newspaper.
Why is this the case? Perhaps other arenas of cultural expression are too corporate, too top-down-dictated, too stale to offer such raw, unrefined opinion on the war.
Well, this Memorial Day, I'd like to light a fire under you by bringing to the blogosphere some of the best folk music from World War II.
In high school, I was browsing in a music store and came across a CD titled, That's Why We're Marching: World War II and the American Folk Song Movement. This was a compilation of American folk songs written before, during, and after the US entry into World War II. I snapped it up and it has proved a great purchase ever since, for here is a narrative of changing popular conceptions of the war told by a chronological record of popular folk songs. Woody Guthrie, Burl Ives, the Union Boys, Lead Belly, and many more who are largely absent from our popular consciousness today, play large roles in the album. Compiled by Smithsonian/Folkways, it is truly fascinating. I've put a link to the album in the sidebar, but you can also buy it straight from the Smithsonian and listen to excerpts from the songs here.
The first few songs are written before the US entered the war and show a distrust of the motives for involvement. They offer a glimpse into the old pre-war isolationism and its ties to the Depression. Take Billy Boy for example, recorded in March of 1941 by the Almanac Singers, in sort of a call and response style. It shows that folks were not committed to dying overseas, suspicious of war, and even concerned at the vast corporate interests involved in its prosecution:
Q: Will you go to the war, Billy boy, Billy boy?But such sentiments didn't last long!
Will you go to the war, charming Billy?A; It's a long ways away
They are dying every day!Chorus: He's a young boy and cannot leave his mother!
Q: Can you use a bayonet Billy boy, Billy boy
Can you use a bayonet charming Billy?A: No I haven't got the skill
To murder and to kill.[Chorus]
Q: Don't you want a silver medal, Billy boy, Billy boy,
Don't you want a silver medal, charming Billy?A: No desire do I feel
to defend Republic Steel![Chorus]
Q: Don't you want to see the world, Billy boy, Billy boy?
Don't you want to see the world, charming Billy?A: No it wouldn't be much thrill
to die for DuPont in Brazil![Chorus]
Q: Girls would like your uniform, Billy boy, Billy boy!
Girls would like your uniform, charming Billy!A: They wouldn't get much chance to love me
With six feet of earth above me![Chorus]
Q: Are you afraid to fight, Billy boy, Billy boy?
Are you afraid to fight, charming Billy?A: You can come around to me
When England's a democracy![Chorus]
Q: Will they take you from my side, Billy boy, Billy boy?
Will they take you from my side, charming Billy?A: Don't you worry, mother dear,
I'm a stayin' over here![Chorus x 2]
Later songs, like I'm Gonna Put My Name Down, were commissioned by the CIO labor union to show that labor members were just as supportive as everyone else:
I got a brother in the infantry,More than just asking the home front to do all it can, some songs taunt the enemy, like The Fuhrer, which is written in 1944 from the perspective of a German soldier:
I thought you knowed
I got a brother in the infantry
He's a way down that road
I got a brother in the infantry
And he smokes cigarettes just like me
And I'm gonna put my name down![Chorus]
I'm gonna put my name down brother,
Where do I sign?
Each and every month I lay my money on the line!
Gotta keep those tanks a-rollin'!
The airplanes a-hummin' and the dollars a-comin'
And I'm gonna put my name down!
Tell me my Fuhrer,That one seems relevant to some of the stories in the news lately, like the one about the jihadi's using Down's syndrome youth as suicide bombers, or the news buried in a New York Times article not long ago that some recent suicide bombers had had their hands and feet duct-taped to the steering wheels and accelerators of their vehicles. Certainly some of them must be singing a similar tune.
What can I do?
My hands are freezing,
My nose is blue!
I'm dying of cold,
You never can tell,
Cause when the Russians come,
They make it hotter than hell!I got a touch of Pneumonia,
I got a terrible cough,
If I sneeze once more
It's bound to carry me off,
When the Russians are coming,
They always take us by storm,
And there's nothing like running,
If you want to get warm![Chorus]
I want to go back to what's left of Berlin!
Sick of a war that I ain't gonna win
I've seen the big red star
that scared the pants off the tsar
I want to go back to Berlin!Now listen my Fuhrer,
I'm dead on my feet
I've got no place for sleeping
I've got nothing to eat
We've gone and finished
all the food that we brought
And there's nothing here for miles around
but food for thought
I've tightened my belt
it damn near cuts me in two
I've slept on my feet
til my boots wore through
when I get thirsty
I melt snow in my cup
Well I may be going hungry,
But I'm all fed up![Chorus]
Now tell me my Fuhrer
How in the hell can I be brave
I've got one foot in Russia
I've got one in the grave
I got snow in my rifle
I got lead in my pants
I'm so lonesome for a touch of romance!
Well, I went to a village
And I spotted a gal
I made a pass at her
Just to boost my morale
I've got one broken ankle
I've got two black eyes
Why couldn't she pick on somebody her size![Chorus]
By far, my favorite of the songs is The Martins and The Coys, which seems to say, that hey, if even the Martins and the Coys, the classic feuding mountain clans, can unite behind the war, then we all can! It also draws on the amusing imagery of Hitler being treed like a raccoon.
Oh the Martins and the Coys have quit their feudingSo, this Memorial Day, I'll take a page from the Martins and the Coys and hope for unity to defeat the jihadists, because as we all know, whether this is a "generational conflict" or a "long, hard slog, "
They don't live in West Virginia anymore
You won't never find them in
Cause they're headed for Berlin
And they're fighting in a different kind of war!Chorus:
Oh the Martins and the Coys
They were reckless mountain boys,
They take up family feuding when they please,
But now for the duration
They have changed their occupation
And they're fighting side by side til Hitler's treed!Mr. Coy shook hands with Mr. Martin,
And he said "We won't be safe til Hitler's through
"So suppose we call a truce,
"Until we cook his goose,
"Cause I hate him even worse than I hate you!"[Chorus]
And then up spoke old Grandpappy Martin
With his whiskers waving proudly in the breeze
Said, "If I have to capture Tokyo,
"I guess that's o-kee-do-kee-o,
"I'm just waiting til they send me overseas."[Chorus]
Then up spoke Little Cousin Abner,
He'd been drunk since eighteen hundred ninety-eight
He said, "Boys, I'm staying sober
"Until the shootin's over,
"If you don't mind, I'll take my water straight."[Chorus]
Uncle Charlie Coy was sleeping in the henhouse,
But he jumped up when he heard that bugle call,
Now he's over in the Alps
And he's chasin' Hitler's scalp
Cause he wants that mustache hanging on his wall![Chorus]
Now to people this all points a lesson,
See what the Martins and the Coys agreed to do:
They have given up their feudin'
For another kind of shootin'
And if they can do it I guess that we can too![Chorus]
Written by Chester at 10:22 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Print Article
Operation Thunderbolt/Lightning has started
Looks like it kicked off on Saturday . . . I will try to post in-depth about it sometime mid-day Monday.
UPDATE: I will hold on Lightning until late Monday night -- but I will post a map when I begin Lightning coverage.
Instead, I'll have a Memorial Day post up shortly.
Written by Chester at 12:11 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 29, 2005
"New Market" Still Kicking
Operation New Market continues:
UPDATE ON OPERATIONS IN HADITHACAMP BLUE DIAMOND, Iraq – Iraqi Security Forces, Marines and Sailors from Regimental Combat Team – 2 continue to operate in and around the city of Haditha today.
Marines from 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines and Iraqi Forces continue to rout out terrorists as part of Operation New Market (Souk Jadeed), successfully disrupting terrorists activity in the vicinity of Haditha. The purpose of this mission is to maintain pressure on terrorists that began with Operation Matador, conducted in western Iraq May 7-14.
Since launching the offensive operation on May 24, Marines and Iraqi soldiers have killed 14 terrorists and detained more than 30 men suspected of conducting terrorist activity in the area.
While conducting patrols through the city, Marines discovered four machine guns stowed in a neighborhood school. Marines and Iraqi Soldiers also discovered numerous weapons caches in and around the city consisting of 313 mortar rounds, two 155mm artillery rounds, five machine guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers and ammunition.
No essential civilian services are being disrupted as a result of the operation. Water and power have not been affected; however, hospital services for the region are still degraded due to a suicide car bomb attack by terrorists and foreign fighters on the Haditha Hospital on May 8.
Thursday night, Marines conducted a precision air strike against terrorists who were firing on coalition forces from a building they’d occupied. One laser-guided bomb was dropped on the building, leveling it to rubble and killing the terrorists inside.
Also in western Al Anbar, Marines and ISF returned the Iraqi man who was taken hostage and tortured by foreign fighters in a terrorist safe house in Ubaydi. The man, who asked not be identified for his own safety, was severely beaten by his abductors. Before being returned to his family, military doctors treated his wounds.
ISF and coalition forces are continually striving to end the campaign of intimidation waged by the terrorists against the citizens of Al Anbar.
Written by Chester at 11:19 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Law and Order, SVU, decides to drink the Hollywood Koolaid
last night I sate down to watch and episode of Law & Order, SVU that I had TiVo'd earlier this week. What I found was that instead of spending the time to write a good drama like they usually do, this week the show's makers decided to drag the reputation of the US Army through the mud, by alleging that the Army is willing to make a rather chilling cost-benefit analysis about the distribution of questionable anti-malaria medications. The show attempted to make a case that the Army thinks like this: "some soldiers will die at war anyway, so it's ok if a few die from our questionable drugs. The vast majority will benefit." This is absurd.
Well, I just discovered that I wasn't the only one who noticed this nonsense. See Quillnews: GE's NBC drama tells Army families to have nightmares this Memorial Day for a much beter fisking than I could have managed.
Even though that was the last episode of SVU for the season, I won't be TiVoing it any longer. (Yet another instance in which the internet pulls me away from the television . . .)
Written by Chester at 10:46 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 28, 2005
Zarqawi surrounded?
Just an FYI, from an Alert Reader.
The Kuwaiti News Agency is reporting that
BAGHDAD, May 27 (KUNA) -- A force of Iraqi commandoes, supported by US forces, have sourrounded the village of Abu Shallal, north of here, after reports indicated that Abu Musab Zarqawi might have taken refuge there, Interior ministry sources told KUNA on Friday. -- The sources have indicated that Zarqawi has been spotted by eyewitnesses driven in a red Opel in the village of Abu Shallal, near an area called al-Tarmia. He was said to have taken refuge in the home of an individual named Sheikh Hatem al-Amir.I've never used this source before, so I can't speak to its accuracy, but it's the official news organ of the Kuwaiti government from what I can gather, so there's something to be said for that.The Iraqi commandos and US forces are said to be ready to start an operation aimed at capturing him in that village, said the sources.
