SECDEF joins Craddock, Salamander & others

We have been too polite for too long.

For those who have been close to NATO - we all know it is true. You know my opinion on our NATO allies. Forget me, I'm just a retired O-5. Review what Gen. Craddock said on the way out - then read this from SECDEF Gates.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost,"

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."
...
"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.

The full transcript is available here and here. Below is a short clip.

Just follow the NATO tag below - the archive has more to chew on.

Shame everyone does this on the way out the door, to no effect. Time to take action if you want to get people's attention. Once again - WWII & the Cold War is over. We need to stop enabling Europe's military-welfare support. A couple of Combined logistics and training facilities, and that it.

USA based with global reach. Rinse, repeat.

If you need more proof of the Potemkin Village that is our NATO allies defense spending, Norway helps.

Norway will scale down its fighter jet contribution in Libya from six to four planes and withdraw completely from the NATO-led operation by Aug. 1, the government said Friday.

Defense Minister Grete Faremo said she expects understanding from NATO allies because Norway has a small air force and cannot "maintain a large fighter jet contribution during a long time."

The announcement comes as the Obama administration puts pressure on Germany, Poland, Spain, Turkey and the Netherlands to shoulder a greater share of the alliance campaign, which has heated up with intensified airstrikes on Libya's capital.

The Scandinavian country's air force says Norwegian F-16 jets have carried out about 10 percent of the NATO airstrikes in Libya since March 31.

Spin on ... spin on ... but the truth is there as it the measured retreat under fire in Afghanistan initiated by the Canadians and Dutch.

As a side note - you'll see the post tomorrow, but if you are interested in this topic go ahead and clear your Sunday late-afternoon schedule; you are not going to want to miss the next Midrats.

---

UPDATE: Our buddy Phil at DoDBuzz picks out a jewel from the SECDEF,

The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only eleven weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.

While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.

“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”

SECDEF Puts NATO on notice

NATO has been officially in charge of Afghanistan for over a year now. In a classic, "If you are going to talk the talk, now walk the walk" moment, NATO was given the chance to prove that it is more than an exercise club and collection of US auxiliaries.

Sure, even though the military head of NATO, Gen Craddock, and the Commander for NATO's operations in Afghanistan, COM ISAF Gen. McNeill, are all US Army; make no mistake - ISAF is a NATO operation.

Things have degenerated into four different operations though. The different Regional Commands (RC) were designed to break things up into manageable chunks (and to give more non-US GOFOs billets), but they are now running pretty much on their own timetable, ROE, and goals. This not only violates the "unity of command" requirement for victory, but also results in delusional behavior on some nations' part where they just cannot think of doing what an Army must do now and then. (A perfect example is the final retaking of Musa Qala - a year after a British general "negotiated" peace with the Taliban - Taliban read that as surrender and acted accordingly. RC (W) and RC(N) has that attitude in spades.

You have a US led operation in RC(E), a CAN/GBR/NLD led operation in RC(S), a German led operation in RC(N), and a Italian/Spanish led operation in RC(W). Things are not going well.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized NATO countries yesterday for not supplying urgently needed trainers, helicopters and infantry for Afghanistan as violence escalates there, vowing not to let the alliance "off the hook."

Gates called for overhauling the alliance's Afghan strategy over the next three to five years, shifting NATO's focus from primarily one of rebuilding to one of waging "a classic counterinsurgency" against a resurgent Taliban and growing influx of al-Qaeda fighters.

He means, "We won't automatically do what you refuse to any more."

The defense secretary's public scolding of NATO, together with equally forceful testimony yesterday by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put on display the growing transatlantic rift over the future of the mission in Afghanistan. The Bush administration over the last year has increasingly bristled at what it sees as NATO's overly passive response to the Taliban, but European leaders have repeatedly rebuffed entreaties by Gates and President Bush to do more.

In recent months, officials said, Bush and his advisers have grown more concerned about the situation in Afghanistan; in contrast to Iraq, violence is on the rise there and the U.S.-led coalition is struggling to adjust to changing conditions on the ground. As the White House reviews its Afghanistan policy, officials have concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals set for 2007 have not been met, despite tactical combat successes.

It is getting worse because the Continental Europeans want, on balance, to fight the war they want to fight, not the one they have.

The United States provides about 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and has the lead combat role in the eastern part of the country, and U.S. Special Operations forces operate throughout the country. NATO provides most of the remaining 28,000 foreign troops, and British, Canadian, Australian and Dutch forces play key combat roles in southern Afghanistan, where violence has surged over the past year.

Bush extended the deployment of one brigade and sent another additional brigade to Afghanistan earlier this year to get a handle on the situation. But senior U.S. military officials have privately voiced concern that Afghanistan is regressing under a NATO command they describe as dysfunctional. If the United States wants success there, they have said, it may have to increase its military commitment again.

"How long do we continue to watch this thing?" asked one senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There is a desire to keep the heat on NATO and see if they will pony up the resources." But he added: "If they aren't willing to do that," the United States may have to change its policy.

The anon fella is talking about "re-Americanizing" the ISAF operation, i.e. taking it back from NATO because they simply cannot do what needs to be done to win - from either a numbers or strategic standpoint. If the USA does that, NATO as we know it is dead. Sometimes I don't think our allies have recognized that we will kill NATO to win Afghanistan.

Gates later qualified his criticism by praising British, Canadian and Australian forces, which he said have "more than stepped up" in combat roles. "We should not use a brush that paints too broadly in terms of speaking of our allies and friends," he said.

Exactly. I would throw in the Dutch, Estonians, Poles, and Danes. Oh, and remember counter-insurgency 101 - the thingy about the primary importance of police?

One of the most pressing needs in Afghanistan is for about 3,500 additional trainers for the Afghan police, a force that Gates said suffers from "corruption and illiteracy." Because the European Union did not come through, he said, the United States has had to divert some U.S. trainers from the Afghan army to the police. Mullen confirmed that the United States has approved an increase in the manpower goal of the Afghan army from 70,000 to 80,000, creating a need for the additional U.S. trainers.

"The European effort on the police training has been, to be diplomatic . . . disappointing," Gates said.

