Sic Semper Tyrannis

"The Stability of MAD" Habakkuk

A central issue here is the stability of MAD. This is something in which I used to believe, but do not any more.

A major influence has been the writings of Bruce Blair, who before becoming a leading expert on nuclear command and control, served as a Minuteman launch control officer, back in the early Seventies. What he noticed then was that while the declared policy of the United States was deterrence based upon second-strike retaliation, almost all the drills he was called on to carry out involved weapons being fired when no Soviet attack had yet occurred. A wicked conspiracy to hide preparations for a first-strike behind rhetoric about 'deterrence' perhaps?

Iran's Intentions

"Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tested the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles in the third phase of a two-day exercise called The Great Prophet IV, state-run news media reported. The missiles are believed to be capable of striking Israel, U.S. military targets in the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe.

But Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force said the test-firings were part of exercises to practice "preventive and defensive operations." They are "in no way a threat to neighboring countries," Iranian news media quoted him as saying. Rather, the tests send "a message for certain greedy nations that seek to create fear, to show that we are able to give a swift and suitable answer to our enemies." "  Washpost

------------------------------------------------------------------

Some will say that justice demands that Iran have the same right to ballistic missiles of various ranges and to nuclear weapons as anyone else.  They would be right but that would be irrelevant and dangerous thinking.  As I have tried to point out, justice has nothing to do with outcomes in international relations. Only perceived interests and brute strength, whether economic or military matter in the end, perhaps literally the end for someone.

The Iranians are clearly intent on achieving the possession of a variety of ballistic missiles.  Such weapons are inherently inaccurate to within a few hundred yards at range.  Because of this, they are of no real military value with other than nuclear warheads.  The Israelis were afraid of Iraqi SCUDS.  Well, I guess that is understandable if one might land in your courtyard, but I was in Baghdad during the "War of the Cities" and I will say again that such weapons have no real military value  (other than to frighten civilians) without nuclear warheads.

At the same time, it is now revealed that the Iranians are building a second uranium enrichment plant, one that could be used to further enrich the product of the Natanz plant to a level usable in a fission weapon.  They claim that it, too, is to support their nuclear electric program.

How gullible do they think we are?

This place, near Qom, was concealed, is hardened, not reported to the IAEA, is built within an IRGC base, and is too small to be useful for producing fuel for an electric program. 

Following "Lang's Rules of Analysis," - The Duck Rule, - The Sherlock Rule or - Occam's Razor one must be led to the conclusion that the Iranians intend to produce nuclear warheads and probably for their missiles.

How long will that take?  It will take quite a long time.  The engineering and industrial obstacles to be overcome are considerable, but the evidence points to an intention to achieve a "force de frappe" capability that will change the strategic balance by holding foreign cities at risk.

Do the Iranians not understand that they are creating a situation in which it is likely that they will be attacked before they achieve that capability?  Do they really not understand that bellicose statements like the one attributed to Salami above only hasten the day?  pl

National Journal Bllog - 28 September, 2009

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/the-israelipalestinian-conflic.php#1364962

IQ2 Debate in NY City - 6 October, 2009 Afghanistan Policy

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/

Find it in the archives there.  If you want to understand this debate, I recommend that you listen to the full audio version.  The video and shorter audio version were heavily edited in favor of the Sinn, Coll, Nagl team.  IMO the IQ2 people favored that side.  One of the more amusing things about this "circus' was that Coll brought his remarks in written form and read them.

 http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-cannot-and-will-not-succeed-in-afghanistanpakistan/

J gave us this URL for the debate.  I suspect that this is the purposefully edited version. pl

They had a lean and hungry look.

Andrew Bacevich has an oped piece in today's Post that closely parallels my own views on what to do about Afghanistan and the takfiri jihadi threat generally. 

Senators Jim Webb and Jon Kyl debated this point on "Meet the Press" today.  Webb argued for presidential freedom of action in deciding policy and Kyl argued that Obama should do what the generals want him to do.

I listened to the talking heads on Fox News Sunday and was struck by Senator Kit Bond's apparent support of the putative resistance of at least some flag officers to the authority of the president of the United States.  Bond spoke strongly in favor of having Generals McChrystal and Petraeus explain to Congress what their opinion is (as opposed to the opinion of the president/commander in chief) as to what the policy and strategy of the United States should be.

