For the Greater Good

The Real McCain

2008-11-05T12:44:00.000-08:00

And thus it came to be that on November 4, 2008, Barack H. Obama defeated John S. McCain, III, to become the 44th president of the United States. Congratulations Senator. Your ability to inspire millions, both at home and around the world, while breaking down countless barriers speaks volumes to your unwavering strength of character and ability to lead. While I may not agree with you, I do admire you and all those who have worked tirelessly for you, and in the end, that may be what matters most. I wish you all the best.

But what of the defeated?

Last night, in the dark hours of defeat, an exhausted American hero walked on to a stage in Phoenix and gave one of the greatest speeches of his life. Full of grace, humility, and reverence, John McCain offered congratulations and pledged to do all in his power to bridge the divide that has plagued the country for so long. To long-time supporters of the Senator from Arizona, this came as no surprise, for this was the real McCain we had always known, the McCain that has always been there, quietly lurking beneath the surface of a conservative facade forced upon him by a political party of which he was never fully apart. This facade, though never comfortable, was the price of nomination but was also the price of defeat. Through cruel luck and a cancerous GOP legacy, America never saw the real McCain. For the real McCain was never the man conservatives wanted. He was there for a short time in 2000, only to be savagely destroyed by a governor from Texas. The real McCain is not the attack dog of combative politics nor the glamorous orator. He is not found at loud speeches or red-baiting rallies. He is neither Reagan nor Bush. And at times, neither Republican nor Democrat. He is the quiet soldier, the modest patriot, the tireless servant, working tirelessly to meet those with opposing views in order to discuss differences and compromise, and he is found in the quiet patriotism of all Americans. He is found in the reenlisting soldier, the selfless Peace Corp member, the idealistic public defender, the committed civic volunteer and the driven public school teacher. He is found in all those Americans who put country above self to quietly ensure a better America, and a better world, for all. This is where the real McCain has, and will always be. For McCain is not the stuff of political machinery or partisan politics, he is someone who has seen and experienced Hell and come out all the stronger. He is the tested veteran, the noble moderate, and in a very real sense, a true American hero. For conservatives that have slowly destroyed the party, he was the maverick, always bucking the party line and frustrating hardliners, but for moderates, he was familiar and he was ours. And he was my candidate for President of the United States.

Grace, it would seem, is a dying virtue in American politics. Losers hate their enemies and always believe apocalypse is nigh. They curse the opposition and threaten to leave the country in stormy protest, or at times they even sue for relief. Winners gloat and throw their victory in their enemies’ faces. But last night a man who has seen and lost much taught us all a very difficult lesson with grace in abundance. Losing is never easy in Presidential elections but in the City on the Hill we must all be reminded from time to time that we are bigger than issues and bigger than party. We are all apart of an idea. An idea that all individuals, no matter who they are, are free to pursue their dreams, and only together can we maintain that dream which is, and will always be, the last best hope of the earth.

Country first.

The Great Debate

2008-10-06T11:26:00.000-07:00

Wow. My lack of motivation seemingly knows no bounds. Couple that with horrendous allergies and you get a very bad blogger.

Not much going on foreign-policy-wise since Wall Street decided to play Russian Roulette with mortgage based securities underpinned by sub-prime loans. But there has been some debatin’ goin’ on, especially around this neck of the woods. I myself got the hell out of Oxford last Friday and missed all the celebs. However, my sister was interviewed by Katie Couric. Wild!

Anyway, last Friday I seemed to sense McCain was going to lay an egg and it would be over; I got the same feeling Thursday night before the VP debate. However, McCain did very well and, in my opinion, won the debate. Palin on the other hand certainly didn’t win but she did perform much better than expected. And so, the McCain Campaign continues to limp on, albeit on life-support.

Substantively, I was very disappointed in the foreign policy debate. McCain’s big plus in this area is his support for the surge. However, he really missed an opportunity to explain exactly why the surge was such a game-changer and how the situation would look if US forces had been withdrawn as Obama proposed. He also really failed to press home how much and how long he has disagreed with Bush over troop levels in Iraq.

Obama’s big blunder was Russia. He seriously seems to have no idea what to do, which is why he chose to talk about pursuing alternative energy instead of discussing containment methods or the status of NATO.

However my biggest complaint is that both campaigns are blowing the Iranian nuclear issue WAY out of proportion and neither camp seems to have a plan for Afghanistan.

Look, Iran may be enriching uranium and they might even make enough to explode a nuclear device, but the road between a nuclear device and a weapon is a long one. The device has to be ruggedized and miniaturized in order to be placed on some type of delivery vehicle. Realistically Iran simply does not have the technological capacity or infrastructure to complete that process without help. Furthermore, even if they do get the technology it’s still going to take a long-ass time to produce a weapon. So while McCain and Obama thunder about Iran, in reality it’s hard to see a nuclear Iran coming to fruition during the next eight years.

However Iran does come into play when it comes to dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan but neither candidate explains the difficulties. To be clear, Irans influence in Iraq is substantial. Prior to surging Iran attempted to curb Sunni influence in Iraq’s security forces in order to prevent a Sunni Iraqi government backed by Washington and thus creating another version of the Hussein regime that had waged war with Iran for years. The surge forced Tehran to reassess its strategy since, due to political agreements between Sunni nationalists and US forces, it became clear that a pro-Iranian government was evaporating. Therefore, Iran decided a coalition government was the best it could hope for and reigned in its Shiite militias. The result is an extremely fragile coalition government that is loyal to neither the US nor Iran but could easily fall apart if the latter decides to press for its pro-Iranian government, especially if US forces are withdrawn prematurely and Iran’s proxy militias are reconstituted. Secondly, Iran also has a huge stake in Afghanistan. Tehran is no friend of the Taliban, having nearly gone to war with them in 1998 after the regime killed several Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers when it attacked the city of Mazar.

So, the next president will need to deal with Iran but it will be quite the tight-rope walk. The US needs to gain a commitment to a neutral Iraq so US forces can be redeployed to Afghanistan, plus a larger commitment to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, all while discouraging Tehran from nuclear development and entering into an understanding with re-emerging Russia. In order to accomplish all this, a much more stable relationship with Iran will be absolutely critical.

