Today my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review continues to urge the adoption of a realistic stratagem for dealing with the conflict in Somalia between the country’s tottering “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) and the Islamist insurgents led by al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-linked group formally designated a “foreign terrorist organization” last year by the U.S. Department of State.
The article begins by reviewing the further deterioration of the situation in Somalia and criticizes the Obama administration’s decision to send 40 tons of weapons and munitions to the TFG, noting with respect to the latter that the “poorly thought-out gesture may have handed the Islamist extremists both the weapons and the nationalist (and anti-American) card” to use in their fight against the interim regime. I then argue:
If the failure so far of no fewer than fourteen internationally-sponsored attempts at establishing a national government indicates anything, it is the futility—indeed, hubris—of the notion that outsiders can impose a regime on Somalia, even if it is staffed with presumably moderate Somalis duly vetted and anointed by the international community. Instead, in the context of the decentralized reality among the Somali, the concerned international community in general and the United States in particular need to invest the time and resources to seek out local partners who are actually capable of partnering to create a modicum of stability—societal, economic, and, ultimately, governmental—rather than throwing money and arms at a “Transitional Federal Government” which, as a former U.S. ambassador who dealt with Somali issues told me last week, “is neither transitional, nor federal, nor a government.”
In contrast, an alternative approach would include working with effective authorities in the Republic of Somaliland, Puntland State, the province of Gedo, and other areas of the onetime Somali Democratic Republic:
Consider just the raw demographic data. Of the estimated 9 million Somalis in the world, more than one million of them are refugees or permanently living in the diaspora; 3.5 million live in the Republic of Somaliland; and another 2.4 million in Puntland. Thus, even if its writ were not circumscribed to a few pockets in Mogadishu, the unelected TFG could claim to govern at most one-fifth of the Somali population. How can failing to engage with the legitimate elected authorities—directly chosen in internationally-monitored democratic elections with universal suffrage in the case of Somaliland, indirectly picked by the region’s House of Representatives in the case of Puntland, co-opted by traditional leaders in the case of Gedo—who actually govern two-thirds of Somalis be helpful? Going forward, the international community would do better to engage these nascent polities. Doing so not only recognizes the progress they have achieved, but also, by helping to strengthen the remarkable stability they have already secured, both reduces the “problem areas” which need to be of concern and wins Somali partners who are best positioned to show their own fellows how they might get their act together.
Building up the capacities of the functional parts of the former Somali state also has the additional advantage of standing up important allies in the fight against the two most pressing security challenges emanating from the failed state: maritime piracy and the spread of Islamist extremism and violence.
In addition, I emphasize that “any workable solution to the crisis of governance and capacity in the Somali lands must embrace a ‘bottom-up’ or ‘building-block’ approach rather than the hitherto ‘top-down’ strategy. This means that a truly realistic strategy must engage traditional clan leaders, members of the vibrant Somali business community, and civil society actors.” Thus I conclude:
While the news coming from Mogadishu continues to be disconcerting, it need not be the cause for exaggerated alarmism. After all, any policy must, at the very least, do no harm. Moreover, a sober look at the reality on the ground in the Horn of Africa points the way to what can realistically be done to ensure security for Somalis, their neighbors, and the overall international order.
While trillions of borrowed dollars fly out of Washington in the form of stimulus (and into Washington from America's wallets), the federal government is cutting back in one area where the Founders believed a federal government was necessary — "to provide for the common defense."
Perhaps most alarming are the cuts to missile defense, right when our enemies are preparing advanced missile systems. As an illustration of the dramatic cuts, consider this alarming graphic provided by the Heritage Foundation:
The House Administration Committee has approved the Military Voting Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 2393) and sent it to the full House for a vote.As its name suggests, the act would make it easier for service members who are stationed overseas to vote by absentee ballot.The most important provisions would require the Defense Department to take a more active role in collecting completed ballots, and to ship them back to America by express mail instead of the pokey military mail services.That should reduce the problem of ballots getting lost or arriving too late to be counted.
It all sounds fairly uncontroversial, and the bill is likely to pass with little or no opposition.Indeed, when a nearly identical bill was introduced in Congress last year, it passed the Senate on a voice vote — but the House rejected it, for two reasons.First, it was a presidential election year, and the Democratic majority thought military voters would favor McCain.(This may explain why all the Senate sponsors, and all but one of the House sponsors, were Republicans.)And second, the 2008 bill permitted completed ballots to be sent back to the States by private express-delivery service.
That got the National Association of Postmasters of the United States riled up.Think of what FedEx or UPS could have said:“When the U.S. government needs to safeguard the most sacred right of democracy, who does it call?Not the post office.”The bill died in the House committee.So this year the bill’s proponents took care to recruit sponsors from both parties and to specify USPS Express Mail as the only permissible carrier.Barring any further mischief, the bill should be enacted into law, and our forces overseas will no longer face obstacles in exercising the very rights they are fighting for.
(By the way, the 2008 version also
Expresse[d] the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense (DOD) should: (1) utilize existing and emerging technologies to enhance the ability of members of the Armed Forces to meaningfully participate in elections and have their votes counted; and (2) continue to closely examine the option of electronic voting, with the objective of protecting voter privacy and guarding against voter fraud.