In a separate interview, one senior military official pointed to a vivid symbol of the disappointment over NATO's unfulfilled promises. Behind the desk of U.S. Gen. Dan K. McNeill, who commands the ISAF in Afghanistan, is a framed matrix showing all the countries that have offered to provide security and other resources in Afghanistan, with the significant gaps highlighted in color.

"It isn't pretty, and it isn't changing," one official said of the chart. "What's the problem? We're looking for trainers."

They know they have been put on report. Good.

If you want to see who is who in the ISAF zoo. Though a few months old, click here and here for an overview.

MTH, let us know what you see on the ground - if you can.

---

UPDATE: Speaking of Musa Qala - ninme has some more.

The NATO we wish we had...

I am sorry, they are right, but it will never happen the way the North Atlantic Council works right now.

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.

Who are they?

The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

They have the answer though, I will give them that.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".
...
To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

Sad thing is, the only way this will happen is if London or Paris is nuked. Additionally, they are right on target, pun intended, about NATO in Afghanistan.

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province.

"Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen.

"Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint.

Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato".

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call". "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges."

Yep.

OK, don't take it from me...

Take it from the immediate past SACEUR, General James L. Jones, USMC (Retired).

NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO.

NATO is just not, as an Alliance, stepping up to the plate.

Jones said several steps are needed to "regain the momentum that appears to have been lost" in Afghanistan: a comprehensive campaign plan that integrates security and reconstruction work; the appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner to coordinate international efforts; and a new regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan that would include conferences with neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran.
...
"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the report said. It highlighted the lack of a clear strategy needed to "fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."

That is about right. He also mentions something I have been bringing up both here and professionally - it is well past the time to take AFG away from CENTCOM and give it to EUCOM - a COCOM who is very used to working with NATO and the Russians.

The study group said the United States should "decouple" Iraq and Afghanistan to establish a clear distinction between the funding and programs underway in the countries, which, it said, face different problems. It also called on Washington to appoint a special envoy for Afghanistan.

The Canadians are so fed up - they are ready to take their ball and go home.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper escalated diplomatic pressure on Canada's NATO allies yesterday, warning Britain's Gordon Brown that Canada will end its combat mission in Afghanistan next year unless the military alliance supplies 1,000 more troops for southern Afghanistan.

They aren't bluffing. They have been more than pulling their load, and we know it and thank them for it.

We are putting more and more pressure on NATO; but don't hold your breath.

The United States has written a strongly-worded letter to Germany and other NATO members urging them to send combat troops to dangerous areas in southern Afghanistan, the German defence ministry said on Thursday.

A spokesman for the ministry confirmed a newspaper report which said U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had last week written to his counterparts in NATO countries asking for 3,200 extra troops.

"We confirm that we received the letter," said a spokesman for the ministry, noting that he had written to other NATO partners as well as Germany.

The spokesman also said NATO defence ministers would discuss the alliance's activities in Afghanistan at a meeting in Vilnius in February.

That is Gates playing bad cop again, but even our good cop is a bit miffed.

The next three to five years will be crucial for the people of Afghanistan, for the NATO alliance and for the community of democracies. The Afghanistan mission is an investment in our collective security; it is also the catalyst for the 21st-century transformation of our democratic alliance. If we can get it right in the Hindu Kush, we will also be stronger the next time we are called to defend our security and values so far from home.

Yep, we are thinking about the car keys.....

The intercontinental screwdriver

I almost didn't want to blog on this article by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (RC), but after reading RC's article a second time though, there are some things that I just cannot let stand.

First things first. I was a fan of ADM Mullen for only the first few months as CNO, but my confidence in him has done nothing but go south from there. The reasons are as clear as the cost overruns we have in shipbuilding, to what happened at Annapolis during his tenure, to the gallons of ball-sweat produced by the NWU and a few other items in between. The one thing that he has never been held to account for is the fact that he was an obstacle to the progress we made in Iraq in '07 - not a helper. Except for a few mentions in an article or two - he has received a complete pass.

With that said, let's look at a few pull quotes.

Gates and Mullen had been having doubts about McKiernan since the beginning of the year. They regarded him as too languid, too old-school and too removed from Washington. He lacked the charisma and political savvy that Gen. David H. Petraeus brought to the Iraq war.

McKiernan's answers that day were the tipping point for Mullen. Soon after, he discussed the matter with Gates, who had come to the same conclusion.

Mullen traveled to Kabul in April to confront McKiernan. The chairman hoped the commander would opt to save face and retire, but he refused. Not only had he not disobeyed orders, he believed he was doing what Gates and Mullen wanted.

You're going to have to fire me, he told Mullen.

McKiernan was the architect of the operations that are going on right now in Afghanistan. There was nothing old-school he was trying to do after taking over from Gen. McNeill.

Shape, clear, hold, and build? That is all McKiernan. The comprehensive and integrated approach? McKiernan. Trying to get European NATO to turn into the wind? McKiernan and Craddock.

The fact that it wasn't well known in the Pentagon, if RC's reporting is correct, just demonstrates how far removed those in DC were from Afghanistan and the operations there.

McKiernan was first and foremost the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan - that is the NATO head of all forces in Afghanistan. His chain-of-command went through Brussels, not Tampa-Washington. He didn't get responsibility C2-wise all USA forces until late '08 (that belonged to the USA 2-star in charge of the eastern part of AFG, HQ'd in Bagram), and didn't even have a half-functioning USA staff until well into 2QCY09. That is a fact. The "new" structure that created the new 3-star USA command is new and post-McKiernan; but that is C2-long-term structural changes, not what is being done on the ground.

I think that RC does not understand that timeline and that fact is smearing onto his reporting of CJCS and SECDEF because I simply cannot believe that they were not up to speed on that ..... unless the long-knives of the Army of the Potomac were not briefing them correctly.

In February, with a new administration in power, Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, giving McKiernan much -- but not all -- of what he wanted. He planned to send most of the new forces to the south, where Taliban attacks were becoming increasingly frequent and potent.

President Obama did nothing but give the final approval to the plan that was in development for the better part of a year under President Bush. The fact that RC and others continue to mis-report this is starting to give me the impression that it is intentional. This is a fact.

