The QDR
The Quadrennial Defense Review Report lays out some of the thinking behind the military component of US grand strategy. The QDR goals are articulated as a sequence of intended transformations, a selection of which are laid out in the table below.
Current State of the Defense Paradigm | Desired State of the Defense Paradigm |
From a time of reasonable predictability | to an era of surprise and uncertainty |
From single-focused threats | to multiple, complex challenges. |
From nation-state threats | to decentralized network threats from non-state enemies. |
From conducting war against nations | to conducting war in countries we are not at war with (safe havens) |
From “one size fits all” deterrence | to tailored deterrence for rogue powers, terrorist networks and near-peer competitors |
From responding after a crisis starts (reactive) | to preventive actions so problems do not become crises (proactive). |
From crisis response | to shaping the future |
From threat-based planning | to capabilities based planning |
From a focus on kinetics | to a focus on effects |
From static defense, garrison forces | to mobile, expeditionary operations |
From a battle-ready force (peace) | to battle hardened forces (war) |
From large institutional forces (tail) | to more powerful operational capabilities (teeth) |
From major conventional combat operations | to multiple irregular, asymmetric operations |
From separate military Service concepts of operation | to joint and combined operations |
From an emphasis on ships, guns, tanks and planes | to focus on information, knowledge and timely, actionable intelligence. |
From massing forces | to massing effects. |
From static alliances | to dynamic partnerships |
From the U.S. military performing tasks | to a focus on building partner capabilities |
From Department of Defense solutions | to interagency approaches |
These are extremely abstract goals. The chapter entitled "The Fight Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq" provides few clues into how these highly abstract concepts might be applied in practice, at least in their initial forms. There is some discussion of "indirect warfare" against terrorism; explicit recognition is given to the need to vastly upgrade the language skills of defense personnel; the crucial role of information warfare is highlighted. But by and large one is left with the impression of a huge conventional force groping for ways to apply these concepts, often by renaming existing activities but more frequently by adjusting the emphasis within existing activities. The wholly new capabilities which are required before the transformational vision described in the table above becomes reality is not even remotely approached.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the QDR pays it in spades to the terrorist form of warfare. Many of the attributes in the desired state of the transformation table are qualities which clandestine, terrorist organizations possess or are provided through the medium of the Islamic religion. But whereas terrorist agents are mere vehicles of viral destruction, the US Armed Forces must provide a full spectrum of capabilities against a variety of threats ranging from natural catastrophes, conventional attack and even against threats which haven't been recognized yet. That requirement and its technological heritage means it must become something wholly other than its terrorist foe; at one moment pursuing foes on horseback across Afghanistan and at another organizing elections or writing articles on the Internet, when they are not cruising the uncharted reaches of outer space in futuristic craft.
The real difficulty is that operations envisioned to successfully fight the Long War according to this QDR blur the lines between traditional military roles and those of evangelists, aid workers and crusading politicians. It is practically a strategy to mobilize nearly all sources of national power and bring it to bear upon the enemy on an ongoing basis. Not to fight a future war, but one already in progress.
Personally, I see little prospect of attaining the transformations envisioned by the QDR unless the vision it embodies is accepted by a broad political consensus. And that will be far from easy because there are currently marked divisions in the perception of what constitutes the main threats to world peace and what steps should be taken to address them. To a very large percentage of the body politic, international security is still about treaties and multilateral action undertaken by traditional military forces within the framework of organizations like NATO or the UN. Ideas like "tailored deterrence", "preventive actions so problems do not become crises", "asymmetric operations" -- to name a few -- are not only unfamiliar but would be regarded with undisguised horror. One interesting experiment would be to put any one of these points before national figures in the Democratic or Republican parties just to gauge their opinion on the subject, if they have one.
Nor do I think that many of the novel ideas expressed in the QDR are in anything like their final forms. If any phrase can be used to summarize the message of the QDR, I think it is 'the need to make things up as we go along because the old formulas do not work any more'. It's single greatest contribution, if the public becomes interested in it at all or the newspapers devote more than a few pages to its content, is to start a debate into the strategies needed to fight the Long War. Not the Cold War: the Long War.
98 Comments:
To find where the future is thought to be, follow the money, today.
More boats, for a Navy not engaged in the "Long War".
More air superiority, against an enemy that is afoot.
More Special Ops SWAT teams
Less importance to training Allies & Proxies.
The very concept of a "Long War" against the Mohammedans is nuts. Almost defeatist in application.
And, today at least, a greater mind agrees
" ... we should never forget that if aroused and pushed, a rearmed and powerful Europe could still be at the side of the United States in joint efforts against the jihadists. And should we ever see a true alliance of such Western powers, the war against the fascists of the Middle East would be simply over in short order. ... "
Victor D Hanson
Could be finished in short order, IMO, even without the Europeans.
Did the QDR address questions about incarceration of those captured during 'asymetric operation'?
Al-Qaeda flourishes in the modern US/European 'prison' environment.
Islamists, Wahhabists and other extremists are just as vulnerable as the great majority of Muslim clergy and ummah, to the unexpected encounter with Baha'u'llah, the One Promised in Islamic traditions and prophecies.
Someone will access something he thought was absolutely unrelated, and suddenly the Muslim world will be (figuratively) afire!
It won't moot the necessity for a strong defense system, world-wide.
The desired end result is modern consciousness, which will disarm our enemies. They rely on primitive collectivism. Destroy that and you've solved the problem.
Innovative ways of transforming conventional and strategic military assets can be seen as in the case of the conversion of the boomer into a tactical missile attack (SLCM) platform. During Operation Enduring Freedom, a US carrier was emptied of attack aircraft and replaced with a helicopter squadron and became a FOB for spec ops and SOF operations. What is unique is that these platforms have become versatile and in the case of the aircraft carrier, still mission capable for the warfare in which they were originally intended.