That certainly makes sense for an electorate that is spread out all around the world, on land and sea, and in the long run it will probably solve the age-old problem of military voting.For the time being, though, including that language in the law would open a can of worms, because if electronic voting works for the military, why not use it for civilians too?So you would have software firms and computer makers vying for influence with DoD, hoping to get the jump on the much larger civilian election market.This is an issue that really needs to be treated separately, which is why the provisions about investigating computer voting were stricken from this year’s version.)
Today my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review criticizes Somalia’s “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) and its international supporters for “ongoing refusal to deal realistically” with the burgeoning crisis in the Horn of Africa subregion as Islamist militants brought their offensive to the edge of Mogadishu amid fierce fighting and the country’s nominal government reeled from the loss last week of several of its more effective members.
The article reviews the recent deterioration of the situation in Somalia and analyzes the appeal over the weekend by the TFG for a foreign military intervention to rescue it. I then argue:
If all of this seems a bit farcical, it is because it seems the surreal has become the ordinary in the international community’s approach to Somalia, even as the situation has gone from bad to worse to worst, presenting the entire Horn of Africa with a security crisis of the first order, spreading instability across a fragile subregion and . . . raising the specter that transnational terrorist networks like al-Qaeda will find and exploit the opportunities thus offered. Yet, for want of better ideas, the international community has opted to buy into a seductive, but nonetheless vicious, circle of its own manufacture whereby it must “stay the course” and continue to waste scarce resources shoring up the hopeless TFG because it has already invested too much time and resources into the regime to do otherwise. In short, if the TFG is “fiddling” while Somalia burns, it is doing so with a full orchestral accompaniment provided by an international community that apparently lacks either the will or the imagination (or both) to do anything else.
Subsequently I proceed to sketch out the outlines of an alternative approach that includes recognition of the desuetude of Somalia as a real subject of international law, the encouragement of effective actors and other authorities among the Somali, and a redefining of the role of the African Union peacekeeping force currently deployed to protect the TFG, concluding:
I readily acknowledged that an approach such as the one I sketched out may strike many as minimalist. However, I was convinced and am even more certain today that it was the course most likely to buy Somalis themselves the space within which to make their own determinations about their future while at the same time allowing the rest of the world, especially the countries of the Horn of Africa, to achieve their legitimate security objectives. Thus, not only does the strategy offer the most realistic hope of salvaging a modicum of regional stability and international security out of situation that otherwise grows increasingly intractable with each passing day, but it certainly beats replaying a tired old score while the neighborhood goes up in flames.
At Phi Beta Cons, Robert VerBruggen links to an article by a U.S. Naval Academy professor who details the widely divergent admissions standards Annapolis uses for whites and non-whites.Roger Clegg opposes this diversity-mania for a number of reasons, including simple fairness, inefficiency, and a likely cost in performance.
It’s interesting to compare the USNA’s “affirmative action” policy with the ban on gays in the military, about which Elaine Donnelly has writtenextensively.The case for continuing that ban (which seems reasonable to me, though I have no military experience) is that service members live and work together around the clock, with little or no privacy, and if some of them are attracted to others, it could end up harming morale and cohesion.The objection is not that homosexuals are incapable of serving their country well, but that the effect of their presence on group performance would be detrimental.
For both liberals and conservatives, the two issues can present a case of clashing principles.A liberal might ask a conservative:If military service and advancement should be based strictly on an individual’s skills, then what’s the justification for banning gays?And a conservative might respond: If “diversity” is so important to improving group performance that it overrides individual merit, then why can’t the same concern for group performance be used to continue the gay ban?
Each side has a way out, of course.Honest liberals will admit that the point of “affirmative action” is not equality; it’s to make things easy for members of “traditionally excluded groups.”Gays are traditionally excluded, so they deserve a break too.Right or wrong, at least this is consistent.Similarly, a conservative could say that morale, cohesion, and performance are the paramount considerations in deciding military policy.If you have guys hitting on each other in the barracks, that could easily cause problems, so gays should be kept out.
With all that in mind, consider these statistics from a Congressional Budget Office study: “As of September 2006, nonwhite service members made up 26 percent of the active enlisted force and 14 percent of the active officer corps. White service members constituted 68 percent of the enlisted force and 81 percent of officers. (In each case, the racial composition of an additional 6 percent of the force was unknown.)”Does this disparity make non-white enlistees believe the deck is stacked against them?Do affirmative-action schemes, like the one at Annapolis, make white enlistees believe they’ll have to meet a higher standard?
It’s hard to say, but Steve Schippert has written about his days in the service, when “light green” and “dark green” Marines got along fine by not letting their differences affect their common mission.One important factor in all this was the sense that they had all overcome the same obstacles and were facing the same tests.How could guys who had been through Parris Island together expect separate treatment base on race?
What all this adds up to is that it doesn’t pay to let a strict adherence to principles rule you.Equal opportunity is important — it’s one of the things our armed forces fight for — but if the presence of homosexuals would cause problems in the unique circumstances of military life, banning them can be justified.And even if you think “diversity” is laudable in a college atmosphere, the critical importance of the military to our nation’s security means that finding the best possible officer candidates should be the only thing that counts.The armed forces are no place to experiment with social engineering.
Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am' [Gregory S. McNeal]
This story is interesting: Senator Boxer chides a brigadier general for calling her "ma'am."
Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer's questions with "ma'am" when Boxer immediately cut him off.
"You know, do me a favor," an irritated Boxer said. "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"
"Yes, ma'am," Walsh interjected.
"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," she said.
"Yes, senator," he responded.
I think maybe she missed the fact that "ma'am" and "sir" are terms of respect in the military.
Substantive analysis to follow soon. But for now, because I know it makes him happy and because he swears there are no homosexuals in Iran (perhaps he's hanged the last one), I share an Ode to Mahmoud.
I suggested to a television-industry executive that instead of sending the Uighurs from Guantanamo to some remote island at great expense, their resettlement should be privatized: Release them into the custody of Fox Television, which would make them the stars of a reality show. You could show them finding out about America by watching Fox, struggling to learn English, applying for jobs, trying their luck with supermodels who just happen to be hanging out at the Dunkin’ Donuts in Uighurtown, and so forth. No tax money would be spent on them because Fox would pay all the expenses, and there would be no security problem because they would be filmed around the clock.
The executive says that unfortunately, viewers don’t like shows with heavy accents and subtitles.She also points out that Fox had a show a few years back called “Prison Break,” so the Department of Homeland Security might not approve of their idea of what makes good television.I don’t know, I still think it’s a hell of a plan.
The invaluable Peter Brookes writes about the threat posed to the United States by a newly assertive and self-confident Russia.As in the Cold War, Russia is vying with America to expand its influence around the world, using spies, economic warfare, and military might as weapons.Also as in the Cold War, China is proving an unreliable but often useful frenemy to the Russians. Each nation ruthlessly pursues its own interests, which sometimes conflict, but that doesn’t keep them from working together to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Russia is in some ways less dangerous, and in some ways more, than it was during the Cold War.On the one hand, the threat of a nuclear attack is much lower; on the other, a modern and semi-capitalist Russia with plenty of oil and natural gas can do a lot more harm, militarily and economically, than a creaky Communist dictatorship.According to Brookes, Russia’s chief goals are (1) reestablishing firm control over the “near abroad,” i.e., the former Soviet republics, (2) spreading its power and influence around the world, which is easier today without the burden of ideology, and (3) fueling its ever-growing economy.All these will contribute to Russia’s larger ambition, which is to become a global power on par with the U.S. and China.
Russia’s goals do not include undermining Western democracy or spreading communism, two preoccupations of the Soviet era.So its brutal methods against its former vassals (e.g. Georgia and Moldova), while troubling and worthy of opposition, do not pose a direct threat to America and Western Europe, as similar adventures did in the decades after World War II.As Brookes writes:
The important thing is to see Russia with a sober eye. It is not a bury-the-West Russia, but then again it is not a make-nice-with-the-West Russia, either. It is a new Russia in a new century: a country bound and determined to be a dominant regional and world power.
For example, he says, Russia’s indignation over America’s missile-defense plans for Eastern Europe (which are meant to counter Iran, not Russia) is partly genuine offense at a perceived insult, partly a desire to keep America off Russia’s old “turf” in Poland and the Czech Republic, but also partly opportunism.
In response to those plans, Vladimir Putin has threatened to pull out of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) and Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaties.This saber-rattling not only sends a message that the old days of peace and friendship (in public, at least) are over, but also frees Russia to beef up its military capability, both defensive and offensive.The intended object of this renewed military might is not America or Western Europe, but the near abroad, along with Russia’s growing list of overseas military clients and allies (including Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Libya, for starters).
The Obama administration seems lukewarm at best about missile defense, and in general has shown a marked preference for sweet talk and apologies instead of hostility and confrontation.Yet the arms-control treaties that Russia looks set abrogate under Obama were negotiated under tough-talking, unapologetic Ronald Reagan (INF) and George H. W. Bush (CFE).To be sure, times have changed over two decades, and many differences exist between then and now, but rhetoric may be the least important of them.
By the Cold War’s last days, the Soviet Union’s armed forces and its economy were both falling apart, and nuclear weapons were about the only card it had to play.Today’s Soviet Union is much stronger, militarily and economically, so squeezing concessions out of it will be much more difficult — even after pushing the reset button.Two things, however, are clear.First of all, Russia remains, as it was during the Cold War (in Henry Kissinger’s formulation), a “broken vending machine”:Put in a coin, and nothing comes out.Putin and his henchmen will not respond to gestures or peaceful overtures, only to displays of power and mutually beneficial proposals.
And second, it all comes down to energy.Russia’s bullying of its neighbors, its military modernization and advanced weaponry (for its own use and for export), its cyber-attacks on any -Stan that shows a bit of independence, its hampering of America’s war effort and support of America’s enemies, its opening of military bases worldwide, its increasing assertiveness in international bodies — all are made possible by its oil and gas wealth.As Brookes writes: “Energy today is, arguably, what the Red Army was during the Cold War: the main source of Russia's influence and strength.”With that in mind, the best thing President Obama could do to advance global security would be to lower the oil price by boosting domestic production.But don’t hold your breath until that happens.
Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Gays-in-Military Law [Elaine Donnelly]
On Monday the Supreme Court denied a petition requesting review of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had upheld as constitutional the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military.This decision is good news, but the case reveals a basic contradiction in the position of the Obama administration with regard to the 1993 law.
The Department of Justice correctly opposed the personal appeal of Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was one of 12 plaintiffs in the original Cook v. Gates case, which challenged the law’s constitutionality.Plaintiffs in the Cook case hoped to win in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which reversed precedent in striking down remaining state laws regarding sodomy.That did not happen, however, because the federal courts historically have deferred to Congress in matters of policy involving the military.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling in the Cook case, but one of the plaintiffs, James Pietrangelo, petitioned for review by the Supreme Court.The Justice Department opposed Pietrangelo’s petition, but this would have been news only if the administration had failed to do so.The government had already won the case at the federal appeals-court level, and it would have been extraordinary for the Justice Department to support an appeal against that ruling.
Contrast this action with the Justice Department’s passive acceptance of an adverse ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a California case called Witt v. Gates.When Air Force nurse Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged for homosexuality and unsuccessfully challenged the law in federal court, she appealed to the Ninth Circuit and a three-judge panel heard her case.
In the controversial tradition of the Ninth Circuit, the panel sent the case back to the lower court, ordering that the district court rehear it under an “intermediate” standard of review higher than the customary “rational basis” standard that the court should have applied.Under the “rational basis” test, the 1993 law is, as the First Circuit Court wrote, “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”
The opinion of the Ninth Circuit panel effectively rejected the congressional findings of fact behind Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., including this statement in the law: “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” In other words, Congress legislated on a general premise and the Ninth Circuit ordered application on a specific premise.
There was an appeal to members of the full Ninth Circuit en banc, which was not successful, but dissents written by three members of that court set forth very strong reasons why the higher intermediate standard of review should not have been applied.
This means that the Department of Justice will have to defend the 1993 law by proving that Major Witt, who had been living off-base with a longtime female partner, was disrupting cohesion in her own unit.Instead of accepting imposition of the unjustified intermediate standard, the Justice Department should have petitioned for review by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court probably would have overruled the procedural ruling of the Ninth Circuit, as they do quite often in other cases.
The Pietrangelo case should remind members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that they should ask Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor whether she supports the longstanding principle of judicial deference to Congress in matters of policy affecting the military.If Obama’s solicitor general, Elena Kagan, is nominated for the next vacancy, the senators should ask her the same question.
Ms. Kagan also should be asked why she chose not to defend the 1993 law most effectively by approving an appeal of the Ninth Circuit panel’s procedural ruling directly to the Supreme Court.The fact that she did not do so calls into question certain promises that Kagan made during her confirmation hearing.
A few weeks ago, Mark Steyn guest-hosted for Wendy Sullivan and Mike Williams on their Brass Balls Radio show, which is now a part of the new Radio for Conservatives. Good folks over there, spinning a significant expense on their own dime. (Conservatives tend to kinda be that way, you know.) Well, I've joined the RFC Radio team too, with the not-so-creatively named Steve Schippert Show, for lack of any other show-name ideas that . . . well . . . didn't suck. The show name may not be exactly to my personal liking, but the information discussed is important and adds valuable context.
In the first episode, which streams at RFC Radio at 1:00 p.m. EDT, I talk a bit about liberty and explain what to me is the most important line of Ronald Reagan's 1964 Republican National Convention address. Then we immediately launch into a globetrot, hitting hotspots around the world with added context Americans should be aware of. Quite a bit of time is spent on Iran and the nuclear program that they, apparently, now have the POTUS-granted right to pursue.
If you're so inclined, give it a listen. It's quite liberating to be able to talk national security while not worrying about conflict of non-profit interests when bringing up political hocus-pocus and general jackassery. Though the first show didn't work much as biting humor, as is my nature in conversation, the show ends with snark. Now Evan Thomas's leg is all tingly too; and what do you get when you merge Government Motors with Chrysler-FIAT? The answer is what we've been staring at since TARP.
Morocco's Comprehensive Counterterrorism Approach [J. Peter Pham]
Today my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review—the publication of which coincides with President Barack Obama’s trip to the Middle East—examines the comprehensive counterterrorism strategy of an ally that is regrettably not on the presidential itinerary, Morocco. (Although not the point of my essay, I do suggest several reasons why the Sharifian Kingdom would have been a more appropriate venue, historically and politically, for the long-anticipated presidential address to the Muslim world than Egypt.)