Neither candidate explained how he would approach this situation.

As for Afghanistan, neither side seems to have a clue. Currently US and NATO forces number around 50,000 and both candidates favor increasing force strength. However, the Soviets deployed over 120,000 troops in the 80's and still failed to pacify the country. Currently US forces are essentially implementing a holding action. They are defending the Kabul regime, other major cities and are keeping roads open but they are not winning. Furthermore, Afghanistan has almost zero infrastructure and no major exports to speak of, which will make it difficult to cultivate growth and attract foreign investment.

Aside from economic concerns, the United States faces several significant problems that it must deal with in formulating a policy for Afghanistan. First, the Taliban is essentially the same force Americans faced in 2001. Rather than engage in massed warfare against American airpower, the Taliban simply chose to retreat and redeploy to the countryside in the face of the invasion and thus remains essentially the same force that defeated the Northern Alliance in 1996. This force is fueled by the same vast logistical network that enabled the mujahideen to defeat the Soviets in the 80's and is sheltered by local tribes. Thus in order to neutralize this support, US and NATO forces must break up the logistical network and form some sort of a relationship with local tribes in order to deny the Taliban shelter in some of the most rugged terrain on the planet. Both of these goals will be impossible without help from Pakistan, who remains extremely reluctant to engage due to domestic political considerations.

Realistically, the US might be forced into negotiations with the Taliban in order to form some type of viable coalition government that it can live with before US forces are withdrawn. While this may seem unthinkable, it really is our only option unless we can launch a major offensive against the Taliban that includes Pakistan because we simply don’t have the operational capacity to win on our own.

Of course, we could always just support alternative fuels and I’m sure that would clear everything up.

The Rising

2008-09-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

Can't see nothin in front of me
Can't see nothin coming up behind
I make my way through this darkness
I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me
Lost track of how far I've gone
How far I've gone, how high I've climbed
On my backs a sixty pound stone
On my shoulder a half mile of line

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Left the house this morning
Bells ringing filled the air
I's wearin the cross of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin down here

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

There's spirits above and behind me
Faces gone black, eyes burnin bright
May their precious blood bind me
Lord, as I stand before your fiery light

I see you Mary in the garden
In the garden of a thousand sighs
There's holy pictures of our children
Dancin in a sky filled with light
May I feel your arms around me
May I feel your blood mix with mine
A dream of life comes to me
Like a catfish dancin on the end of my line

Sky of blackness and sorrow (a dream of life)
Sky of love, sky of tears (a dream of life)
Sky of glory and sadness (a dream of life)
Sky of mercy, sky of fear (a dream of life)
Sky of memory and shadow (a dream of life)
Your burnin wind fills my arms tonight
Sky of longing and emptiness (a dream of life)
Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

--Bruce Springsteen

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

--John 15:13

SitRep

2008-08-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

Currently judging the Mississippi Law Journal Write-On Competition. Barring war with Iran, I'll return to weekly posts next week.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

2008-08-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I went to bed fully intending to write a blistering critique of Bush & Co. this morning since they seemed to be content to throw Georgia under the bus without lifting a fucking finger. However, I awoke to better news. The U.S. Navy has now been cleared for a humanitarian relief mission which reportedly will include USNS Comfort, and has pulled out of a naval exercise with Russian forces. Meanwhile, relief supplies are being flown in by the USAF (alone I might add. Hats off to the Frenchies for moving quickly here on the cease-fire but where are the troops?). These are smart moves. While the ability of U.S. personnel to deliver aid will certainly be limited, having U.S. boots on the ground will act as effective insurance against a full-blown resumption of hostilities by Russia. You start killing U.S. soldiers in an artillery barrage while they’re handing out water and you’re gonna have SERIOUS problems.

So now what?

Well, Russia is back baby and Secretary, I mean Comrade, I mean President, I mean, oh yeah Prime Minister Putin is clearly in charge. So what do we do? For starters we need to wait and let emotions cool before we make some stupid-ass move that will hurt us and Georgia long term. Now let’s be clear, Ivan did invade in its normal textbook style, it incited anti-government attacks by pro-Russian militias in South Ossentia designed to goad Georgia into attacking and greeted the Georgian crackdown with a well-planned offensive that brutally slaughtered soldiers and civilians alike in unabashed fashion while the Ruskies raped and pillaged as they advanced. Historically, these developments mirror Nazi Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland in order to protect pro-German Czechs in 1938 almost to the letter, all be it without the raping and pillaging. Meanwhile, the West looks like a bunch of weakass idiots who backed the wrong horse in Saakashvili and seriously underestimated Russia. Therefore, there are plenty of reasons to get pissed and get cowboyed-up. But we need to keep our eye on the ball.

Clearly, eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics (especially the Ukraine) need to be assured that we’re serious about stemming this sort of aggression. Bob Killebrew over at Small Wars argues for Ivan’s containment and offers some suggestions:

For military strategy, the U.S. should immediately revamp its foreign military assistance programs to those countries, including a post-invasion Georgia. The intent of U.S. aid now should not be aimed not only at preparing forces for low-intensity conflict -- because most of these states have their own problems with breakaway militias and extremist terrorism -- but also at deterring Russian high-intensity, combined-arms attacks. Advanced integrated air-defenses (the Georgians had none), antitank munitions, precision weapons all must be provided so that Russia can no longer plan a walkover like the one we have witnessed. Military assistance groups should be stationed in frontline states, and m military exercises conducted calibrated to bolster the defensive capabilities of local armies. The Russians will cry foul, but their military authorities will understand what they are seeing -- no more easy campaigns. Military aid must include methods and training in our best techniques for computer network defense, a move that -- given the global nature of computer networks -- will integrate our allies' defenses with ours.

These are sound hard power options that need to be implemented alongside soft power components, which can be accomplished by a successful deployment of Comfort. On the other hand, it is interesting to note the U.S. and Poland reached a deal yesterday on a missile defense shield that had some very unusual aspects. This is the kind of stuff we need to be careful about. Making big decisions in a crisis basically to piss Russia off because there really isn’t anything else we can do should be avoided. Let’s get real, when Moscow escalated they knew we would sign that deal. So again we’ve played into Putin’s hands and given him plenty of propaganda material. There certainly is a Big War crowd in the Pentagon that’s just going to be happy as pie about this sort of stuff. The bigger the perceived threat the more we get to spend on kick-ass high-dollar weapon systems but the less money there is to fight the war on terror. The big winner in all this might just be Osama.