The greatest deficiency in US military power projection is that democracy and trade do not make an effective cover as does the vast infrastructure of a “high jacked” religion. Businessman do not sit around and plot the overthrow of their hosts, despite what conspiracy nuts may think. The same cannot be said of Islamists.
Global trade may be the greatest foe in this fight. It is through global trade that Loral gave up missile secrets and it is through global trade that Al Qaeda will be supplied with the WMD that they seek. Trade seeks partners at any cost. The insularity of our adversaries ensures that one must prostrate themselves to Allah and be willing to die for the cause in order to join the club. When bargaining with capitalists, one need only have a checkbook for the rope they seek.
The result will be that NGO’s and volunteers will be increasingly under attack.
W: If any phrase can be used to summarize the message of the QDR, I think it is 'the need to make things up as we go along because the old formulas do not work any more'.
Nonsense. The old formulas work very well. It's just that the new soldiers are unwilling to use them, or rather their new commanders. When the assassins challenged the supremacy of khan's army, Hulagu destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight. The Lurs, a mountainous tribe, were infamous for murder and thievery, but "as cheerful a lot of villains as you can wish to meet". The Lurs were consistently generous hosts, but thought nothing of raiding their guests' while they slept (stealing being their national pastime and hence nothing to get upset about).
To show their submission, some offered food to the Mongols, and Khan's force guaranteed them protection. Some cities surrendered without fighting. In cities the Mongols were forced to conquer, after killing its fighting men, Khan divided the survivors by profession. He drafted the few who were literate and anyone who could speak various languages. Those who had been the city's most rich and powerful he wasted no time in killing, remembering that the rulers he had left behind after conquering the Tangut and Ruzhen had betrayed him soon after his army had withdrawn. [emphasis mine]
The Mongols did not torture, mutilate or maim, but their enemies did. Captured Mongols were dragged through streets and killed for sport and to entertain city residents. The Mongols did not partake in the gruesome displays that European rulers often resorted to elicit fear and discourage potential enemies - none of the stretching, emasculating, belly cutting and hacking to pieces that, for example, was soon to happen to William Wallace at the hands of the English. The Mongols merely slaughtered, preferring to do so at a distance.
In 1258, Baghdad was destroyed and many Sunni inhabitants butchered, while Christians and Shi’a Muslims were spared. The conquest of Baghdad ended the Abbasid caliphate there and Baghdad as an Islamic spiritual capital. Christians in Baghdad used the coming of the Mongols as an opportunity to free themselves from Muslim rule or to avenge past wrongs, and Mongol military leaders, as was their habit, used such conflicts to their advantage. Within Hulegu’s army were Christians and Shi’a Muslim, and they are said to have been the most fervent participants in attacking Baghdad’s Sunni Muslim inhabitants.
Global trade may be the greatest foe in this fight.
Already the islamic world is boycotting danish medicines... this is good, if all infidel products are clearly labeled with the religous symbols of the people who invented or made these products the moslems world who is at war with the west will not use these!
Star of David, Cross, Budda should adorn all products of the great satan world..
This will cause the islamic world to CHOOSE to not to live! Lower birth rates, lower productivity, less successful medical procedures all because the islamists REFUSE western devil products...
Cheers for the Danish insulin that the Saudi's refuse to use! It smells so sweet....
Cheers for the New Zealand lamb the Arab world wont consume!
Let the islamists eat oil.....
A good QDR overview may be reviewed here:
http://www.afji.com/story.php?F=1456168_0206
If the link doesn't work, it is in the Armed Forces Journal
www.afji.com
And the article is by Michael Vickers
It's amusing to watch the US military forced into scrambling to adopt new survival strategies, when in reality that proposition should be laid squarely at the enemy population. I think it's way past due to bare that reality to the enemy, that it's for the Mohammedan population to adopt a new survival strategy, or go extinct.
And if China attacks we are screwed because we may not have enough freaking ammunition. Perfect. Classic reason why eggheads should teach and warriors should plan. Because of President Bush's aversion to firing people we still have in place much of the left overs of Clinton's era in the Military. It shows.
We spend around 3 % of our GDP on the Military. During the 80's that was around 5%. During a war for our national survival we should be spending upwards of 8%. We can afford it. We have to have both a large conventional force ready to fight China or Russia and at the same time keep Iran down.
Pierre
These goals look good on paper RWT the struggle with militant Islam. Too bad our CIA is wrought with dead wood and "insurgents" from the left.
Just heard Porter Goss describe the damage done by leakers as serious. Time to clean house there and move forward training personel for clandestine ops. Should have taken place in '01.
This is a two-front (culture) war. If we wanted to prosecute a hot war with militant Islam we could have it done relatively shortly. We just don't have the will given all the ankle biters attacking from the other front.
"And if China attacks we are screwed because we may not have enough freaking ammunition."
Time, space, and maintenance are weapons much more powerful than a week's worth of JDAMs.
Eggplant: "Technology based upon Mutual Assured Destruction worked fine against a rational enemy like the Soviets but is less than useless against villains like Ahmadinejad. It's the old fallacy of arming ourselves for the last war."
I don't accept your premise that enemy is irrational. I lived amongst these people for a long time, and I know and understand their culture and their personal psychology very well. It is that of a wild dog. With a misbehaving dog, you force discipline to correct its behavior and mode of thinking
as to who's the Alpha. If that doesn't work, you cut its balls off. Islam is the ideological testosterone responsible for our dog's rabid behavior. And if the rabid animal wont allow change to this factor effecting its behavior, you kill it.