In Washington, doubts about McKiernan were growing among Gates and Mullen and their staffs. McKiernan's plan to integrate civilian and military resources, which Gates had asked him to draw up, did not impress many who read it in the Pentagon. Once again, they faulted McKiernan's perceived deference to NATO. What the document needed, they thought, was sharp thinking from the U.S. military, not a casserole of inputs from a dozen allies.

That plan was mostly written by the US military and is the plan being executed now. At this moment there are changes being made, as it should be, by the new commander in Kabul. These things take 6-mo to a year to effect on the ground. Another fact. In 6 months you will see the operational and strategic change from Gen. McChrystal. Everything you see right now is McKiernan.

As for the NATO smear - the USA gave AFG to NATO in '06. The multi-national stink was forced on McKiernan as most of his staff was non-USA -- again, not by his choice. To grow the USA staffing levels was McKiernan's idea --- one that only started growing fruit the month or so before he was fired.

The day before he left Kabul, McKiernan spoke to several hundred U.S. and NATO troops assembled in the courtyard in front of his office. "I don't want to leave," he told them. "There's work still to be done here. . . . But I'm a soldier and I live in a democracy and I work for political leaders, and when my political leaders tell me it's time to go, I must go."

The line of soldiers waiting to shake his hand continued for 90 minutes.

...and it would go on longer if it could because those who served for/with him know that the public reasons for his firing being said in open source were not reflected on the ground. Also, I know of no person who has worked for/with him that has anything bad to say about his performance professionally or personally.

RCs article has some good in it - but it is not the full and clear, spin-free story.

Somewhere out there is a smart 2LT or ENS (or maybe a 9th Grader) that in a decade or so will be sent on the taxpayer dime to get a PhD in history. He/she will do the digging and interviewing to get the full story. There will be a book on it.

Let me bet you Sid's new sailboat on something --- ADM Mullen will not come out smelling well.

I am sure ADM Mullen is doing the best he can. Sometimes though, people are just wrong. ADM Mullen was wrong about the Iraqi surge, and in this case he is wrong about McKiernan. Also rest assured, if he is sitting down with RC, you are getting just ADM Mullen's side of the story. It doesn't sound like McKiernan sad down with RC.

Classy on his part ... but that leaves the story for others.

Always remember, people are people. In a way, it reads that ADM Mullen did not understand GEN McKiernan because he was not "of DC." By that, we can assume that ADM Mullen is "of DC." That as well should flesh out some of the background here and the quotes.

Is that good or bad? Opinions differ. What I do know though is when a person is "of DC," you need to read carefully, and evaluate critically.

---

McChrystal's relationship with Mullen has resulted in a flow of personnel that eluded McKiernan. The chairman told McChrystal he could poach whomever he needed from the Joint Staff -- a list that now extends to about two dozen senior officers, including some of the military's best-regarded colonels.

My question to the Chairman - why didn't you give that service to McKiernan? As CJCS, isn't that your job ... through the COCOM (GEN Petraeus)? What stopped you from doing the same for McKiernan that you now offer to McChrystal? That quote above is d@mning to Mullen and the entire Joint Staff if it is even 51% accurate.

Let me leave you with a quote of truth.

The war in Afghanistan, he (McKiernan) said, "will not be decided by any one leader -- military or civilian -- from any one nation."

Yes, Uncle Sam is taking back the keys - but to turn the key we need the help of the international community.

Constantly spitting in the eye of our allies will soon leave us alone. Alone we will not win. Next year we will watch the Dutch and Canadians leave; who will follow?

AFG: when to take back the keys?

As always, history is a big help. When do you think this quote was made?

The Afghan president says his country is improving -- schools and hospitals are being built and the economy is stronger, but problems remain with insurgents.

"The construction of new schools and hospitals ... are the characteristics of our social policy," he says. "Our brave armed forces have significantly developed ... carry out combat operations, smash extremist bands."

Well, things didn't quite turn out like President Najibullah wanted.

But the time is is not 2007, it is 1987, and the president is Soviet-backed Najibullah, not the Western-backed Hamid Karzai. Yet 20 years later, Karzai is delivering a similar message.

Just two years after Najibullah made that speech his Soviet backers, worn down by constant casualties, withdrew their troops and abandoned the Afghan government to its fate.

Why bring this up? Well, more and more 2010 is looking about the time that the great NATO experiment may be up. Remember my comment about culmination back in SEP 06?

About the time I made my "culmination" statement om '06, I told Papa Salamander that, even at that low point in Iraq, that I was more worried about AFG than Iraq. I stand by that statement, and it is becoming clear with each passing month that the Strategic Risk in AFG grows larger. I would feel better if the trend lines were going the other way, but they aren't.

Now diplomats and the military fear unless something is done to revitalise strategy against the Taliban, Western governments will also lose their will and pull out their troops. Without Western backing, Karzai's government may not last very long.

"If we cannot show progress in the next year or two, or at least show we are moving in the right direction, we will have serious difficulty in keeping some of our partners engaged in Afghanistan," said one senior Western diplomat.

Six years after the Taliban were ousted following the Sept. 11 attacks, support for the war is waning and Canada, Germany and the Netherlands could withdraw troops by 2010, leaving a big hole that other NATO nations may be unwilling or unable to fill.

The 38-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan is already hobbled by restrictions that mean most European nations only allow their troops to fire in self-defence and bar them from the more violent south.

U.S. appeals for 3,500 more military trainers, more helicopters and ground troops have largely fallen on deaf ears.

The shortage of troops means NATO, in the words of one analyst, "is left chasing the pieces round the chess board".

Some now question the validity of an alliance that won the Cold War, but is struggling against a rag-tag lightly armed militia. Failure in Afghanistan might damage NATO beyond repair.

It was good to give NATO the chance, but we need to start talking about "Plan-B;" re-Americanize AFG. The hard work will be how to do this diplomatically and politically without totally killing NATO and AFG in the process. The Dutch will leave in 2010. The Canadians may follow. Who will take their place? The Little Red Hen has more volunteers now than NATO does - but then again, can you keep something alive that does not want to make the effort to live? Shouldn't we open our eyes that the window will not stay open forever?

..the Bush administration has deflected Kabul's request for a bilateral relationship into a much more nebulous and less effective relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A relationship with NATO is not what the Afghans want or need.