So, I’d say we need to hold it for awhile and reassess our policy after tempers have cooled. We’ve still got major problems to deal with re: Iran and while violence in Iraq is down, it seems to be hunting season again in Afghanistan. Face it folks we can’t fight everyone. It’s gonna take Comfort at least a month to arrive on-station so lets work the soft power angle for a bit before we start handing out missiles.

In Memoriam

2008-08-05T09:22:00.000-07:00

A cruel wind blows in through left at Turner Field. On Saturday and Sunday afternoon the wind sounded of injury; a bullpen decimated, a starting rotation destroyed and a slugger’s spot left sadly, but yet again, vacant due to another hamstring pull. The Braves were 10 out and the season all but over. But suddenly on Sunday night, and without warning, all that was gone, as that sinister wind unleashed a far darker howl. Skip Caray, the voice of the Braves since 1976, was dead at 68.

I was away from fellow baseball fans when I received the news, it sent me reeling and no one seemed to understand. I have never met Skip Caray so people seemed to wonder why I cared so much. Well, simply put, I felt his loss like that of a friend because in the end that’s what he was. Night after night, for 27 years, through good times and bad, he was always there.

My father is not a baseball fan, we rarely played catch and he never taught me to keep score but he did tune in to TBS on summer nights and there was Skip, just waiting. Whether he was poking fun at notoriously slow-working pitcher Steve Trachsel stating “Trachsel will, because of the rules, inevitably have to throw one” or the infamously bad Dale Murphy 80s saying “The bases are loaded again and I wish I was” he was always there, in between wise cracks with Pete “the professor” Van Wieren in tow, teaching me the game.

And then came the 90s. I remember that cool Wednesday night on the 14th of October like it was yesterday. It was game seven of the NLCS and the Pittsburgh Pirates took a two-run lead into the bottom of the ninth. Doug Drabek was on the mound pitching a masterpiece but would face the heart of the Atlanta order. The Braves fought back to make it 2-1 with 2 out and the bases loaded. David Justice was 90 feet away with Sid Bream in scoring position and Damon Berryhill on first and Francisco Cabrera, the last position player on the Atlanta bench, strode the plate. “Francisco Cabrera? Who is he???” my mom yelled as my entire family huddled around our living room television. “We’re screwed.” my dad replied. We all dug in our heels. I was so nervous I was shaking. Skip had the call:

A lotta room in right-center, if he hits one there we can dance in the streets. The 2-1. Swung, line drive left field! One run is in! Here comes Bream! Here's the throw to the plate! He is...SAFE! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win!...Braves win! They may have to hospitalize Sid Bream; he's down at the bottom of a huge pile at the plate. They help him to his feet. Frank Cabrera got the game winner! The Atlanta Braves are National League champions again! This crowd is going berserk.

He was accused of being a “homer” by critics who never seemed to get that being a fan of the team you love is not a sin, it is a badge of honor that Skip wore with pride and rightly so. Skip was not Hollywood or New York. He was, in the truest sense, a fan; he loved the Braves and he made listeners love them too, the hallmark of a hometown voice and a man who truly loved his team. Passion, Skip would remind us, is a quality best lauded, not concealed.

He was, like his father before him, a unique voice in a gulf of bland objectivity.

And yet slowly and quietly, Skip was shown the door by a network that no longer cared. He hated reading “fluff” commercials and carried a special dislike for the “Aflac Duck” when it announced trivia questions. Coupled with his so-called “homerism” Skip and Pete were removed from TBS in 2003. But the fans, the real fans that Skip won throughout his life were by his side, boycotting TBS broadcasts and turning to radio so we could hear that high nasal voice that marked the time and always made us laugh. He was not Howard Cosell, Joe Buck, or Al Michaels, but for Braves fans he was ours, and in the end that’s probably all he ever wanted to be.

Skip was raw, Skip was dry, Skip was sarcastic, and Skip was cynical but, Skip, through it all, was always honest and always there. He was our eyes and our ears, he was the keeper of the moment, he was the unabashed fan, and with humor and grace he taught us the purity of the greatest game there is.

Godspeed Skip, and thank you for teaching me how to be a fan.

Iran Update

2008-07-28T13:12:00.000-07:00

Ahma . . . Ahma . . . Ahmadinejad (whew) let fly with another statement this weekend claiming Tehran has radically increased its nuclear enrichment program. Specifically, he stated the nuclear program now posses more than 5,000 centrifuges; an IAEA report in May estimated the number of running centrifuges to be around 3,500. He then celebrated the development and commended the program for beating back western calls to halt nuclear development.

Ahmadinejad certainly hopes these statements will anger Europe and the U.S. as they come only a week before the latest deadline for Iran to accept a package of incentives for freezing enrichment or face further U.N. sanctions. He is very fond of saying crap like this because he gets just what he wants: the West gets pissed and begins to talk about military options, which pushes the Iranian public away from the West into Ahmadinejad’s waiting arms and distracts them from the catastrophe that is the Iranian economy.

We’ll see if we get a reaction. Clearly the Bush administration has elected to go the diplomatic route since it has sent Undersecretary of State William J. Barnes to peace talks in Geneva and has expressed interest in opening a diplomatic post within Iran itself, both of which are major policy reversals that seemed to ease tensions. However, as I noted two weeks ago, the Israelis do not seem to be as willing to talk and this development seemingly flies in the face of the “freeze for freeze” agreement, which stated Iran would add no further centrifuges or expand its nuclear program and the West would refrain from pressing for another round of sanctions. Of course, the IAEA estimate could have been wrong about the 3,500 estimate or Ahmadinejad may have taken some, shall we say, dramatic license.

One of the actual issues here, if we can get away from the rhetoric, is the number. Iran has been shooting for 6,000 centrifuges, which would, according to what I’ve read, in theory give them the ability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb in six months. When the West signed on to “freeze for freeze” we thought the number of centrifuges was not as high but if Iran already has enough centrifuges to produce a bomb, the Israelis might be less inclined to cooperate. Another issue of course is whether they are running and whether they are running smoothly. I guess you can have 6,000 centrifuges and technically not “expand” your program if they’re not made operational during “freeze for freeze”. I don’t really know the specifics on this though.

