About those drones

I love me some drones, but I am not a fan of the missionary zeal some of the strongest advocates have for them. They are not the full future of naval aviation any more than nuclear weapons sixty years ago were the full future of ordnance. Heck, they are not even really that new - they are just getting incrementally better as technology and engineering allow.

What drones/UAV/S or whatever we are calling them next week are going to be is simple; a new tool. We will have to play with them some, operation with them some, make a few mistakes, stumble in to a few eureka moments, and generally find their best fit. We just need to be patient, clear headed, and open minded.

We need to be open minded about what they may bring to the table; recallable usable TLAMesque capabilities, no-POW reconnaissance, long dwell surveillance, and perhaps a few other goodies. We need to be equally open minded about the very real limitation they have, especially in contested airspace. Audrey Kurth Cronin over at Foreign Policy does a nice job outlining some of those limitations and how they are manifesting themselves over Syria.

Broadly speaking, the United States has used armed drone strikes overseas in two ways: during war and to prevent war. Battlefield use of weaponized drones is not new (it dates back to World War I), and is fairly ubiquitous. A spring 2013 report by the U.S. Air Force estimated that unmanned aircraft fired about a quarter of all missiles used in coalition air strikes in Afghanistan in the early part of this year. Drones have proved remarkably effective at providing reconnaissance to U.S. troops on the ground, protecting them from enemy attacks, and reducing civilian casualties. When used within a war, in other words, drones are a great way to give U.S. soldiers an edge.
...
Could the United States have deployed its drone fleet to destroy Syrian arsenals or to kill those planning to make use of them before this happened?

The answer is no. Armed drones have serious limitations, and the situation in Syria lays them bare. They are only useful where the United States has unfettered access to airspace, a well-defined target, and a clear objective. In Syria, the United States lacks all three.
...
When the foe can actually defend itself, the use of armed drones is extraordinarily difficult and could constitute an act of war -- one that could easily draw the United States into the heart of a conflict.

Drones are slow and noisy; they fly at a low altitude; and they require time to hover over a potential target before being used. They are basically sitting ducks. Syria has an air force and air defenses that could easily pick American drones out of the sky.
...
Second, the target. Using armed drones against the Syrian government’s enormous chemical weapons stockpiles would have risked causing the very release of deadly agents that the United States was trying to avoid. Drones are precise but not perfect. Like cruise missiles, their effectiveness mainly depends upon the quality of their targeting information. Worse, an imperfect attack could inadvertently give the Assad government political cover to use the weapons with impunity. Assad could blame the release of chemical weapons on a misfired U.S. drone strike. Since U.S. drones are deeply despised in the Middle East, that argument could enjoy wide hearing.
...
Third, the objective. The United States wants to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people and to prevent them from being used again. Drone attacks are ill suited for this purpose. They are unlikely either to inflict sufficient pain or to deter other tyrants from following Assad’s lead.

Drones are a tool. As any handyman will tell you, new tools are great - but you throw away your other tools at your own peril.

LCS, Transparency and the Shift

For those of us in the LCS-harpie brigade, this bit last Friday by Mike Fabey at Aviation Week deserves two reads.

He interviews CHINFO, and our friend Rear Admiral Kirby made a few points that not only are exceptionally candid about the past messaging concerning LCS - but also gives hope that going forward we can have the creative friction we need to make the best of what we are going to have - like it or not - in the Fleet.

Look, every program has its bumps. Every program struggles to some degree. But it’s not just widgets and pipes and wires we’re talking about. It’s real money, taxpayer money. And it’s real capability we are trying to develop. We have an obligation to clarify all that.

This may come across as overly dramatic, but these ships don’t belong to us. They belong to the American people. And the American people have a right to know what we are doing with their investments.

The way I figured it was, if we want to be able to talk credibly about the things we were doing right on LCS, we needed to likewise be credible about the things we weren’t doing so well. People are never going to believe only half the story. I call it aggressive transparency, and that’s what I wanted for LCS.