I do agree with you that some military hardware is obsolete and of need of replacement. But that ongoing modernization has been part of almost every military force since the beginning of time. There's nothing radically new there.
Eggplant,
I think that Sea Launched Cruise Missiles might be just the remedy for Iran. I don’t see much point in trash-canning a multi-trillion dollar inventory because we are facing a low-tech, asymmetrical threat elsewhere. “Getting rid of” ballistic submarine capability isn’t in the plans as was getting rid of battleships. Not now, not ever.
Cruise missiles, by nature, are a tactical weapon delivery platform; they weren’t exactly designed as million dollar delivery system for 1000 pound bombs. The W80 warhead delivers about 5 kilo tons.
Bunker busting technologies have relied on tactical nuclear missiles to get the job done. It is only recently that adequate penetration of concrete has been deemed practical although not quite up to the job as Iraq demonstrated. The Cold War method of choice was to put a Earth Penetrating Weapon as close to the adversaries missile silo as possible and to destroy it by overpressure.
The fallacy is that no one at the Pentagon is arming themselves for the ‘last war’. They got it a long time ago. But as times change it bureaucracy competes to put their organization in the forefront of the current war. The strategy must be to contain threats while not provoking a broader conflict, especially one that has the potential of going nuclear. That is why, unfortunately, we will not deploy tactical nukes until the enemy has effectively made the opening salvo with WMD.
The problem here is one of vision for the 21st century. Judging by the president's state of the union address--his science advisors have briefed him that current energy related research will yield some "incredible advances" in just the next couple of years that will cut the cost of alternative fuels.
BUSH: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.
The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances.
/////////////
What Bush's sciences advisors have not mentioned to him is that the same research that will yield "incredible advances" in energy will also yield "incredible advances" in water desalination.
In May 2005 The President's Council on Science and Technology put out a
review of nanotechnology and said they felt nanotechnology would make a
significant impact in the Near-term (1-5 years) on desalination. See page 30.
GM has been saying for over a year now that they'll cut their fuel cell costs by a factor of 10 (from $500@kilowatt to $50@kilowat) by 2010 (see pg 11)--
and thereby make their fuel cell cars competitive with internal
combustion engines. For an in depth discussion of GM's goal here's an
article about research and and development chief Larry Burns
GM is not considered to be visionary. Like the The President's Council
on Science and Technology -- GM is merely reflecting conventional
wisdom in the materials research community. So I think that--since the
materials research R and D problems of the desalination industry are
similiar to those of automobile industry particularly with regards to
semipermiable membranes--the desalination industry should be able to do
the same thing. The cost of desalinised water is about 1/3 of what it
was 15 years ago. Today the best RO desalinised water I've seen is
+-$700@acre foot. 1/10th of that is $70@acre foot.
Water
costs $20-$45@ acre foot in the water rich Northeast of the USA. Water
from the water poor deserts fed by the Colorado river that feeds LA
costs $450@acre foot.
All this sounds boring except when you consider that at $70@acre foot you could turn most of the world's deserts green and thereby increase the size of the USA by a third, double the size of the habitable planet and reverse the carbon concentrating effects in the atmosphere of two centuries of industrial developement.
This would also likely give the spark of vision to people in places like Mexico and the middle east. Hmm lets calculate a quid pro quo when you figure in cheap energy and cheap water.
I think this makes more sense when analyzed from Barnett's perspective (a perspective that is seriously treated in the Pentagon).
Central to Barnett's thesis is the diversification of rule sets. He argues that the rule sets for dealing with great powers still works when dealing with great powers, but doesn't translate so well in dealing with the non-integrating Gap. In contradistinction to the opinions of some, there is still a place for deterrence via assured destruction and unchallenged military supremacy. This rule set will not change, or be discarded. It will be added to, the addendum being the rule set for the Gap.
A paradigmatic portfolio of tailored rule sets does not mean irreversible transformation. We are not discarding anything, we are not losing anything. We are updating, and we are augmenting. In other words, we are diversifying our rule sets to engage a more complex world.
Of course, since resources are limited, assets that are able will have to become fit for several uses. As much as is possible, we must build new and refine old assets to have the broadest amount of utility in a world of diverse rule sets under which they may be used.
And, of course, to take into account these differing rule sets, we need a new uber rule set, one that best manages our broad paradigmatic portfolio. Our theory must encompass the rule set for dealing with great powers, the rule set for disasters, the rule set for intervention, the rule set for integration and nation building, and the rule set for terrorism. This is not easy, and as Wretchard points out, will probably grow organically over time as these QDR snap-shots extend into the future.
Until we get an efficient grand theory, we will continue to waste and mismanage certain resources, and we will continue to bias present challenges at the expense of past and future ones. But since the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one, I am optimistic that, as we go forward in time, our capabilities will catch up to our needs.
What the QDR is really looking for is a "swarm" capable force that scales well. Basically, each squad/platoon unit needs to be able to operate independently for days to weeks. Each unit operates like a nerve ending, able to call upon the appropriate "muscle" response for the stimulus it receives.
The corporal in 2010 is going to have as much institutional intelligence (training in tactics and decision making) as a WWII captain.
The hard part is two-fold. First, response has to be "sub-concious", like a boxer reacting to a thrown punch, it doesn't even require process time. Second, the "body" has to be in a position to respond appropriately. If we dump these units somewhere without being in position to deliver a haymaker, it does no good.
Small scale joint tactics have to be the future. A unit needs to be able to find and fix targets from one man to a couple of times the unit's size. Patrol units of a couple of Strykers, backed by a mobile artillery device or tank, defended from above by an on-station AC130 and/or drone should be able to fix - or hold - a significantly larger force long enough for a "swarm" of reserve assets to pummel the bad guys.