Looking at the approach that the Moroccan government adopted in the six years since the simultaneous suicide bombings in Casablanca on May 16, 2003, the article notes that, in addition to traditional military and security measures, Morocco has also strengthened its legal framework to fight terrorists, worked to influence religious discourse along a moderate path (including the introduction of women as religious guides), ameliorated the socio-economic factors that extremists might exploit, and beefed up regional and international security cooperation, including with the United States. In the end, I conclude:
While Morocco’s fight against extremist ideology and terrorist violence will likely be an ongoing struggle requiring constant vigilance, the country’s efforts to date have helped reduce the overall threat, both for itself as well as for other countries. This is no mean accomplishment, enhance as it does security for Europe, where large Maghrebi diaspora communities are to be found, and West Africa, where Morocco has not inconsiderable political, economic, and cultural influence. Thus Morocco’s friends, including the United States, have every reason not only to celebrate its success, but also to support it, all the while learning whatever lessons they might draw from a truly comprehensive approach.
I was recently interviewed by Patty Satalia, a journalist with WPSU, a PBS and NPR affiliate. The interview was approximately one hour long (divided into segments) and questions ran the gamut from a discussion of the challenges the president will face in closing Guantanamo, to lessons from the CIA memos. We also discussed similarities and differences between President Bush and President Obama, the role of the courts and Congress in these debates, and other related topics.
The interview is available for viewing at http://conversations.psu.edu. Readers who want to offer feedback can also comment on the "discussion board" immediately below the videos. I look forward to hearing your comments.
Please go to Blackfive and watch the video of Private Long's father, former marine Daris Long, speaking of yesterday's events. It is heartbreaking yet encouraging to watch, and important. I'll simply borrow Matt's words.
This is difficult to watch, but you should listen to Daris Long. It's important. It's about our family.
If the private's father is any indication, young William was probably one helluva soldier already.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Long family, and with the family of wounded soldier Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
Blood is indeed thicker than water, Mr. Daris. And it has nothing to do with genetics. As Matt said, it's our family. Semper Fi, sir. Our hearts break for you and your family. Our family.
Little Rock Soldier Murdered, One Wounded at Recruiting Center [Steve Schippert]
The motive is unknown at present, but two young soldiers were gunned down while standing outside a Little Rock, Arkansas, recruiting center. One of them has died of his wounds. The most complete story so far comes from local KATV coverage.
Authorities say the incident occurred around 10:00 a.m. at a U.S. Army Navy Career Center inside the Ashley Square Shopping Center at 9112 North Rodney Parham Road. According to Lt. Terry Hastings with the Little Rock Police Department, two enlisted soldiers standing outside the office were hit when the unidentified suspect drove up and began shooting.
Both of the wounded were taken to a nearby hospital, where one of the victims died a short time later, according to police. . . .
Some reports are presuming they were recruiters, but they were not. They were young local soldiers assisting their recruiters in what is called Hometown Recruiting Assistance.
According to Army Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, the two victims were not recruiters, but part of a recruiting program called "Hometown Recruiting Assistance." Artis says recruiters use soldiers to tell their stories and talk to potential recruits while they are visiting or based back in their home region.
We do not yet know their names, but service members and veterans alike already offer prayers and condolences to the families.
The last time we mentioned Yemen, President Obama and his crew were planning to send 97 Yemeni terrorists from Guantanamo back to their home country, where they would be taught good manners and released with a pat on the head.Now even the hard-core transnationalists at the Department of Justice are starting to realize that this might not be a good idea.In fact, the whole close-Gitmo thing may be delayed by a year or two while they cook up either (a) a plan to find enough states and foreign countries willing to take in hundreds of trained and fanatical terrorists from Yemen and elsewhere, or (b) an excuse for why Obama’s campaign pledge and executive order to shut the place down have become inoperative.
Once that’s done, all they have to do is explain why militant Islamists who are moved to the general prison population won’t simply recruit more terrorists there (as was done in the recent Bronx bombing plot, for example). They can also tell us how the terrorists will be better off in American prisons that are often brutal and gang-ridden, instead of in an all-Muslim facility where their safety is ensured and their religious practices are scrupulously indulged.
The Yemenis, as the biggest bloc of terrorists at Guantanamo, were a major factor in the decision not to rush the prison’s closing.What made the administration change its mind?Nothing much that’s new, just the internal conflicts that have been simmering in Yemen for decades.Those conflicts are now starting to bubble to the surface, and the situation is looking shaky enough that not even Obama’s true believers can ignore them.
As often happens, the separatist movement in Yemen has been fueled by a general disintegration of society.As Jane Novak, the doughty Yemen watcher, writes:
Somali pirates hide their mother ships in Yemen’s waters. NATO Commander, Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, said the pirates receive “a lot of the logistical supplies” from Yemen. Pirates say they receive information on ship location from Yemeni collaborators.
The U.N. committee that monitors the arms embargo on Somalia found Yemen to be the primary source of illegal arms and ammunition. Yemen’s inability to stem the large-scale arms trafficking is “a key obstacle to the restoration of peace and security to Somalia,” the panel determined.
Weapons are also smuggled to Saudi Arabia and Gaza. Yemen, the poorest nation in the Middle East, spends a third of its budget on the military. President Saleh inked a billion-dollar weapons deal with Russia in February.
Narcotics from Pakistan, Iran and Syria, including millions of Keptagon tablets and tons of hashish, enter Yemen and flood the Gulf States. Yemeni children are sold to beg in Saudi Arabia and have their kidney’s harvested in Egypt. In some border villages, one third of children are missing.
