The Tank on National Review Online

The Tank on National Review Online http://tank.nationalreview.com The Tank en-us © National Review Online 2009. All Rights Reserved webmaster@nationalreview.com (NRO Webmaster) Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:08:02 -0400 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:08:02 -0400 NRO RSS Generator v1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 5 http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/nro_rsslogo.jpg The Tank on National Review Online http://tank.nationalreview.com 144 80 National Review Online U.N. in Lebanon: Due Diligence or Diligence Due? -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTBiMjE2MDNkMDlmYTg5YTZlYjkwNzUzYjg1NzBjZjA= The question, of course, is entirely rhetorical. When a weapons cache in a warehouse in southern Lebanon, along the Israeli border, unexpectedly exploded, no one wondered whose it was or what it was. Well, except perhaps United Nations officials, who routinely have trouble making decisions, lest one party or another might prefer not to hear a proclamation that the apple is, indeed, red. True to form, the <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-41283120090724">U.N. is almost certain</a> that it is a possibility that the weapons cache that exploded in the middle of Hezbollah’s forces “might” possibly perhaps maybe be Hezbollah’s. Or at least, there’s a chance. <blockquote> The U.N. peacekeeping chief has said there are signs an illegal weapons stockpile that exploded last week in southern Lebanon belonged to the Lebanese guerrilla movement Hezbollah. In a speech delivered behind closed doors to the Security Council on Thursday, U.N. peacekeeping chief Alain Le Roy also said that some of the people who tried to prevent U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon (UNIFIL) from investigating the site were Hezbollah members dressed in civilian clothes. "A number of indications suggest that the depot belonged to Hezbollah, and, in contrast to previous discoveries by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces of weapons and ammunition, that it was not abandoned but, rather, actively maintained," he told the 15-nation council in the speech, obtained by Reuters. He said the mere presence of such arms south of the Litani River represented a "serious violation of resolution 1701." </blockquote> And that "serious violation of resolution 1701" just might possibly perhaps maybe have been supplied by Iran, through Syria. But that’s another level of clarity that is decidedly not for beginners. Let’s practice calling the apple red first before we go analyzing the core and its seeds. This is, of course, the same United Nations that finds itself incapable of concluding that Syria -- specifically Bashar al-Assad and his merry band of Mukhabarat -- were behind the massive truck bombing and assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and 19 others in Beirut in 2005. And the Blue Hats on the ground (mil-speak for UNIFIL forces from various countries) are on vacation. Everyone knows that getting deployed as a Blue Hat means a no-combat breather in a different land. They have no dog in the fight. And no one wants to go home from vacation dead, after all. Oh, sure, technically their mandate is to “enforce” U.N. Resolution 1701 and prevent Hezbollah from rearming. But that would mean actually, well, fighting Hezbollah terrorists, who have other designs and orders from Tehran. The Blue Hat colonels and generals jockey for international recognition and prestige while the foot soldier views the situation with disinterest in the generals and disdain for risking death when he has no vested interest in the fight. It’s essentially Barack Obama’s ideal army. In fact, the long-winded yet ineffectual international organization is a perfect fit. And when he loses the 2012 American presidential election, he will most probably and naturally “ascend” to secretary-general of the United Nations, where he can finally become President of the World, command an army that won’t fight, and endlessly tour the globe giving speeches ad nauseam. What a spectacle it will be one day to see an American president locking horns with an American secretary-general of the U.N. And for those who are still having a hard time distinguishing true colors, the job of secretary-general will be a much more natural and perhaps ideologically liberating fit for the current president of the United States. But regardless, the U.N. is and will remain functionally useless, militarily feckless, and little more than a waste of billions of dollars and the squanderer of prime Manhattan real estate. If the U.N. proclamation that the weapons cache that exploded on Lebanon’s side of the Israeli border “might” be Hezbollah’s doesn’t make that clear, despite the U.N.’s massing “its own” forces to supposedly enforce its own resolution against exactly that, nothing will. No, you will be among those wildly cheering Secretary-General Obama in a few years as he promises to heal international wounds and begins strong-arming global taxation. Good luck with that. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTBiMjE2MDNkMDlmYTg5YTZlYjkwNzUzYjg1NzBjZjA= Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:08:58 -0400 Clothes Make the Man -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RjOTdiMzA3YzA4ODcyNWU4MTcwYjE5MTQ5MzkxMmM= An article at <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090718.aspx">Strategy Page</a> details the Air Force’s ongoing search for a satisfactory work uniform. The new Airman Battle Uniform, introduced a couple of years ago, is much more convenient than the old one: <blockquote> The ABU is permanent press, wash-and-wear and more comfortable. No ironing needed, and you cannot use starch on them. The new boots that go with the ABU are suede green, and cannot be polished. That's another big draw. </blockquote> Unfortunately for those serving in the Middle East, the new fabric is also hotter, especially where the large map pocket creates a double layer (some airmen have been getting the pocket removed). It also is harder to keep clean, and an airman notes in the article’s comment section that the boots are good at retaining stains and bad at keeping water out. So the search continues. It’s tempting to draw a contrast between the U.S. military’s impressive success with high-tech weaponry and its continuing struggles to find a good uniform, but the difference there is the difference