Interior ministry forces last week surrounded an area named al-Etaifiya, in the middle section of Baghdad, where the Karkh hospital there was inspected for a possible sighting of Zarqawi.
Interior minister Bayan Jabr Solagh had stated at a press conference yesterday, when announcing the launching of Operation Lightning, that he was able to confirm that Zarqawi had been injured.
The news about his injury had been received by the Interior ministry five days ago, said Solagh, although the extent of the injury was not quite clear.
Solagh's statements came hours after an Internet website denied what had been rumored yesterday that al-Qaeda had appointed a replacement for Zarqawi, pending his recovery from his injury. (end)
Written by Chester at 12:16 PM | Link | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 27, 2005
Edge of my seat waiting for Operation Thunder to start
This is the best article I've found detailing the upcoming Operation Thunder -- a massive security operation in and around Baghdad by 40,000 Iraqi troops: Operation Thunder to root out rebels in terror crackdown - World - Times Online
Don't worry. When this kicks off, I'll be all over it.
Written by Chester at 12:32 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2) | Print Article
Interesting Miscellany about the Corps
Marines focus on small units - (United Press International) is a pretty interesting article focusing on a variety of aspects of the initiatives the Corps has in progress. Good stuff.
Also, an Alert Reader emailed a while back to ask why more flame retardant materials like those used by firefighters aren't in use for clothing and other gear in Iraq. In an anti-IED manner.
I think it sounds like a good idea, but the heat would be quite a limiting factor. Moving around in 120 degree heat in MOPP suits for NBC defense is probably similar to what wearing fire-protective gear would be like. And let me tell you it is a pain in the butt. Necessary of course, but significantly slows down movement and range of motion. And you get tired and dehydrated even quicker than you did before. But if they can make it work, sounds like a winner to me!
Oliver North subbed for Hannity tonight and had some footage of the maintenance bays at Al-Taqqadum where Humvees are being retro-fitted with additional up-armor kits. Said they are getting 200-300 a month done there and will have all Marine humvees in Iraq done by October.
I don't really understand why this isn't being done by contractors so it can happen on a larger scale and faster. October is a while off . . .
Written by Chester at 12:05 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Print Article
May 26, 2005
More on The Importance of the Reserve
Yesterday, we discussed the concept of reserves in a post about Operation New Market. (Be sure to read all the comments for further discussion). Well here's something I dug up from the bookshelf: An essay entitled, "Defeating the Enemy's Will: The Psychological Foundations of Maneuver Warfare," by David A. Grossman, who I believe is also the author of the book, On Killing. Here's a portion of the essay subtitled, "The criticality of the reserve,":
--------
The criticality of the reserve
"He, general or mere captain, who employs every one in the storming of a position can be sure of seeing it retaken by an organized counterattack of four men and a corporal." -- Ardant du Picq
Napoleon stated that the moment of greatest danger was the instant immediately after victory, and in saying so he demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the way in which soldiers become physiologically and psychologically incapacitated by the parasympathetic backlash that occurs as soon as the momentum of the attack has halted and the soldier brieflly believes himself to be safe. During this period of vulnerability, a counterattack by fresh troops can have an effect completely out of proportion to the number of troops attacking.
It is basically for this reason that the maintenance of an "unblown" reserve has historically been essential in combat, with battles often revolving around which side can hold out and deploy their reserves last. The reserve has always played a vital role in combat, but du Picq was one of the earliest advocates not only of "holding out a reserve as long as possible for independent action when the enemy has used his own," but he also insisted on the revolutionary concept that this process "ought to be applied downward" to the lowest levels. He also perceived the technological process of increasing lethality on the battlefield which continues today. "There is more need than ever today, for protecting . . . the reserves. The power of destruction increases, the morale [of human beings] stays the same." Clausewitz further understood and put great emphasis on the danger of reserve forces becoming prematurely enervated and exhausted when he cautioned that the reserves should "always be maintained out of sight of the battle."
These same psycho-physiological principles explain why successful military leaders have historically maintained the momentum of a successful attack. Pursuing and maintaining contact with a defeated enemy is vital in order to completely destroy the enemy (the vast majority of the killing in historical battles occurred during the pursuit, when the enemy turned his back), but it is also valuable to maintain contact with the enemy as long as possible in order to delay that inevitable pause in the battle which will result in the "culmination point." The culmination point is usually caused as much by logistical processes as anything else, but once the momentum of the pursuit stops (for whatever reasons) there are severe physiological and psychological costs to be paid, and the commander must realize that his forces will begin to immediately slip into a powerful parasympathetic backlash and become vulnerable to an enemy counterattack. An unblown reserve force ready to complete the pursuit is a vital aspect of maneuver warfare and can be of great value in ensuring that this most destructive phase of the battle is executed.
------
Now that certainly bears some discussion.
Written by Chester at 10:42 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Here's wishing you die slowly of a gut shot and burn in hell for eternity
Well, as we all know, Zarqawi is dying somewhere. [See Austin Bay: Zarqawi As Myth, Ghost, and Damaged Goods].
And he's being replaced: Rantburg: Web Site Announces Al-Zarqawi Replacement.
Chrenkoff notes thus:
What a wonderful idea!Supporters of the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, filled Islamist bulletin boards on the Internet with prayers for his recovery on Wednesday after his group said he had been wounded.70 messages of support in a few hours? C'mon people - we can do better than that. Forget "Get well, al-Zarqawi", it's time for the launch of the officialA statement posted on Tuesday on sites used by insurgents called on Muslims to "pray for the healing of our Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from an injury he suffered in the path of God"...
Within hours one posting had launched a "million prayers of recovery campaign," quickly garnering over 70 responses.
Get caught, al-Zarqawi
campaign. Abu Musab - wishing you a speedy meeting with the Coalition security forces.
So, dear readers, the comments section is all yours - please feel free to write in your "get caught" or "get [anything else] wishes for Al Qaeda's Number 1 in Iraq.
And let's show jihadis we can run a successful "million prayers of capture campaign."
I've done one better: you can go to SYSTRAN Language Translation Technology's homepage and your hate mail for the Emir of Iraq can be automatically translated into Arabic.
Here's a sample:
I typed, "Zarqawi, I hope you rot in hell forever."
And I got this:
?????] ? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????.
Now, my grammar and vocab aren't up to snuff, but I know the alphabet enough to see that they at least got Zarqawi spelled right phonetically.
So, all we need is to know the names of which websites are wishing him well and we can start the mother of all comment wars. Trading barbs with the yahoos at Kos will be nothing compared to this. Both fun and helpful to the cause . . . So if anyone has any idea which websites to go to, post away!
UPDATE: Darn! Movable type just turned my Arabic into question marks. You'll have to go to the site and see it for yourself.
UPDATE2: Al-Jazeera aired the only known video footage of Zarq in Iraq the other day and MEMRI TV has the download, with subtitles. Good background.
UPDATE3: Well, I suppose if you're worried about becoming a target of a fatwa, might be best not to post your wishes on a Jihadi message board. Perhaps more fun could be had by posting something like this:
Dear brothers in Allah, I am so disheartened that our leader the Emir is ailing. I am going to hang up my weapons and stop the jihad. If we cannot beat the infidels we must join them. Allah be praised."
Written by Chester at 9:36 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Tonight . . .
Lots of things for tonight! I think I might get 3-4 good posts off . . . stay tuned.
Written by Chester at 9:25 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 25, 2005
Operation New Market
News is sparse on Operation New Market. Not even CentCom has any mention of the new op. Perhaps something new will be up in the morning.
It looks like most of the major news outlets are regurgitating the intial AP report on the battle, seen here in its ABC News incarnation. Ellen Knickmeyer of the Washington Post, who reported on Matador, was interviewed this morning via phone by NPR. She related details of the news about Zarqawi though, not about New Market.
We know this so far:
1. It involves about 1000 US and Iraqi military personnel. Same in size then as Matador, but with Iraqi involvement:
A small reconnaissance unit of Iraqi soldiers was participating in the attack on the northwestern city.
2. At least one of the battalions involved, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, was involved in Matador. So there is some overlap of forces. I believe that a portion of 3/25 was moved to the far west for Matador to reinforce 3/2 for that operation. Haditha is where the bulk of 3/25 is normally operating.
3. Ten or so terrorists have been killed. One was a local cleric who fired at the Marines.
The operation's description sounds much like a "cordon and search" mission.
Helicopters swept down near palm tree groves and armored vehicles roared into this Euphrates River city before dawn Wednesday . . . Marines brought by helicopters blocked one side of Haditha, while other troops on foot and in armored vehicles established checkpoints and moved toward the city's center.Though I have no satellite imagery for you this week, a quick study of the map shows that Haditha is located due west of a north-south run of the Euphrates. This sheds some light on the tactical movements described: the terrain on the city's east, closest to the Euphrates, is likely much greener and much more vegetated -- this explains the reference to helicopters dropping Marines off in palm tree groves. This type of terrain is better for dismounted infantry. On the other side, the terrain becomes less and less vegetated as one leaves the river and heads toward the desert. This is where armored vehicles have likely set up "checkpoints" as they "moved toward the city's center." The axis of advance is therefore from west to east into the city so that armored vehicles -- tanks, amtracs, and LAVs -- can be integrated into an urban fight there. This would not be possible to attempt if moving from east to west unless a river crossing were established. And as we know from Matador, the river crossing took much longer than had been planned. So the terrain is dictating the nature and direction of the advance in this case . . .
There is no mention of the operation having been planned for some time, as was the case with Matador. This is telling. Perhaps it is exploiting newly found intelligence, as a result of Matador, Squeeze Play, or some other source? Any guess would be pure speculation, but for now, this attack seems more like an exploitation than a deliberate offensive action planned over several weeks or months.
Cordon and search operations are meant to find something. But assuming either that the target is Zarqawi, or that the target is any one individual or group is to put a great deal of faith in our intelligence capabilities. Not impossible, but worth caution in inferring. Even more so, when coupled with this statement by the CO of Regimental Combat Team 2:
"A lot of this is like bird hunting. You rustle it up and see what comes up," said Marine Col. Stephen W. Davis.Wretchard is right to point out that one thing not found thus far is fortified positions with defenses in depth:
So far -- and it is early days yet -- there have been no reports of theIf newly gathered intelligence has led to this operation, perhaps it is the result of the Information Dominance Center, as reported by Middle East Newsline:
fights to the death in fortifications that characterized Operation Matador.
The United States has introduced prototype technology to improve intelligence on insurgency movements in Iraq.It seems like there are two things being discussed here: new technologies, which are unnamed and rightly so, and new organizations for processing and disseminating their collected take, of which the Info Dominance Center is a part.The U.S. Army has been testing technology meant to rapidly gather intelligence and reconnaissance data and distribute the information to other forces. The technology was meant to respond to a study conducted in 2003 that identified faults in intelligence gathering.