This is actually an incitement to mutiny.

Why?

The Congress has certain functions with regard to the armed forces of the United States.  They are delineated in the Constitution and have to do with organization, funding, acquisition of equipment and supplies and the establishment of a military legal system, that kind of thing.  The powers of Congress with regard to war policy and strategy do not exist.  The Congress has no authority at all with regard to operations.  The Congress can refuse to declare war, but when was a declaration of war last thought necessary?

The armed forces are commanded by the president.  Mullen, McChrystal and Petraeus and everyone else in the armed forces are the military subordinates of the president and not of anyone in the Congress nor of the Congress collectively.  Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and their friends in the Civil War Congress created a "Joint Committee on the War" in order to use the testimony of various Union Army generals against Lincoln.  What a disaster that was!  What an inducement to the poltical vanities and ambitions of the brass!

In demanding the testimony of the generals independent of the establishment of policy by the president, the Congress is encouraging the generals and admirals to publicly oppose the independence of action of their constitutional commander.  What a foolish thing to do.

People like Senator Bond are implying by their statements that McChrystal should be treated as an equal by the commander in chief and that the president should defer to the opnion of this general or any other general.  Have we given up believing in the principle of civilian control of the military?

Obama might change his mind with regard to strategy?  Emerson said that "Consistency is a virtue of small minds."  

He was right.  pl

Hear no evil, See no evil and ...

"The defense official denied any tension between the military leadership and the White House over the pace of decision-making on Afghanistan.

"There is no sense of unease here with regard to the president's review of strategy," the official said.

Admiral Mullen and the rest of the joint chiefs of staff agreed there was a need to examine the mission six months after Obama unveiled a strategy focused on improving security and economic development, the official said.

But the top officers recognize that counter-insurgency campaigns are "dynamic" and that there is "a very fine line between success and failure," he said."  AFP

-------------------------------------------------------------

Mullen, Petraeus and McChrystal met at Ramstein Air Base.  What was this about?  Did Gates send Mullen to deliver the appropriate reminder about who it is that commands their obedience?

Was that the message actually delivered?  We will see.  pl

The Angst of the Legions...

"We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our assistance and civilization. We were able to verify that this was true, and because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by their frame of mind, I am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action. I cannot believe that all this true, and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to where it could lead. Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we protect the glory of the Empire. If it should be otherwise, if we should leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the anger of the legions."

From a letter supposedly written by one Marcus Flavinius, a centurion in the second cohort of the 2nd Augusta Legion serving overseas, to his cousin, Tertullus, in Rome, quoted in the Prologue of Jean Larteguy's novel, "The Centurions."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps there was such a letter, perhaps.  It is odd that Marcus Flavinius did not have three names.  I suspect that this is apocrypha.  There is another such letter supposedly written from Dacia by another Roman soldier.  In it, the writer complains that every time his unit learns how to perform its mission, the mission is changed or they are re-organized or whatever it is that fits the subject of the Army schools class in which it is quoted.

I am concerned that the legions and their commanders are becoming more politically active and resistent to civilian authority than is good for them or the country.

McChrystal's estimate is a case in point:

- This paper presents the president with only one option on a "take it or leave it" basis.  I realize that Stanley M. is a subordinate theater commander and a full general but he is still the president's subordinate and he serves at the pleasure of the president/commander in chief.  In all the Army schools that I attended (Infantry Officer Basic Course to the US Army War College), it was more or less customary to present the commander with several options in the way of "courses of action."  If you do not do that then you are clearly seeking to limit the freedom of action of the commander.  This is insubordinate in spirit.

- There is considerable log-rolling going on to bring Stanley and Dave back from their commands to Washington so that they can talk it up around town.  When Petraeus testified before Congress on behalf of the AEI/Keene Iraq strategy he was justifying GW Bush's policy.  That was bad enough in that it made him a player in the political process, but in this case the Republicans and the AEI crowd clearly want these two gentlemen back here so that they can be used to undercut the possibility of an independent policy decision by their constitutional civilian commander.  The Republicans seem to have forgotten that the wheel of history is turning and that soon they will have a Republican president in the White House whose authority may be challenged on the basis of the precedent they seek.

- It has been blogged (not by me) that people on Stanley M's staff claim that he has the thought that he might ask to be relieved if not given what he wants.  I do not know if that is true.  If it is, and he follows through on that hoping for an "Old Soldiers never die..." moment, then he ought to be retired in his permanent grade.