The biggest danger sign is that Ali Salem al-Beidh — the former Soviet stooge and later vice president who briefly led an independent South Yemen during the 1994 civil war and has lived quietly in exile ever since — has returned to politics and claimed leadership of the separatist Southern Movement.Yemen’s tensions have been growing for some time, and are not confined to the south; lately they have gotten violent.Issues include ethnic grievances, pervasive government corruption, a growing Islamist influence, and a general lack of the necessities of civilized life.
Ali Abdullah Saleh, president of the fissiparous nation, has long been America’s best friend in the struggle, though he is widely believed to have cooperated with al-Qaeda terrorists. Better a dodgy strongman than another Somalia, it is thought, especially in this fertile ground for extremists; and if Saleh can take those Yemeni detainees off our hands and get them working for him, so much the better, the odd leveledvillage and suppressedoppositiongroup aside.
But if Saleh can’t hold Yemen together, there’s no reason to support him, and it looks increasingly likely that he can’t.Earlier this month, U.S.-brokered peace negotiations began in Cairo, though no one but the diplomacy-loving Americans places much faith in them.Oh, and did I mention that oil revenues are down 74 percent compared with the same period last year?That won’t improve anyone’s disposition.
The government of Yemen has not been able to give its people even the essentials of modern life, like electricity or water. Every day, the electricity turns off for at least 6 hours in the capital Sana’a, and water services have seen a decrease since the beginning of the year. . . . People today in Yemen live a life close to that of some poor countries in Africa, even though it is located in one of the richest places on the planet.
Ali Salim Al-Beedth, the former vice president of Yemen, and leader of the south announced last week that southern Yemen must be separated. In my opinion, the reason why he announced that was because he has either gotten too old and is saying things for no reason, or that he was bored in his old home in Oman and wanted more action in his life.
Whatever the reason for him was, President Saleh will help him if he does not stop corruption and give the people the biggest portion of the cake.
Most Yemenis would settle for a little peace and quiet and a manageable level of corruption, but the prospects for achieving even that modest goal are not good.One thing is for sure:The situation would not be improved by adding 97 more trained and rested terrorists to the mix.Yemen is yet another situation where Obama and his handlers are slowly learning the harsh differences between running for office and running a country.
All of us — military or civilian, serving warrior or veteran — are indebted to the good men who have launched the Warrior Legacy Foundation. What happened to our fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends after Vietnam will never, ever happen again without energetic, determined, and passionate challenge.That is what the Warrior Legacy Foundation embodies. Our fathers needed it. Their sons and grandsons will no longer want for it.
Across every generation, at war and at peace, America has asked her citizens to protect liberty and defend freedom at all costs. No matter the terrain or political climate, America’s Warriors have met every challenge and made every sacrifice that was asked of them in order to defeat our enemies and protect our way of life. The Warrior Legacy Foundation is a passionate advocate for the preservation and elevation of the hallowed legacy of the American Warrior Class.
There’s a new gang in town. They’re not trying to act tough. They don’t have to. They’ve already proven they are. They’re not trying to look tough. They look like your neighbors. They’re not teenagers. They have become worthy adults by passing difficult hurdles.
But, they do have colors. They’re red, white and blue.
The new gang is called the Warrior Legacy Foundation.The warriors are not just military veterans but anyone who reveres the contributions and sacrifices of veterans, and wants to see their commitment honored and passed on to coming generations, whether serving in the military or not.
Memorial Day fast approaches. And while we pause then to honor the Fallen who went before us, we should also pause to thank those who have put themselves at the fore with the dedicated purpose of preserving — and in some instances reclaiming — the honor of the American Warrior. For the Warrior Legacy Foundation, every day is Memorial Day.
Sign up to become a member. There are many ways to support Warrior Legacy Foundation efforts and join in common cause. Take ownership of your part in the “preservation and elevation of the hallowed legacy of the American Warrior Class.”
Rep. Akin Challenges FY2010 Naval Budget and Priorities [Steve Schippert]
Give a quick read of Rep. Todd Akin (R., Mo.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, completely obliterating those who say, in effect, “Trust us. We really are going to expand the Navy and address concerns, just like we said.” Apparently Representative Akin subscribes to “Trust, but verify,” a view held by that silly old conservative who should no longer be mentioned in proper Republican circles, so enlightened are they. But I digress . . .
Verify he did. Wow. For those of you who barely skim Defense press conferences and take words spoken at face value, pay attention as Representative Akin does proper legwork.
I was also interested to hear the Chief of Naval Operations state yesterday, at the Full Committee hearing, that the Navy still intends to maintain a minimum of 313 ships.It had begun to sound as if the Secretary of Defense, in his Foreign Affairs article, and the Navy, in its budget roll out, were beginning to back away from that number. It was not clear to me how the Navy planned to implement the joint Maritime Strategy, with its emphasis on forward presence, if the Navy intended to accept fewer ships.A ship can only be in one place at once and today’s fleet is the smallest it has been for nearly one hundred years.