So far, the technologies introduced in Iraq have been regarded as effective. Officials said the army conducted a review in December 2004 that reported successes by U.S. commanders.
Introduced by the army, the Information Dominance Center has integrated intelligence from a range of sources as well as translated the data into graphs and other visuals. Officials said the center, based in Baghdad, would be linked to combat units throughout Iraq.
On another note, Bill Roggio raised the question of whether our forces are using a "search and destroy" or a "clear and hold" set of tactics in Iraq.
A limiting factor in continually executing a clear and hold strategy is troop availability. The Marines used to execute Matador were pulled from local garrison duties to execute the assault. It appears there is no significant rapid reaction force available to conduct operations such as Matador.This is an interesting jumping off point for a discussion of the concept of the reserve. Reserves are, as we know, forces held back to be committed when absolutely necessary, or to fill a gap that opens, or to reinforce the committed forces. The joint doctrinal definition is, "Portion of a body of troops that is kept to the rear, or withheld from action at the beginning of an engagement, in order to be available for a decisive movement."
Here we see that the common conception of a "reserve" is the opposite of its true intent. The usual perception is that a reserve is meant to be husbanded and preserved for future use in other, different engagements or actions. But a more realistic way of seeing the reserve is that of a force that is integral to the execution of a planned engagement. In the offense, the reserve would be the fresh troops that relieve other that have been badly bloodied at a key moment in time or space. In the defense, a reserve might be the counterattack force -- and having a counterattack force is the key to any good defense: when committed at the right time, a counterattack can overwhelm the offense.
The question of whether the US has significant "rapid reaction forces" for operations like Matador or New Market is an interesting one. I believe that while operationally (that is, within division-sized areas of operations), commanders are ensuring they have a reserve in the form of a rapid reaction force, at the theater level (that is, the theater of Iraq as a whole), there is no reserve to speak of.
Take Anbar Province. At the operational level, comprising the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force and its 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Air Wing and 2nd FSSG, plus attachments, I think the Division has created a reserve consisting of its non-infantry combat battalions: 2nd Amphibious Assault Battalion, 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, and the 2nd Tank Battalion. These units are usually employed in supporting roles for the infantry. I believe some portion of them are normally set aside in a rapid reaction role, and some others can be shifted as needed to attach to task-organized units for particular operations. Finally, aircraft and air units are probably forming a large part of a reserve/rapid reaction force. So, conceiving of the reserve as a combined-arms concept is the best way to unravel it. This seems to be the way folks are doing business.
At the theater level, for Iraq as a whole, I don't believe there is a theater reserve. There does not seem to be a certain combat unit or units that are regularly shifted about the battlefield to reinforce smaller engagements at the battalion or regimental level. Take the 2nd Battle of Fallujah in November. That operation involved six infantry battalions in the city, with an Army regiment surrounding it to cut it off. Moving enough forces into place for this battle took some significant planning and lead time: The Black Watch was moved from the British sector north and attached to the 24th MEU temporarily. This allowed an Army battalion to be attached to the 1st Marine Division for the battle. Also, the 31st MEU, including 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, was attached to the 1st Marine Division for the fight. This was certainly not a hasty move. MEUs are strategic-level or national-level assets. Committing one of them to a battle far inside Iraq took at least a couple of weeks of planning at the very least, not including transit time from wherever they were. All of these indicators lead me to believe that there is no single unit dedicated to being a theater-level rapid reaction force or reserve, however you choose to conceive of it.
Written by Chester at 11:42 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Well, so much for reading week . . .
There's some stuff that I must discuss, so I'll be posting tonight . . . Reading Week will have to wait.
Written by Chester at 1:55 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 24, 2005
Reading Week
Well, I've got two or three books and several shorter things I need to polish off because they are relevant to future posts. I'm declaring this to be reading week. I'll return with something to feed your Adventures appetite on the Tuesday after Memorial Day -- in one week.
I will be returning email though, so feel free to send it.
For anyone who's wondering, the blogging-related business idea I have is still going along swimmingly. It's in the development stage now, hopefully with a prototype out this summer. Won't say more . . .
Written by Chester at 11:35 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 20, 2005
Strange Coincidences in Madrid
Some very strange coincidences about the 3/11 bombings in Madrid have come to light. El Mundo, the Spanish-language daily, has been investigating the entire incident.
The blogger Barcepundit has been translating some of thethe Spanish articles into English , and here is a good summary article from Frank Gaffney at NRO (hat-tip to Chrenkoff for all of these.)
In an effort to completely blow out my bandwidth for the month, and to clearly depict the strange coincidences and relationships in the investigation, I've created the chart below. See an explanation of each number under the chart.
Continue reading "Strange Coincidences in Madrid"
Written by Chester at 2:05 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Print Article
May 19, 2005
Open Source Analysis Policy
Frequent readers of this blog know that my bread and butter is commentary on US military operations.
Predicting the details of the Battle of Fallujah, and then live-blogging its progress is really how I got started blogging. Go back and read my posts from late October and early November to get a flavor of how things kicked off around here. Since then, I've also covered the tsunami relief operation pretty closely in early January, and Operation Matador last week, along with numerous smaller engagements.
Usually in the midst of battle coverage, there is a comment or an email or two from concerned readers who worry that I am giving too much away. They think I may be aiding the other side by writing too in-depth about who's participating in an operation, or by trying to figure out what has happened, or what will happen next.
I usually address these concens at the time, and readers seem to be satisfied with my responses. But I think it is time to have a formal policy for such things. The recent Newsweek debacle has demonstrated not only the necessity of press responsibility, but also the fact that were it not for the blogosphere, decent and intelligent coverage of the war would be hard to come by.
At the same time, some degree of prudence is wise. The details of things best left secret are often inadvertently scattered among a dozen or so press reports, waiting to be reassembled into a coherent whole. Such is the craft -- and the joy -- of open-source intelligence analysis. So even if my material is 100% open-source and vetted by CentCom or other commands, the cat can sometimes be walked back in a manner that was not intended.
I consulted with several folks in developing my policy: a retired Green Beret officer, who now blogs and has lots more operational experience than me, an active duty Captain in the Marine Corps who is a friend and always has good advice, a couple of other prominent bloggers who I'll keep anonymous, and of course, my ever-faithful partner in crime and good friend Bill Roggio.
This is the policy I've developed:
1. The Adventures of Chester only uses 100% open-source material in its discussions of ongoing US military operations. The goal is to offer insight that is lacking in traditional media outlets.I think it is always good for private organizations to police themselves in these things; otherwise draconian measures will be instituted by the authorities. Incidentally, if I'm allowed a bit of editorializing, Public Affairs officials in general would be wise to develop regular communications with bloggers like me. Certainly they are falling all over themselves to deal with press inquiries from folks like those at Newsweek. But those of us in the blogosphere are more likely to cover ongoing operations with a great deal more clarity and a great deal less spin. Having good relationships with us would go a long way toward projecting desired command messages.2. If I ever have access to classified material I will either stop blogging altogether, or radically alter the content of this blog.
3. When I mention casualty reports, I will assume that the report has been scrubbed by the authorities and that family members are being appropriately notified.
4. I will be extremely judicious in divulging US military doctrine that may offer insight into aspects of a battle which have not been covered explicitly. For example, if a news report mentions a specific tactical maneuver in layman's terms, I may give a fuller description of it. But if common sense and military doctrine would indicate that certain actions are taking place which are not mentioned in news reports, I will use my best judgment in drawing attention to them.
5. I will shift or alter my coverage at the request of Public Affairs officials who are aware of ongoing operations and can speak on the behalf of units involved. In order to request a correction or change, you must be a Public Affairs official, or be able to speak for a command. Email me with your request. The more detailed the better as it is easier for me to shift my coverage, or leave some stones unturned than it is for me to stop altogether, though given the correct circumstances and reasons I will consider either. In addtion, if a certain detail has been released in a press report when it should have remained unknown, I am happy to assist in finding the error so that appropriate future action may be taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
Your email must contain detailed signature and reply information and I must be able to verify your position.
6. I reserve the right to alter this policy at my discretion. If I do so, I will announce the changes in a future post.
7. This is an open-source policy. Other bloggers are free to take all or portions of this policy and make it their own. If you do so, you need not attribute it to me, but please email me if you make any changes to it. I'd like to know what policies others adopt.
I welcome feedback from readers on these issues.
The new policy is posted in a new link in the sidebar for future reference.
UPDATE: The link is up in the sidebar: here.
Written by Chester at 12:12 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 17, 2005
The End of the Obvious Pseudo-Event
An Evil Genius, acting shrewdly and cleverly to harness the megaphone of mass media, can now change the fate of nations.
Rivaling the nuclear alchemists of the 20th century in power, an individual can effectively exert enormous change in policies, societies, and outcomes, solely by shrewd use and manipulation of public opinion.
Some might say this has been the case for some time. Surely, they might argue, the media has been influential for quite a while. Yes, but in this age we have entered a new sort of environment. Now, individuals have more impact on the media than before. Whereas the media as an institution had this power previously, now it is within the grasp of normal citizens, provided they possess some modicum of cunning. Whilst the CIA or other covert agencies may have attempted disinformation or propaganda campaigns before, we now exist in an age where such a campaign could be started and followed through to its goals by small groups of people operating alone.
The potential power of the small groups who will manage to manipulate mass messages for their ends is truly mind-boggling.
While gobs of brainpower is spent on discerning the likelihood of small bands of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon and detonating it in the United States -- and rightly so -- little thought has gone into considering the equally enormous impact available to groups of people who are able to manipulate the mass media into parroting their message across the globe.
The case of Newsweek and the Koran is most likely not one of deliberate misinformation, as the case of Dan Rather and the National Guard memos was. It is instead one of journalistic incompetence. But both episodes hold the smallest glimpse of what the future might portend. If a mass media newsroom, equipped with all of the latest technological gadgetry, every possible database and fact-checking method at hand, and dozens of minds supposedly trained to ask penetrating questions about truth and authenticity can be fooled -- deliberately or not -- then the rest of us are so many sheep ready for slaughter.
While the standard tools of public relations -- the press release, the news conference, the reliance on projecting a certain image via the use of some phrases, and the careful avoidance of others -- seem stale, contrived, and outmoded to us now, we are headed toward an era in which institutions lose nearly all ability whatsoever to control the images through which they define themselves.
