Courtesy of my dad.  5 more in the post body.

(more…)

Lately some on the left have been working hard at revising downward Ronald Reagan’s legacy of ending the Cold War and creating the opportunity, since lost, for the first period of extended peace since WW II.  The Soviet Union, Kathy says, was never a threat at all.  In fact, the U.S. was the antagonist all the while. 

Ronald Reagan did not “win” the Cold War. If any one person can be credited with bringing the Cold War to an end, that person was Mikhail Gorbachev.

(more…)

One of the most striking things in my contacts with today’s college students is their lack of awareness of their age-group peers in the military. Today’s college students often know little more about the military than they could obtain from movies like Top Gun and Full Metal Jacket, both now over a generation obsolete even if they ever did reflect reality. And Hollywood today prioritizes dogmatic anti-war messages over anything even vaguely reflecting the actual lives of military people.

And now the purists of the anti-war left insist on making it worse (link is very slow — PowerLine has a good roundup of the coverage), doing everything they can to drive away recruiters and veterans alike from today’s youth, ensuring a continuing problem of alienation and misunderstanding. (more…)

Those who argue that the anti-war movement is not infected with a substantial and highly influential group of activists who outright hate military members as individuals have another tough spin job today, as Kenneth Thiesen publishes a piece in the Berkeley Daily Planet that is remarkably forthright about admitting to and even promoting the most vicious kinds of accusations against military members. (more…)

ABC News reports that “[t]he Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention.  This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online.” (more…)

A furor has erupted in defense circles over the Pentagon’s award of a contract for a new aerial refueling tanker to a consortium led by European Airbus over American Boeing. But, as Thomas Lifson points out, this newest clash of globalization and nationalism reflects opportunity, not threat. (more…)

The political self-destructiveness of the anti-war movement. (more…)

Although Charles Johnson refers to the far-left activists who plan to storm a military recruiting office and imprison the recruiters in a “movable cage.” as “anti-war loons,” I think that it’s safe to call these people “anti-military loons.” Jason Steck took some heat yesterday for writing that all too many anti-war activists are in essence also anti-military, but this ‘protest’ proves that he’s right. (more…)

Kevin Sullivan is right to resist jumping into the blog-storm about the “bombing” of a Times Square military recruitment station. My first inclination upon hearing this story was not either terrorism or a Code Pink wacko. Rather, there have always been some military veterans who felt that their recruiters lied to them. It really might be something that trivial, especially given the extremely small size of the explosive.

Yes, there is a disturbing reprise of anti-military bigotry among some segments of the far left, especially those who have for decades eagerly sought after “another Vietnam” through which they could relive their salad days. But for the most part, the anti-war movement in this country has resisted the temptation to conflate the soldiers as persons with their assigned mission. And terrorists have bigger fish to fry than a single recruiting office.

Military officers’ involvement in foreign policy is nothing new. (more…)

Obama’s military inexperience is showing. (more…)

Here’s more evidence that democracy can yield piss-poor leaders.  Happily, the process is self-correcting.

Carty Finkbeiner, the mayor of Toledo, Ohio - you know, that eminent American city in the heart of the midwest that’s known for producing the Mud Hens of M*A*S*H fame and very little else - has kicked the United States Marines out of town, overriding his own police chief in denying them permission to train in the city.

(more…)

One of the most consistent themes of the anti-war movement since 2003 has been that it is possible to support the troops and oppose the war at the same time. Unfortunately, however, this theme has been exposed as a fraud by the folks from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s own neighborhood. Supported by the angry-left group “Code Pink”, the city of Berkeley has passed resolutions attempting to bar recruiting stations. And the Code Pink radicals want to classify recruiting stations in the same category as porn shops, making it easy for any protester to bar their establishment. The radicals’ justification? “Free speech”. (more…)

Army suicide rates have spiked since 2002, reaching a record level.  Equipment continues to degrade under the constant deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And with over $500 billion per year being spent on the DoD, the military seems incapable of spending it on the right things. (more…)

Via Outside the Beltway comes the news that “[t]he chief of the US military said he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been ‘pretty damaging’ to the image of the United States.”

Admiral Mike Mullen said in an interview with three reporters yesterday: “I’d like to see it shut down.” Asked why he wants it closed down he explained: “More than anything else it’s been the image — how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States.” (more…)

The illegal immigration problem is out of control in the U.S. That’s not news. What may not be so obvious is that the legal immigration process is nearly as bad off. Delays - often they go on for years - are common for immigrants this country should be falling all over itself to bring in.