We’ll see what these statements do to discussions because the clock is ticking.

Storm on the Iranian Front Grows

2008-07-16T13:44:00.000-07:00

Interesting and very concerning developments over the past few weeks regarding a possible strike on Iran. Last month, the Israeli air force conducted a major air power exercise involving roughly 100 advanced F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighters. The aircraft took off from their bases in Israel, traveled west over the Med as far as Greece and returned, covering a span of almost 1200 miles roundtrip, roughly the same distance between Israel and Iran’s Nataz nuclear-enrichment facilities near Esfahan. The exercise focused on mid-air refueling and search and rescue for downed aviators; it was a resounding success. Last week, in response to an Iranian statement that maritime assets would be destroyed in the Persian Gulf and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz (25% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through these waters) if Iranian “interests are jeopardized”, the US Navy stated it would not allow Iran to close the waterway and announced a major naval exercise designed to ensure readiness and refine tactics within the 5th Fleet. These exercises were greeted by several missile tests near the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.

On the diplomatic front, statements of concern have been issued by Beijing and Tokyo, a huge development considering China and Japan are Iran’s largest oil importers and neither country had commented on the crisis.

Furthermore, in a post that is both brilliant and terrifying, Galrahn notes the domestic political developments:

I can't say I'm excited about [the FISA] bill, but I can live with it, perhaps literally. Following an attack on Iran by Israel, Iran is not going to find much success trying to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in the Indian Ocean, but they might have a great deal of success killing you and me here in America. We don't believe for one second that Iran is going to abide by the Geneva Conventions and not intentionally support the killing of American civilians in North America. If war happens, they are as likely if not more likely to attack here than in the Gulf. Whether you like it or not, there was absolutely no way the Democrats, including Barack Obama, were going to leave the possibility open that Israel attacks Iran, and the US gets hit by terrorist attacks inside the US while the FISA bill wasn't passed.

This is a key point. The Democratic Party in mass shifted from a core position. This doesn't happen without keen awareness to some strategic condition. Clearly some outside force has produced conditions which are far outside the scope of national politics, because nothing short of insight and real concern for political survival would Democrats find inspiration for such a massive policy shift with virtually no explanation to its core constituency. This is a major reason, and to Democrats scratching still (sic) their heads, an obvious sign we believe that Israel has demanded a time table.

So there you have it: the conditions seem to indicate that something big is going to happen in the next few months and we could very well be dragged into a fight by our only real ally in the Middle East.

The wild card in all of this seems to be Turkey. In order for the Israelis to mount a strike from their home turf, they would need to travel through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. The latter would require at least a silent nod from Washington because the United States controls Iraqi skies. However, since Secretary Gates has been an outspoken opponent of Iranian strikes and has garnered a large measure of respect from the military and the American people for turning DOD around, it is difficult to see how this would happen without causing a huge rift in both the administration and the military. On the other hand, Turkey could offer either airspace or basing rights to Israel, which would allow the Israelis to do an end run around the Americans and strike from the north. Striking from Turkey would also be much safer because search-and-rescue helos and tankers could base and operate within friendly airspace. Ingress from Turkey would also make Iran think twice about retaliation against the Turks, as Tehran would have to consider the severe consequences that would certainly arise if it attacked a member of NATO with the largest standing army in Europe.

Dr. Barnett has a pretty good take on the political situation. He essentially argues the political lives of Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Israel’s Olmert, both of whom are viewed by their respective countries as failures, would be well-served by war because it would give them an opportunity to maintain a grip on power. Olmert, for example, is under serious criticism for failing to enlist more international support to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue while Ahmadinejad’s reign has been a disaster as the Iranian economy is in a nose-dive spurred by run-away inflation. Students, who make no attempt to hide their love for America, are calling for his head on a platter. Nothing better to feed the masses than a healthy dose of blood-soaked nationalism. Additionally, Israel is extremely skeptical of a possible Obama administration, so better to strike while you’ve got friends in the White House. Not to mention the fact that an Israeli strike, according to Barnett, would help McCain’s prospects.

I’m skeptical about a McCain benefit. If Americans believe the White House is even remotely involved in some kind of strike, (i.e. silent nod on Iraqi airspace) Obama will almost certainly get a bump because I’m pretty sure most Americans (like 80+%) are against another war, especially involving one and possibly two nuclear powers. However, if Israel strikes unilaterally from Turkey and Iran retaliates against the Turks, which would require a response from NATO, McCain could possibly benefit since the retaliation could be spun as an attack. So again, it comes down to Turkey.

In a major departure from prior policy, Bush will send a senior envoy to international talks in Geneva this weekend with a “one-time deal” designed to talk the Persians down. Several members of the six-party talks have insisted upon a hard six-week “freeze for freeze”negotiations period, under which no further sanctions will be enacted and Iran will not add to its nuclear program. This period insures that war would not break out until after the Olympics thereby insuring heads of state will be in attendance at Beijing. However, the period is also a countdown.

Meanwhile naval activity is on the rise in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, as Europe, America, and their allies are putting a large number of ships to sea for some of the largest combined exercises in history. These combined fleets will be at an extraordinary state of readiness by the beginning of August, which will last into mid September when the US Navy is scheduled to rotate forces.

Dates to watch over the next few months: August 30, September 29, October 28, November 27, and December 27. These are days with new moons.

Whose Policy is it Anyway?

2008-07-09T09:53:00.000-07:00

Galrahn, over at Information Dissemination, has a very interesting post concerning the prospective foreign policies offered by McCain and Obama. He essentially argues both campaigns lack any real strategic change and tend to just quote the military when either camp discusses foreign policy because Americans trust the military more than politicians:

To a greater degree, the [foreign policy] talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents.