This makes calls for more careful deployment of our "soft-power," all the more meaningless. Colonial Operations and Strategic Communication, a post from January, noted Joseph Nye's definition of "soft power":
Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will. Both hard and soft power are important in the war on terrorism, but attraction is much cheaper than coercion, and an asset that needs to be nourished.Furthermore, the post referenced a study by the Defense Science Board, (first noted on Belmont Club) which said this:
Strategic communication -- which encompasses public affairs, public diplomacy, international broadcasting, information operations, and special activities -- is vital to America’s national security and foreign policy. Over the past few decades, the strategic communication environment and requirements have changed considerably as a result of many influences. Some of the most important of these influences are a rise in anti-American attitudes around the world; the use of terrorism as a framework for national security issues; and the volatility of Islamic internal and external struggles over values, identity, and change. ... America needs a revolution in strategic communication rooted in strong leadership from the top and supported by an orchestrated blend of public and private sector components.When the mass media are so invariably hostile to the sitting administration, is such a campaign even possible? Who is to orchestrate such a blend of components? No such orchestration is possible, if it ever was, for two reasons:
1) the mass media has an aversion to being the handmaiden for any government program and
2) the mass media is rapidly being replaced by a decentralized free global and private press that is unprecedented.
A top-down approach will not work if saving America's image is the goal.
What will become of the era of mass-marketing campaigns? For the forseeable future, individuals will swim in a sea of images that are uncoordinated, contradictory, of questionable trustworthiness, and of unclear origin. It is this environment which institutions must manage -- not manipulate -- in order to achieve the ever-more elusive desired public image.
In the past, monolithic organizations were able to effectively control their images in the public realm through the careful manipulation of equally monolithic media outlets. Today, neither the monolithic organizations nor the media outlets can truly be said to still exist. How much more difficult to control the images given off by all members of a corporation, or a government or other institution.
Instead, here is the ultimate paradox: a single individual, with a single message, unwatered-down with aggregate corporate goals or concerns, and unfiltered by the professional caste of the Fourth Estate, will be infinitely more successful in affecting changes in opinions all over the world.
Are we then, at the end of the age of "pseudo-events"? In his 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, the historian Daniel Boorstin noted the rise of the manufactured event, meant to make news. He noted the following characteristics of pseudo-events, which make them overshadow spontaneous events:
1. Pseudo-events are more dramatic. A television debate between candidates can be planned to be more suspenseful . . . than a casual encounter or consecutive formal speeches planned by each separately.Perhaps it is most fair to say that mass media is not dead, and pseudo-events are not either. At the same time as media is decentralizing, the public has become fed up with pre-planned, orchestrated pseudo-events. That is to say, the public is completely unenthused about pseudo-events that are recognizable as such. Since our technology has surrounded us with pseudo-events, we tire of them, ever searching more frantically for spontaneity and authenticity. At the core of this truth is where our Evil Genius above will strike. He will continue to manufacture pseudo-events, but they will not be recognizable as such. They will appear to be unauthored, unedited slices of life, but in fact they will be as carefully positioned as ever before, but opaquely so.2. Pseudo-events, being planned for dissemination, are easier to disseminate and to make vivid. Participants are selected for their newsworthy and dramatic interest.
3. Pseudo-events can be repeated at will, and thus their impression can be re-enforced.
4. Pseudo-events cost money to create; hence somebody has an interest in disseminating, magnifying, advertising, and extolling them as events worth watching or worth believing. They are therefore advertised in advance, and rerun in order to get money's worth.
5. Pseudo-events, being planned for intelligibility, are more intelligible and hence more reassuring. Even if we cannot discuss intelligently the qualifications of the candidates or the complicated issues, we can at least judge the effectiveness of a television performance. How comforting to have some political matter we can grasp!
6. Pseudo-events are more sociable, more conversable, and more convenient to witness. Their occurrence is plnned for our convenience. The Sunday newspaper appears when we have a lazy morning for it. Television programs appear when we are ready with our glass of beer. In the office the next morning, Jack Paar's (or any other star performer's) regular late-night show at the usual hour will overshadown in conversation a casual event that suddenly came up and had to find its way into the news.
7. Knowledge of pseudo-events -- of what has been reported, or what has been staged, and how -- becomes the tes of being "informed." News magazines provide us regularly with quiz questions concerning not what has happened but concerning "names in the news" -- what has been reported in news magazines. Pseudo-events begin to provide that "common discourse" which some of my old-fashioned friends have hoped to find in the Great Books.
8. Finally, pseudo-events spawn other pseudo-events in geometric progression. They dominate our consciousness simply because there are more of them, and ever more.
Cunning will be the image-makers who create the new stealth campaigns. Cowardly will be the institutions and individuals who rely on the old methods of easily spotted pseudo-events. And incredibly brave will be those who shed all pretense, and allow their employees to blog; their politicians to act in public without handlers; and their news to be raw and unrefined.
Also: See A New Kind of Car Chase and see how one innovative company is trying to make its pseudo-events as authentic as possible. Note as well, how uncertain they are as to what image of the company will result, and whether it will increase sales.
And here's an earlier post about pseudo-events, enemy war propaganda, and the relationship of both to the mass press.
Written by Chester at 10:36 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 16, 2005
Tuesday Reading
Steven Vincent recently posted an update of his travels in Iraq over at In the Red Zone.
The warriors over at I Should Have Stayed Home... leave us hanging on a ghost story: Ghost Story (part 1). I just love that blog. Be sure to check out the pics of the Iraqi police officer graduation on the main page.
Modern Tribalist looks to be an interesting read.
Chrenkoff plans to watch the new Star Wars film but still has words for George Lucas.
UPDATE: Speaking of Lucas, if you haven't caught Darth Vader's blog, you must go there immediately: The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster. Pure unadulterated genius.
Written by Chester at 11:07 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 15, 2005
Admin Note
I'm a bit behind in responding to email, so if you sent me one last week, please give me a day or so.
Written by Chester at 11:58 PM | Link | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
A Fisking of Drucker
For some time last week, my newswire was prominently displaying a link to Trading Places by Peter Drucker in the latest issue of National Interest. Another blogger, who is an American ex-pat and a senior economist with Europe's largest private economic and financial research institute in Germany, wrote a pretty sound fisking of Drucker's article at 21st Century Schizoid Man.
Written by Chester at 10:25 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 12, 2005
Bandwidth Issues
I have some monthly bandwidth quota issues, so I'll be removing the maps now. They were largely flawed anyway, based on the newest news articles. You'll have to rely on the press! Scary!
Written by Chester at 1:10 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 11, 2005
Wednesday Live-blogging Commences
[This post will be updated through the evening. All times US Central.]
12:22 pm New map will be up in a new post in a few moments.
12:08pm This is frustrating. There is little news at all coming out of the battle. I don't think it is quite over yet. If it is, then we should see a deluge of final, wrap-up accounts. There may be a news lull right now while things are happening. Only one new story, from WaPo: Demise of a Hard-Fighting Squad. The story, while fundamentally interesting, is flawed in two accounts. First, it paints a particularly defeatist attitude. Sure, it is factual, but where are the stories about the dead enemy? Has the author not been with the Marines as they inspected fighting positions and bodies, possibly even weapons caches, etc? This is caused by the second flaw: the reporter was nearly killed herself:
This correspondent had just gotten off the Amtrac and the reconstructed squad from 1st Platoon was rolling toward the Euphrates in a row of armored vehicles, headed for more house searches, when the vehicle rolled over the explosive.Understandably, she wants to focus on the deaths of those whom she has spent some length of time with. But such "human interest" memoirs are best told by the Marines themselves, and are best at the end of the battle -- when they might be contrasted against its outcome. As it is, the battle is still underway and she focuses solely on friendly casualties. Since she's only with one small unit, we can't expect her to give a bird's eye view of everything, which is fine, but friendly casualties are certainly not all that is happening to Lima Company.
11:50pm Here's an RFI for folks out there: Is New Obeidi the same as Obeidi? And is Q'aim right on the river or removed a bit, as plotted below? Knowing those two things would help a great deal.
11:33pm Milbloggers are highlighted in this story in tomorrow's USA Today: 'Milbloggers' are typing their place in history. It would be interesting to see what kind of traffic these folks get from readers who normally use USA Today online for news.
11:18pm Fox had a report that said the US was denying two rumors going around Iraq. First, that two Blackhawk helos had been shot down in the battle at Q'aim, and second that over 40 Marines had been killed there by roadside bombs. Perhaps spreading these types of rumors is the way the terrorists hope to inflluence the Iraqi populace. See the below from the Word Unheard.
10:42pm Just released from CentCom: Last week the Poles and Iraqis completed Operation COBWEB.
10:26pm The Word Unheard: Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq Calls Rout by Marines "Good News" calls attention to a "Baghdad Bob"-like press release by some element of the insurgents in Iraq. Interesting . . .
9:59pm On All Things Considered today, NPR covered the car-bombings in Baghdad during their top of the hour news, but said nothing at all about Matador. This is sad. The terrorists are hoping that enough car-bombs and the resulting coverage will give them their Tet moment. NPR is only abetting them when its coverage is not balanced . . . where do those car-bombers and bombs come from? Al Q'aim, where we're raking the sand with their bodies.
This raises an interesting question: the MSM in the US has agenda-setting power and still largely influences public debates . . . but what about the populace of Iraq itself? Several articles in the past year have mentioned the explosion of news outlets over there . . . Chrenk's roundups have sometimes mentioned such growth. Is Al-Jazeera dominant, or have some of them made it to the top of the heap in the resulting news competition? In other words, how can the terrorist insurgency adopt their message to the reigning media outlets in Iraq itself?
Aljazeera.Net currently has a large story about the car-bombings, but only a blurb about Matador, and it leaves out key details.
I wonder what some of the Iraqis over at the Carnival of the Liberated would say about terrorism and manipulation of the media?
9:49pm Could be some issues with Hosting Matters. I'm having trouble posting and you're having trouble loading. Nothing from bandwidth from what I can see. If things go south, I'll start posting at my old site: The Adventures of Chester, though some housecleaning over there will be needed.
9:46 pm Fox reported a moment ago that US KIA now number 13. Said one of them was a Lance Corporal who was a pallbearer at Reagan's funeral last summer and then requested to be sent to the sandbox.
9:45pm A couple of Alert Readers tell me there are issues in loading this page. Bandwidth is ok from what I can tell, so it may take a couple of tries.
9:26pm Thoughts about Zarqawi: This was the article that sparked a lot of speculation today: IRAQ: AL-ZARQAWI SERIOUSLY INJURED, SAYS IRAQI OFFICIAL:
Baghdad, 11 May (AKI) - The Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is "serious injured, possibly dead" according to Colonel Fouad Hani Hassan, commander of the fifth division of the Iraqi armed forces, cited by 'Elaph', a popular website in the Arab world. Al-Zarqawi, considered al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, is believed to have been injured in the major offensive US-led forces have been carrying out in the western Anbar province over the last few days.That's the whole thing. Several issues jump out in terms of credibility: First, the source is an Iraqi Colonel. No Iraqi forces are participating directly in Matador. How would he know? What sources would he have there to tell him? If we've got his body, the US might be slow in releasing that info in order to verify, but it seems unlikely that people other than the verifiers would know enough for rumors to leak out. Another small red flag is that they demoted LtGen Conway to a BrigGen Conway. Not a huge mistake, since this is a foreign press service -- Italian, perhaps? -- but still raises an eyebrow. What else are they wrong on?