I have a personal friend, a software engineer of extraordinary skill, who has been on the waiting list for more than 4 years, this despite the fact that his wife has already received her “green card”, their child was born in the States a few years back, they have both worked at the same employer for longer than I’ve known them, and they have the endorsement of more American citizens than one would normally think possible. He is that good of an employee and person. Yet the system has failed in his case.

Today CNN reported the story of a sailor in the Navy whose wife faces deportation. That’s bad enough when Eduardo Gonzalez is at home. But should he have to deal with that level of stress while he’s deployed overseas? Can nothing be done?

(more…)

Congress has issued a report that is critical of the private security firm Blackwater, according to the NY Times.

The report by the Democratic majority staff of a House committee adds weight to complaints from Iraqi officials, American military officers and Blackwater’s competitors that company guards have taken an aggressive, trigger-happy approach to their work and have repeatedly acted with reckless disregard for Iraqi life.

But the report is also harshly critical of the State Department for exercising virtually no restraint or supervision of the private security company’s 861 employees in Iraq. “There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting episodes involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation,” the report states. (more…)

Jason wrote a good, thoughtful post about “liberal hawks,” in response to Ezra Klein’s post, Ron Chusid’s post and, finally, my post on this subject.

Jason writes:

In regards to Iran, Klein’s criticism of the moderate position relies on a failure common among ideological purists — the inability to see anything other than purist options on the table. He casts the question entirely as about the use of force, as if the only available options are to bomb now or, as he prefers, to downplay the danger of Ahmedinejad and treat him instead as a man we can successfully work with. Klein fears that any recognition of Ahmedinejad’s possibly genocidal and totalitarian agenda feeds a “pro-war narrative” that must be avoided at all costs. In doing so, he makes the classic error of the ideological purist in consciously setting aside a honest evaluation of the evidence for fear that it may lead to the “wrong” conclusions.

Klein need not be so fearful. “Liberal hawk” moderates do not long for war with Iran, nor are they so bereft of intelligence and reasoning powers as to be incapable of articulating alternative ideas in the aftermath of failure in Iraq. We can, in fact, identify a specific middle way that avoids the errors of Iraq without giving in to a weak approach towards Ahmedinejad now. Many elements of this approach can be seen in U.S. policy now, including support for diplomatic engagements with Iran seeking to provide incentives as well as punishments, economic and technological sanctions that serve to limit or at least slow the ability of Ahmedinejad’s regime to pursue nuclear weapons, economic and cultural pressures that target his regime’s political repression, and, yes, the maintenance of military options in the background for use if (and only if) all other pressures fail and Ahmedinejad actually moves to acquire nuclear warheads and the means to use them for fulfillment of his openly-stated goal of the genocidal destruction of Israel. Contrary to Klein’s claims, planning for military action does not mean embrace of a “pro-war narrative”. The threat is real and serious and our tools are limited and fallible, but progress is possible, as prior success in South Africa and recent breakthroughs with North Korea have demonstrated.

This multifaceted approach is not vagueness, as Klein charges, but rather pragmatism matched with an appreciation for the complexity of the situation and the insufficiency of single tools or single ideologies operating alone. In his desire to “play gotcha”, Klein has missed the point: The best approach is a moderate approach.

Jason is, of course, quite right. Foreign policy requires a flexible mind - this means, among other things, that every and all options should always be on the table. The decision to go to war should not be made lightly (we can now conclude that Bush made this mistake regarding Iraq), but sometimes using force is necessary, no matter how much we dislike it. We have to weigh all pros and cons, we first have to use all diplomatic tools available but, in the end, force can never be ruled out.

It is interesting to see that this debate returns every now and then. During the Cold War there was the same debate going on in America: Barry Goldwater dealt with that in his book The Conscience of a Conservative.

Many doves also believe that the US should lead a major effort to destroy all nuclear weapons: the world must - according to these people - become a nuclear-free zone. This sounds nice in theory, but there is one major problem: the US is so powerful militarily because it has nuclear weapons. If it would destroy its nuclear arsenal, it loses its edge. China, for instance, has the potential to have a much bigger and stronger army than the US has both countries only have (and / or use) conventional weapons. If the US has nuclear weapons - and is willing to use them if absolutely necessary - China will not be able to take advantage of the size of its military. If it tries to, it knows that it puts itself at risk. If the US, however, destroys all its nuclear weapons, there will be no stopping China if China decides to invade one country or another.