Also, I guess NCO school is going to need civil affairs training. Can't hurt. I'd trust a 20 year old Sgt to run my city better than the politicians do now.
rat:
Much as I agree with most of what you posted at 5:31 AM, I do want our navy to be able to interdict shipping lanes, ports, and coastal defense against 2-3 nations at the same time. One day our enemies will have military-industrial complexes again, and the Navy will be useful. But, yeah, building better AAC platforms probably ain't priority.
The single most important element in this new approach is moving "From threat-based planning."
McNamara is not beloved by most of those in the big five-sided building, but he did impose a threat-based approach to Planning, Programming, and Budgeting that is the basis for everything that happens there. Previously, weapons were not developed and procured based on an enemy threat but rather what we could do next combined with a general desire to keep moving forward in terms of performance. It was more momentum from WWII and Korea than anything else that drove procurement prior to the threat-based approach.
The threat-based approach did not work when you have no real way to relate a needed capability to a "threat." But since there was no threat, no one noticed. We did not have to worry about foreign space boosters out-dogfighting ours, so to keep on flying the old ones was not a problem. And today U.S. manufactured space boosters are not competitive with foreign boosters. The threat was there but we just did not have the ability to express it in terms that could be understood.
Now, to move to an approach based on “capability based planning.” What does that mean? Good question…
I think capabilities based planning is an admission that we no longer have threats (as unitary entities), we have challenges (elements of threats).
For instance, we should not think of Al'Qaeda as a threat, but as an amalgam of specific challenges. As we solve the problems posed by Al'Qaeda, we will retain these solutions as institutional capabilities. Therefore, even if the next 'threat' is only marginally similar to Al'Qaeda, some of the challenges it poses may be identical, and our responses will be ready.
Capabilities planning is another way of saying that we are systematically removing advantages for any potential foe while at the same time eliminating our weaknesses. Threats will continue to pop up that pose different combinations of challenges. Solve the challenges, preempt the threat.
Aristides:
I think perhaps what they are trying to say is that we figure out what the desired end state is, and then plan on capabilities required to attain that end state.
The End State will be a politically-driven variable, ranging from Clinton's "We are the Ultimate Superpower and, Boy, are We Embarassed And Hope This Changes" to the Bush Doctrine's "We are the Ultimate Superpower and We Will Make Damn Sure We Stay That Way, No Matter What." with the first Bush Admin position of "Gee, That Cold War Thing Worked Out Pretty Well, Didn't It? Well, Good! When's Lunch?" somewhere in the middle.
As Desert Rat's comments indicate, threat-based planning today would seem to dictate airpower based on pushing pallets of high explosives out the back of C-17's. That won't work against anyone with the capability of putting on a reasonably entertaining Sunday afternoon airshow.
In all fairness to the Pentagon, the reason it seems mismatched to asymmetry is because it is so overwhelming against symmetry. And that's for sure a good thing. PRC is building that symmetrical threat, but it ain't there yet. Re, QDR, we're not alone gambling on 'symmetrical peace'. PRC's money-eating baby blue-water navy is a gamble on their part, that the world stays symmetrically peaceful long enough for it to move from a target too expensive to lose (as was the German High Seas Fleet in WWI & II), to one which makes ours too expensive to lose.
Of course, the wild card in all this is military nanotech. With nanotech, weaknesses approach zero, capabilities go vertical.
RWE: I like W's idea.
RWE, love those parentetical characterizations, they get to the point. I agree, as do most here, that the knotty problem is to get our own people to realize that wanting to stay the Big Boy ain't a matter of juvenile bullying, it's a matter of keeping the world open and trading, so an excess here can go to a deficit there, and vice versa, without paying the pirates.
Policemen let the poor get a mouthful, so they can work up.
How can we explain this simple matter to those people who stood up appluding at SOTU over having derailed vital economic reforms?
That Bush I terrible choice of words "new world order" had that very strategy, to keep increasing incentives to world trade toward making all nations self-sufficient--and with more to lose than gain by letting slip the dogs of war. Essentially the same as Bush II would've been, sans the overarching war. Damn the 90s, and our deliberate turn-away from moral authority.
I think we've pretty much solved the problem of great power (or Core) interaction: the H-bomb. The rule set of MAD is pretty well entrenched, and stable, just as Eisenhower and Churchill predicted.
Most of our efforts this century will focus on dealing with failed states (already 150 Gap interventions since 1990). As Barnett says, we need an 'A to Z' process to deal not only with economic failure, but with political failure as well. Failures go in at 'A', and come out at 'Z' rehabilitated.
Of course, this is still mostly theoretical. Getting other nations to agree to such processes might be the largest challenge we face.
If you have an hour free, watch this video. It explains the structure of Barnett's thinking (and also contains a cogent defense of the Iraq war).
Will earmark that video for tonite--thanks--
Aristides,
"A to Z" is an interesting idea.
But preemption is a lot cheaper and a lot less cruel than reaction.
We will have to modify our ethics to address this.
Consider domestic law enforcement. We know that most felonious crimes are committed by the mentally ill - most notably sociopaths. Simple tests exist to identify these people most of the time and effective treatment programs exist - and if these people are caught when they are entering their teens - the success rate in near 100%.
So do we throw $100 at a problem ten years from now and suffer the deaths and injuries of a deranged person - or do we intervene early for $5?
If one accepts intervention - then the next step is to look at the birth parents.
See where this is going?
We have to begin at the individual level - look at Chavez - anyone can see he is a kook - why is he in power? Why is Iran's Amehidejad in power?