Operation Matador is centred around the town of Qaim, just a few kilometres from the Syrian border, and is aimed at destroying the strongholds of foreign fighters coming over the border into Iraq to join the insurgency. It's the fourth day of violent fighting around the town, which has been surrounded by troops since Saturday night. Bombing is said to be heavy in Qaim, where there has been house-to-house fighting between troops and insurgents.
The satellite TV channel Al-Arabiya reported on Wednesday that two US military helicopters were brought down during clashes in villages near Qaim, where military aircraft had been carrying out bombing raids to root out Islamic militants from their hideouts.
On Tuesday, Raja Nawaf, the newly-appointed governor of the Anbar province was kidnapped near Qaim and his family was told he would only be released if US troops pulled out of the town. A US military spokesman responded to the news by reiterating that they do not give in to terrorist demands.
While Operation Matador is not specifically aimed at catching al-Zarqawi, Brig. Gen. James Conway told a Pentagon news briefing on Tuesday that "it would be a welcome event to come across him or his body."
This is the biggest US military operation since the offensive on the rebel-held town of Fallujah in November last year. More than 1,000 troops are involved and at least 15 US soldiers are said to have died in the fighting so far. The US military claims some 100 militants have been killed, but inside sources have admitted that they have encountered strong resistance in the town, with the insurgents demonstrating a high level of training.
9:20 pm If anyone out there is interested in opting-in to my email list, email me at "terrier_manchester@yahoo.com" with "subscribe" in the subject line. You'll get one to three emails a week with one hyperlink each to something interesting here at Adventures. That's it. You can opt-out anytime.
9:13pm My goodness! There's little wisps of steam coming out of my browser now . . . Welcome LGF readers!
This evening I'll be creating a significant events log and attempting to tie it to the map I used yesterday. I'll also offer whatever else I can in terms of commentary . . .
Written by Chester at 9:11 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Noon Wednesday: Various Matador Updates
Several things to cover:
1. An Alert Commenter, Heartless Libertarian notes why rafts might have been used in the river crossing, rather than Amtracs:
Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of reason for using rafts instead of amtracs. The first would be for stealth. Tracked vehicles are noisy. The squeeking and squealing of sprockets and the rumble of diesel engines can be heard from a long ways away. Rafts are quiet.Excellent! I had thought of the noise issue, but had not remembered the bank height issue. My engineer skills are getting rusty. I know Amtracs are there though, so they must have crossed via the pontoon bridges. I've read one instance of Amtracs being used as ambulances, which is a standard technique.Second is the availability of suitable river entry and exit sites. It could be that the banks are too steep for the amtracs to negotiate when either entering or leaving the waters, or that they are too soft and would leave the vehicles at risk of becoming mired. It's also possible that suitable sites for the amtracs were defended, and the rafts were used to land troops to outflank those defenders.
2. Another Alert Commenter says thus:
Ummmm. Do they have internet access in that town? Should people be posting detailed maps with Marine positions and descriptions of ongoing activities? Or is this info sufficiently dated to where we can be assured it is of no value to an already dead enemy?These are of course very legitimate concerns, so let's address them.
First, who knows? They may have internet access and folks who can read English. But the bad guys are all probably pretty busy hiding right about now . . .
Second, yes, I think the info is sufficiently dated. The map describes a snapshot of activities on Sunday in Iraq. Today is Wednesday. These things move very fast. All articles in today's papers and news sites, which is about all there is to go on, describe actions that took place on Tuesday. And they are getting more detailed about the events of Sunday, but less detailed than Sunday's accounts of Sunday's events. The journalists probably had a pretty good idea of the plan for the attack, but are losing the ability to accurately report how events on the ground have departed from the plan.
Third, I've figured out that the map, as I stated it would, has mistakes. There were probably two river crossing sites, since the most recent news stories detail a crossing near New Ubaydi, and a crossing near Ubaydi. They also detail crossing from the south to the north, and receiving fire from the south side of the river during the crossing. The crossing plotted is from east to west. Also, I've received an email from an Alert Reader who points out that, yes, in fact 2/2 is deployed right now -- to 29 Palms. So there may only be two battalions participating in the fight, 3/2 and 3/25, or the third may have not been named yet. In any case, it's not 2/2. I'll have to investigate this later.
I don't think the map is any more detailed than those which usually appear in MSM outlets. Two graphics from USA Today and the NY Times from the Battle of Fallujah spring to mind. The difference is that I've used doctrinal symbols and terminology as much as possible. Reporters often mix up unit sizes, battalion vs company for example, or names, or ranks of officials. And they don't use doctrinal symbols. During these rapidly evolving situations, clarity is key though, that's why we have doctrinal symbols. Speaking of journalists, this brings me to . . .
3. It seems that the journalists are all relying on each other. Not many are actually there. Take today's USA Today story on page A7. The byline is a USA Today writer, but at the bottom it notes contributions by the AP. But the USA Today story is different from each of these. It's like the USA Today journalist took someone else's story, made a few phone calls of his own to expand on a few topics, then printed his own version. Nothing wrong with this, just want to point out how much this is like (gasp!) blogging.
4. An interesting question of terminology has arisen in two stories: First, Los Angeles Times: Marines Push Into Rebel Areas on Day 3 of Offensive in West Iraq:
Some U.S. commanders believe the area contains insurgent training camps and high-ranking members of the Iraq arm of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, including its leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi. As of early today, no camps or Al Qaeda leaders had been found.Then, from USA Today, Iraq insurgents' strength surprises U.S. troops; Militants set up base near Syrian border:
BAGHDAD U.S. forces on an offensive across a remote desert region in western Iraq have encountered surprisingly stiff resistance from insurgents who have established a base of operations near the Syrian border.Apparently, Solomon Moore of the Times, who is on the scene and has been reporting on this battle for days, doesn't think that the terrorists who he watches the Marines fight actually live anywhere nearby. They just came in for the weekend. Or perhaps he expected a large camp in the desert, surrounded by barbed wire and a sign: "Zarqawi's Secret Lair - No Trespassing." When we've discoveredThe insurgent sanctuary has been used to launch a wave of deadly attacks in Baghdad in recent weeks, sometimes using foreign fighters coming through Syria, U.S. officers said Tuesday.
bulletproof armor and foreign clothes. In the towns, they reported finding caches of weapons and suicide-bomb vests, as well as car bombs rigged to explode,it's fair to say that the towns out there are the bases. If a mere camp in the desert was what Mr. Moore was expecting, he should know better: we can destroy that without even using people, with a UAV and Hellfire special. His statement about "camps" is misleading at best. Tomorrow the LA Times will probably run an editorial asking how we could have let these bad guys coalesce out there . . .
Another new aricle, just out, and some video to boot: Chicago Tribune | `Floor it!' GI shouts amid hail of gunfire
Written by Chester at 12:17 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 10, 2005
Matador updates
[This post will be continuously updated through the evening. All times US central.]
1:28 Map is looking like money in the bank. Got it down to 44kb. Thanks for all the helpful emails.
12:27am Thanks for all the thoughts. I'm aiming for one am to get it out there.
12:08 am Bandwidth issues: Anyone know how to shrink a map in terms of file space? The one I'm working on is huge. Over 1 meg. Only about 2000 page views and then then adventures will end until next month. Got to figure this one out. Any ideas, please email me.
12:04 am See this opinion piece, also from WaPo, from a couple of days ago: What Do the Insurgents Want? I think that piece is more or less reflective of the conventional wisdom about these things.
12:03am A new WaPo story is out: 'They Came Here to Die'
11:46pm A SSgt emails a correction to my earlier post about RCT-2. He says that 2/2 was not part of RCT-2 for the invasion, but 2/8 was. I was close. Memory is slipping.
11:22pm A commenter asks for verification of the Syrians being captured. I heard this second hand from the show -- perhaps a transcript will be up soon?
11:18pm I'd be remiss if I didn't give a nod to Wretchard for this post back in November, predicting operations such as this one: The River War.
11:02 pm Welcome Instapundit, Michele Malkin, and Blackfive readers. For some background on this area of Iraq, you may be interested in this: The Strategic Corporal Shows Up in Husaybah. Note: Husaybah or Qusaybah, is the same as Q'aim.
10:23pm Looking at some maps which I hope to use sometime this evening here, I believe that the location of the river-crossing was probably determined by the road network in the area. The same is true for the location of the reconnaissance platoon reportedly positioned to call for air strikes on fleeing terrorists. Perhaps Matador refers to the desired maneuver effects on the enemy forces. But it all depends on how much they have cleared Obeidi. If the enemy stands and fights, then the reconnaissance elements and blocking force will be a precaution at best.
10:21pm There has been little mention thus far of Iraqi national forces participating in this offensive. How are they being used? Are they integrated with the Marines in small units as translators, etc?
10:02pm Here's some thoughts to chew on while the graphics are in progress:
The nature of the bridging mission brings up some interesting questions: Why did the grunts cross the Euphrates on rafts? Why not Amtracs?
Also, the pontoon bridge described in the press is probably already taken back down. It is not meant to be left up for long periods of time, and would be susceptible to enemy fire. More than likely, we used assault bridging like this to cross in an unsuspected place, and then we captured a bridge for sustainment purposes, or we rolled sustainment in from much further to the east on the north side of the river.
Here's all you could ever want to know about river crossing: FM 90-13 Chapter 9.
9:49pm I'm working on some graphics to post.
9:47pm Just overheard on John Batchelor radio program that rat lines are strongest to the south. Also that Syrian intel agents have been captured in Qa'im (Qusaybah).
9:31pm Looks like new news is scarce, but I'm searching for undercovered sources.
Written by Chester at 9:32 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Snap Reactions to "Operation Matador"
1:01pm The 2d Marine Division's 2nd Marine Regiment, task organized as Regimental Combat Team-2, is conducting Operation Matador in western Anbar province, along the Syrian border, and concentrating on several towns at the intersection of the border and the Euphrates River.
The 2nd Marines have been to Iraq before: they were the ground combat element of Task Force Tarawa during the invasion in 2003. TF Tarawa was the name given to the task-organized 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. RCT-2 fought a great deal in the city of Nasiriyah after the 1st Marine Division passed through. I would guess that about 75% of the unit has probably turned over since then, but Marine infantry units have pretty good historical memories -- and the remaining 25% have definitely risen in rank since then.
