Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Doing things like this pretty much guarantees that Canada will not have second thoughts about leaving AFG starting next year - and after last night - why should they add more?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be among the world leaders briefed personally by U.S. President Barack Obama about his plans for a new strategy in Afghanistan.
Obama will contact a number of leaders, including those of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, China and Russia. But despite Canada's lengthy military commitment to the troubled region, Vice-President Joe Biden has been given the task of relaying the president’s plans to Harper.
Canada has lost so many men and women in AFG - and we treat her like this.
Shame on us - they are our next door neighbor for goodness sakes.
Our buddy Bill sent along a link to the SECNAV's speech to the Santa Barbara Council of the Navy League.
I like this SECNAV more and more. Our uniformed leadership has brought me heartburn for most of this decade - but this SECNAV continues to just nail it.
Especially about Shipbuilding and the future.
If we could only get the ADM and VADM in the Navy to get in alignment with the SECNAV - then we will all be better.
Sure, some of his energy goals for the future will only come from the mating of Unicorns and Pixies - but I will give him a mulligan. I do agree with him in the broader context though. There are worse things to strive for.
BZ SECNAV. I applaud your focus and your priorities, and your obvious love for our Navy. You have my support - and so far you continue to demonstrate that have been right in giving you the benefit of the doubt as we move forward. You've earned it.
Call this "Cluebat for the CNO" edition of Diversity Thursday.
As the regular readers will recall - one of my central arguments in opposition to the Diversity Industry is the cognitive disconnect they seem to have towards the reality of what will soon be 2010.
Two great examples are from - of all places - NPR.
First from the occasionally irritating, but generally well meaning and readable Ruben Navarrette, on Liane Hansen's show, which is worth a listen,
"There's a lot of folks that are just over it — they're just over the idea of racial differences."
These days, I meet a lot of Americans from parents of different races. We're all over the place — and we're not just on the fringe. Halle Berry has won an Oscar. Tiger Woods rules professional golf. And, of course, Barack Obama is president. These were hailed as racial victories — though not the kind they are in my mind.
Turns out, "What are you?" isn't a question for just funny-looking people like me. It's a question each one of us has to answer. And that answer, for all of us, isn't black or white.
If everyone has to answer the question, then nobody's left out. And as unpleasant as that's made things for me lately, I find it strangely comforting. Multiracial people aren't outsiders anymore; we're family. I've been living in my skin for a long time, and I know who I am. Now it's time for everybody else to figure it out.
That is the America I know - and the Navy I know. I just wish our leadership would catch up.
As I thought about the CINC's speech at West Point today, in hindsight I have to admit I was being an optimist. In my head, I decided that I had a rough idea what was coming, and as a result was going to title this post, "Give the CINC some room to work." I wanted to support my President. Take 3/4 of the package and push on.
I have a buy-in in AFG - I want us to succeed, victory if you will. As you have read here, I have been confident that with with the USA taking back the keys from NATO, strategic patience, and going with what we know works - this is doable - doable with the right military and political leadership.
Our military leadership at the in-theater operational and strategic level is good and sound. Our COIN built around Shape-Clear-Hold-Build is sound. As in all war though, you need the political to be at the same level. That is the CINC. That is why this speech was so important. We are at an inflection point - we needed a home run.
He lost me at 20:18. I'll explain.
There are three parts to his strategy (it is unquestionably his now); a military surge - a civilian surge - and a "Pakistan" surge. The civilian surge cannot produce desired effects in AFG without the safe and secure environment created by military forces. A stable Pakistan, in terms and in line with our security needs, cannot exist without a safe and secure AFG. For the civilian and Pakistan part of his plan - the military must be given the resources and time to make it happen.
Here is how the President put it.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
That is when I looked over to Mrs. Salamander and said, "I hope I just didn't hear a timeline."
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
What you have here is the continuation of the plan that has been in the works since mid-08 and extended by a few more brigades - the McChrystal expansion of the McKiernan uplift. Good - but that previous paragraph was still echoing in my head.
Start sucking your teeth now.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Where are they coming from? Jones-Craddock tried and failed. McNeill-McKiernan tried and failed. Will Stavridis-McChrystal succeed now that we are telling everyone that we intend to leave come h311 or high water?
Here is what we do know. In a year from now, the Canadians and the Dutch (together ~3,500 relatively caveat-free forces) are leaving AFG. This has been known for awhile. The French stated earlier that they will send no more. The Brits can throw a few hundred in the south - but they are already looking at the door. You could double the Spanish, Italian, or German numbers if you want - but due to their ROE/Caveats, they will have little effect.