We already clearly understand the "A to Z" of normal vs criminal personalities - and this is where any "A to Z" theory has to begin and end with.
k,
I haven’t seen the “War Within”, so can not comment on it, but I don’t think that we are turning peaceful, average Joes into pissed off terrorists. This is the tactic of Islamists. “We may be plotting to kill innocents, but if you treat us poorly, we are going to kill innocents for sure.” The problem may well be holding the enemy in captivity though. They would not pose the same threat if they were summarily executed as they would have been in any other war. The problem is to gain useful information, affixing culpability, then immediate removal from the ‘War on Terror’ and from the gene pool.
"And that will be far from easy because there are currently marked divisions in the perception of what constitutes the main threats to world peace and what steps should be taken to address them."
???
Are there really any serious people out there that don't know Algore (joined now by Bubba, [see Davos]) is right, and that Global Warming represents the single biggest threat to our securities and liberty?
...after GWBitler, of course.
libetry and securities
(Halliburton, Chevron, etc)
security and liberties.
3rd time's the charm.
Duog, we konm waht yuo maen no matetr waht yuor mothed of sepillng yuor wrods hepapns to be on any piculatrar day.
"challenges often can't be formulated in advance of their solutions. "
---
IEDs and RPGs the two largest threats to our Military?
Who woulda thought of that in the midst of their grand schemes and space-age weaponry?
Pentagon Widens Program to Foil Bombings in Iraq
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — The Pentagon is tripling its spending, to about $3.5 billion this year, on a newly expanded effort to combat the rising number of increasingly powerful and sophisticated homemade bombs that are the No. 1 killer of American troops in Iraq, military officials say.
OT,
I've joined the Hewitt Chorus and now Condemn Cartoons Portraying
Violence in the name of Religion when
those cartoons refer to Muslims and therefore are known to
Provoke Violence in the Name of Religion.
---
Cartoons depicting victimized US Soldiers and a Heartless Administration are fine, however, since they have no substance to them and are merely fictionalized commentary.
Dhimmis Dealing w/Reality
Opotho: We need to realize that the "official" vision of the desired future will vary depending on who is in power. This differs from the Cold War or WWII, in which pretty much both U.S. political parties agreed that stopping the Nazis/Militarists/Commies was a must and the argument was over how best to do it.
The Reagan Admin approach was summed up by Maggie Thatcher who said on a visit to D.C. in 1992: "There is a Pax America, and Thank God for it!"
The Bush I Admin approach was that bad things could happen but that the good people of the world could fix it by working together to create a New World Order: a U.N. that actually worked.
The Clinton Admin had a vision of a world a bit like Bush I, but without much need for the use of military force and with everyone wearing their traditional ethnic costumes and singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke..." while holding hands on some hilltop. SecState Madeline Halfbright said "We don't want to be the world's only superpower."
Bush II is getting back to the Pax America approach again - selectively.
"Apparently peeved at the thought of having to vote on that issue, Senator Durbin asked what organization I was with. I told him I was respresenting Power Line and Pajamas Media. Durbin said he wasn't familiar with this group, and then proceeded to address my question. His answer was (I quote from memory) that "this is not how things work" and that (if I understood him correctly) the issue is whether the president's actions are constitutional.
I attempted to follow-up by noting that if the administration is right about the interplay of FISA and AUMF, there is no serious constitutional question because the president is acting with the permission of Congress. Durbin made it clear, however, that questioning was over. His parting shot was that he would try to check out what I write for "Pajama Line." My parting shot, that Dan Rather knew something about the outfit, drew laughter. Afterwards, Debra Burlingame, sister of the captain of American Airlines flight 77 and a strong proponent of the NSA surveillance program, complimented me on my questioning.
If this is what reporters get to do regularly, I may have made a bad career choice. "
- Powerline
Andrew has now posted video footage of the encounter on the Pajamas site. It's entertaining, even though Durbin never answers either Paul's question or the administration's argument. I understand that Durbin took over the podium in relief of Ted Kennedy, who was having a tough time. It's scary to consider that Durbin could have been an improvement.
Think of the misdirection and stealth powers of "Pajamas," vs the Corporate Choice, "Open Source."
Sign of the Times:
Conservatives coming down harder on Accurate Cartoons than they did on false Koran Flushing Stories.
Aristides said:
Most of our efforts this century will focus on dealing with failed states.
----------
Most failed states rot.
Careen.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=careen
Nautical
1. To lean (a ship) on one side for cleaning, caulking, or repairing.
2. To clean, caulk, or repair (a ship in this position).
Many years ago a sailing ship would ground itself at high tide so as to scrape off all the slime/scum worms grabbing onto the hull. I. Africa is hopeless, sunk. II. Pan-Arabia is wealthy. Now. Pan-Arabia cannot clean itself, cannot teach itself. Pan-Arabia is stuck to a ship which for too long ignored the crap stuck on the sides. III. The free world, too, needs to clean and rebuild her hull.
Jed Babbin question to New Admin Official on expected Backbiting from State Department
on QDR:
---
"That's not a problem anymore,
Colin's Not There"
---
Talk about Straight Talk!
Trish,
When Soviet Communism was alive, the doomsday clock was always at 10 to 12, more or less. I think the same kind of logic applies here. As long as Islam is alive, we'll always be vulnerable to an attack. Where we made some strides is in the relationship between nuclear capable Islamic states and Islamic terror groups willing to carry this attack. The number of possible sponsors is diminishing, so the possible claims of plausible deniability, and so the incentive to acquire these weapons.
A 2003 Newsweek Article:
"Challenging the Koran"
Has vanished from their Website!
- Savage
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This war will not be won until (unless?) we win the war within the United States. Europe is optional, but the United States is the entire tomale.
