Obama the Hollow Imperialist

If you have spent that last week or so trying to get your head around the post-structural foreign policy actions of the Obama Administration but have yet to really see what "there" is there - you are not alone.

One of the better pieces I have read in the last day is by Daniel Greenfield. Why is it so much better? Simple my dear fellow, he begins with George Orwell; specifically his short essay, "Shooting an Elephant."

Orwell’s narrator is told of an elephant that has run riot and he dutifully follows up the report. “We began questioning the people as to where the elephant had gone and, as usual, failed to get any definite information. That is invariably the case in the East; a story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes.

“Some of the people said that the elephant had gone in one direction, some said that he had gone in another, some professed not even to have heard of any elephant.”

Substitute chemical weapons for elephant and the story becomes a familiar one.

Eventually, Orwell encounters a dead body and sends back for an elephant gun while a crowd gathers behind him eagerly waiting for him to shoot the elephant. “I had halted on the road,” he writes. “As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery – and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided.”

It is likewise a serious matter to start a war. But the issue, whether with Obama’s red line or Orwell’s elephant is credibility.

“But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it.”

You need to read the whole thing - it really boils things down with a reference point that makes complete sense. It is also deliciously ironic that the best way to see the place Obama has put himself and his nation is through the place of the English Imperial enforcer - the very center of that which Obama was raised and educated to despise.

"When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys," Orwell warned. In attempting to civilize the Muslim world, we have instead been forced to live by its rulers. We have not brought our order to them. They have brought their order to us.

Our interactions with them take place along the predetermined paths of their choosing. They decide what they want from us and we decide how quickly to give it to them. They decide that we should shoot the elephant and we stand around playing with the elephant gun, hoping that we can avoid this whole mess.

“And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool,” Orwell writes.

That is the admission of the moment. We must bomb Syria to avoid looking like fools.
...
It is not so much that bombing Syria is wrong as that the armed forces of a nation cannot and should not be in the hands of men who take serious steps without any conviction that they are doing the best thing for their country, who act only because they are told that it is expected of them. Nothing rots the morale of an army faster than such commanders and nothing destroys a nation faster than the knowledge that, in the words of Hillary Clinton, nothing truly matters but the politics of it.

If we are going to shoot elephants then we should do so for our own reasons. Once we begin shooting elephants because it is expected of us, we become little better than the masters of a hollow empire waiting to be told by the world what to do.

There is one thing we as a nation can do that Orwell's narrator didn't have the luxury of doing - we can walk away and say, "The h311 with it. If you fear the elephant so much, you take care of it. I am going home."

Orwell's narrator took an oath, we didn't. He eventually shot the elephant, and in the end - perhaps we will as well. One way or another, it really doesn't solve any problem and just reinforces the natives' reliance on, and our subserviency to, their own impotence. 

Can we Build the Bloody Icebreakers Now, Please?

We had a little fun a few years back with the Navy's oceanographer when we seemed to be joining whole-hog with global warming cargo cult. Good times, good times.

It wasn't so much the group-think that bothered me, but the ahistorical and anti-intellectualism of it all. Well, that and the subtle whiff of politics that comes with it. As a gumbo, its taste was a bit off.

In that light - I have enjoyed this little bit that came in over the weekend.

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
...
Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

"Settled Science," indeed.

This is all silly, in a maddening way. The Earth has always either warmed or cooled. Oceans have always risen and fallen; that is why central Georgia used to be beach-front and a lot of early human settlement is now under a hundred or so feet of water. Anyone who expects the Earth to be static is either delusional or intellectually lazy.

As a result of the Navy and Coast Guard's embrace of this mindlessly political movement, we have found yet another reason to ignore a "unsexy but important" part of our maritime toolkit.

Here is what I do know:
- We are an arctic nation with a significant part of our energy security reliant on that part of the world.
- We are heavily reliant on energy from Canada, another arctic power.
- One of our closest allies, Denmark, is an arctic power.
- We have significant interests in Antarctica.
- As the premier maritime power, we should be leading, not lagging in ice capable ships.

Where do we stand now?

Refurbishing Polar Star remains the Coast Guard’s near-term heavy icebreaker bridging strategy. When refurbished by 2014, Polar Star will be the service’s only operational heavy icebreaker. This important, but venerable platform will serve an additional 7 to 10 years but that is only the beginning of the story. The Coast Guard’s mission requirements, including marine environmental protection, dictate that the service maintain heavy icebreaking capability for the foreseeable future.

In order to fully fund subsequent phases of this project, the Coast Guard believes that a “whole-of-government” approach will be necessary. Obtaining a new, heavy polar icebreaker that meets Coast Guard requirements will depend upon supplementary financing from other agencies whose activities also rely upon the nation possessing a robust, Arctic-capable surface fleet.

Let's put down our Al Gore memorial Great Green Fleet dream-catcher and act like thinking adults about this.

The multiple ice breaking and ice capable requirements are real and significant and our capabilities are almost gone. Even in an era of declining budgets, money can be found.

Would I trade Navy LCS-money for an USCG icebreaker? In a heartbeat. We can even give it a 57mm to make the transformationalists happy.