The transition of the Afghan security and reconstruction missions from U.S. to NATO control was undertaken more with an eye on what is good for NATO than for what is good for Afghanistan, and the Afghans have not benefited from it. They still want an American commitment. Given their centrality in the fight against al Qaeda and their determination in the face of our common enemies, they deserve it.

AFG knows the USA is reliable, the Brits almost as much. They know that to win they need to get their troops up to speed, but until then we need the same ability to operate in the North and West that we now do in the South and East. We need to accept that NATO will not supply the number and types of equipment needed to win. Just as one small example is the helicopter challenge. Watch that as we move towards FEB - that may be the next canary in the coalmine.

In addition to fears that Canada night waver in its commitment, the Bush administration is concerned that other members of NATO are not stepping up to do their fair military share in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been pressing for months — without success so far — to get 16 more helicopters into southern Afghanistan to relieve a U.S. helicopter unit that will be leaving soon. He is also looking to fill other needs, including 3,500 NATO trainers for the Afghan police as well as a minimum of three battalions of ground troops.

Can the West win, albeit slower, in AFG with NATO in the lead? Just like the kid who couldn't help but keep denting the fender on the BMW, we may just have to take back the keys.

Make NATO Great Again

As an old NATO hand who dearly loves the alliance, I've long called for some tough love and clear talk. We've had lots of talk, notsomuch the other. 

Luke Coffey from Heritage has a great outline of where the new administration should start its conversation with our friends. A compromise, in a fashion. Whoever President-elect Trump sends as his NATO team, these should be their entering arguments.

Nothing shocking here. Many of these points have been raised over and over by outgoing SACEUR's such as Gen. Craddock, USA and outgoing SECDEFs like Robert Gates.

Read it all for the details of each point, but this is hard to argue with. A little action for us; a little action for them - a stronger Western security structure as a result;

Lead NATO back to basics.

Reiterate America’s commitment to Europe.

Take a realistic approach to Russia.

Commit unconditionally to America’s NATO treaty obligations.

Lead by example in the alliance and reverse defense budget cuts.

Press allies on defense spending.

Encourage NATO to involve finance ministers.

Set a concrete timeline for achieving NATO benchmarks.

How to make some NATO members move in the right direction? Here's an idea. Let me pull one of my "NATO Motivator" concepts out of my goodie-bag.

You learn quickly in NATO that one of the most critical and important things to many in the alliance is a thing called Flags-to-Post.

It is when NATO decides which nations will get which senior uniformed and senior civilian adviser billets. Trust me on this; the conflict in AFG, refugee crisis, etc - none of that stuff goes in front of anything related to Flags to Post.

If you'd like to bring attention to the "Press allies on defense spending" point, do this; the minute an Estonian General (pop. 1.3 million, percent of GDP on defense, 2.04%) take a position usually held by say, a Belgian General (pop. 11.2 million, percent of GDP on defense, 1.05%), then you will get people's attention.

Just an idea.

Hat tip Jorge Benitez.

The Dutch run for the door confirmed ...

The fact that the Dutch were going home from AFG NLT 2011 - as they warned - has been a planning assumption at CDR Salamander.

What I didn't expect to be a major possibility was this.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's coalition government collapsed on Saturday when the two largest parties failed to agree on whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this year as planned.

The fall of the government in the EU member country, just two days short of the coalition's third anniversary, all but guarantees that the 2,000 Dutch troops will be brought home this year and will eventually prompt new parliamentary elections.

... and who is waiting in the wings?

Right-wing legislator Geert Wilders's Freedom Party, which has called for an end to the Afghan mission, could be the big winner at the next election.

Opinion polls tip the Freedom Party, campaigning on mistrust of the government and an anti-immigration ticket, to become the largest or second biggest party in parliament.

Yes, a country the size of New Jersey with a population of 17 million is always good for some news.

This next line I don't agree with.

"A withdrawal will damage the reputation of the Dutch as a reliable partner that is willing and able to contribute to important military missions," said Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague.

No, only if you had an unrealistic expectation of the Europeans and a lack of understanding of what is going on.

Though I am not happy to see them leave - or the Canadians - I do not begrudge either nation. Here is why.

The Dutch and the Canadian troops are actually useful. They have operated caveat free in the toughest parts of the country - unlike the Germans, Italians, and Spaniards; for starters. We have listed those nations in the past, hit the archives if you need a review.

The Dutch volunteered in the hope that the rest of Europe would join them. In essense, they blew their whistle, climbed out of the trench with a hearty, "Follow me!" call - only to find themselves in the middle of no-man's land alone, their European allies still hunkered down.

No, the Dutch did their job. The Belgian and/or French battalions never showed up in Regional Command South. I appreciate the Dutch government trying to answer President Obama's call - but they have done the most their political system will let them. We should thank them, perhaps be a little upset that they are leaving the field - but don't begrudge them their weakness. They did their best.

Same with the Canadians. Successive leftist governments left them with a military that was almost unusable for anything but semi-permissive peace keeping. They were within a FY of getting rid of their tracked armor. Their per-capita losses have been huge for a nation with such a pacifist core - remember back to WWI & II they didn't even have enough of a native officer corps to fill out their ranks. Canada did the best she could as well given her political and national limitations. Like the Dutch - I am sad to see them go - but I do not begrudge their service. They fought well - and though are leaving the field, I know why and am impressed that they lasted this long. Kind of like expecting militia to only take one volley of musketry before fleeing and watching them stand for three before running. Not happy - but impressed and knowing I got more than expected.

Enough love though - here is the bad part. Nations have known this was going to happen for the last few years. As these two major players head through the door - the next question is who will follow.

AFG will take the rest of this decade to get right - a much harder nut to crack than IRQ. As our allies leave, and as long as budgets, global challenges, and lack of strategic patience don't upset the equation - Uncle Sam will be able to step into the breach.

Dank u en tot ziens.

---

UPDATE: Micheal Yon goes Salamander on NATO here, here, and here.

NATO has become a contrived vehicle used by freeloading nations to exert unearned influence. The NATO press machine is a transparent propaganda monster. To whit, this statement on the NATO website: "NATO looks forward to deepening cooperation with Pakistan:

The Pakistani Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, visited NATO and met with Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Minister Qureshi also addressed the North Atlantic Council."