We don't have the time to wait for the populations in question to evolve beyond the Mahdi Army, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. All on their individual schedules.
Perhaps if we had the troops to occupy the entire Arab World, and the guts to forcefeed our way of life down their throats - but we don't.
The current situation is akin to rebuilding Tokyo while the rest of Japan lies in flame and under enemy control...hoping they'll see the light. It was worth a try, I think, but always tending towards a hope.
We have no credibility. If we did, they would not be whining about Korans, cartoons, burned bodies, or any other insignificant infraction. They know they can push our buttons because we are weak and without resolution.
It's going to get much worse before it gets better. And I don't think the solution is going to entail Arab democracy - as a whole the region's hopeless.
Newsweek banned over article on the Koran
"Here's" the "Article"
HTML Link to pdf file: Challenging the Koran
Do we care if we cave and can no longer read the news when Muslims are involved?
"as a whole the region's hopeless. "
---
Cutler,
You mean
Politically Correctland USA
is a writeoff?
(I agree, btw)
By the way, I believe that one of our great problems is that we had the wrong people doing planning in the military during the 90’s.
The 80’s were a time of buildup, of engineering and acquisition efforts taking the lead. There was a general feeling within the military that the “operators” had taken a back seat during the 80’s and that he 90’s would be their decade, using the weapons systems that the Reagan military buildup had produced, while there would be less emphasis on RDT&E efforts.
As things turned out, the real “era of the operator” was very, very short. Desert Storm took place in early 1991 and the USSR went out of business less than a year later. The Threat Driven approach used by DoD for planning, combined with the irrational exuberance of most politicians, some of whom admitted to loathing the military anyway, led to a enormous decline in our military services.
The military leadership of the time was distressed beyond words. The magnificent fighting machine that had been constructed was dismantled by nearly 50%. This was doubly upsetting to the military leadership of the time, which had been eagerly anticipating their moment in the sun – and it had lasted about 3 months.
In reality, we were at the start of a whole new planning era, with the current threat vanished and any new one a good 10 plus years away. We needed to re-enter the planning process, and very probably reset to RDT&E being the lead again and develop a new military based more on Information Age warfare. A few congressional staffers even advocated a philosophy that recognized this, called “Put It On The Shelf.”
In response the military leadership saw any R&D effort as being a dollar stolen from keeping their precious operational forces up and running.
The Clinton Admin “Invasion of the Month Club” policy supported the current versus future outlook. The US ARMY found itself deployed to 100 countries – more than at the height of the Cold War, and the emphasis was on funding the “now” at the expense of the future.
It appears this QDR finally takes a look at the future. Whether it is correct or not, I can’t say, but at least it is a shot at a better outlook.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but I thought it a valuable addition to Wretchard’s thoughtful analysis. And my last job on active duty was titled Chief of Advanced Planning.
Cutler,
So it took 500yrs for some folks to stop burning people at the stake in the name of Christianity:
We got nuttin but time!
rwe,
Babbin's guest was pleased that more resources were going to Intelligence.
...Prompting Babbin to inquire whether State Dept would put up with this intrusion on their baliwick.
Thanks for the info.
I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when I saw this:
Iran's largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
How delightful: the world gets to compare the reaction of the Muslims with the reaction of the Jews, when both are "mortally" insulted.
This last week has been one gift after another. What a world.
Aristides,
Better now than later:
We've been banning Christianity and promoting Islam with increased vigor ever since 9-11.
(remember little kiddies having Muslim appreciation week and etc?
Try that with Christianity!)
Did you see above that the dhimmified MSNBC censored themselves in response to the RoP?
Publish National Security Secrets, ban the truth about those who seek our destruction.
Smart, very smart.
A search on their website results in NO results.
Trish,
AQ is state sponsored, just like every other terrorist organization. Don't let anyone tell you different. It's impossible for the terror organization not to be state sponsored. For temporary tactical reasons, Bush is making exceptions to his stated policy. But I'm sure these inconsistencies will be corrected, when the time is right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Where DO they get the ideas for those Cartoons?
On the Way to (Christian) School
Cutler,
I would have disagreed prior to this week.
After hearing the disgusting "compassionate" pleas for further dhimmification in the form of sacrificing the essence of the first ammendment by some on "our" side, (compassionate "conservative" Christians, and etc) however, I pray for the day they release their ankles and stand up like creatures with spines.
Sorry Doug, I decided the post was too long and removed it...going to repost on my blog after I refine it.
Doug, the bravery extant in their actions was tremendous. To think that such a small force went up against that contingent of schoolgirls bespeaks of the highest dedication to duty. The poltroon Mo should congratulate them himself.
Karensky, perhaps what Porkov meant was the similarity to CSLewis' Narnia writings, wherein an intellectually gifted writer clothes the deeper story in a socially-acceptable garb and lets people enjoy the surface, and dig deeper IF THEY CHOOSE to see the parallels, symbols and historic persons.
So you've figured out Iraqis/Arrakis, now its easier to see that the Bab (the "John the Baptist" to the Glory of God) and the Lord of Hosts Himself (the Glory of God, Baha'u'llah) have placeholders in the Dune Trilogy; people seeking escape in 'spice'; the trade unions; the Clergy...
Frank Herbert may not have been a visionary, but its apparent that he DID study the historical reality of the Sandy Arabian nations, and wove much of that (taqiyyah, inflexibility, the need to force others into submission, the misogyny) into the Dune story.
My, your looking young and Chipper this evening Carridine!
How'd you become "K"arridine?
Nassau?
Now I am confused!
mike h,
At least they aren't TERRORISTS!