Former Warsaw Pact NATO economies are under so much stress and their militaries so small - they aren't going to give you thousands. Turks? Please.
I hope that the CINC has some surprises in his back pocket - really he as to. If we do not see allied contributions in the high four to low five-figures in the next, "days and weeks" - then do I really need to tell you what that means tactically, operationally, or strategically?
From an INFO OPS & STRATCOM POV, I just cannot see the CINC saying the above without firm commitments that will be made public in that timeframe. If not; trainwreck. This is varsity football, you can't say things like that unless they happen. This is not domestic politics. This is significant national strategic risk.
Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world.
Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.
This was at approx 20:18 according to the clock in my car. I am glad Mrs. Salamander was driving. My head fell into my hands, literally. I didn't yell or pound the dashboard. I just said, "Oh, sh1t."
Now, everyone put on your red hat ... or red turban, if you will.
18 months is a fortnight at best for the Taliban, a weekend really. They will wait us out. The AFG government, just like the AFG government after the Soviet withdrawal, will hold on for awhile after we leave - but it is all baked in the cake.
Right now every smart AFG that can is transferring money and making plans to get out. Calls and emails are going to family in the USA, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, The UK - wherever they have a connection - making a Plan B if they haven't already because they were foolish enough to believe in the USA.
By moving from a conditions based (or effects based depending on planning school you come from) plan to a time based plan, we just solved the Taliban's and Al Qaeda's problem.
We just validated all that has been said about the West. The weak horse is at a canter for all to see.
We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
They can't do it in 18 months if they know we are leaving them. They know their history better than we do. They know what happened when the Soviets left. They know.
Everyone on the military side of the house knows the AFG will not be ready in 18 months. If anyone does - they sure have been keeping it to themselves. I would like to hear them say it to. Not, "I will carry out the orders .... " mantra - but a not kidding, "Yes, this is outstanding!" true believer stuff.
If the Afghans knew we were there for the long haul, would they be on the readiness curve to be ready once conditions were set? Sure. We just threw that away. You can't force this and expect it to work. This isn't politics - this is the building of a military and civil infrastructure that did not exist before.
By putting an 18-month stamp on things, we just stated that we don't care about the conditions on the ground or if we have desirable or undesirable effects - we are just looking at the countdown.
Success, victory - whatever you want to call it - is never achieved on a chronological basis. You retreat on a timetable - you succeed by reaching decisive conditions, objectives, effects, and end states as defined by your mission. Military 101. This can't be the best military advice he is getting.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.
President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.
We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
None of that can be done in a nation larger than Germany in 18-months. Just talk to our Agricultural Development Teams in the east of AFG. They just started two years ago, and are only now impacting a few districts. It takes time to do this right.
Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.
So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.
The AFG didn't hear a word of that. All they heard was,
"...transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."
Everything else is background noise.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
That is/was what we have been doing as a nation. It will all be for nothing if we abandon AFG.
I am not going to fisk the entire speech, read it yourself if you missed it, but there is one more thing I want to cover before I hit the rack.
He had three explanations in his speech. The first two were aimed at the political Left who either wants to retreat now - or do nothing. The third was aimed at, I believe, those who are seeped in a few thousand years of military best practices. Here it is.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.
Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
No one in a uniform has counseled an "open-ended escalation." No one. No, there are just those who are trying to achieve the mission in AFG. The only way to do that is through the proven methods of defining your mission, your end state, your objectives, your decisive points (or conditions or effects - depending on your flavor), your tasks and then the troops you need to achieve them.
There is no "time." If you are given a time limit - then you plan for that and work backwards. Usually though, the planning goes like this - "When the following conditions are met, we can transition to the next phase .... " With time-based plans, all that matters is the time. You know that - the enemy knows that.
If your enemy does not have a chronological restraint, then to achieve their decisive points, objectives, end states and mission - then all they need to do is hit the mattresses and wait you out.
If your enemy sees your Strategic Center of Gravity as the political will to continue - then when you set a conditions-free chronological end to your campaign; then you just advertised that your Center of Gravity has been compromised and is falling apart.
The President in the end wanders into a discussion of costs. OK, we can do that. There is another thing that has stood true for thousands of years - war is always less expensive than defeat. Ask the Khwarezm Shahs, the Confederates, the Soviets, the Baathists, well ... you get the idea.
Here is a question I have for our 4-Stars:
Where in the history of warfare has a time-based strategy worked? When has it ever been determined to be a superior plan for success/victory/mission than a conditions based or effects based plan? Conventional warfare or COIN, when? So, for the pro-victory coalition - what is there in this speech?
Well, hope isn't a plan - but there is hope.