Which NATO member actually has an iota of influence with Pakistan? The United States. NATO members freeload and forward their economic and political agendas at our cost. Secretary Gates, as well as Generals Petraeus, McChrystal and others, must spend substantial time simply trying to persuade members to contribute their share (which not a single member has done).
...
The staggering weight of NATO lies on its website: "Operation Moshtarak - Operation Moshtarak is an Afghan-led initiative to assert government authority in the centre of Helmand province. Afghan and ISAF partners are engaging in this counter- insurgency operation at the request of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Helmand provincial government." What "ISAF partners"? Those partners are nearly entirely British and American. The operation is in no way led by Afghans. NATO is a platform used by remora members to hitch rides on.

It is all that and less/more. The self-delusional nature of much of what NATO does is the worst kept secret for those who have been involved with it.

I will repeat again; all you really need to do is look at what they spend on defense as a % of GDP, but the Europeans and Canada are content to let the USA do most of the spending and dying in support of the West. We need to pull everyone back from Europe - all maneuver forces specifically - except for a few joint/combined logistics/training bases. You know the rest.

NYT Downward Spiral 15 OCT

Watch for the AFG Big Lie.

After years of denial and negligence, President Bush and his aides are finally waking up to the desperate mess they’ve made in Afghanistan. They have little choice, since the alarms are coming from all corners.
...
In a rare moment of agreement, America’s 16 intelligence agencies are warning that Afghanistan is on a dangerous “downward spiral.” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is publicly predicting that next year will be an even “tougher year.”

The Big Lie is that the “downward spiral” (NYT’s words) in Afghanistan is due to the Bush administration’s distraction in Iraq. That is a lie. The truth is that in 2005 NATO took over the Afghanistan Operation in the shape of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).

Without pumping out 3,000 words and relying that most of you are regular readers and therefore know the background – the problem is that NATO as an alliance culminated in Afghanistan about 10 months ago. NATO simply could not generate the maneuver forces that it needed to create the safe and secure environment. Some nations like the Dutch and Canadians did what the entire alliance membership should have done. Smaller nations like Denmark, and Estonia did likewise. Britain and the USA did what they always do. Poland, Australia, and Romania likewise can hold their head high – France as well has turned a bit into the wind and should be thanked for it..

Germany, Italy, Spain – their politicians just will not let their armed forces do what needs to be done – and many of their senior uniformed and civilian leadership think this is some POL/MIL discussion group to talk about what is and is not “Comprehensive” and which comes first – the chicken or the egg – and not a war going on and a failed state that needs to be brought up. Amazing, because most of NATO is European – and it is Europe that is the next trench line in the war if the front line in Afghanistan is lost. At least we with a little help from a few friends held the Iraqi trench line.

Others think that you can put 4 F-16 or a C-130 in and say you have done your bit. No. No credit.

The Big Lie is well outlined by this NYT article and others like it that give the impression that if Obama or McCain are elected that all of a sudden they will clap their hands three times and troops will immediately start moving from the USA to AFG. Let me just say this – this stuff takes months to years to take place. If you think that plans aren’t already in play, then you need to read what SECDEF Gates has been saying for months.

Any politician who says “I will deploy …” really mean that “I will not stop the planned deployment …. ” You can also see in this article a rash desire to have the NYT’s “retreat first – defeat later” policy of a reckless retreat from Iraq. Especially now that victory’s course is well set – their thoughts are madness.

For those multi-lateral fundamentalists out there, a question: what is going well in AFG right now and what is not? Going well is Counter Terrorism and development of the Afghan National Army – responsibilities of the USA and Coalition. What is going poorly? Safe and Secure Environment and Police Training – responsibilities of NATO. What is already in motion is a movement by the USA to respond to what is now seen as NATO’s 4QCY07 culmination in AFG. The USA is, like I said earlier this year – taking back the keys. SECDEF Gates has warned the Alliance publicly.
He and the President have already signaled that the US is heading to do what other’s won’t and can’t.

The British will stay with us – but the other two major fighters - the Dutch and the Canadians are playing the Elector of Bavaria and leaving the field. I honor their commitment and sacrifice to this point – but the job is not done and they are leaving. That is sad.

In the long run, the USA and the UK will create the safe and secure environment with what few allies remain. The good stuff in Reconstruction, Development, and Governance will then follow. It has to.

On the US side of the house the question is - which candidate has the best instincts from the Surge to Georgia – and is comfortable enough with National Security issues and the uniformed leadership to hold their own in the clash of ideas and agendas that is the nature of the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom axis? I know the answer – do you?

Imagine what would have happened to Iraq if we had let it be run internationally like Afghanistan was - and how the 2004 candidate John Kerry wanted.

Oh, he is to the right politically from Obama. OBTW.

OK, I'll do it again....

Tired of waiting for NATO to stop arguing about the latest Flags-to-Posts diagram and knowing that fighting season waits for no Eurocrat - SECDEF sends the best into the breach.

A request has been made by top commanders in Afghanistan to send 3,000 Marines to the country, FOX News has learned.

The goal would be to have the Marines in the region by April, the time of year when offensive actions by the Taliban usually pick up after the Spring thaw.

Senior Defense Department officials say International Security Assistance Forces Cmdr. Gen. Dan McNeil made the request, which has to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates will receive the proposal on Friday, but not like make a decision on that day.

The plan calls for sending one ground and one air Marine contingent plus one battalion for a "one-time, seven-month deployment," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morell said Wednesday.

Defense officials are not calling this a surge, rather a specific increase for more troops. Currently roughly 26,000 American troops are in Afghanistan, under NATO auspices. NATO commanders have asked for 7,500 more troops, but Gates has called on allies to contribute the additional forces.

That is 3,000 of the 7,500 officially short (though they need more than that). Watch that 3,500 delta along with the FEB helicopter issue we discussed before. NATO going to step up? That will tell you. More detail here.

SECDEF's clarity of thought.

