skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Remember what caused 11 SEP from and internal failure point of view. Remember how critical (Gorelick memo et al) it is to have professionals and not politicians in charge of Intelligence?Also understand how important it is to divorce politics from intelligence services in a republic. Bush 41 was CIA Director, so don't get too excited -- but I just don't like the entire concept.Bill Clinton's former chief of staff Leon Panetta has been tapped to head the CIA in President-elect Barack Obama's administration, causing surprise and a bit of consternation by several individuals involved in the intelligence community.
Two Democratic sources close to the transition process said Monday that Panetta, who was a congressman and one-time head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is Obama's pick to replace Michael Hayden at the CIA.
Panetta is a surprise pick since he has no experience in the intelligence world. However, as chief of staff he had considerable access to intelligence information and knows how the community operates.
Bad on Obama. Who knows, maybe Leon is a quick learner - as he is a very good politician, but who wants training wheels on in the middle of a race?
In of all place, Harold Ambler in the HufPo;You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
The facts fall hard and fast after that. No shocker to those who kept their eyes, ears, and mind open the last decade or so - but well put together. Hat tip HotAir.
Over at TheWeeklyStandard, Stuart Koehl takes on the NYT article I linked to last week - and knocks it out of the park.He gets most of it right (one part he whiffs is talking about a Arleigh Burke WRT costing vs. LCS, if F-100 or the new Danish Frigates then he is close, but that is about the only major goof on his part). Otherwise, you need to read it all. This is just the Navy part of the argument that I'll focus on, though he covers it all, starting by quoting Gordon Chang in Commentary,The premise is that the United States is not going to be fighting major conflicts in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, that's an assumption we should not make. After all, history teaches us to be wary: both World War II and Korea started for us with surprise attacks.
The Times also assumes that no big power is going to take us on. Is that so? China, with a rapidly modernizing military, wants Taiwan and islands belonging to others in its surrounding seas. Moreover, it is configuring its military to fight us. Moreover, a desperate North Korea continues to covet South Korea. And is it really inconceivable that an aggressive Russia will try to grab more neighboring land?
...and then brings in the cluebat of history on his ownA study of history shows that a peer competitor can emerge out of nowhere in less than a decade, assuming that economic, social and strategic conditions are right. In 1861, Germany was an aggregation of petty principalities and middle-sized kingdoms, dwarfed in importance by the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires. By 1871, Germany was an empire dominating central Europe and vying for European hegemony. In 1920, Japan was a struggling country barely out of its feudal past; by 1940, Japan was in position to contest control of the Pacific with the United States. In 1933, Germany had no military substantial military capabilities, no tanks, no combat aircraft, no heavy artillery, no submarines, no battleships. By 1939, well, you know that story. . .
With that set up, It is true that a "peer competitor" could emerge within the next two decades that had the economic resources and political will to build up a military force capable of meeting that challenge, but who would that competitor be? Russia is decrepit and in both economic and demographic free fall. India has the potential, but not the will. That leaves China. Assuming it does not implode from its own economic and political inconsistencies, China could build a modern military force with the capabilities to fight the United States conventionally to secure its national strategic objectives, which apparently include recognition of its hegemony in Asia, reintegration of Taiwan into China, and the securing of natural resource areas in and around the South China Sea.
But examine the map for a second. To the north, south and west, China is bounded by Russia, Indo-China, the Himalayan Mountains and the Gobi Desert. China lives in a strategic cul de sac, where distance, terrain, and logistics make expansion overland both difficult and expensive. In addition, the overland routes do not take China in the strategic directions it wishes to go. If China is to get out of its box, then it must go by sea or by air.
There are strategic and force structure implications here for the United States. If China cannot engage the United States by land, then conversely the United States cannot engage China by land, either. Where could we insert and sustain a substantial ground force on the mainland of Asia? Why would we wish to do so? Our only substantial mainland ally is South Korea, and we already have forces present to deter invasion from North Korea. In the event of a war with China, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps will be limited to raids and to the occupation or recapture of various islands which the Chinese may wish to occupy themselves.
Thus, the main engagement with China will come at sea and in the air.
The rest of the article outlines well why we keep and Eye on the Long Game - and why you can't rest on your laurels. I wonder if he reads CDR Salamander .... ...the Navy must get its shipbuilding house in order and complete the design and construction of a new generation of destroyer and attack submarine capable of dealing with the panoply of current and emerging Chinese mines, torpedoes, submarines and anti-ship missiles. The Times is right about that--the Zumwalt-class DDG and the Virginia-class SSNs are relics of the Cold War and should be terminated. On the other hand, the much vaunted LCS is too big and too expensive to actually perform the inshore mission in support of ground forces: at $600 million each, it's almost as expensive as an Aegis destroyer, and thus too valuable to expose in the littoral. A new and affordable destroyer, and a smaller, more modern SSN are needed to meet the Chinese navy, while a fleet of expendable patrol craft are created for counter-insurgency and anti-piracy operations.
DDG-1000 was once "affordable" SC-21. LCS was once the "affordable" STREETFIGHTER. VA is OK in my book - but not my specialty.
Like mentioned earlier on, give him a pass on the costing comparison goof and agree to disagree - if you want - on the VA SSN; the rest is spot on.
Nice.The walls of the majestic Republican Palace in Baghdad's Green Zone have been stripped bare. The vaults that secured American cash and classified documents are gone, and the cement blast walls that protected the front entrance were taken down this week. The U.S. military dining facility inside what was once the American Embassy served its last meal New Year's Eve.
Very nice New Year's present to the Iraqi people and America. Another decisive point along the way to our end state and victory - a victory that would have been lost if we had listened to the MSM, Democrats in the House in Senate - and more than a few Republicans.