This was a political speech, not a military speech. In politics there is nuance and the truth can change. We must hope for the truth to change. We can hope that "transition" if fudged enough to allow the Commander on the ground to have enough troops for a long enough time to build and expand the Afghan security forces.
Maybe the decision will be made to not start the withdraw in 18-months until conditions are better. Hope, maybe - but it is what it is.
As leaders, there is nothing illegal in the CINC's orders, so you pursue them as best as you can. You can push hard for 18-months with the hope that the largely Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police, and the other parts of the Afghan National Security Forces can significantly up their game to the point that when the American resources start to draw down - that the Afghans can keep it going. Hope that the drawdown will be manageable and that the financial and material support continues so the Afghan government isn't abandoned like we abandoned the South Vietnamese in '75.
That is, of course, if you think that the hope has a chance to succeed. What do you do if you are faced with the situation that you can no longer plan to win - instead you have to plan an orderly withdraw?
From a moral position - if your mission is strictly chronologically based - what is the risk level you take with the lives of your men and women? For what purpose are you expending lives? What are you "buying" with them?
Ahhh, that pesky thing called the operational art. A Decision Point. How do you define the conditions where further expenditure of resources will not bring about a sustainable desired effect inside an artificial timeline - and as a result when do you decide to pull back to the cantonment?
Tough nut. It would be great to be able to talk to John C. Pemberton about it.
History. How will she read this speech? How will history judge the uniformed leadership?
It doesn't have to end this way - but if you surrender to a time-based plan - history says it does.
If it does - it will be the fault of the elected leaders we have - though they will, like they did in Vietnam, falsely blame the military - but we know that.
A conservative rancher named Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo took the Honduran presidency in elections Sunday, five months after the country's last elected president was forced out of the country at gunpoint. Now Hondurans must wait to see if the international community, which has been divided over the crisis, accepts the winner as legitimate.
The results gave Mr. Lobo 56% of the vote, well ahead of Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos at 38%, confirming voters' expected punishment of the Liberals -- party of both the deposed president and the interim government that ousted him. ... About 61% of eligible Hondurans voted, and turnout, which was up from 2005, was seen as a crucial factor in persuading more countries to back the vote. The turnout was a loss for Mr. Zelaya, who had urged supporters to boycott the election.
To our great national shame, we sided with the anti-democratic Left in Honduras with Chavez and the Castro brothers.
We did not side with the Honduran Supreme Court, its democratically elected legislature, and its Constitution.
Good for little Honduras. When Uncle Sam finds himself on the same side as the likes of Chavez and Castro - perhaps he should reconsider.
An Army buddy of CDRSalamander penned something that humbles me in its simple awesomeness. As he wishes to remain anon, I will change his work a little bit - but as in most masterpieces - it is best to leave it as the author intended.
BEHOLD!
Wow, this is incredibly poorly written.
And, I would suggest that IVAW meets well over half these requirements, will they finally be named a terrorist group?
This is from a newly released ALARACT message (sorry about the all caps, it's an army thing)(my comments in bold):
TEN KEY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST ASSOCIATED INSIDER THREATS TO THE ARMY. 1.(U) ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE, OR THE USE OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE GOALS THAT ARE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR IDEOLOGICAL IN NATURE (Like advocating violence, or the use of force be used against terrorists (political and ideological). 2.(U) ADVOCATING SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS OR OBJECTIVES. (So, if a soldier supports the same objectives as a terrorist organization--say, the falun gong, or the IRA, or Mossad (which, according to most muslims and nazis, is a terrorist organization), they fit the bill?) 3.(U) PROVIDING FINANCIAL OR OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORT TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OR TO SOMEONE SUSPECTED OF BEING A TERRORIST. (So, if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, we are to assume they are guilty? Isn't there some constitutional thingy about that? Also, if we don't actively publish lists of everyone suspected of being a terrorist, how am I supposed to know if I am supporting a suspected terrorist? (and yes, I'm thinking of you, Seavey.)) 4.(U) ASSOCIATION WITH OR CONNECTIONS TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. (Connections to known or suspected terrorists? Again, the issue with "suspected" arises, also, not a good day to be Kevin Bacon. And what, exactly is meant by "connections? Same church? Same language? Both named Hussein?) 5.