An absolute must read in, of all places, Newsweek. SECDEF Gates proves that he has one of the most clear headed views about the world as it is as about anyone in public life. Here is the pull quote - OK, paragraph(s);

One hears about " the militarization of American foreign policy. " Is there truth to that?
The problem is, the nonmilitary institutions—especially the Agency for International Development—have been gutted over the past 15 years. When I left government, AID had about 15,000 employees, and it was an expeditionary agency. People that worked for AID expected to be deployed into developing countries, and they had all the requisite skills to do reconstruction and help with governance and building rule of law and agriculture and all the rest. AID today has less than 3,000 people. It's essentially a contracting agency that outsources the entire thing … As for the State Department: we have more people in military bands than we have Foreign Service officers. So the civilian institutions that, during the cold war, had the lead in carrying out those foreign-policy functions need to be re-created and dramatically strengthened. Until they are, the military will probably end up carrying most of the burden.

Is the machinery of government set up to cope with the challenges we face?
No, I think it all needs to be changed. We need to rethink the 1947 National Security Act, which laid out our present national-security structure. The national-security institutions that we have today were essentially created to fight the cold war, and they reflect lessons we learned in World War II. So the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the National Security Council all came out of the National Security Act of 1947. It seems to me that there needs to be a new National Security Act that looks at the kind of complicated world I've described and says: how would we write a new National Security Act to update the institutions and the framework?

But the problem is more than structure. We need to think about how to do these things in a completely new way. I don't think making AID bigger once more is the solution, any more than I think re-creating the old United States Information Agency is the answer to our strategic communications problems. To rethink USIA, we need to bring in some 23-year-olds—maybe the guys from Google, and those putting out news over the Internet—and ask them: If you want to reach the rest of the world with a message, as actually we do, how would you do it? How would you structure it? And is there a way to partner what happens in the private sector with the public sector? That needs to be our approach to development and all these things we are trying to do on the "soft" side, the civilian side of U.S. security policy

… Look, Texas A&M [where Gates was president before returning to government] has had teams in Tikrit [in Iraq] and in Afghanistan for the last five years. They are all from the agricultural and the veterinary side. And these guys go into the scariest parts of those countries, and they don't care: that's what they do. We've done that sort of work with farmers in America since the 1860s. Now they're doing it internationally—and going into amazing places. And A&M is not alone in this.

An ambitious agenda.
Yes, and one of the many obstacles to reform is that, at the top of government, the urgent always tends to crowd out the important. And that tension has gotten worse now, I think, because of the complexity of the world we face. I recall Henry Kissinger in 1970. There had been the Syrian invasion of Jordan. I think something was going on in Lebanon. And we had discovered the Soviets were building a submarine base in Cuba. I always thought Kissinger managing two or three crises at the same time was an act of legerdemain. I tell you: that was amateur night compared to the world today.

On another front - looks like SECDEF gates camel had its back broken by one too many "Brussels Shuffle" straws. Calling it like it is, and taking back the keys....

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday he did not expect America's NATO allies to provide many more troops for the war in Afghanistan.

Gates said the United States would try to send three more brigades -- likely more than 10,000 troops once support forces are included -- to Afghanistan next year, on top of existing commitments.

But he said the longer-term solution was to hand the fight to Afghan forces and it would be a "terrible mistake" if the conflict in Afghanistan was seen as America's war.

"My personal view is that we are not likely to get significantly larger numbers of troops from our allies and partners," he said.

Like I and others have said, NATO culminated in Afghanistan in DEC 07 - now SECDEF has decided it was time to make it public. The "John Kerry COA" just doesn't work. Those in love with the "1,000 Ship Navy" AKA "Cooperative Maritime Partnership" should take note.

Gates will be known as one of the giants - just as Cohen is known as one of the midgets and Aspin is known as an ant.

Russia's Nuclear Option?

As winter arrives in Eastern Europe and the Russo-Ukrainian war approaches the end of its first year, a very serious war will become even more serious.

Both nations are increasingly fully invested in to seeing this to the end. Though on paper stronger, cracks in national resolve in Russia are showing much more than in Ukraine. Wars of choice for conquest – which is what Russia is engaged in – has a much different impact on a nation’s people than an existential war for national survival, which is the war Ukraine is in.

As Russia’s problems in trying to achieve something that looks like victory manifests itself in to the Russian people’s waning support for the war, the rulers of Russia will increasingly find their legitimacy and hold on power under threat. They know this war should have been over months ago. They clearly did not know their enemy well. 

Desperate times can force desperate measures. If the present Russian leadership’s hold on power is seen as weak, what measures might they take to try to hold on to power by forcing a quick end to the war on favorable terms?

Some are looking closer at the nuclear option that Russia has. I think they are looking too hard. A good example of this line of concern was in yesterday’s WaPo by Joseph Cirincione. 

NB: Before the pull quotes, a fair warning – Cirincione is selling a book titled, Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before it is Too Late, so keep that in consideration;

Russian President Vladimir Putin is losing his war. If the Ukrainians continue to liberate areas of their country from his invading army, would he actually use nuclear weapons as he has threatened? If so, how? And what would the U.S. response be?

It is difficult to put percentages on risk. Nor does it really matter. Given the stakes, if the chances are 10 percent or 40 percent, the response would be the same: Minimize the possibility of nuclear use, and prepare responses in advance.

This is when I remind everyone that "we" are horrible at predicting the next war early enough to prevent them. The track record is simply not very good. However, Cirincione has invested a lot of time and effort in looking at this - so we should give his ideas some consideration;

The next quote reminded me of a little reminder a peer gave me back when I was a NATO staff weenie at the other end of the HQ p-way from him. As a JO, he was on the other side of the wire as an JO in the Warsaw Pact. "Americans may not follow their doctrine very well, but Russians do."

Russian military writings describe in detail how, if Russia is losing a conflict, it could use nuclear weapons to force its enemy to retreat. This “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to win” strategy is somewhat controversial, but it is not dissimilar to various U.S. plans for using nuclear weapons first.

Well, sometimes we follow our doctrine. Sometimes the Russians don't...but if you are playing odds... 

I still stand by my belief - and that is a weak thread, I know - that in the next war, nuclear weapons will be what chemical weapons were during WWII. Everyone had them; no one used them.

If nuclear weapons were to appear on the Ukrainian stage, Cirincione does not have this COA as his most likely ... but it is my most likely if one must choose from the "Nuke" basket;

Demonstration shot. One option is for Russia to fire a nuclear weapon over an uninhabited area — say, part of the Black Sea — as a demonstration of its seriousness in hopes that the West will back down. Some scientists involved in the Manhattan Project urged just such a demonstration shot as an alternative to bombing Japanese cities at the end of World War II. While no one would be killed and there would not be physical damage, the explosion would stop the world in its tracks. There has not been a nuclear weapon used in combat in 77 years. No one has even seen a nuclear explosion above ground since 1980.