The 2nd Marine Division web site states that two of RCT-2's organic battalions are deployed, the "Warlords"of 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, and the "Betio Bastards" of 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines. Not sure which infantry battalion is filling out RCT 2 in place of 1/2, but it might be the reserve battalion 3/25.
News reports in several sources say that the force conducting the attack is about 1000 strong, so more than likely only one of these battalions is engaged in the operation, while the other two are continuing with their normal security and stabilization activities. The Regimental HQ is probably C2ing the attack because of the nature of supporting assets: possibly several squadrons of aviation assets from more than one service, and a massing of armored vehicles such as tanks, LAVs and AAVs. Also, having the regiment C2 the attack allows it to quickly move the remaining two infantry battalions into supporting positions, or even to reinforce whichever one is primarily engaged as the main effort.
1:18pm The "platoon" in the mountains ready to call down airstrikes on fleeing forces (see Belmont Club for sources) is most likely a Reconnaissance platoon, not a line infantry platoon. Recon platoons have a much higher density of people trained for Close-Air Support calls than a regular infantry platoon would. And it is highly unlikely that a regular infantry platoon would operate independently, or be asked to cover so much terrain. Those Marines in the Close-air overwatch are probably reconnaissance Marines.
1:19pm One more thought then I must return to work (Arrgh!). The latest CentCom press release on the operation has some interesting tidbits:
Soldiers from the Army's 814th Multi-Role Bridge Company constructed a pontoon bridge across the Euphrates River where intelligence reports indicate the enemy is located 9 May. Marines crossed over from the southern banks to the north and are now operating in the northern Jazirah Desert and are in pursuit of the enemy.This shows the extent of planning that went into this operation. Transferring units from one headquarters to another is not done without lots of thought, especially when different services are involved. This was planned as a deliberate river-crossing. More on that later, and if anyone is interested, I may even break out a pub or two on that type of operation.
Next, this:
Ten terrorists, who surrendered to the Marines, are at a nearby detention center.This is out of context, but the surrendered bad guys had just counter-attacked a Marine convoy. And they surrendered? Seems to reinforce the idea that the bad guys in this fight are trained military personnel, either from maybe Saddam's old forces, or from Syria, rather than Jihadists -- though its probably safe to assume a mix. Ten surrendering certainly doesn't sound like anyone eager to get to paradise like we've come to expect.
It will be interesting to see if there are torture chambers and the like in these cities. If these terrorists are secular in background, they may not have been torturing the populace like happened in Fallujah. They may merely have coalesced here for rehearsals (some of the company-sized terrorist attacks that have been mounted recently have needed detailed rehearsals) and for initial arming and manning after coming from Syria and before scattering through the rest of the country.
More tonight! As much as there is news to comment upon . . .
Written by Chester at 1:03 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Live-blogging Marine Operations on the Syrian Border
I'll attempt to offer some snap reactions during my lunch break, and some more posting tonight on the current US offensive along the Syrian border. Stand by . . .
Written by Chester at 12:42 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 9, 2005
Blog Interview with Dr. Andrew Bacevich, author of "The New American Militarism"
I recently finished reading The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War by Andrew Bacevich [see the link in the sidebar], an excellent treatment of the subject of militarism, civil-military relations, and a whole host of related issues. Dr. Bacevich is a Viet Nam veteran and was a career Army officer before entering academia. He currently serves as the Director of the Center for International Relations, and Professor of International Relations at Boston University.
Dr. Bacevich is a critic of current trends in militarism and of the nature of the war. That being said, his work should not be lumped together with much less erudite or more partisan works. I found the book to offer some very interesting viewpoints on the sources of American militarism and its possible cures. I decided to speak to Dr. Bacevich to get some more details. The following is our exchange.
Chester: In your work, The New American Militarism, you map out a long-term shift in thinking among political elites, ideologues, the officer corps, religious institutions, and popular culture that has led to "misleading and dangerous conceptions of war, soldiers, and military institutions that have come to pervade the American consciousness and that have perverted present-day U.S. national security policy." What is the nature of that dangerous conception, and how does it pervert our policies?
Andrew Bacevich: Since Vietnam and especially since the end of the Cold War we've developed outsized expectations regarding the efficacy of force, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and a romanticized view of soldiers. Together these constitute a variant of militarism. This militarism is contrary to our interests and is radically at odds with our founding ideals as a nation.
C: Your chapter describing the history of the Army's attempts to reconstitute itself, and its role in advising the civilian authorities was fascinating. You show that beginning with Creighton Abrams, and ending successfully with Colin Powell's role in the Gulf War, the Army was able to restore its prestige, reconstitute its forces, yet create what is known as "the Powell Doctrine" about the use of US force which as you say, aimed "not to facilitate, but to impede intervention." How did the Powell Doctrine fail? Has the military been a victim of its own success?
AB: The Powell Doctrine failed in no small measure due to Powell himself. After the Cold War, he and the other service chiefs capitalized on the inflated status that they enjoyed thanks to Desert Storm to argue successfully for maintaining a military establishment far larger than needed to respond to the threats that we faced. In essence, they argued for excess military capacity -- a capacity that civilians were happy to put to work in ways quite contrary to Powell's own preferences.
C: Is the Army in the process of creating a new doctrine, either ad hoc, or explicitly? If so, how might you describe it? Is it an attempt to return to something like the Powell Doctrine?
ABThe army is up to its elbows in dealing with the challenges posed by Iraq -- that's the doctrinal challenge of the moment.
C: Given your background, it is not surprising that you focused on the role of the Army in the Vietnam to Desert Storm era. What role did the other services play in changing the conceptions of the military and the use of force?
AB:It was substantial. The Air Force in particular has persistently promoted a vision of air power that suggests that the use of force is becoming more precise, certain, and economical.
C: Your account seems to describe a militarism that is currently at least lacking much direct influence from the military itself, either in its propagation, or in its rebuttal. Can any current militarism either be stopped or promoted by the officer corps?
ABThe problem is not the officer corps. It's us -- "we the people" -- and the folks that we send to Washington.
C: You raise some interesting questions about the nature of military bureaucracies and their institutional interests. For example, you write that the efforts of military professionals "to reassert the autonomy of that profession backfired and left the military in the present century bereft of meaningful influence on basic questions relating to the uses of U.S. military power,"(p.6) but you later say, "Highly protective of their own core institutional interests, these senior officers have also demonstrated considerable skill at waging bureaucratic warfare, manipulating the media, and playing off the executive and legislative branches of government against each other to get what they want." (p. 30) Could these two statements be summarized by saying that since our civilian leadership has decided that war is best not left to the generals, then the generals have decided to turn their attention instead to bureaucratic battles? What kind of civil-military relationship would you recommend?
AB:Senior officers demonstrated real skill in waging bureaucratic warfare in the 1980s and 1990s. The current administration has taken the generals down a peg or two. As a practical matter, civil-military relations remain as dysfunctional today as they were during the Clinton presidency. What do we need: mutual respect and candor within an overall commitment to the sanctity of civilian control. You can make a strong argument that we haven't had that since FDR was president.
C: You summarize the relationship between the public and the military with the phrase, "We admire you. Now go away." This seems to describe a militarism that is rather hollow such that "supporting the troops" is some part of national piety, but nothing else. How would you further describe the relationship between the public and the armed services?
AB:It's a phony respect. We proclaim our support for the troops as long as doing so comes without cost.
C: Your chapter on defense intellectuals was fascinating. After World War II, the "priesthood" -- as you call them -- tried to find more reasonable forms of using violence in the shadow of nuclear weapons. This led to game theories at the strategic level, and the conception of using limited force to bargain or signal. But after Vietnam, the same intellectual priesthood began advocating "discriminating offensive strategies," using calibrated force to win outright hence surgical strikes and the like. Do you believe this had an effect on the rise of pre-emptive warfare as a concept? Has modern weaponry made the concept of total war all but obsolete?
AB:I've got no problem with preemption as such. Given the right set of circumstances, it can be justified. My gripe is with preventive war such as the Bush administration has committed us to. And, yes, the false visions of precision warfare peddled by certain defense intellectuals did pave the way for this misguided policy.
C: You do not speak highly of pre-emptive war in your book. Yet the largest single reason given for such a doctrine is to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. How would you prevent this from happening?
AB:There are no certainties in life. My own view is that a doctrine of preventive war will contribute to instability and disorder more than it will to safety and security. The best way to address the terrorist threat -- meaning those Islamic radicals who are intent on doing us harm -- is through intensive international police action. When I say "police," I'm including intelligence agencies and even on occasion action by special operations forces.
C: Are you familiar with the concepts that fall under the title "fourth generational war"? Do you think an adoption of its ideas will increase or decrease militarism in our society?
AB:Prophets are always claiming to divine how the subject of their study is being transformed and that something completely novel is appearing right before our eyes. I am highly skeptical of such prophecies, especially when it comes to warfare.
C: You recommend a complete change in the roles of ROTC programs and service academies in officer development. How would you change these institutions?
AB:I want all would-be officers first to get an undergraduate education in the company of their fellow citizens. Only after getting a liberal education should they continue on to an officer training program -- and I want all officers to experience the same preparation. In that regard, the service academies should be transformed into officer training institutions along the model of Sandhurst, offering one-year programs and no undergraduate education.
C: A final question: One over-riding concern of many civil-military relations experts is the interaction, or lack thereof, between military professionals and the socioeconomic elite of the nation. That the children of the wealthy don't serve is conventional wisdom in the US. Would serious reform of the military's ability to define, assign, and promote talented people have an impact on the participation of elites? That is to say, would you agree that many of the best and brightest don't serve because they feel that they will be able to fulfill their true potential elsewhere?
AB:People don't serve because as a country we decided after Vietnam that citizenship no longer entailed a responsibility to contribute to the defense of the nation. We need to rethink what it means to be an American. Citizenship ought to entail obligations as well as entitlements.
C: Thanks very much for your time!