Ron Chusid, meanwhile, argues:

The first fallacy here is to define hawk and dove in a manner favorable to his own position and unfavorable to the opposing viewpoint when they do not accurately describe the views of those labeled. Doves would counter that they are willing to use force when needed, but that hawks turn to force before exhausting other remedies. In other words, doves could also quote John Kerry, including the passage linked above, his warnings that war should only be used as a last resort, and his pre-war warnings at Georgetown for George Bush not to rush to war.

In having both sides quote John Kerry we see the ultimate fallacy of declaring some people to permanently be hawks and the others doves. While perhaps true of some, for many it depends upon the particular circumstances. Currently dove might be applied to those who oppose the Iraq war, while those in support are considered hawks. This is misleading as many of us who opposed the Iraq war supported the war in Afghanistan, and part of our opposition included the fact that the war was a distraction from the more important war against al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks. Are those of us who supported one war and opposed another hawks, doves, or just sensible individuals?
[…]
Labels such as hawk and dove simply fail to describe the views of many individuals, and when used it is a mistake to claim that doves “oppose using military force, because it is military force.” Statements such as this belittle all the arguments used against going to war, which is especially erroneous considering the degree to which the events which have unfolded have proven us right.

And that is - of course - where Ron is wrong. There are quite some progressives who are now calling on politicians to rule out using military force against Iran. They are not just talking about not using military force now, they are talking about not using military force ever. You can even hear them argue that Iran with a nuclear weapon will not be as bad, as dangerous, as hawks suggest. Next ‘argument’: Israel has WMDs as well, if Israel is allowed to have them, shouldn’t we allow Iran to have them as well? All in all, these people would never support using force to prevent Iran from developing WMDs.

Of course, there are also the ones who simply believe that the West should not strike against Iran now, but we are not talking about those people here (I mean, I am one of them). We are talking about people like Ezra Klein who believe that we should not talk about the bad things Iran does, because doing so might encourage haws to attack Iran.

The Washington Post reports that there are currently two surges in Iraq:

Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.

While the military has built up troops in an ongoing campaign to secure Baghdad, the security companies, out of public view, have been engaged in a parallel surge, boosting manpower, adding expensive armor and stepping up evasive action as attacks increase, the officials and company representatives said. One in seven supply convoys protected by private forces has come under attack this year, according to previously unreleased statistics; one security company reported nearly 300 “hostile actions” in the first four months.

The majority of the more than 100 security companies operate outside of Iraqi law, in part because of bureaucratic delays and corruption in the Iraqi government licensing process, according to U.S. officials. Blackwater USA, a prominent North Carolina firm that protects U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, and several other companies have not applied, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. Blackwater said that it obtained a one-year license in 2005 but that shifting Iraqi government policy has impeded its attempts to renew.

The security industry’s enormous growth has been facilitated by the U.S. military, which uses the 20,000 to 30,000 contractors to offset chronic troop shortages. Armed contractors protect all convoys transporting reconstruction materiel, including vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police. They guard key U.S. military installations and provide personal security for at least three commanding generals, including Air Force Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees U.S. military contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So: private contactors are hired to protect American military officers. That is a bit ironic, isn’t it?

The US military is expected to outsource $1.5 billion this year. The three largest security contracts are:
- a “theaterwide” contract to protect U.S. bases that is worth up to $480 million
- a contract for up to $475 million to provide intelligence for the Army and personal security for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- a contract for up to $450 million to protect reconstruction convoys

According to experts, private contractors are fighting and dying in Iraq, just as US soldiers are. Victoria Wayne, who served as deputy director for logistics until 2006 and spent 2 1/2 years in Iraq, described the private soldiers as “the unsung heroes of the war.” The US military did not want to say how many private contractors had been killed, until quite recently. According to the military, “132 security contractors and truck drivers had been killed and 416 wounded since fall 2004.” The total casualties, however, are believed to be higher because they do not include everyone.

Has been released (written by Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno). Click here to read it (PDF). Small Wars Journal summarizes the ten key points. One of the points I found interesting is #10. From it:

It is true that, in the eyes of many Iraqis, this government has little appeal and seems to offer no promise. Because of this, leaders must find creative means to apply leverage and influence this choice [having Iraqis support the US and having them declare their allegiance in some demonstratable way]. Concentrate on getting Iraqis to choose to be part of the solution at the local level.