I think Galrahn makes a great point here. However, the argument seems to work better with Obama. While most of the American Left’s arguments concerning a McCain administration being a continuation of Bush are hogwash, they are essentially right when it comes to foreign policy. Thus McCain is going to sound a lot like the SECDEF and will try to keep most of the Gates team intact if he’s elected because he agrees with their vision and believes it’s working. Obama, on the other hand, does seem to quote military leader because he, as well as every other Dem in Congress, has yet to articulate a plausible strategic vision that would serve Liberal goals (diplomacy, getting out of Iraq?) and American interests alike. For example, how would a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq contribute to a stable Middle East? Obama’s recent statements concerning Iraq and free trade, though encouraging strategic statements in my opinion, flew in the face of his entire primary campaign message and now he’s backtracking on those statements, so it’s difficult to really know where he stands. So it seems to me Obama’s policy is continuation of the party line: complain and point out problems without offering solutions. Therefore when JCS or DOD complain, Obama immediately seizes those statements as a foreign policy platform. The problem with this kind of politics is platforms can’t just point out problems, they must offer solutions to solve them.

GTMO: Habeas 'Aint the Only Reason

2008-07-07T15:45:00.000-07:00

Ever since the Boumediene decision was handed down a couple of weeks ago, there’s been a lot of talk on the editorial pages calling on the Administration to close Camp Delta (the detainee facility) at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). While most of these arguments essentially argue that since the legal justifications for holding enemy combatants off shore no longer exist, the facility should be closed. However, while I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s position regarding habeas rights for detainees, the argument for closing GTMO seems to ignore many of the practical justifications for holding enemy combatants in Cuba. To be sure, the legal factors were probably the overriding reason the Bush Administration chose GTMO but they were not the only reasons.

Think about this from a security perspective. Following the September 11th attacks and America’s subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. forces started to take thousands of prisoners during its combat operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At first, these prisoners were treated the same way the military has always treated prisoners and the captured fighters were kept in makeshift prisons throughout Afghanistan. However, as operations continued, it became apparent that the facilities would not suffice, especially for the more hardened fighters who, instead of laying down their arms and being content with being away from the font lines as most POWs were in World War II, would stop at nothing to effect escape and kill their captors . In late November 2001, for example, a group of recently captured Taliban fighters concealed weapons in a makeshift U.S. detention facility and killed a CIA agent and several other Americans and took over the facility for over a week until they could be subdued in one of the most brutal battles in the Afghanistan campaign. Furthermore, this is not an old phenomenon. Just last month, to cite another example, Taliban forces attacked a Canadian-guarded facility in Kandahar and freed over 800 prisoners in one of the largest jailbreaks in modern history. Thus we need a facility that will get these guys the hell away from the battlefield and is easily defendable.

As a former administration official points out, when Bush & Co. decided on GTMO it considered these things. Not only is the base well defended against a terrorist attack, being nearly surrounded by water, but it’s also situated within an area where U.S. civilians are not exposed or endangered by the enemy combatants’ presence. Any facility that houses detainees will almost certainly be a target for attack. Currently, the only other maximum security prison maintained by DOD is Fort Leavenworth; which boasts an extremely large concentration of personnel, a relatively high civilian population and is located just outside Leavenworth, Kansas. Thus transferring the detainees to Leavenworth could frighten and possibly endanger a large number of US civilians as well as threaten the base, which could prove catastrophic since the fort is considered the intellectual center of the Army. Moreover, Camp Delta has been specifically designed and built from the ground-up to house and care for these individuals at, no doubt, great expense to the American taxpayer. Moving the detainees to another facility would require DOD to either build another prison or institute major renovations to Leavenworth or other detention facilities. Do we really need to build ANOTHER facility? The editorial pages would do well to remember that the law is not the only thing that should be considered before trashing GTMO. Change the policy not the place.

Nough said

2008-07-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

Couple of guys thought they'd re-up in Baghdad today:
Happy 4th.

Don't look now but

2008-05-31T07:17:00.000-07:00

The CIA is declaring al-Qaeda defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Why the success? As Galrahn at Information Dissemination points out, the "surge" was certainly a major factor. However, when this type of ideological victory is achieved, the Iraqis and Saudis themselves are responsible for victory. They made the choice. Now, the surge in security forces allowed them to make that choice by providing a security overlay in Baghdad but most of the security in places that archived such stunning success, like Anbar province, was done at the tribal level where military officials created a loose alliance with tribal militias who, in many cases, were supplied by the United States but were also part of the insurgency. These local leaders had to decide to cast there lot with the United States, which required trust. Tactical revisions by the Petraeus squad put troops into the communities where they were able to attain that trust by winning hearts and minds but without those local leaders making the choice, we'd be dead in the water. General Petraeus always understood this, others, sadly, did not.

On a political note, it will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this assessment. Could Obama declare victory in Iraq? It would certainly provide a reason, albeit a misguided one, for pulling US forces out.

Comfort not Carriers

2008-05-28T17:00:00.000-07:00

I didn't think much of the New Cooperative Maritime Strategy when it was issued last fall. In my opinion, the sea services really failed to make a case for a modern fleet to the American public because it was unnecessarily vague regarding platform acquisition, roles, and missions. The one glimmer of hope in the entire thing was the strategy's emphasis on soft power; in other words increasing deployments of the U.S.N.S. Hope and Comfort to disaster areas instead of making a "show of force" by deploying a battle-group centered around a carrier. The following article in The Baltimore Sun does a very good job discussing what I'm talking about:

Embracing new role: The nation should support the U.S. military as it takes the lead in global disaster response
By Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann

Quietly, and perhaps without fully realizing it, the U.S. military has begun embracing a new, wide-ranging international role that will compel it to intervene in many countries throughout the world. Yet this is a role that virtually every country would support and one that should be widely embraced here as well: the role of global first responder.

The Myanmar military government's shocking and disastrous refusal of international assistance in the wake of the recent devastating cyclone has masked one broader positive development - the surprising speed at which aid, especially on the part of the U.S., was offered. In contrast to the initially hesitant U.S. response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (characterized as "stingy" by U.N. Undersecretary-General Jan England), this time, first lady Laura Bush set a decisive tone, saying that the U.S. was prepared to send massive assistance immediately. This willingness reflects not just a good-natured desire to help but also a realization that dealing with international disasters has become a national security priority.