Written by Chester at 11:17 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Print Article
Our Interagency Seams
An interesting exchange took place today on Meet the Press, though it might not have seemed so unique at first. Tim Russert's first guest was Gary Schroen, a career CIA officer, who has just penned the book, "First In" about his participation in clandestine and US military efforts in Afghanistan. The exchange on its face appears to be Russert asking questions of Schroen about bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora:
MR. RUSSERT: In December of 2001, the battle of Tora Bora. This is what you write.While the press, and last fall John Kerry, focused on the number of US forces in Afghanistan, and the idea that their lack contributed to bin Laden's escape, Schroen here opens another possibility, just as plausible: that as a "special operations war," the US had little experience to rely upon for conducting such complex interagency operations. In other words, the "joint" nature of the Afghanistan campaign cannot be overlooked in any estimation of either its failures or its successes. The war that Schroen describes was a very complex one, and the integrated cooperation of a number of US agencies was necessary for every one of its successes: local actors were of dubious credibility and difficult to pin down as to their loyalties -- something for the CIA to decipher; the area of operations spanned over two separate countries, both Pakistan and Afghanistan -- a delicate diplomatic matter for handling by the State Department; local militias had to be funded by US cash dispensed by the CIA, and advised by Green Berets of the DoD. Moreover, as Schroen mentions, when and how to incorporate regular US forces into the mix was not fully figured out on the first go-round, and "It was only late in the campaign that U.S. ground forces came in, and the evolution, I think, simply we didn't take it far enough. If we'd have had one more battle after Tora Bora, we probably would have gotten it right.""In early 2002, in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Tora Bora and the subsequent escape of Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahari, CIA and specially trained U.S. military Special Operations units began to organize teams in the provincial areas east and south of Kabul, along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan."You have no doubt that bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora?MR. SCHROEN: No doubt at all. When the first film--videotape that was made--that he made afterwards shows him that he was holding his left side and was probably wounded there in the battle, but every bit of information we had at the time indicated that he had escaped and moved into the Waziristan area which is south of Peshawar.
MR. RUSSERT: How did he get away?
MR. SCHROEN: We had done--followed the same lead we had taken since September of '01 in defeating the Taliban. We were attacking with U.S. military forces against the al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, and we hired local tribal leaders to guard the escape routes into Pakistan. Unfortunately, many of those people proved to be loyal to bin Laden and sympathizers with the Taliban and they allowed the key guys to escape.
MR. RUSSERT: In the heat of the presidential campaign in 2004, John Kerry as part of his stump speech in effect would say things like this. Let's watch.
(Videotape, October 30, 2004): SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA): As I have said for two years now, when Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, it was wrong to outsource the job of capturing them to Afghan warlords who a week earlier were fighting against us.(End videotape)MR. RUSSERT: Should we have had more U.S. troops in Afghanistan circling Tora Bora to prevent his escape?MR. SCHROEN: In hindsight that would have been ideal. We fought a special operations war. It was CIA and Army Green Berets on the ground directing the bombing campaign. It was only late in the campaign that U.S. ground forces came in, and the evolution, I think, simply we didn't take it far enough. If we'd have had one more battle after Tora Bora, we probably would have gotten it right.
The joint nature of the military realm of the campaign has been lauded: many pundits were full of awe at the Green Beret on horseback, calling in a B-52 strike and this is a joint military task at its most basic essence as it involves Green Berets from the Army and aircraft from the Air Force, and a command and control system manned most likely by members from all services.
The interagency nature of the Afghanistan campaign in its initial phases however has gone largely unremarked. Yet here lies the most fascinating part of the campaign's design and execution: the cooperation between different agencies and bureaucracies necessary for it to be successful. And as Schroen suggests, it is this aspect of the campaign that dictated either its success or failure.
If my interpretation is correct, the battle of Tora Bora reflects another example where the national security of the United States has been at the mercy of interagency relationships and the concept of "jointness." The other recent examples are far more well-known:
-the "wall" that existed between the CIA and FBI, and which the 9/11 Commission has attempted to break down with, among other things, the creation of the Director of National Intelligence position.
-the failure of our domestic security agencies to prevent 9/11 and the subsequent creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which integrated so many different agencies under one office.
-the failure to quickly begin a comprehensive reconstruction of Iraq; this complex task required the expertise of individuals in both the State and Defense departments, and the terrorist insurgency had gained steam by the time Bremer was brought in to re-establish US momentum.
And with the exception of the conventional invasion of Iraq and its success, which was very much a joint operation, though not so much an interagency operation, most of our most prized successes in the war have had fundamental bases in interagency jointness:
-the capture of so many Al Qaeda operatives and commanders: this requires an always-changing mix of FBI, CIA, US military, and host-nation cooperation.
-the development of Joint Terrorism Task Forces in US cities, which require the participation of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies.
-the toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which used the same mix of forces and agencies as Schroen mentions were present in Tora Bora.
-the creation of the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa, perhaps the most robust joint organization currently operating.
-the The Proliferation Security Initiative, requiring a complex interaction between intelligence agencies, diplomats, and the military (just look at the pictures on that page).
Our security tasks in the future are likely to look as much like that Schroen describes at Tora Bora as they are the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We would be wise to exert a considerable amount of thought imagining creative ways for the many instruments of our national security symphony to play well together.
Written by Chester at 12:08 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 5, 2005
Pre-emption, Deterrence, or what?
An article in Reason, "All Nukes Are Good Nukes: Can the U.S. cobble together a new deterrence for a new world?" leads us to believe that US combatant commanders may be given wide latitude in the employment of nuclear weapons:
Now as a result, the U.S. is reworking its nuclear doctrine to persuade non-nuclear states that getting nukes is not a reasonable course of action. Via an updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, U.S. theater commanders may soon get tacit, preemptive approval to use nukes against any foe who seems poised to use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons against U.S. forces. In other words, the new big booming message will be: Fight a conventional war you are sure to lose, or we'll nuke you and not even think very hard about it before we do.Going to the source article, we learn
The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.If this is true, it will be a fundamental shift in the civil-military relationships of nuclear strategy, and shows that the doctrine of pre-emption is far from dead, even if pre-emptive invasions have been discredited in Iraq.The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."
"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.
Pat Buchanan writes in RealClearPolitics of the presumptive failure of pre-emptive war:
Under it, we invaded Iraq. To our eternal embarrassment, we found Iraq had none of "the world's most dangerous weapons." But our invasion did concentrate the minds of Tehran's mullahs and Kim Jong Il, the surviving twins of the axis-of-evil triplets.Buchanan has always been on the realist-isolationist wing of US politics, and he is true to form here:Kim reacted by withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, kicking out U.N. inspectors, pulling the plutonium rods out of his Yongbyon reactor and cobbling together an atom bomb. Iran appears to have ratcheted up its program for enriching uranium.
With a threat of retaliation, we deterred a nuclear-armed Stalin and Mao Zedong. And neither Kim Jong Il nor the Iranian mullahs has ever attacked us. Though both detest us, they fear us. If nonproliferation fails us, not to worry, deterrence still works.But does deterrence still work? For all the press that missing Russian nukes, or lax security at Russian nuke facilites gets, one must wonder if deterrence was completely effective: certainly it prevented a nuclear exchange between rival powers. But those nukes are still out there, and can be sold, traded, or stolen.
Moreover, particularly in the case of North Korea, for every story about its nuclear program, there is another one like this one, from December: Cell Phones Spark 'Communication Revolution' in N.K.
In reality, the introduction of Chinese mobile communication technology to the reclusive state has helped pierce through its Iron Curtain and break down a regime that insulates itself through isolating citizens, renting families apart and curbing the spread of information.In other words, if Russian nukes are hard to account for now, North Korean nukes will be equally so if that regime fails to hold itself together. Perhaps even more so, given advances in the ability of people to move goods around the world in the past 15 years. So perhaps deterrence will work if you can guarantee that the states on the opposing end will always be around . . . but what if those states fail?
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Philip C Bobbitt, who has served as a nuclear strategist, warned of the futures of such proliferated states as North Korea, Iran, or Iraq, and what they mean for traditional concepts of deterrence:
Those who believe that the status quo can be indefinitely extended through inspections, then, have an obligation to tell us how the inspectors would prevent Saddam Hussein from buying a weapon from, say, North Korea which would be a rather dramatic change in the status quo.Bobbitt has written extensively on nuclear strategy and details the concepts of deterrence, compellance, and assurance, in the Introduction of his masterpiece, The Shield of Achilles:Supporters of an indefinite inspectors' presence focus on large weapons like missile launchers that they say we will be able to detect . . . But are they also considering that in the future we might have to detect and capture weapons no larger than a case of beer?
. . . I recognize that we are running a terrible risk if we put Saddam Hussein's back against the wall. But unless we are willing to eventually grant him a free hand in the Persian Gulf, he is bound to act in a way that will put his back against the wall in the future after he does acquire nuclear weapons. At that point, however, the United States would have a significantly diminished capacity to prevent his aggression. One certainly cannot imagine an operation like Desert Storm if Iraq were to acquire nuclear warheads and accurate missiles.
Deterrence is more problematic, however, when the calculations on which ir relies become more complex, or when these calculations are cloude by cultural differences and varying attitudes toward risk, or when the facts on which such calculations depend are uncertain or colored by wishful thinking. In other words, the idea of deterrence is itself so much a part of human nature that it can be applied only as it is affected by the various fallacies and shortcomings to which human nature is prey.Bobbitt also warns of the dangers of continuing
to think and plan as though the stable relations that attended the possessors of weapons of mass destruction in the Cold War are somehow intrinsic to such weapons.And finally,
A failure to take seriously the new strategic environment can have costly consequences in the domestic theater as well. Should the use of a weapon of mass destruction occur, the state in which this happens will undergo a crisis in its constitutional order. How it prepares for this crisis will determine the fate of its society, not only its sheer survival, but the conditions of that survival. Some societies may become police states in an effort to protect themselves; some may disintegrate because they cannot agree on how to protect themselves.All the old ideas, whether deterrence, compellance, assurance, or even pre-emption, linger in the air as the final breaths of a world that no longer exists. All is new and our solutions to proliferation must be equally novel.
Written by Chester at 1:16 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Two Great Posts from Chrenkoff
I must point your attention to this: The disadvantages of pissing off America.
And to this: Live from Basra:
A good friend of this blog, Steven Vincent, the author of "In the Red Zone: A Journey into the Soul of Iraq", is back in Iraq and blogging from Basra.As you loyal readers out there know, Vincent is also a good friend of The Adventures of Chester, and has written a handful of guest-posts (see here, and here for some of his Iraqi election commentary.)
More news from Chrenkoff:
Speaking of Steven's book, here's an offer from his publisher:Don't miss out. My reading habits are undisciplined -- I skip around a great deal. Blame it on the short attention span that blogging induces. Anyway, I tell you this only to say that of the third of Vincent's book that I've read, I enjoyed every bit of it. An art critic lives in New York, is affected by 9/11 and travels to Iraq several times to see what he can make of it. It's just plain great stuff. You just can't make that up. And now he's there again. Must be his third time or so.Every tenth person who emails us through the Red Zone blog will receive one free copy of "In the Red Zone". One email per person, please. This offer ends at noon, CDT, on Saturday, May 7, or when we reach 100 free copies, whichever comes first.
Written by Chester at 12:37 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
The Blogosphere Triumphs Again!
This is very cool. Last week I mentioned the raging yet informed and civil debate taking place between Dadmanly, a conservative serving in Iraq, and Liberal Avenger, a leftie who opposes the war. Well, now they've teamed up and started a new blog just so they can continue debating each other: Debate Space
Actual informed debate, without shouting, roundtables, pundits, or commercials.