This is not a hopeful - albeit logical - sign. The Iraqi government is considered to be - to a large degree at least - irrelevant. This was supposed to be the job of the al-Maliki et al. by now. On the one hand it is good to see that the US adapts, on the other hand, it is incredibly bad to see that the Iraqi government is considered to be incapable of getting Iraqis to support it.

The Iraqis must stand up. This guidance tells me the US military isn’t counting on it.

Correction
In the comment section of this post, “Local Kiwi” writes:

Michael, you misquote the guidance (I’m sure unintentionally). If you read the full paragraph it’s extremely clear that the direction is to get the Iraqi people onto the side of the government of Iraq, by working cooperatively with the government. The guidance document is honest about the challenge, but it’s in no way cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop.

I appreciate LK’s comment of course. I read the full paragraph (the entire document actually) and I might have put it a bit harshly, but I stand by my opinion that when reading this, one gets the impression that the US Military feels that the Iraqi government will not, for quite a while, be able to convince Iraqis to support it. That is, until I read it again and… again, and I saw that I interpreted it wrongly the first and second time around: the local level is with the local government and in that regard, they mean that by having Iraqis work with the local government first, they will slowly begin to trust the central government as well.

I apologize for the misinterpretation: in my defense, the fact that I had to read the paragraph twice implies that I am rather slow today…

Not much of a defense of course.

The Washington Post reports:

U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a “post-occupation” troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years.

This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages. It is based on officials’ assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose.

One of the guiding principles, according to two officials here, is that the United States should leave Iraq more intelligently than it entered. Military officials, many of whom would be interviewed only on the condition of anonymity, say they are now assessing conditions more realistically, rejecting the “steady progress” mantra of their predecessors and recognizing that short-term political reconciliation in Iraq is unlikely. A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country…

Such a long-term presence would have four major components. The centerpiece would be a reinforced mechanized infantry division of around 20,000 soldiers assigned to guarantee the security of the Iraqi government and to assist Iraqi forces or their U.S. advisers if they get into fights they can’t handle.

Second, a training and advisory force of close to 10,000 troops would work with Iraqi military and police units. “I think it would be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time to continue to help the Iraqis train and continue to build their capabilities,” Odierno said.

Furthermore, “officials envision a small but significant Special Operations unit focused on fighting the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq,” and, finally, “the headquarters and logistical elements to command and supply such a force would total more than 10,000 troops, plus some civilian contractors.”

As I have argued on many occasions, I believe that the US should not withdraw completely from Iraq. Doing so would result in utter chaos, genocide even. The different militias would have a good go at each other, millions will be killed, until one of the sects takes over, and forms a new dictatorship. The most likely winner: the Shiites. The result: a second Iran.

To prevent this from happening, it seems to me that, indeed, a smaller but still sizeable US force should stay in Iraq for years to come. It is good to see that the Pentagon is actively thinking about this option as well, and is, to a degree, already planning for it. Even if a Democrat would win the elections in 08, he or she would not be able to withdraw all troops from Iraq if the new plan is a sound one.

Jules Crittenden has a post up, in which he points out that, as Michael Ledeen puts it, the US is “killing terrorists at a ten-to-one rate.”

Don Surber concludes: “we’re beating the terrorists.”

One word: Vietnam.

If there is anything anyone should have learned from Vietnam it is that progress should not be measured on how many enemies are killed in a situation like this. This is not normal warfare. Jules, Don and Michael should know better. They should realize that numbers truly do not matter. The Pentagon itself does not like to look at how many enemy combatants were killed, because it knows that this is no proof whatsoever of whether or not the plan for Iraq is working.

h/t Memeorandum

Gates has decided to replace General Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term ends in September. Gates further said that he’d recommend Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chief of naval operations, for the job.

If you’re wondering who Admiral Mike Mullen is, I suggest going here. There are speeches, messages, etc. His message:

Everyone in the Navy has the potential to lead. We have to pull that potential out of our Sailors. My emphasis is on our people, leadership and accountability. Those are three crown jewels of our Navy.

It will be interesting to see how having a navy guy in charge, instead of an army guy, will influence everything.

More at The Washington Monthly and The Newshoggers.