In some ways, this is an odd development. Responding to natural disasters has never been a core mission of the U.S. military. It rarely drives procurement decisions or strategic thinking, and responses to disaster situations have tended to be ad hoc. Yet this is changing. As the Center for Naval Analysis concluded, "Climate change threatens to add new hostile and stressing factors." As large-scale disasters grow more common, so too will U.S. military involvement in these types of missions.

The eventual U.S. response to the Indian Ocean tsunami was a pivotal event. After the tsunami, 15,000 troops, a carrier task force and a Marine expeditionary force deployed to the region, with the U.S. Navy effectively setting up a "sea base" off the coast of Indonesia. This flotilla of ships enabled supplies to be transported to the coastline, where ports and roads were all but washed away. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, commented, "We literally built a city at sea for no other purpose than to serve the needs of other people." Only the U.S. military had the ability to conduct such an operation.

While Indonesia still is a long way from completely recovering, the American response made a tremendous difference. And our assistance did not go unnoticed. A Pew Survey found that 80 percent of the citizens of the world's largest Muslim-majority country had a more favorable opinion of the United States after our response.

What worked abroad was also employed at home: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Navy set up a base at sea in which to assist New Orleans. That same year, in the wake of a major earthquake in Pakistan, U.S. assistance was quickly sent, and Pakistani television showed American helicopters ferrying aid to remote mountainous villages and American medics helping the injured.

And in November, the man in charge of the military's response to Hurricane Katrina, Adm. Timothy Keating, now the head of U.S. Pacific Command, sent a Marine Expeditionary Unit to assist Bangladesh in its recovery from a devastating cyclone. Admiral Keating noted that he worked with the Bangladeshi government before the storm had even hit. The Navy is so pleased with its performance in these missions that it introduced new recruiting commercials highlighting its role in disaster recovery.

Some may see the mantle of global first responder as a distraction from "hard" security concerns. But engaging in these operations promotes U.S. interests.

First, such missions act to maintain precious stability. After the 2004 tsunami, there was a real danger that chaos, even unrest, would spread beyond the disaster zones. Our response not only saved lives but also helped stabilize the area.

Second, it improves the image of the U.S. Responding to disasters demonstrates to the world the goodwill of the American people and can serve to improve our standing in world opinion, as it has in Indonesia. As Admiral Mullen explained, the tsunami intervention showed another side of "American power that wasn't perceived as frightening, monolithic or arrogant."

Third, such missions help cast our global military posture in a better light. Countries will be more accepting of a U.S. military presence in their neighborhood if they know that our military will be there to help if disaster strikes. Adopting this role also enables the U.S. to build closer relationships with countries, as in Bangladesh, where joint preparations helped avert an even worse disaster and improved our relations.

Finally, responding to natural disasters is the price of being the world's largest superpower. As the guarantor of global security, the U.S. is looked to not just for its ability to deter threats but also for its ability to help when countries are in need.

Responding to disasters should therefore not be seen as a burden on the U.S. military, but should be embraced as an opportunity.

Win hearts and minds and you get allies instead of terrorists pure and simple.

A Real Exit Strategy

2008-05-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

Great piece from The Christian Science Monitor on the need for jobs and a cultural rebirth:

What Would Really Rebuild Iraq
By Walter Rodgers and Yasmeen Alamiri

Oakton, Va. - "Iraqi mothers want the same thing for their children American mothers want for theirs," President Bush has said. "A place for their child to grow up and get a good education and be able to realize dreams."

The president is correct. The two institutions Iraqis prize most are family and education. But the US military occupation and the insurgency have produced a total disruption of both. Can Iraqis return to social normalcy so long as US troops – and their enemies – are engaged there?

One has to look no further than the Palestinian territories to discover the long-term effects of children not going to school. Israel's occupation and perennial lockdown of Palestinians created a new uneducated generation seeking salvation through the radical Islam of Hamas.

In Iraq, disruption of education and family life seems to be having a similar effect. A UN report suggests that "non-state armed groups" are ratcheting up their recruitment of Iraqi children. Witness the recently released Al Qaeda-in-Iraq videos showing preteen boys in paramilitary training. Iraqi Interior Minister Fawzi al-Hariri has acknowledged this problem. He hopes a $5 billion job creation program will offer an alternative to militia or gang activity.

The lesson should be obvious: Foreign military occupations of Muslim lands from the Crusades to the present are disruptive of indigenous cultures, destructive, and sooner or later, hated.

We've got increasing security thanks to "the Surge" so the rebirth needs to take advantage.

Happy Memorial Day

2008-05-26T07:15:00.000-07:00

"From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother..."

-Henry V
William Shakespeare

(Hat-tip to the War Historian)

Happy Memorial Day everyone.

Update

2008-05-25T20:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I lied. National security's not really dominating the news at this point but, as always, a Memorial Day post will be forthcoming...

FYI

2008-04-25T20:01:00.000-07:00

Rough semester. Currently in exam mode. Look for posts beginning around May 6

Fallon Out

2008-03-11T17:36:00.000-07:00

I’m floored. I have supported Bush through thick and thin. I always agreed that war with Iraq was a sound strategic move that went awry when the U.S. Army, led by ass-hat-of-the-decade Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, bungled the reconstruction and COIN ops. But today, Adm. William Fallon, head of CENTCOM and the Administration’s main military voice for restraint with Iran, resigned [or more accurately got canned by the Bush Administration] amid a storm of controversy over an article in Esquire Magazine written by one of my main go-to guys on strategic analysis, Thomas P.M. Barnett.

I can’t believe it. As others have stated, there doesn’t seem to be a single direct quote from Fallon in Barnett’s article that is critical of Bush or Administration policy. On the other hand, there is plenty from Barnett that portrays him as being the sole voice against war with Iran:

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy--as he likes to say--"nervous in the service." Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn't mastered that kind of subtlety. When Dick Cheney has rattled his saber, it has generally meant that he intends to use it. And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America's forces in Iraq, may say, "You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq," but Fox Fallon is Petraeus's boss, and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn't extend Petraeus's logic to mean war against Iran.

So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

I’ve read a lot of Barnett’s stuff. I’ve read both his books, seen several of his briefings, and visit his blog religiously. He’s a brilliant guy. But in all this brilliance he has acquired the sort of arrogance about which legends are made and I’m afraid it has finally bitten him in the ass and might just set off a war.