Bubbl'n up from the Cheap Seats, on Midrats

Is there such a thing as Military Intellectual Entrepreneurialism?

Large, sated, and complacent organization do not have a good track record of survival. Organizations of any size that nurture the mentality of small, hungry, and driven by creative destruction and friction based on competing ideas - that is the path to success. Always has been, always will be.

How do we get that attitude to permeate the military? How do we harness the power of an entrepreneurial mindset to build a better national security and defense structure?

As we just start to enter another period of resource limitation in the face of an ever changing international security landscape - do we take advantage of the need for change, or do we buckle under our own moss-covered and hide-bound habits?

Join us today, Sunday 08 SEP from 5-6pm Eastern, to discuss this concept for the full hour, as well as the upcoming Defense Entrepreneurs Forum 12-14 OCT, with our panel:

- LT Ben Kohlmann, USN – Founder of Disruptive Thinkers, F/A-18 pilot and member of the CNO’s Rapid Innovation Cell, Co-Founder Defense Entrepreneurs Forum.

- Capt Anthony Hatala, USMC – AV-8B Harrier Pilot, C-130 Harvest HAWK Operator, Founder Military Traveler, Co-Founder Defense Entrepreneurs Forum.

- MAJ Nathan Finney, USA – Armor Officer, US Army Harvard Strategy Fellow, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for Strategy Development

- Capt Jeff Gilmore, USAF – C-17 Pilot, AMC eFlight Bag Program, co-founder MilitaryLounge

Join us live if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio.

Listen to internet radio with Midrats on Blog Talk Radio

MG Scales: Unspoken Words, Resigned to Outrage

If you want to get a feeling why many serving and former active duty military are put off by the present call to arms in Syria, retired Major General Robert Scales, USA, gives an exceptionally good overview;

By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
...

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.”
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
...
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”

Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

In the above light, let's look again at the clip of CJCS from earlier this week.

Fullbore Friday

About a month ago, President Obama recognized a Marine Couple, Capt. Matthew Lampert, USMC and his wife, Capt. Camille Lampert, USMC. You can read the full story by Dan Lamothe here.

The real story though, speaks for itself;

... he and several of his Marines moved across a bridge in Afghanistan with a couple of Afghan commandos. They entered a compound they were examining through a courtyard wall.

“I got inside the courtyard and took about a half-step to my left,” Lampert said. “There was a loud, surprising explosion, a flash… my ears were ringing. I was up in the air for a little bit, and then thrown on the ground real hard. I was pretty surprised at that point.”

Lampert credits now-retired Maj. Gen. Paul Lefebvre, the commanding general of MARSOC at the time of his injuries, with asking him to become a company executive officer and return to Afghanistan.

“I told him yes,” Lampert said. “I desperately wanted to return to my guys.”

As described by the President,

“Recovery was slow: taking his first shaky steps on short prosthetics; then a new pair of knees; then full legs, taking him back to normal height. Stepping forward with two canes, then just one, then none. Learning to walk again. Learning to run — in his uniform, then his body armor. And then, just 18 months after he was injured and lost both legs, Matt — a double amputee — returned to his unit and redeployed to Afghanistan.”

In first person, spoken word;



Fullbore.

Hat tip MZ.

Bigger than the broadside of a barn ...

... but it looks like he missed, because the impact at the end is clearly fake - and if it was armed, I don't think he picked the right warhead.



Hmmm ... maybe more terrorist weaponeering PQS required?

Via gCaptain where there is more,

As Reuters reports, the video, which carries a logo featuring a black Islamist flag and the name of the “al-Firqan Brigade”, shows two men, dressed in civilian clothes, firing RPGs into the side of the ship, where they explode.

2 RPG's against the COSCO ASIA? Child please; she's a big mama jama;

Vessel's Details
Ship Type: Container ship
Year Built: 2007
Length x Breadth: 349 m X 46 m
Gross Tonnage: 114394, DeadWeight: 109968 t

Well ... anyone who has done a few Suez transits has thought of it.

On with the ALT-POM!

Well, this would shake things up a bit. Look what Hagel the Hatchet has put out there. Via Sam & Marcus at NavyTimes;

The Office of the Secretary of Defense reportedly supports the idea of limiting total purchases of littoral combat ships to only 24, far short of the Navy’s goal of 52 ships, sources say.

Stopping at 24 ships would end LCS procurement with the fiscal 2015 budget.

The Navy, according to what sources told Defense News, which is owned by Navy Times’ parent company, is countering with proposals for higher numbers, but strongly advocates going no lower than 32 ships — a number that would continue production another one or two years.
...
Pentagon budget officials have focused primarily on the ALT POM, and in late August began switching to the POM. The OSD proposal to limit LCS to 24 ships is understood to be part of the ALT POM discussions.

Asked for comment, both OSD and Navy officials emphasized that no final decisions have been made.

Looking to load-monitor the challenge, this is smart.

In addition to supporting a reduction to 24 ships, OSD also reportedly is insisting the Navy place a top priority on fielding the mine countermeasures module, one of three major mission packages under development for the LCS.

24 to 36, eh? Hmmmm, it seems I have heard that before ....