Once we turned the action officers loose, they took off and built the relationships with reporters that were so lacking. Our fleet commanders, program managers and other leaders also stepped up. As a result of those relationships and the mutual access they afforded, the narrative started to change.

We still have work to do, even inside the Navy. But I think we’re getting there, and I think the press coverage -- already quite vibrant -- has improved. And I don’t mean that from a “positive” or “negative” perspective. I don’t like it when people refer to news coverage that way. What I mean is that the coverage today is simply more fulsome and contextual now that we are being more open about everything.

The Littoral Combat Ship will be a big part of the future fleet. It’s more than “just a ship.” We have to do more than just answer questions about it. We need to have meaningful conversations. We need to be accessible.

I’m OK if people question the program, but I don’t want them to ever question our transparency. Thanks to the great support we are getting from the fleet, that’s not a problem anymore.

Good. Good, and better. Yea ... and to be petty, I do feel a bit vindicated.

This is the direction the military of a representative republic should communicate to the taxpayer and media. Nice, and a refreshing new direction - but just be careful to take a pass on the bug juice, insist on the bottled water.

Syrian AUMF; a slight fisking, interrogatives, with a side of snark

You can get the complete unsalamandered version here, but who is game for a quick and dirty reading of the draft AUMF. I want to put on my full Planner hat with this as my POLMIL guidance, but I don't have time for that. Instead, I'll freeform it.

SYRIA JOINT RESOLUTION FOR MARKUP JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria.

So, we tell Syria to gut it out, we aren't going to do too much, and what we do will be on a small scale and won't go for long. Kind of a Levant drive-by?

Whereas Syria is in material breach of the laws of war by having employed chemical weapons against its civilian population;

At the moment, I think that question is open to debate, but let's not let facts get in the way of our desired theory. Let's just hope for the best. What could go wrong?

Whereas the abuses of the regime of Bashar al-Assad have included the brutal repression and war upon its own civilian population, resulting in more than 100,000 people killed in the past two years, and more than 2 million internally displaced people and Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, creating an unprecedented regional crisis and instability;

Wow. Take out those countries no one wants to raise their children in and well ... you describe pretty much what our ... ahem ... civil war was like ... but let's not quibble.

Whereas the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the region and has demonstrated its capability and willingness to repeatedly use weapons of mass destruction against its own people, including the August 21, 2013 attack in the suburbs of Damascus in which the Assad regime murdered over 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children;

Whereas there is clear and compelling evidence of the direct involvement of Assad regime forces and senior officials in the planning, execution, and after-action attempts to cover-up the August 21 attack, and hide or destroy evidence of such attack;

Again ... isn' the jury still out on that? Wait ... we haven't even empaneled a jury yet. Oh right. As a side note as someone who was in theater and was reading all the intel reports about Iraq in the years after 9/11, this is, in a word, "interesting" to read .... again.

Whereas the Arab League has declared with regards to the August 21 incident to hold the “Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime”;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004) affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

... and the Arab League and UN forces ready to join this action are ... where again?

Whereas in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

Please, please, please, great Neptune's Trident, PLEASE have Kerry, Hagel, and Obama use more of the signature items from Bush The Younger and Rumsfeld. If I can just get Wesley Clark to quote Wolfowitz, my life will be complete.

Whereas the actions and conduct of the Assad regime are in direct contravention of Syria's legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and also violates standards set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention;

Let us just put "proof" as a Planning Assumption in the Strategic level OPLAN and move along, shall we? We'll let someone else work that Branch plan after the fact - or again referencing Wesley - we'll just wing it and almost start a war with the Russians.

Whereas Syria's use of weapons of mass destruction and its conduct and actions constitute a grave threat to regional stability, world peace, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;

OK, for "allies" I think we have France and ... ummm ... Qatar? OK, France ... and as partners we have a small collection of Al Qaeda affiliates and a Whitman's Samplers collection of international jihadi. OK.