- Andrea Mitchell reportedly said on Friday that one of the redacted secret parts of the Stanley M. estimate says that 500,000 troops will be needed in Afghanistan over the next five years to achieve success in a counterinsurgency campaign.  That appears to means that some combination of US/NATO troops and Afghan troops amounting to half a million would be required.   Does that mean that whatever portion of that half million is not supplied by the Afghans must be supplied by the US and NATO.  Someone should ask Stanley M. what he expects will be the peak "in country" strength for US/NATO forces.

The legions and their commanders are not exactly angry yet, but they wll be.  pl

Olmert the peacemaker?

"While prime minister, Olmert also held peace talks with the Palestinians and indirect talks with Syria.

Since leaving office, Olmert has said he offered the Palestinians a deal that would have seen Israel cede about 93.5 percent of the West Bank, along with Israeli territory to make up for the 6.5 percent of the West Bank land that Israel would retain. He also proposed international administration of east Jerusalem's most sensitive holy sites.

The Palestinians sought more West Bank land and demanded Palestinian sovereignty over a disputed hilltop compound that is home to Islam's third-holiest site, according to officials familiar with the talks. Palestinians say the proposals were under discussion when the talks were upended by the Gaza war and by Olmert's downfall. Negotiations have been frozen since Olmert left office."  Yahoonews

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see a list of the sites they were discussing.  "International Administration?"  What, the UN? The "hilltop" so strangely mentioned is the Temple Mount or the Haram al-Sharif, the site of; the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, the two temples (Solomon and Herod), the palace of the crusader kings, headquarters of the Templars, etc.  It would seem to me that international rather than Palestinian control of such a place would be better.  The Palestinians seem to have demonstrated once again that they have never seen a deal that they could not refuse. 

The charges against Olmert seem rather "small bore" business.  The suspicion arises that Olmert's venture into the hazardous world of the negotiators may have had something to do with his present legal problems.

And then, there was the Gaza War.  Was Olmert the driving force behind that operation or was it a convenient way to de-rail negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas?  pl

 

Clever, these Iranians ---

"U.S. officials said Thursday that an Iranian offer to allow the country's nuclear experts to meet with American and other scientists was not enough to ease concerns about that country's nuclear program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the proposal in an interview with Washington Post and Newsweek journalists on Wednesday, calling it a confidence-building measure.

But a State Department official said further measures were needed to provide assurances that Iran was not trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is simply trying to generate energy.

"I don't think just talking to scientists opens up their nuclear program," said the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to be more candid.

The official added that there was "a real sense of urgency" in the U.S. government about Iran's nuclear program.

"We really hope they come armed with some serious proposals on Oct. 1," he said, referring to a scheduled meeting between a senior Iranian diplomat and counterparts from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. It will be the first formal U.S.-Iranian meeting since President Obama took office.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the administration had not received any offer from Iran to provide access to its nuclear experts. He said he did not want to prejudge how the U.S. government would respond.

"There are no details on this. I think we'd have a lot of questions about it," he said. "

Washpost

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Outwitted again!!  Damnation!!  How do these Iranians do it?  They have sent their little creep of a president to New York to speak among all the other Kennedy Assasination theorists and then they wheel out an offer of a "deceptive" chance to talk to their atomic scientists.  To top that they offer to buy uranium from us.  How demonic!  They know we want to sell! Sell! Sell!

We will probably find a way to thwart this plot.  pl

The Struggle for American Policy Continues

"They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. “There are a lot of competing views,” said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells,primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan."  NY Times.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden's reported position is fairly close to what I have been advocating, except that I think that there are people inimical to US interests within Afghanistan whether or not they could be called "Al-Qa'ida."   They should continue to be dealt with from several bases within Afghanistan using forces available from a much reduced US contingent as well as "allies" available from a "rent an Afghan" program analogous to the "Sons of Iraq."

Reliance on the use of unmanned bomber aircraft should be cut back a lot.  The targeting task seems to be beyond our skill level.

Training of Afghan forces should continue.

I would not oppose the noble idea of a COIN war in Afghanistgan if I did not think it likely to fail from a lack of long term political will.  If we go down that road, the American people will quit on the war in a few years.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th