Is this fair to Dr. Barnett? Hell fucking no!!! The article is very sound on strategy, Dr. Barnett’s forte, he’s just doing his job as a journalist, and he has provided an important strategic argument that needs to be part of our overall debate concerning the region. However, he ventures down the dark road of politics in this article and because he’s so critical, and because the article is grounded so well strategically, he has made an argument that must be addressed, and in doing so has handed the administration an excuse to remove a significant barrier to war with Iran.

I never thought they’d actually do it until now.

Fallon’s replacement will almost certainly be Petraeus, an administration favorite who has called for strikes against Iran and is scheduled to rotate out this summer.

It’s all up to Gates and Rice to stop this madness. I pray to God they succeed.

Dubyah, I didn’t think you had it in you.

Man in the Arena

2008-03-10T14:36:00.000-07:00

Most recent McCain add is a MUST SEE:

Can I just say: WOW!!! Great add. The TR brand of Republican politics fits McCain like a glove.

State Gets a Kick in the Nuts

2008-02-27T19:30:00.000-08:00

Upon his departure Manuel Miranda, a diplomat with the Office of Legislative Statecraft in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has a blistering assessment of State Dept. policy in Iraq . According to Miranda:

I support a long-term American military presence in Iraqi bases, welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a democratically-elected government, as a means of bringing peace and stability to the region, as we did in Europe and the Far East. History may recognize this end as singularly worthy of the sacrifice that America's sons and daughters have made. I believe, however, that the potential for this peace requires the progress of Iraqi society and the confidence of the Iraqi people in their government.

That civilian progress, and the Pax Americana, will not be achieved with the Foreign Service and the State Department's bureaucracy at the helm of America's number one policy consideration. You are simply not up to the task, and many of you will readily and honestly admit it. I believe that a better job can be done. It is simply that we have brought to Iraq the worst of America -- our bureaucrats -- and failed to apply, as President Roosevelt once did, the high-caliber leadership class and intellectual talent, whose rallying has defined all of America's finest hours. . . .

The purpose of the Surge, now one year old, was to pacify Iraq to allow the GOI to stand up. The State Department has not done its part coincident with the Commanding General's effort. This is not the fault of intelligent and hard working individuals skilled at the functions of the "normal embassy." The problem is institutional. The State Department bureaucracy is not equipped to handle the urgency of America's Iraq investment in blood and taxpayer funds. You lack the "fierce urgency of now."

Foreign Service officers, with ludicrously little management experience by any standard other than your own, are not equipped to manage programs, hundreds of millions in funds, and expert human capital assets needed to assist the Government of Iraq to stand up. It is apparent that, other than diplomacy, your only expertise is your own bureaucracy, which inherently makes State Department personnel unable to think outside the box or beyond the paths they have previously taken.

So, State fiddles while Baghdad burns; nothing really surprising here. This is our you're-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mentality that’s poisoning our diplomatic efforts, which is really biting us in the ass. State is a mess and has been for a VERY long time. The military is learning from its mistakes, which are certainly numerous, but the State Department has failed to reform at all and it’s difficult to figure out what sort of conditions would have to occur to get Foggy Bottom to do so. I mean if the reconstruction catastrophe in Iraq didn’t do it, what can?

"Great Shot Kid, That Was One In a Million!"

2008-02-21T07:15:00.000-08:00

SUCCESS!!!

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2008 – A network of land-, air-, sea- and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere, defense officials announced in a press release.
At approximately 10:26 p.m. EST today, a U.S. Navy AEGIS warship, the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), fired a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) hitting the satellite approximately 153 miles (133 nautical miles) over the Pacific Ocean as it traveled in space at more than 17,000 mph. USS Decatur (DDG-73) and USS Russell (DDG-59) were also part of the task force.

The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000 pounds (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into earth's atmosphere. Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours.

According to the NYT:

Just hours after a Navy missile interceptor struck a dying spy satellite orbiting 130 miles over the Pacific Ocean, a senior military officer expressed high confidence early Thursday that a tank filled with toxic rocket fuel had been breached.

Video of the unusual operation showed the missile leaving a bright trail as it streaked toward the satellite, and then a flash, a fireball, a plume and a cloud as the interceptor, at a minimum, appeared to have found its target, a satellite that went dead shortly after being launched in 2006.

“We’re very confident that we hit the satellite,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright of the Marines, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We also have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank.”

General Cartwright cautioned that despite visual and spectral evidence that the hydrazine rocket fuel had been dispersed, it could take 24 to 48 hours before the Pentagon could announce with full confidence that the mission was a success. Even so, he said the military had 80 to 90 percent confidence the fuel tank was breached.

The fuel tank aboard the satellite was believed strong enough to survive the fiery re-entry through the atmosphere, and officials expressed concerns that the toxic fuel could pose a hazard to populated areas.

General Cartwright said debris from the strike, with individual pieces no larger than a football, already had begun to re-enter the atmosphere. Most, he said, was predicted to fall into the ocean.

Unfortunately, everyone's not happy:

Moscow and Beijing complained that the missile strike smacked of hypocrisy as the US had rejected a joint attempt by the two countries from banning weapons in outer space only a month ago. . . .

A Chinese state newspaper, the People's Daily, criticised Washington for hypocrisy for rejecting a treaty to ban weapons in space proposed by Russia and China and then firing a missile at the spy satellite. Washington claims it had rejected the proposed treaty as unworkable, and said it instead favoured confidence-building efforts.

"The United States will not easily abandon its military advantage based on space technology, and it is striving to expand and fully exploit this advantage," said the newspaper commentary said.

Speaking at a press conference this morning, Liu Bianca, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said, tersely: "The Chinese side is continuing to closely follow the US action which may influence the security of outer space and may harm other countries."

His words were believed to have been carefully modulated to echo criticisms levelled at Beijing by the Bush Administration when China fired its own ground-based missile into an obsolete weather satellite in January 2007.

US defence officials say their case is different because Washington, unlike Beijing, informed the public and world leaders before firing their missile. They also have insisted the only concern driving the US decision to shoot down the satellite was that the 1,000-pound fuel tank could survive largely intact and release toxic gas.