Whereas the objectives of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization are to respond to the use, and deter and degrade the potential future use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government;
Whereas the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States:

Ouch, that hurt my neck. We will respond to something we think might have happened during an internal civil war 1/3 of the globe away - and by bombing in a, what was that phrase, "limited and tailored use," we will have the Alawites negotiate with people who want to slaughter them wholesale? That is in some way connected to the US Constitution's authority to the Commander in Chief? Ummmm, I may need to come in to school early tomorrow to review that as I am not getting it very well. Must be me.

Now, therefore, be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons”.

On that use by Syria, can we have "Ref. A" first?

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION-The President is authorized, subject to subsection
(b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and
tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to:
(1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria;
(2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and
(3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future.

(1) Do I need to repeat myself? Let's not and say I did.
(2) So, is Syria threatening the USA, France, or maybe Qatar with gas? We'll call that evidence Ref. B; I'll wait for it.
(3) Pretty much everyone agrees that cruise missiles and gravity bombs are a rather stupid way to eliminate chemical weapons ... especially if you can move them around. So ....

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria;
(2) the Syrian government has conducted one or more significant chemical weapons attacks;
(3) the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government;

OK. So, we have to go through all of this again?
(1) Before or after the fact? If before, then we did not use "all appropriate," did we? If after, define "appropriate" - and if no other chemical attacks have taken place, can't one argue that we have via whatever has been done diplomatically and peacefully "prevented the deployment and use?" So, if we don't then attack Syria, the Syrians can go forward killing each other with bullets, RPG, tanks, and femur bones of tapirs and we do nothing?
(2) What about an "insignificant" chemical attack? One that is "wafer thin" perhaps? Kind of like "insignificantly" pregnant, isn't it?
(3) Does that mean more hearings, memos, teleprompter speeches; what?

SECTION 5. SYRIA STRATEGY.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, the President shall consult with Congress and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an integrated United States Government strategy for achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict in Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic,
and military policy towards Syria, including:

Wait, what? How is a "limited and tailored use" of force going to get the Syrian parties to the negotiation table? That became our job when? Even if you could, if would end up like this. That paragraph is complete nonsense.

(1) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian Supreme Military Council and other Syrian entities opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States;
(2) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian political opposition, including the Syrian Opposition Coalition;
(3) efforts to isolate extremist and terrorist groups in Syria to prevent their influence on the future transitional and permanent Syrian governments;
(4) coordination with allies and partners; and
(5) efforts to limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.

(1) Good Lord man - that is already known to be impossible.
(2)-(5): Ummm, yea. In line with (1), I'd like to see that too.

SECTION 6. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING.
(a) Notification and Provision of Information. Upon his determination to use the authority set forth in section 2 of this Act, the President shall notify Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of the use of such authority and shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of the use of such authority.
(b) Reports. No fewer than 10 days after the initiation of military operations under the authority provided by Section 2, and every 20 days thereafter until the completion of military operations, the President shall submit to the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a report on the status of such operations, including progress achieved toward the objectives specified in Section 2(a), the financial costs of operations to date, and an assessment of the impact of the operations on the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities and intentions.

SECTION 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. The authority set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution.

Bla, bla, bla, figleaf.

Well, there you have it. Obama, Kerry, and Hagel - congratulations, you have now become Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld. Governing in this world is a lot more difficult than campaigning to pontificating, isn't it? 

I very sincerely hope that you have a firm grasp on where you are taking this nation. Once the first MK-41 erupts in flames and people are reviewing their Primary, Back-up, and Ready Spare, you will have my full support to fight this right - but really - think hard.

War is a dark room - you and we have no idea what things will be like when we step through that door, and the door shuts behind us.

As a final note, Kerry is wrong and Hagel is right - this is war. When you attack another nation; break their things and kill their people - it is war. We would consider it so, as will they.