Written by Chester at 12:28 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
May 2, 2005
Borders, Gangs and War
A piece in today's LA Times, This Land Is Whose Land? is written by Congressmen Tom Tancredo of Colorado's Sixth District. The legislator says that
. . . on Nov. 2, a political earthquake occurred when Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, which denies state welfare benefits to illegal aliens and strengthens voter registration requirements. Forty-seven percent of Latino voters and 59% of Latino Republicans voted for Proposition 200.He goes on to say thatThese figures have liberated Republicans to speak candidly about immigration control without fearing the "race card." Opponents will still try to use it, but it rings hollow. In the words of Lyndon B. Johnson, "That dog won't hunt."
there is now a broad consensus in Congress that border security must be given a high priority. We cannot think seriously about legalizing millions of new "temporary workers" until we are able to control our borders and know who is entering our country and who is leaving.The school of theorists of fourth generational war, often quick to sound a death knell for the state system, frequently draws attention to the ease with which non-state actors might transit our southern border. They are not alone in this regard, but they are usually much more compelling in the scenarios they imagine.
William Lind, a founder of this school of thought, takes the issue up in his latest piece, More on Gangs & Guerillas vs. the State.
Meanwhile, drug smugglers and guerrilla forces like the FARC work together more easily than states do. The state system is old, creaky, formalistic and slow. Drug dealing and guerrilla warfare represent a free market, where deals happen fast. Several years ago, a Marine friend went down to Bolivia as part of the U.S. counter-drug effort. He observed that the drug traffickers went through Boyd Cycle or OODA Loop six times in the time it took us to go through it once. When I relayed that to Colonel Boyd, he said, “Then we’re not even in the game.”Note Lind's quick dismissal of state−based action. His is not so much a call to action, as a lament that state-centered policies are doomed to be hopelessly fruitless. Yet if Congressman Tancredo has his way, the state will make more and more robust efforts to police its border . . .Not surprisingly, the FARC and others find they can use the drug trade for political ends. The Washington Times piece noted,
But the (State Department) report did not mention FARC’s recent cultivation of ties with leftist rebels in Paraguay …Colombian Marxists infiltrating Paraguay beyond the drug trade made headlines in February when former presidential daughter Cecilia Cubas was found dead after being held captive for more than two months.How long will it be before al Qaeda and other Islamic non-state forces make their own alliances with the drug gangs and people smugglers who are experts in getting across America’s southern border? Or use the excellent distribution systems the drug gangs have throughout the United States to smuggle something with a bigger bang than the best cocaine?Just as we see states coming together around the world against the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation, so those non-state forces will also come together in multi-faceted alliances. The difference is likely to be that they will do it faster and better. And, they will use states’ preoccupation with the state system like a matador’s cape, to dazzle and distract while they proceed with the real business of war.
See Bill Roggio's earlier piece on this issue: The Fourth Rail: Minutemen and the Border War
UPDATE: I'm tracking back to Mudville Gazette.
Written by Chester at 11:26 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
Mauritania blogs?
A former Marine buddy and his wife have joined the Peace Corps and are headed to Mauritania for two years, beginning this summer. Anyone know of any Mauritanian blogs? I haven't found any yet. Mauritania looks like a fascinating place. I wonder if there's good surf there . . .
I pulled the Google Ads again. I can't justify having them take up so much space for a mere buck a day. I'd rather not bother you loyal readers out there.
Written by Chester at 10:36 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
RegimeChangeIran's Week in Review 4/30/2005
DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [4/24-4/30] major news events regarding Iran.
Iran's Presidential Elections:
- The Washington Times published an analysis of the coming Iranian Presidential election, plus my thoughts. Plus an Iran Press Service report.
- Adnkronos International reported that European diplomats have reacted enthusiastically to Iran's former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's decision to run for Iran's Presidency.
- AlJazeera.com reported Rafsanjani confirmed he’s running for Iran’s presidency.
- The Christian Science Monitor wrote about Rafsanjani and his past.
- The Washington Times described Rafsanjani as a "radical moderate?" Plus radical quotes from Rafsanjani.
- BBC News reported that Nobel
Prize winner Shirin Ebadi's human rights group has criticisms the fact
that women will not be allowed to run in Iran's June presidential
elections. - Hoder reported Iranian Presidential candidate Larijani has been officially announced as the preferred candidate of conservatives.
- The New York Times reported that even with promises of $60 to vote, Iranian candidates fail to rouse Iran's voters.
- Dow Jones Newswires reported that for the U.S. "who becomes Iran 's president doesn't really matter. What's important is what he does with the job."
- Reuters reported that Rafsanjani said uranium enrichment is a right that Iran will never give up and Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment activities, which can produce bomb-grade fuel, will not last long.
- Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Spain will seek to help resolve Iran's nuclear dossier.
- Reuters reported the EU3 and Iran failed to reach agreement over Tehran's nuclear program. The EU3 are waiting for the June 17 elections. Plus, why this was the worst possible response.
- The Associated Press reported that Iran warned the EU3 that it is "very critical" for progress be seen in the talks scheduled for Friday or Iran will restart its uranium enrichment program.
- Financial Times reported that the EU3 is facing one of the biggest tests yet of its policy on Iran's nuclear programme.
- I predicted the EU3 will find a way to postpone the negotiations until after the Iranian Presidential elections, June 17.
- Reuters reported a EU3 diplomat saying "We are on the defensive now," in our negotiations with Iran.
- Expatica reported that the EU3 are to ask Iran to postpone the resumption of nuclear talks until after presidential elections, 17 June - then it was officially denied.
- Dow Jones Newswires reported that the Council of Europe Tuesday called on Iran to abide by the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
- FOX News reported that Iranians shrug off the prospect of U.N. sanctions for good reason: Tehran has powerful friends.
- Reuters reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin, hardened his line toward Iran's nuclear program, and that Tehran needed to do more to assure the world.
- United Press International reported on Russia's Position on Iran.
- The Wall Street Journal reported on why Iran is in violation with the NPT.
- The VOA News reported that delegates from more than 180 countries will take part in the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, May 2-27.
- The Christian Science Monitor said we need a stricter NTP treaty.
- The VOA News reported that the
IAEA held a special closed-door session to decide whether to give its
current chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, another term as director general. - Reuters reported that the Russian nuclear fuel shipments for a Moscow-built nuclear reactor in Iran are set to begin soon.
- Adventures of Chester posted his thoughts on the FoxNews Special on Iran: The Nuclear Threat.
- The VOA News reported on the latest terrorist convention in Tehran.
- Islamic republic News Agency reported "For the People of Iran, Vote Blair Out."
- The White House, President Bush's Remarks - excerpts on Iran.
- U.S. Department of State published its Country Reports on Terrorism 2004 saying Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2004.
- The Forward reported that American action against Iran's nuclear program is being threatened by a stalled presidential nomination and the sudden dismissal of two officials at AIPAC.
- The Los Angeles Times reported that the Bush administration has decided to avoid any immediate confrontation Hezbollah.
- Tehran Times, a mouth piece of the Iranian regime is worried about the possibility of John Bolton becoming the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
- The International Herald Tribune reported that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that he did not foresee a military strike by the United States on Iran.
- United Press International reported that Britain will not support the United States in military action against Iran.
- The Financial Times reported that the Bush administration has proposed providing Israel with 100 “bunker-buster” bombs capable of destroying underground targets. Israel already has this technology.
- FOX News spoke with two retired generals and a military expert, who outlined some of the options on the table for the Pentagon regarding Iran.
- WorldNetDaily.com reported that Iran is already testing EPT ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower. Then an Iranian military journal discusses the idea.
- The American Thinker reported that the London Arab daily Al-Hayat published a report on Iran's current preparedness for an American or Israeli attack.
- AmericanDaily.com asked "Could Iran Checkmate America?"
- Turkish Press reported that an
Iranian hardline political watchdog has ordered that a contract with
Turkish telecoms company Turkcell for Iran's second mobile telephone
network must undergo more changes.
- Iran Focus reported that the European Parliament adopted a resolution yesterday, calling on Iran to end its increasing human rights violations.
- Iran Mania reported that police in the Iranian capital are poised to launch a fresh crack down targeting "models of corruption" (women not politicians).
- IranMania reported Iran's
parliament voted to suspend a law passed by their reformist
predecessors that was aimed at giving journalists fairer trials. - Reporters Without Borders called for the immediate release of reformist Iranian Arab journalist Yosef Azizi Banitrouf.
- Agence France-Presse reported that an
Iranian student detained for taking part in anti-regime demonstrations
has been sentenced to 18 months behind bars and 76 lashes. - Khaleej Times Online reported that the mayor of Iran’s second largest city has been beaten up after he challenged workers on an illegal construction site. It was reported to have been set upon for five hours.
- Reuters is reported that Iranian authorities are rounding up ringleaders of ethnic unrest in the oil-rich southwest.
- Adnkronos International reported that amid ongoing ethnic unrest in southern Iran, a well-known human rights activist and spokesman for the ethnic Arab minority, Youssef Azizi ben Torof, was arrested.
- ICFTU OnLine reported that independent labour activists in Iran are planning once again to hold May Day celebrations, despite fears of a repetition of last year's arrests.
- Iranian.ws reported that the Islamic Republic is the biggest threat to Iran's territorial integrity.
- The Adventures of Chester suggests we could see the first digital coup in Iran.
- National Iranian American Council, promoted a "poll" claiming that 4 out of 5 Iranian/Americans oppose House Resolution 282 and S.333. Iranian expatriate disputes it.
- WorldNetDaily.com reported that Dr. Corsi's 'Atomic Iran' TV ad have been rejected by some broadcasters.
- The Jerusalem Post reported on a worldwide day of protest last week hoping to "break the silence" of the violation of human rights in Iran.
- WorldNetDaily.com reported that the organizers of the "Iran Liberty Walk" to promote peaceful, democratic change in Tehran announced the 209-mile route.
- BBC News, published On This Day In History: 1980,Tehran hostage rescue mission fails. Plus more reflections on the day: WorldNetDaily.com and American Forces Press Service.
- Zeenews.com reported that Iraq's new leaders are saying that an Islamic regime will not be allowed in Iraq.
- Deutsche Welle reported Iran dismissed a report that it bought equipment from Germany for its ballistic missile program.
- Iran Focus reported that Iran's President Khatami said "Today’s world is suffering from the legitimising of fascism and ... the United Nation’s General Secretary is leading the way."
- Payvand's Iran News published a report on Iran’s Foreign Policy & its Key Decision Makers.
- FrontPageMagazine.com hosted another symposium, Terrorism: How to defeat it the future of terror. Our friend Dan Darling was a participant.
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said:
"human rights are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam."
Written by Chester at 10:19 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