Despite the good news, however, that the Navy is not backing away from the goal of increasing the size of the fleet, the CNO also acknowledged, in his written statement, “Our FY 2010 budget aligns with the path our Maritime Strategy has set; however, we are progressing at an adjusted pace.”That sounds like code to me for “This budget request doesn’t invalidate our Maritime Strategy, but it won’t allow us to meet our goals.”I see evidence of this in the budget request for shipbuilding.For example, the Navy will commission and decommission the same number of ships this year — which means, no net increase in the number of ships.To be fair, we can’t blame that on this budget request.But the simple math — 300 ships, with an average 30 year life — means we need to commission and decommission about 10 ships a year.This budget requests only 8 ships and presents no future plan to give Congress any reason to believe the Navy will ever meet its force structure requirements.
Our colleague, Representative Forbes, asked Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen about the lack of a 30-year shipbuilding plan at a hearing earlier this week.Admiral Mullen stated, “it will come in the '11 budget. And I would say we can rely reasonably well on the 30-year shipbuilding plan that's been submitted before.”But I count at least nine ways this budget diverges from the FY09 plan:
• Moving the funding of carriers to five year centers, drops the force to 10 carriers in 2039.
• Building 3 DDG 1000 destroyers instead of 7.
• Building 1 DDG 51 destroyer instead of zero.
• Not building the next generation cruiser (CG(X)) in FY11.
• Not building a large deck amphib for the Maritime Prepositioning Force in FY10.
• Not building a Mobile Landing Platform ship for the Maritime Prepositioning Force in FY10.
• Not shutting down the LPD-17 production line at 9 ships, but funding the final increment for the 10th ship.
• Building 2 T-AKE ships in FY10 instead of zero.
• Investing half a billion dollars in R&D for the replacement of the OHIO Class submarine.
So, in fact, we cannot rely upon the last shipbuilding plan and evidently we won’t receive a new one.We have the same problems on the aviation front, but I’ll save those comments for next week’s aviation hearing. Therefore, we can only rely on the testimony you provide today to shed light on the analysis that went into the decisions that were made within the shipbuilding account.The investments that the Navy is making in ship construction and R&D were evidently a higher priority than addressing the strike-fighter gap, which until recently, the Navy said was a serious concern.This may be true — but to do our jobs, it becomes critically important that this committee understand your reasoning.
In the context provided, it is definitely understandable why Representative Akins is having a hard time understanding the logic. If you didn’t catch that, go back and read it again. You’ll not find such in tomorrow’s edition of the New York Times.
I don’t pretend to know much about Missouri’s Rep. Tom Akins, but he did his job prudently well here. If he’s going to be asked to sign onto a budget, the man has to understand naval priorities and how they are being addressed.
Obama Shuns Plan to Evade Gays-in-Military Law [Elaine Donnelly]
Much to the dismay of liberal activists, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs announced Wednesday that Pres. Barack Obama will not implement a plan to circumvent the 1993 law regarding gays in the military. This was a significant retreat from the one-word answer, “Yes,” that Gibbs gave in January when he was asked if Obama would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now Gibbs is saying that Obama is working to achieve a “durable legislative solution,” which requires “more than the snapping of one’s fingers.”
Someone needs to break this news to the Michael D. Palm Center, an activist group based at the University of California–Santa Barbara that used to call itself the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.On Monday the Palm Center issued a pretentious and legally absurd report claiming that President Obama can indeed snap his fingers with an executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That law, Section 654, Title 10, differs from Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administrative policy because it states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in uniform.
Even Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak, co-sponsor of a House bill (H.R. 1283) to repeal the 1993 law, recently told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that President Obama should not try to get around Congress on a matter such as this. “We are a nation of laws,” said Sestak, “and in the last administration we saw executive actions that seemed to bend if not break those laws.”
The Palm Center’s desperation strategy seemed to be reflected during last Sunday’s ABC News program “This Week.”Host George Stephanopoulos aggressively questioned Pres. Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, on the issue of homosexuals in the military.Acknowledging congressional and military resistance to Obama’s position on the issue, Stephanopoulos suggested that the president should try to circumvent the law by suspending enforcement.
The question reflected the Palm Center’s latest polemic, which encourages the president to stop enforcing the law, rendering it essentially meaningless. Using contrived arguments, the Palm Center gay-studies scholars unconvincingly tried to justify unilateral non-enforcement of the law.The document advocates an interpretation based on the rarely used authority that underlies presidential “stop-loss” orders that sometimes are issued to keep troops in the field during a military or national emergency.
On Monday, the Center for Military Readiness issued a statement reminding the Obama administration of certain realities:Any presidential order or Defense Department directive disregarding the law, handed down for reasons of political expediency, would constitute a serious, perhaps irreparable breach of faith with men and women who volunteer to serve.
An imperious presidential challenge to congressional authority on a matter as important as this would erode relationships and good will, and give rise to constitutional questions.History shows that in conflicts with Congress, presidents do not win.
If Obama issues an order suspending enforcement of the law, it would be perceived by the troops and the nation as an evasion of his oath to “faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States.”Having taken this oath, presidents do not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore.