---
""The perpetrators are believed to aim at provoking the religious emotions of the people in Poso so that unrest erupts," said Andi Mallarangeng, a spokesman for Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. "
I'll bet the parents of those young girls WERE "provoked."
At least.
Catholic Priest Shot, Killed at Church in Turkey
(foxnews.com)
ANKARA, Turkey — A teenage boy shot and killed the Italian Roman Catholic priest of a church in the Black Sea port city of Trabzon on Sunday, shouting
"God is great"
as he escaped, according to police and witnesses.
"I would have disagreed prior to this week.
After hearing the disgusting "compassionate" pleas for further dhimmification in the form of sacrificing the essence of the first ammendment by some on "our" side, (compassionate "conservative" Christians, and etc) however, I pray for the day they release their ankles and stand up like creatures with spines."
Doug,
Some months ago I think I said that Newsweek, even if the Koran story had been true, Newsweek should not have published it. They should have known better. In other words, I counseled [voluntarily] curtailing our use of the 1st Amendment to placate their potential for violence. So perhaps I'm also at fault.
This is a tough war to score.
To my credit, however, I put the vast majority of the blame on the rioters.
I just see the line between "good sense" and dhimmification becoming increasingly indistinguishable.
We've changed, they haven't,
...just the way they like it.
I agree.
I also think you can say the same thing about the domestic radical left.
The more crazy they get, the more to the left the Republican Party goes in order to compensate.
Free Speech is Silence,
Denial is Truth,
Submission is Freedom!
Doug, I wish that I was young enough to reenlist. Waiting for them to get close enough does instill discipline though. Have an excellent evening.
Beak,
I can see them changing more in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the West, until, and unless we grow up and get serious.
Given our cultural dumbing down, sometimes I wonder if that will happen.
The constant lying from DC about the situation on the border, and the disrespect for law that it engenders is another Cancer.
Rumsfeld called Iran the leading exporter of terrorism:
Doesn't that count?
From a battle-ready force (peace) to battle hardened forces (war)
Which assumes that perpetual war is going on. Orwell wasn't that far off the mark.
Trish,
one
two
Add one and two, and you'll get four, or five, or six. The math is simple. Iran got its nuke making technology from? But Iran is Shiia! How could that be?!
trish said: The leading exporter of terrorism against whom...exactly? For the funding, training, and direction of what terrorist organizations...exactly?
Terrorism, terrorists, and terror organizations are not one giant undifferentiated mass.
true there are differences between hamas, hezbollah, islamic jihad, fatah, al aska marytrs brigade...
it's usually fashion....
Pork,
If any of them start wearing those tablecloth turbans again, I'll kill em all myself!
"Has Saudi Arabia been named by the WH as a state sponsor of AQ? Has Iran been named by the WH has a state sponsor of AQ?
They have not."
and
"Terrorism, terrorists, and terror organizations are not one giant undifferentiated mass," says Trish.
Ma'am, I don't mean to be snarky in saying you may never have worked in a position of (knowledge) responsibility, but I (and others here) HAVE, and understand that knowledge -ESPECIALLY THAT AVAILABLE to the POTUS- often brings with it the REQUIREMENT to refrain from making it public.
In other words, sometimes it can be criminally irresponsible to 'let the American public in on the secret'!
To publicly name the differentiated groups of terrorists and their relationships one to another and their sources of funding and their leaders and their loci of operation could tell them MUCH TOO MUCH about how effective we (Americans) are in gathering intelligence on them.
That is the first time my pic has been seen, ever, in this thread. I was 18, spoke Korean, had a Top Secret-Cryptological clearance and was living atop a mountain on the Korean DMZ, Trish. It was there, then, that I BEGAN learning about the utter necessity of using WISDOM when it comes to revealing what you know.
Gee, I thought GWB liked Poker 'cause you get to tell your oponents everything as you go!
(And it ain't the first time I saw that photo, Carridine, er Karridine!)
Are you really in the Bahamas now?
...did you finally have to flee the Muslims for your family's sake?
Hate to pry...
(yeah, right!)
After nearly 20 years of the development the US army cancelled the RAH-66 in February 2004. The cost as well as the doctrinal shift towards more, less expensive reconnaissance platforms spelled its doom. It was probably also a casualty of OIF burgeoning expenses that killed it along with the roll back of a number of other high-end fighter aircraft. It may not of been a simple, pragmatic readjustment based on a reevaluation of threats as it was a matter of the Defense Department getting ‘Overtaken-By-Events’ and rolled over by the future. Many a defense contractors in the direct gravy train were mightily pissed at that great sucking sound coming out of Iraq and consuming the programs that they had staked their future on. But times have changed and there is not a single tier-one defense contractor that is not involved in some manner or another with UAV aircraft. So there will be fleets of UAVs able to scour vast territories for Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaissance data. We have the long range aerial strike capability, now the only thing we’ll need to develop is the legions of ground forces that are able to act upon that ISR data.
Sowell gives us a name we should use regularly:
Cutthroats and Outrageous Cut-ups.
Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?
---
Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about?
Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.
'Mouse,
'Rat believes that should include Foreign Legions ala his experience in Central America.
UAVs plus indigenous forces is a combo not available then.
Doug,
We already have foreign legions so to speak. A lot of ‘foreigners’ earned their citizenship while fighting in OIF. But as to something akin to the French Foreign Legion, I was thinking something long those lines myself. If we need to outsource US jobs because the US mama’s boys are not up to the task, not to mention the effeminate masses of Western Europe, we’ll need to attract a foreign Freedom Corp that will have the American dream to look forward to at the end of their service. I can hear Rat mumbling something about the Gurkhas right now. Latinos have made good soldiers and they deserve to call themselves Americans after serving. It reminds of an old joke, “why didn’t Mexico send a track and field team to the Olympics? Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim is already in the US.” Anywho, it is this training of indigenous people that the SOF is famous at, but perhaps it’s time to begin a new program. Remember also the lessons of School Of the Americas, this kind of program aint too popular with the Libs.