Kerry Clear

Good googly moogly what a dog's breakfast we saw this afternoon.

If you missed it, well, here - bask in a brace of buffoonery.

---

UPDATE: I forgot this jewel.

Note to pretty much everyone - I think General Dempsey forgot his place here ... as it his place professionally in this Republic.

So, how is that Calendar-Based Plan going?

I repeat - it didn't have to end this way, but with that one speech at West Point in DEC '09 when the President told the enemy that, "We quit." - all of this was and is predictable.

The NATO commander in Afghanistan has warned that the current casualty rates suffered by the Afghan army and police force are “unsustainable” in an interview published in Tuesday’s Guardian.

US Gen. Joseph Dunford told the paper that Afghan security forces may need five more years of western support before being able to take over full responsibility.

“I view it as serious, and so do all the commanders,” Dunford said of the toll, which has often hit 100 per week.

“I’m not assuming that those casualties are sustainable.”

The general said “time is going to tell” whether NATO had been right to switch in June from playing a combat role to a “train, advise, assist” operation.

“I don’t think you can tell that today,” he added.

You get the foreign policy and defense policy that you vote for. What will happen in Afghanistan over the next few years is not the fault of the military - this mess of Strategic dystopia is the fault of those in civilian uniforms in Washington DC and Brussels, Belgium.

Call what we have broken if you wish - as it is - or some other shambolic mess by those who think themselves wiser than centuries of lessons show - but everyone needs to think about the second and third order effects of what is happening now and how it will manifest itself in the next decade.  That is when the bill will be due.

Wishing for the impossible does not help, however hopeful and well meaning that may be. No, we need cold, hard, and experienced based thinking that is focused on the long term.

A couple of decades ago, good people warned about the second and third order effects of Somalia going south or sideways - and the path from there to 9/11 in hindsight is clear. At the time no one knew where it would lead, but many people warned of the dark path it could lead to.

On the decay of AFG post 2014 and any of the bad options we now find ourselves in Syria, we have only made the future more chaotic. that chaos will have to be addressed - but in history's great schadenfreudic habits - addressed by those who had nothing to do with it to begin with.

Keeping an Eye on the Long Game: Part XLVII

Just a friendly reminder - what is the one thing we seem to be putting so much of our ability to fight and win on? What is the one area that we take for granted will always be there? What is so incredibly fragile, hard to replace, and exceptionally expensive?

When the answer to all of the above is the same, then this should seem quite natural.

China’s military recently launched three small satellites into orbit as part of Beijing’s covert anti-satellite warfare program, according to a U.S. official.

The three satellites, launched July 20 by a Long March-4C launcher, were later detected conducting unusual maneuvers in space indicating the Chinese are preparing to conduct space warfare against satellites, said the official who is familiar with intelligence reports about the satellites.

One of the satellites was equipped with an extension arm capable of attacking orbiting satellites that currently are vulnerable to both kinetic and electronic disruption.

“This is a real concern for U.S. national defense,” the official said. “The three are working in tandem and the one with the arm poses the most concern. This is part of a Chinese ‘Star Wars’ program.”

Everyone loves their nice little C4I diagrams ... and I always enjoyed asking, "What do we do if we can't access that vox and data bandwidth for a few weeks."

Evidently, China has been wargaming that too for quite awhile. 

More fun stuff on the topic from Robert Beckhusen @WIB.

All usual disclaimers about open-source reporting applies, but still. Ponder.

Hat tip HLG.

Ponderable of the Day

I hope everyone is enjoying their end of summer in a proper way. As you may have noticed, I've been in and out of twitter and FB a bit, but have been light here on the homeblog as I bounce between kids, beach, beef, beer, dogs and watermelon - with only the iPhone to keep me company.

I don't like to go too long without visiting the front porch unless I put out the "Cold Iron" sign and set the troll watch. I found just the right thing though, thanks to Paul Yingling.

John Quincy Adams's

Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is,Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.