January 5th, 2009, 4:18 pm by jhogg
I’m normally pretty lean on bat packs to the hulking giants of the media field. But the Washington Post has an unusually well-done piece on Iraq.
Friday, January 2, 2009; Page A01
Washington Post Foreign Service
BAGHDAD — Maybe it was the only shot heard for days in a neighborhood once ordered by the cadence of gunfire. Perhaps it was the smiles at checkpoints and the shouts of Iraqi policemen navigating the always snarled traffic. “God’s mercy on your parents,” they beseeched. “God’s blessings on you.” Maybe it was the music box still playing “
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” at a kiosk overflowing with Christmas tree decorations and heart-shaped red pillows.
For anyone returning to Baghdad after spending time here during its darkest days two years ago, when it was paralyzed by sectarian hatred and overrun by gunmen sowing despair, the conclusion seemed inescapable.
“The war has ended,” said Heidar al-Abboudi, a street merchant.
The war in Iraq is indeed over, at least the conflict as it was understood during its first five years: insurgency, communal cleansing, gangland turf battles and an anarchic, often futile quest to survive. In other words, civil war — though civil war was always too tidy a term for it. The entropy, for now at least, has run its course. So have many of the forces the United States so dangerously unleashed with its 2003 invasion, turning Iraq into an atomized, fractured land seized by a paroxysm of brutality. In that Iraq, the Americans were the final arbiter and, as a result, deprived anything they left behind of legitimacy.
________________________________________________________
Let me be (probably not) the first to say I’m am adamantly opposed to
this:
Obama considers linking Defense Dept. with NASA
President-elect Barack Obama appears to be gearing up for a space race 2.0, this time with China.
Obama’s transition team is considering doing away with some of the barriers that separate the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA, according to Bloomberg.
Citing people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team, Bloomberg says they believe collaboration between the country’s civilian space agency and the military’s space program would speed up the time in which the U.S. is able to send people back to the moon.
The main–and very costly–goal is to build a rocket that can carry Orion, NASA’s next-generation spacecraft, to the International Space Station, the moon, and further out into the solar system. NASA has planned to use its new Ares I rocket for that purpose. Last year, it completed preliminary design review for the Ares rocket, which is slated to launch for the first time in 2015.
Which race, specifically, are we worried about losing with China? As I recall, the United States has a 40-year lead in the race to the moon. Do we think the Chinese will yank our flag from the soil and plunk their own down in its place?
As for combining NASA and DoD, I cannot think of any better example of what is commonly referred to as the “creeping militarization” of the nation. Are we a nation with a military or a military with a nation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whubba Whubba!
Now if we can get those old Huey’s flying again then I say its time we refit the Phantoms and get the U.S. a proper interceptor.
Posted in: Air Force • Iraq • Uncategorized • not-so-hot ideas • old stuff • politics | Post a Comment »
December 11th, 2008, 11:13 am by jhogg
1) The Ball Gunner, presumably under attack by shadowy forces intent on silencing dissent, liberty and the god honest awesome served piping-hot from this blog, has been suffering some technical anomalies. Keep checking back, we’re still around.
2) Hints of god news:
U.S. to raise irregular war capabilities (via the Wa Po)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2008; Page A04
The Pentagon this week approved a major policy directive that elevates the military’s mission of “irregular warfare” — the increasingly prevalent campaigns to battle insurgents and terrorists, often with foreign partners and sometimes clandestinely — to an equal footing with traditional combat.
The directive, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Monday, requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of U.S. forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.
The policy, a result of more than a year of debate in the defense establishment, is part of a broader overhaul of the U.S. military’s role as the threat of large-scale combat against other nations’ armies has waned and new dangers have arisen from shadowy non-state actors, such as terrorists that target civilian populations.
<!–
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf )
{
document.write(’
‘) ;
}
// –>
“The U.S. has considerable overmatch in traditional capabilities . . . and more and more adversaries have realized it’s better to take us on in an asymmetric fashion,” said Michael G. Vickers, assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities, and a chief architect of the policy.
This, if it bears fruit, and that is a big IF, is good news.
Directing the Pentagon to do something and the Pentagon doing it are, quite obviously, very different things. And as any defense contractor lobbyist will tell you, there simply is not much money to be made in counter-insurgency (I can’t remember now, but I read somewhere that the U.S. is not engaged in true counter-insurgency, but in counter-counter-occupation.)
Ultimately, a thorough effort in counter-insurgency means putting your fabulous military toys: jets and tanks and fancy weapons, long-range missiles, aircraft carriers, attack helicopters and the like — on the shelf to gather dust and mildew. Undoubtedly Lockheed Martin could develop a fabulous new system for distributing rice while Northrup Grumman devoted effort to a more efficient way to build roads and lay power lines. Boeing could then partner with Wal Mart to make consumer commodities affordable and accessible. The downside (for them) being that rice distribution, road graters, trenchers and retail are not multi-million if not billion dollar items. When war becomes highly profitable (which it always does for those not fighting it) those seeking high profits will want war. I have high hopes for Gordon England’s plan, and high skepticism that it will supplant the footing for traditional warfare so unshakably embedded in the Pentagon.
3) Now that the pathetic and corrupt Pakistani army is being split to botch the Indian border mission in addition to the Afghan border mission, supply lines have become a source of concern. Unless you’re this guy:
BRUSSELS, Belgium — NATO operations in Afghanistan will not be affected by escalating attacks on the alliance’s supply lines through Pakistan, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Tuesday.
The militants “should not be under any illusion that they can disrupt the lines of communication, since we have alternatives,” de Hoop Scheffer said.
Alternatives being, of course, air power. Like any trendy war writer, I remain highly-skeptical about the ability of air-power to project anywhere but the air. Al Qaeda’s air force is certainly no threat, but everything from fuel shortages (which must be supplied conventionally) to bad weather can turn a world-class airlift into a ground force within minutes.
Air forces routinely overestimate what they are capable of, as is best illustrated by one of the world’s most notorious air force commander. I doubt there are many men left from the horror days of the Kessel, but I’d like to speak with some of them about their opinion of air power.