In the Sunday interview, Stephanopoulos asked General Jones about the president’s plans to allow professed homosexuals in the military.Jones replied “We have had preliminary discussions with the leadership of the Pentagon, Secretary Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” Jones also compared the process to more of a “rheostat” than a “light switch.”
With regard to suspension of enforcement of the law, which Stephanopoulos incorrectly described as “prosecutions and investigations,” Jones walked a fine line: “Well, maybe that’s an option that eventually we’ll get to but we’re not there now.”
Then Stephanopoulos asked Jones what he would say to the more than 1,000 Flag and General Officers for the Military, including 50 retired four-stars, who recently released a statement expressing their professional judgment in support of the 1993 law.
The high-ranking officers’ open letter, delivered to the White House on March 31, respectfully asked the president and members of Congress to recognize this issue “as a matter of national security,” and to “oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal the law.” (The list of officers personally signing the Flag and General Officers for the Military statement has since increased to 1,134.)
Former Marine Commandant Jones sidestepped that question, except to say that the open letter illustrated that “this is a very sensitive issue and it has to be discussed over time.”Jones indicated that the president will “reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision.”
This sounds reasonable, except for one thing.Prominent LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) groups and activists have been visiting the White House regularly to discuss military/social policies and key Pentagon appointments.
If President Obama disregards the respectful recommendations of the retired flag officers and devotes more attention to civilian gay activists, he will inadvertently weaken bonds of trust that must exist between a Commander-in-Chief and the troops he leads.Military experts call this “vertical cohesion,” an essential element of military culture that is as important for morale as “horizontal cohesion,” the bonds of trust among military personnel who rely on each other for survival.
CMR has cautioned President Obama to be careful about taking advice from civilian gay activists and former Bill Clinton policy adviser Stephanopoulos, who played a substantial role in the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” fiasco of 1993.The ABC commentator's questioning of Jim Jones followed the admission by openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) in a recent interview with Roll Call that advocates of gays in the military do not have sufficient votes to repeal the law.
The statement of Mr. Gibbs on Wednesday indicates that someone in the White House — perhaps President Obama himself — is starting to think this matter through with the seriousness it deserves.The president would be wise to continue refusing recommendations from LGBT groups that have little understanding of the culture of the military.
More news on this issue is posted and updated frequently on the CMR SITREP Blog.
Basic Instincts: Defense and Cuts Are Synonyms [Steve Schippert]
Here we go again. The double-talk of “budget cuts” begins anew, and the first word to follow “cuts” is — again — “defense.” Let’s forget for the moment that the much-trumpeted $17 billion in “cuts” is not actually that — a reduction in federal spending — but rather a reallocation from, primarily, the Department of Defense ($9.4 billion of the $17 billion) back into the supplemental budget to be devoted to other, surely more pressing matters. No, instead let’s focus on the prime Obama administration target: the Department of Defense.
There certainly are things in the defense budget that should be reconsidered. Such is the nature of bureaucracies — all of them, not just Defense. The plan to purchase a new presidential helicopter fleet is among the items yanked off the defense table. But so are various parts of missile defense and, expectedly, the new F-22 fighter program. There has been a healthy debate about the need for this, and about how Defense can perhaps better allocate such funds to address the enemy we are currently engaged with.
As far as the White House is concerned, though, the debate is over. The F-22 is gone, and the resources are not going to be redirected back to Defense in order to do things like speed up the replacement of the M-16 “Sand-Jammer” rifle or invest in increased military language immersion training for Arabic, Pashto, Urdu, and Farsi. Oh, no. It’s back to Congress with those funds, so that the Pell Grant program can be transformed into “an entitlement akin to Social Security and Medicare.” Delaware’s boardwalks need another $7.5 million in federal grants, but defense? Pfffft. Get with the program, Marine.
The Washington Times tells you just about all you need to know about the instincts of this administration, which has ballooned just about every other type of federal spending and then invented a few.
The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. Defense accounts for 49 percent of spending on discretionary programs, which Congress must fund each year.
The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.
While we are conducting two hot wars — pardon, “overseas contingency operations” — and trying to find ways to defend against both asymmetrical warfare and the traditional conventional military threats that have not disappeared just because al-Qaeda attacked us, the only place Obama can find any waste is in Defense.
"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.
To borrow a phrase from our current Secretary of State, then a senator, as she incredulously ridiculed then-MNF-I Commander Gen. David Petraeus: That “requires the suspension of disbelief” to take at face value. Obama is not cutting the deficit; he is cutting Defense and redistributing it back into a budget of social programs for the same net expenditure.
To understand this, look no further than Brian Riedl at The Corner:
Virtually every dollar “saved” would automatically go towards new spending instead of deficit reduction.
Here’s why: The president already proposed a specific discretionary spending level (which included these proposals), and Congress has already approved a budget that would spend $1,086 billion on regular discretionary spending in FY 2010. The discretionary savings proposals affect only the composition of such spending. Thus, even if the entire $12.5 billion in discretionary spending cuts are enacted, the savings would automatically be plowed into other programs to maintain discretionary spending at that pre-set $1,086 billion level. So this exercise is about reorganizing — not reducing — government.
Veterans are quite skilled at spotting dog-and-pony shows. We’ve been around the block a few times.