Any program that's effective is not popular with the libs.
Kaplan says the Special Forces are doing a good job around the world, wonder how much UAV activity goes on that we don't know about.
('Rat of course argues for much larger numbers of foreign fighters)
Have you ever thought of doing a UAV roundup at your site?
...the links alone would be worthwhile.
Nicest thing about them is how rapidly they are deployed compared to legacy aircraft and shipbuilders.
Just read your 105 post:
Had no idea a Thud would DO a snap roll!
(I once had a tiny high winged rc job that would do a quick snap and then go into a beautiful flat spin that was recoverable at tree height ...Boyd should have tried that!)
Har har,
An F105 does a snap roll like bricks don’t fly… that was more or less the idea, slow that baby down to nuthin’ and let the MiG zoom on by. Today’s modern equivalent maneuver is called the Cobra, its basically like pulling a wheely to break speed, seen some pretty cool photo’s of the Ruskies doin’ it with an SU-27. Not a bad idea ‘bout the UAV round up. If I do I’ll give you a shout.
Michelle Malkin
For all the Dhimmi rationalizers and apologists for terrorists here, read Malkins piece linked above and then think real hard.
She has a whole lot more on her home page.
One crappy "religion" intimidating the entire world.
Pathetic.
Just wait till the howls about drafting willing foreigners to fight America's wars.
But can we discriminate against non-English speakers? No Muslims? Surely everybody deserves to be drafted by America to fight illegal wars. What about Mexicans who take the paycheck, and then desert across the border to avoid combat deployments?
Foreign legion seems to me a potential gold mine for liberal idiocy.
Throw in the obligatory Rome analogy and you've got to limit it to a certain amount of the regular force, so it seems like a small-fix anyway.
If Americans won't leave their cushy homes to fight wars that their own media won't support [understandable, realistically speaking, not everyone's a masochist], and we're ruling out a draft as impractical politically or immoral, it seems to me we better put a much bigger emphasis on destroying than building. Iraq is a moderate to small sized state, though admittedly a little bit extra insane than the normal hypothetical.
Just some thoughts.
Gee Cutler, I don’t know where to begin… first of all drafting and recruiting are differentiated by “compulsory service” or conscription. Where as recruiting, well let’s say that it is not compulsory. Nobody want to serve with a bunch of “hell no we wont go” types. The French Foreign Legion requires that its recruits learn French, I suppose that the Army probably requires English be spoken. There are over 8,000 Mexican Nationals in the US armed services today.
Speaking Arabic of Farsi might be useful. Don’t see the harm in that provided that their loyalties are kept in check.
As far as illegal wars are concerned, you’re kidding right?
You missed where I was sarcastic, and assumed I was sarcastic when I was serious. Probably not a good sign on my part.
Perhaps I'm overly skeptical, but I highly doubt the Foreign Legion that America creates in the 20th century will resemble a French Foreign Legion founded in the 19th century. It takes a more demanding society to create an auxillary unit with that kind of espirit de'corps and discipline. I don't think one whose leadership thinks English language skills and identification are optional for voters, and insists on politically correct immigration quotas and citizenship lotteries would make the cut.
20th century
21st century...oops.
Opotho: You know, as I thought about my respoense to your Ed Sate question, I decided that in reality, all U.S. elected adminstrations have wanted the same End State, more or less.
The Europeans have even commented to this effect; that the different parties in the U.S, don't seem to be too far apart from their perspective.
Some thought being surrounded by Commies was not so bad, and some were determined to prevant the Commies from taking over as much as 3 square feet in Lower Slabovia.
But I think most wanted pretty much the same thing - but as they say, the devil is in the details in getting there.
Not that all of them would have been pleased with what they really got as result of their policies.
Cutler,
You almost can’t be overly skeptical these days. Absurdity gets a lot of ear-play when a moderate administration is in the White House. Makes sarcasm a little tricky though.
Wretchard,
Thank you for applying your now-to-be-expected analytics to the QDR. I have two questions on your excellent table:
What's this mean?
From threat-based planning <<<>>> to capabilities based planning ?
And, in all humility, I think you may be over-stating the transition from hard to soft power in this row:
From an emphasis on ships, guns, tanks and planes <<<>>> to focus on information, knowledge and timely, actionable intelligence. We can more than do both at once, in fact, it becomes ever cheaper and more cost efficient to do the latter, while the former is still hopelessly bogged down in the limits of physics.
This QDR is talking about very different ships >Littoral fleet< and very different guns >Robot-borne UAV's (Predator)< and very different planes in the form of an new, stealthy "Strike Force" comprised of new aircraft, including the F-22 and some other new bomber they don't describe.
Next week's AWST will weigh in with their comments, but of course they'll reflect the views of the Military Industrial Complex. Btw, they are not fans of the current Administration - contrary to popular illusion, SecDef Rumsfeld is not popular in the MIC!
Trish,
Rat brought up, on a previous thread, Rumsfeld's recent remark
to the effect that the terrorist threat remains today as serious as it was five years ago.
We established that Desert Rat was actually quoting Reuters.
You want to base your argument and deductions on Reuters?
RWE,
I was waiting for you post!
It appears this QDR finally takes a look at the future. Whether it is correct or not, I can’t say, but at least it is a shot at a better outlook.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but I thought it a valuable addition to Wretchard’s thoughtful analysis. And my last job on active duty was titled Chief of Advanced Planning.
Post a Comment
<< Home