This is their neighborhood and fallout will drift to their lands if nukes are used. Is anyone going to buy grain downwind? No. Next to underground explosions, explosions high over the water or in the atmosphere create the least secondary radiation effects. Don't underestimate the lingering memory of Chernobyl. I see "Demonstration Shot" of the most likely COA of the least likely Nuke COAs.

As shocking as this would be, Russia would likely reject this option for the same reason U.S. military leaders did in 1945: It is not shocking enough.

Don't agree. Russia believes their own FITREPs, so to speak. The arrogance of their initial OPLAN speaks to this. They hold most of Central and especially Western Europe in contempt. I am sure a nuke over the Black Sea would be shocking enough (and they're right).

This is the author's "Most Likely COA:"

Low-yield weapon. Russia could fire a “low-yield” nuclear weapon on a Ukrainian military target. The explosion would kill hundreds or thousands and cause significant damage. Russia could use one of the 10-kiloton warheads it deploys on some of its ground-launched cruise missiles, including the Iskander that has been used extensively in the war with conventional warheads. Although this would be a massive explosion — equal to 10,000 tons of TNT — it would be small by nuclear standards. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was 15 kilotons; most U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads range from 100 to 1,000 kilotons. Some believe that Russia has even smaller-yield warheads, in the one-kiloton range.

I'm sorry, a nuke is a nuke. Any use, however slight, breaks the seal. As mentioned earlier, why go right away with something that will blow fallout your direction and ruin a major cash crop for who knows how many years? No one would want hot-wheat. You'd win nothing but a poisoned challis.  

Once this seal is broken, beyond that line be dragons. I would see a hard split between Western and Central European NATO on a response. Lots of marches with large paper mache puppets, etc. I don't think the author is correct at all in his assumptions.

... it would not require a “response in kind” by the United States, though some would urge that. The likely response, in addition to those in scenario one, would be massive increases in military aid to Ukraine and possibly concerted NATO or U.S. strikes on the Russian units that launched the attack.

As per the split in NATO, there will be no NATO strikes anywhere after such a use. I do not see the USA using nukes either when two European NATO members, France and the UK, have nukes of their own. NATO will not do it, and especially the Biden Administration won't go alone in such a step unilaterally.

In his next two COAs, he treats them as individual events, I don't. Once "Low Yield" goes, unless there is an immediate capitulation to Russian actions, the next two steps will follow rather quickly. This isn't a ladder, this is a chute.

Large-yield weapon. Putin could dial up the explosive force of the attack to the 50- or 100-kiloton range, or about three to six times the Hiroshima bomb. Tens of thousands would die with massive damage and radiation plumes. If the target were Kyiv, it would decapitate Ukraine’s leadership. This would almost certainly trigger a direct U.S. or NATO response, though not likely nuclear. The United States and NATO have sufficient precise, powerful conventional weapons that they could use to devastate Russian forces in Ukraine and command headquarters, including those units responsible for the attack. This would likely be accompanied by large-scale cyber operations.

Nuclear attack on NATO. This is the least likely scenario. Russian first-use doctrine includes the option of striking NATO targets. The attack could be by long-range missiles or air-launched cruise missiles on Central European states. If the yield of the weapon was similar to the previous scenario, it would inflict a level of destruction on a NATO state not seen since World War II. This could trigger a nuclear response. Some would argue a limited nuclear counterstrike was necessary to preserve nuclear deterrence. More likely is an all-out conventional assault to try to eliminate either Putin himself or the weapons he commands before he strikes again.

There is a certain arrogance in thinking that you can control the nuclear genie once it is out of the bottle. I am firmly of the school that you can't ... unless one side buckles. That is why one must be firm. The weaker you are, the more attractive the chute of nuclear use seems.

There is also a Rumsfeldian Known-Known in play here; the US President Joe Biden. He has a history going back decades. As former SECDEF Gates noted, he has a tendency to pick the wrong action on the international stage. He also shows a desire to - at whatever cost to foreign nationals - get the USA out of foreign entanglements involving our forces.

Should the Russians in desperation pull the nuclear card, would the USA do nothing and let the Russians get her way? What precedent does that set? Does anyone think that will stop the Russians from pulling this card again?

Does anyone really think there is a way to control nuclear escalation, that the same people who on the USA side who never saw Kabul collapsing like it did or on the Russians side who didn't see Kyiv standing like it did - that these two groups - have the insight and nuance to steer around and control each step in the "nuclear escalation ladder?" 

If the Russians do an airburst high over the Black Sea, would NATO/USA do a similar airburst over the Arctic? I don't know. No one does. Do you think the Biden natsec team has run this game yet and has a pre-planned response approved and ready to go?

I don't. 

Even with the best of teams on both sides, these are the "B" and "C" teams, not the "A" teams. Neither side has that record. There is no ladder to escalate on, to pause on each step and ponder. No, once the seal is broken, we have a steep and well greased chute. 

Pray for cooler heads, humility, and well secured genies. 

Double down in Helmand

War is a tough teacher. Stretched thin by the "ridden hard and left-up wet" policies of Labour, the British are pushing their own surge in AFG.

BRITAIN is to deploy its biggest contingent of paratroopers and special forces since the second world war in a bid to crush the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ministers are to send 3,000 paratroopers, including the entire Parachute Regiment, to southern Afghanistan in the spring, as well as trebling the number of special forces in the country.

It will be the first time in the regiment’s history that all four para battalions, including its reservists, have fought together on the same battlefield.

Hmmm. Looks like a 12-month fighting season this year.

There is another background story running in parallel here. As the Anglo-Saxon-Dutch-Pole-Dane-Estonian army digs in - the soft underbelly of NATO continues to look at the face of the enemy and starts making glances at the exit.

NATO's failure to deliver on pledges made to Afghanistan has frustrated the United States and raised questions in Washington about Europe's commitment to that war, according to U.S. officials.

Next week marks the first anniversary of NATO taking control of operations throughout Afghanistan. It also marks a year of unfilled requirements that military officers say hurt their ability to combat a resurgent Taliban.