The Pentagon also denied suggestions they wanted to destroy the satellite to prevent part of the classified spacecraft from falling into the hands of rival powers.

Houston...We Have a Problem

2008-02-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

Looks like we’ve got heavy seas in the launch area. With the space shuttle Atlantis arriving today, the window has officially opened for the satellite shoot-down. Unfortunately, high seas in the launch area will probably delay the shoot-down, which was expected to be tonight, until tomorrow. We do have some more specifics though.

The shoot-down will be conducted by a three-ship task group, including the Aegis missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and the destroyers USS Decatur and USS Russell. Lake Erie, commanded by Capt. Randall Hendrickson, is expected to take the shot. Hendrickson is the most experienced Aegis missile defense (AEGIS BMD) Captain in the US Navy, having commanded four AEGIS BMD tests.

For the uninitiated, Aegis is a highly expensive and extremely advanced radar/fire-control system that was originally developed by the Navy as an anti-ship missile defense system to protect the Fleet against Soviet cruise missiles. Recently, the Navy has been developing a ballistic missile intercept capability aboard several of its Aegis cruisers and destroyers, which has been successfully tested. So, in some military circles, this is seen as another AEGIS BMD test, albeit with a somewhat wider audience.

Others believe this event has more significance. According to this school, there is something valuable on this satellite that DOD doesn’t want to fall into the wrong hands, otherwise, why make sure that it falls into the water? Whether it’s a classified power source or secret radar system that could survive re-entry is anybody’s guess. Either way, get your popcorn ready, cause I sure as hell will be watching.

El Jefe "Resigns"

2008-02-19T08:21:00.000-08:00

According to the NYT:

MEXICO CITY — Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness. The announcement was made in a letter to the nation written by Mr. Castro and published early Tuesday morning on the Web site of Granma, the official publication of the Cuban Communist Party.

The resignation ends one of the longest tenures as one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world.

In late July 2006, Mr. Castro, who is 81, handed over power temporarily to his brother, Raúl Castro, 76, and a few younger cabinet ministers, after an acute infection in his colon forced him to undergo emergency surgery. Despite numerous operations, he has never fully recovered but has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.

Now, just days before the national assembly is to meet to select a new head of state, Mr. Castro resigned permanently, and signaled his willingness to let a younger generation assume power. He said his failing health made it impossible to return as president.

The resignation was immediately greeted by thankful realism from the McCain and Obama camps. Both candidates welcomed the end of the communist dictator's reign but pointed out the island nation has a long way to go.

Both camps are largely correct here. Even with Castro's resignation it's hard to see much change on the horizon for Cuba as long as Castro remains alive. But the clock is ticking and this will definitely be a foreign policy challenge for the next president. Then again, Castro is one tough son-of-a-bitch so you never know.

Kosovo Fans East-West Tensions

2008-02-18T15:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Kosovo, amid a flourish of Albanian and American flags declared its independence from Serbia, which was immediately recognized by the United States, France and Britain. Germany and Italy are also expected to recognize Europe’s newest nation, and with their western EU partners, will authorize a small security team to help transition the nation to statehood.

Other EU members are expected to be less enthusiastic. Spain, fearing an identical ethnic uprising from the Basque area in northern Spain, has voiced disapproval; while Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus also have concerns that recognition would embolden their own Orthodox-heritage secessionists.

The big dog on the block though, is of course Russia. According to a London Times’ editorial:

Moscow has long sided with Serbian nationalists, though the recent re-election of Serbia's pro-West President may limit its influence in Belgrade. But last week President Putin warned the West that Moscow was far from resigned to Kosovan independence and would be “forced to act”. Without UN approval, he said, independence would set a precedent for other “frozen” conflicts, such as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and the Trans-Dniester area of Moldova. Moscow may recognize their independence, provoking new tensions. It is likely also to prove an even more prickly partner in the Security Council.

There are good and bad elements to all of this. The good news is that Kosovo’s declaration was met with words of condemnation from Serbia and the Russian Bear instead of actual tanks; Slovenia was not as lucky in 1991. Kosovo also represents another former-member of the Warsaw Pact that has cut its ties to Moscow and desires safety and security under EU and NATO auspices, which is also good.

On the other hand, this represents another chapter in the downward spiral of Russian relations with the West. This has been, sadly, a missed opportunity. Blame Clinton for looking inward and ignoring the struggling Russian economy or blame Bush for alienating his soul-brother through intimidation or blame Russia for pushing us away through baited rhetoric, no one can deny that our relations are slipping. Whether we will slip all the way to our Cold War days remains to be seen. I doubt we will; the Russians are still a shadow of their former-Soviet selves militarily, confining intervention to their own borders, and still remain committed to joining the global economy through energy exports but it’s pretty much certain that, for the foreseeable future, we will look east and find an adversary rather than a friend.

And that’s sad.

However, it is good to see foreigners waiving American flags again.

USN To Defend Planet Earth

2008-02-15T10:25:00.000-08:00

Well, I knew AEGIS was pretty cool but this is just awesome:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2008 – The Navy will shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite sometime after Feb. 20, government officials said during a Pentagon news conference today.

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, assistant to the President and deputy national security advisor, said President Bush decided to bring down the satellite because of the likelihood that the satellite could release hydrazine, a toxic chemical used as a maneuvering fuel.

“The likelihood of the satellite falling in a populated area is small, and the extent and duration of toxic hydrazine in the atmosphere would be limited,” Jeffrey said. “Nevertheless, if the satellite did fall in a populated area, there was the possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space debris.”

The window for shooting down the satellite opens in the next three or four days and remains open for as many as seven or eight days, said Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the study group looked carefully at increased risks to the shuttle and International Space Station and decided they are negligible. “We are very comfortable that this is a decision made carefully, objectively and safely,” Griffin said.

Still, the Navy will not fire until after the shuttle Atlantis mission ends Feb. 20.

The headlines for this event have so much potential it makes me drool. Get out your Star Wars quotes boys, cause this captain (whoever he/she is) will be the first American CO to actually shoot down a space craft!

Man your ships, and may the Force be with you...

DO NOT F THIS UP!