(U) REPEATED EXPRESSIONS OF HATRED AND INTOLERANCE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, CULTURE, GOVERNMENT, OR THE PRINCIPLES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. (For the record, I usually hate 60% of American society. I am supposed to be allowed to hate it, and allowed to express my hate. (Again, that whole constitution document) I am intolerant of idiots, which comprise about 30% of our society, and 98% of our government. There are specific issues I have with our culture, too (like the idea of "fairness," "welfare" and "entitlement.") 6.(U) REPEATED BROWSING OR VISITING INTERNET WEBSITES THAT PROMOTE OR ADVOCATE VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR U.S. FORCES, OR THAT PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR TERRORIST THEMES WITHOUT OFFICIAL SANCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY. (Meaning of course, that you must have "official sanction in the course of duty to study your enemy" don't do it at your leisure, or try to understand what motivates others to commit terrorist acts unless it's your job. Don't you dare go to non-approved sites (where, by the way, can I find this list of INTERNET WEBSITES THAT PROMOTE OR ADVOCATE VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR U.S. FORCES, OR THAT PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR TERRORIST THEMES? Just go kill who we tell you.) 7.(U) EXPRESSING AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR INCITING OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. (Okay, this one I get, but doesn't this one piss all over free speech?) 8.(U) PURCHASING BOMB MAKING MATERIALS OR OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPLOSIVES. (Watch out, all you re-loaders, and anyone who buys anything that can be used in bomb-making, which, in my experience, is pretty much everything in the house. For instance, tonight I actually wondered (prior to reading this) what gun cotton was made from, and how hard would it be to find directions to make it, and to make it. I found all my answers quickly, and, it's scary easy to make, but was purely a function of curiosity.) 9.(U) ACTIVE ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VIOLATE LAWS, DISOBEY LAWFUL ORDERS OR REGULATIONS, OR DISRUPT MILITARY ACTIVITIES. (Agree with this one, but mostly because it falls under good order and discipline. However, a lawful, but stupid order, probably shouldn't be followed, especially if it will get soldiers killed needlessly.) 10.(U) FAMILIAL TIES TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS OR TERRORIST SUPPORTERS. (Again with the suspected? And if my 3rd cousin is a terrorist, does that make me one, too? If my Uncle thinks Patty Hearst and the SLA were CIA plants, does that make me nutso-by-proxy?)
Of course, the only active measure they are taking at Hood is to put armed guards in the SRP location and at the hospital. Now there is no way this can happen again. That is, it can't happen at the Fort Hood SRP.
They are also rewriting the Fort Hood Privately Owned Weapons policy, doing more thorough searches, and enacting other policies and attempting to take other measures to restrict access to weapons on post. Because as we all know, if there had only been a CG's policy that clearly stated you weren't allowed to go on a SSFA* at the SRP, this never would have happened.
I'm only taking time to post on this as I've been tooling around the blogosphere long enough that I feel obliged, like Ace and the folks at Jawa, to at least nod at Charles Johnson coming out of the closet about something most of us (including Chap) have seen coming for awhile; LGF: Why I Parted Ways With The Right.
I'll let others go off the top-rope on CJ - but I am going to take a slightly different angle.
CJ started this turn well over a year ago. For some reason, he started to demand purity on the "right" that exists no more than it does on the "Left." Why? That is for CJ to explain, which he really hasn't done yet. He has also lost the ability to objectively look at anything to the Left of centerline, such as the global warming scandal, and instead is transitioning into something else.
I try not to make the political personal - so I will just wish him well and hope he finds balance with his new play group. I think that one thing he will notice - if he wants - is that once he stops making broad attacks on people and gets back to issues, the right will not treat him the same way the Left did.
My experience and Dennis Miller's (in going Left to right) was like that. The Left is a much nastier bunch to argue with.
So, after defending a lot of what CJ has been trying to do as of late (I too have issues with some of the EuroRight) - I too will part ways; with CJ.
I don't live in an binary world that demands that all people be all perfect - or that one person speaks for everyone they sit next to on the bandstand. CJ is entitled to believe what he wants - so I will let him.
So, where have I seen this before? One of the people that helped me get started in blogg'n was the once colossus of wit and wisdom - with a fine BS meter - the 'ole Commissar himself from PolitboroDiktat. He started his transition a couple of years ago and culminated on the hill of HopeChange. After the election, he shifted to a new site, learned Greek, and now has left the "regular posting" blogosphere for good - and avoids politics altogether; and that is OK.
I still keep in touch with the 'ole Commissar (AKA Stephen) on Facebook now and then - but we avoid politics ... which is what he seems to want to do. The reasons are his. He doesn't need to explain himself to anyone.
Maybe CJ will make this turn as well. For now though - if he is going to smear and spit-fleck - he should expect the same from others in return.
Good luck CJ, but I will stick with Jawa and Ace for now; there is a war going on - and they still make me laugh at it all.
- CDR Hendrix, USN - Shipmate, what are your thoughts on the SECNAV's comment about The Great White Fleet? Oh, and don't be a ki55a55 ... 