The requirements, many of which are classified, include more helicopters, hundreds of troops and 3,200 trainers for Afghan forces, according to U.S. officials.

NATO has about 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. Of the 26,000 U.S. troops there, 15,000 are dedicated to the NATO mission while the rest conduct counterterrorism operations. Britain has the second-largest presence, with about 7,000 troops.

...

"NATO countries at the highest level made commitments at Riga about what they would do and when they would do it in Afghanistan and those commitments have not been fulfilled," Long said.

"The biggest example of that is exactly the example you're talking about," she said when asked about Germany.

Gates blamed apathetic voters in Europe for the lack of commitment on the part of NATO allies more broadly.

"My overall impression is most European governments get it. They understand how important Afghanistan is and they are actually eager to fill the commitments they've made," he said.

"The problem is many of them are coalition governments. Some of them are minority governments in a coalition. And there is a lack of appreciation on the part of their voters of why Afghanistan is important."

The Pentagon chief has ordered a report from his staff before the October meeting on pledges allies have not met.

So, what lesson has the teacher given us? Well, let me give you a quote.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging the future but by the past."

--Edward Gibbon

The lesson is that having a functioning, useful and effective military able to execute national policy takes numbers; numbers in both material and equipment. It takes funding, it takes a long-term focus on sustainable warfighting, industry, and intellectual capital pipelines that feed it.

You cannot "transform" yourself into the cheap and easy. From a historical perspective, even the "huge" USA military is small when judged by the amount of treasure we are spending on it. Unfortunately, while I applaud the British efforts, there is a great question on their ability to sustain what they are doing. One hopes the first act or two are strong - as I am not sure if there can be a third or fourth (we have that challenge as well in IRQ, so yes I know the glass house I play in). The USA at least is trying at least to grow its military and is spending to try to match its burn-through of personnel & equipment. Notsomuch with our British allies. The mal-treatment of their military by Labour is a scandal - at least it would be treated as such if there was a Conservative Government in power. Sigh.

While we are on the subject, check in tomorrow for an overview of what is happening to Nelson's legacy. Bring a glass of Port or shot of Rum with you, you will need it.

Is the relief pitcher balking?

I hope this is just poor reporting by The Times;

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.”

Ungh. First of all - Korb is an a55hat and everything he says should be ignored unless you are looking for contrary indicators.

Second; the incoming forces do have a mission. Any dolt with access to the internet can go to the ISAF website and learn about it. Those of us with access to the SIPRNET can gather even more goodies.

Third; in military planning there is no such thing as an "end-game." End game is something said by people who don't know a Line of Operation from a line of coke. In the military, we have "End States." That, like the Mission, is very well defined for the operation in Afghanistan.

I am only going to repeat what is in open media on this.

This, from MSNBC(!) and the WaPo(!), seems more like reality as I see it from the cheap seats.

The Pentagon is prepared to announce the deployment of 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan as early as this week even as President Barack Obama is searching for his own strategy for the war. According to military officials during last week's meeting with Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon's "tank," the president specifically asked, "What is the end game?" in the U.S. military's strategy for Afghanistan. When asked what the answer was, one military official told NBC News, "Frankly, we don't have one." But they're working on it.

Senior military officials confirm to NBC News that a secret report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Obama recommends a shift in the military mission in Afghanistan to concentrate solely on combatting the Taliban and al-Qaida and leave the "hearts and minds" aspect of the war to other U.S. agencies and NATO.

The officials stress this strategy would NOT abandon the so-called "soft-side" of the war, to establish good governance, law enforcement, economics, education, etc., but instead hand those responsbilitities over to the State Justice, Agriculture departments and others. "This is a classic counnterinsurgency strategy, but the military can not do it alone."

---

President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one member calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.

U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from the United States and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and other warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. But they also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.

"NATO's future is on the line here," Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told an international security conference here. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle. In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."

Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" and warned of a "downward spiral of security."

In addition to more combat troops, Petraeus called for "a surge in civilian capacity" to help rebuild villages, train local police forces, tackle corruption in the Afghan government and reduce the country's thriving opium trade. He also suggested that the odds of success were low, given that foreign military powers have historically met with defeat in Afghanistan.

Make no mistake - if the Times reporting is accurate (which I don't think it is), Gen. McKiernan isn't going to get what he needs to set conditions, and we are going to balk - then game over.

Last guy out of Baghram is a rotten egg - and when you get home dig a shelter, buy gas masks for the family - get iodine pills - buy guns, get the good stuff from ammoman, and talk to your favorite Mormon about the right place to buy food that stores well - and go with their wisdom and see if you can stock 2-years of the basics. Some might tell you that you're already falling behind.

....and people wonder where I come from sometimes.

Europeans support SECDEF Gates

Well, at least the clear eyed, serious ones do.

Support for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' criticism of other NATO members' performance in Afghanistan appeared from an unexpected source yesterday — a European defense specialist who is closely linked to senior NATO officials.

"Mr. Gates is absolutely right," said Giles Merritt, director of the Security and Defense Agenda, an influential military think tank in Brussels which counts NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer among its patrons.

"It's quite clear that the Europeans as a whole have not lived up to their commitments [in Afghanistan]," Mr. Merritt said in an interview.

SECDEF goes Salamander; again

Sad thing is; I am a hopeless EuroPhile. However, they often make me want to do something like this.

I think SECDEF Gates smiles when he sees it as well.

...nearly a decade after the Taliban were toppled from power in Afghanistan, Gates expressed concerns about NATO member nations’ level of commitment, suggesting that the political and cultural climates in Europe have caused the credibility of Article 5 to be called into question -- an aspect of NATO’s identity that the new concept should go further to restore, he added.

...

“I believe we have reached an inflection point, where much of the continent has gone too far in the other direction,” Gates said of contemporary Europe’s view of its security needs.. “The demilitarization of Europe -- where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it -- has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

"All of this should be a wake-up call that NATO needs serious, far-reaching, and immediate reforms to address a crisis that has been years in the making,” he said. “And unless the Strategic Concept spurs operational and institutional changes like those I just mentioned, it will not be worth the paper it is printed on.”

It is at times like this that I think of our friend Admiral Stavridis. SACEUR is a tough job. He is a happy warrior though, he'll be fine.