between building a few hundred or thousand precision devices at high cost and mass-producing something cheap and rugged in quantities a hundred times greater. In any case, the situation can’t help being better than it was during the Civil War, when each regiment arrived at training camp wearing a uniform of its own design. The elite French troops known as Zouaves, who had distinguished themselves in the Crimean War of the 1850s, were widely admired in America at the time. So a number of regiments, such as the 5th New York, wore flashy Zouave-type uniforms: <img src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/23/77261e571955561259502dfc80eea82b.jpg" alt="5th NY Zouaves" width="477" height="314" /> They quickly discovered that bright red pants attracted bullets at an alarming rate -- though their plight was not as bad as that of the 2nd New Hampshire and 2nd Wisconsin regiments, which wore grey uniforms at the battle of Bull Run and got fired on by Union troops who thought they were Confederates. These and other fancy-dress regiments soon learned to wear standard Union blue on business and save the finery for the parade ground. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RjOTdiMzA3YzA4ODcyNWU4MTcwYjE5MTQ5MzkxMmM= Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:14:11 -0400 Discussing GITMO on WITF Radio (Call-in Show) -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWYwMDk2NmI1MTgxMDhjMWRlMDlkY2MxMzIzZjNjMTI= Tank readers, apologies for my absence recently. I've been buried in my day job and in work on GITMO and other CT related projects. With that said, I want to call your attention to an appearance I'll be making tomorrow that may allow us to correspond by more than just the blog and email (and thanks to those of you who've sent emails recently and patiently waited for my slow response). Tomorrow morning (Thursday, July 23, 2009), from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., I will appear on "<a href="http://www.witf.org/news/smart-talk" target="_self">Smart Talk</a>" on WITF-89.5FM and 93.3FM out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The topic is Guantanamo, the detainee task force, and President Obama's approach to counterterrorism. <a href="http://www.usip.org/specialists/leonard-s-rubenstein" target="_self">Leonard Rubenstein</a> of the U.S. Institute of Peace will also appear on the show. Leonard is the former director of Physicians for Human Rights, and an expert on health and human rights during conflicts. I'm looking forward to engaging in a dialogue with him and with callers (it's a call-in show). For those of you outside the Harrisburg listening area, you can listen live <a href="http://www.witf.org/lifestyle/schedules/23-933-fm-live" target="_blank">here</a>. The call in number is 1-800-729-7532. (Cross-posted at <a href="http://blog.gsmcneal.com/2009/07/22/discussing-gitmo-on-witf-radio-call-in-show/" target="_blank">LawandTerrorism.com</a>.) <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWYwMDk2NmI1MTgxMDhjMWRlMDlkY2MxMzIzZjNjMTI= Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:30:22 -0400 Sen. Gillibrand: Self-Interest Above Support for Troops -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ3ODJlMmZhNmJjZGFhNzZjZGFjODM3ZjkxNzhlNzI= Activists for gays in the military, apparently adopting the leftist mantra “by any means necessary,” have launched four major attempts to circumvent <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=29">the1993 law</a> stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the armed forces. The statute, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” enjoys <a href="http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=342">strong support in the military</a>. Gay activists and their friends in Congress nevertheless are determined to impose a San Francisco-style agenda on the armed forces -- incrementally if not all at once. The first ideological attack occurred when ABC commentator George Stephanopoulos aggressively questioned Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, on the May 10 This Week program. Reflecting demands from the activist Michael D. Palm Center, Stephanopoulos asked Jones whether Pres. Barack Obama would suspend enforcement of the 1993 law. Three days later White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot down the idea. <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlMDRkM2I0OThhZWVjNTJiNTkwZjhiOWE5MzQzMmI=">As I wrote at the time</a>, an imperious presidential order disregarding the law would constitute a serious, perhaps irreparable breach of faith with men and women who volunteer to serve. Next, President Obama pandered to his LGBT Left constituency by proclaiming June as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality” month. Reacting to vociferous pressure, <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhlZmEwNTNjZGRmMzE3YjlmNTQ3MGQ4MTQ3MTQ0ZDY=">Defense Secretary Robert Gates</a> displayed ignorance of the law by wondering whether there is a “more humane” way to enforce it. But laws and regulations defining eligibility for military service are not “inhumane.” Everyone can serve our country in some way, but there is no inherent right to be in the military. If Secretary Gates really wants to be helpful, he should drop the expendable “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administrative policy, and fully explain and enforce the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. The third attempted ambush came on June 25, when openly gay congressman Jared Polis (D., Colo.) attempted to offer two amendments to the House defense authorization bill. One measure would have repealed the present homosexual ineligibility law, and the other would have “suspended” ongoing enforcement, in effect having the same result as repeal. <a href="http://cmrlink.org/sitrep.asp">Polis withdrew the amendments</a> before they could be considered by the House, probably due to opposition from Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee. Despite their present political advantages and a liberal media constantly promoting the agenda, the failure of Polis’s amendments represented another major defeat for the LGBT Left. Now comes the fourth major push for circumvention of the 1993 law -- Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s brazen attempt to put politics over principle. According to <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gillibrand-mulls-move-left-on-gays-2009-07-13.html">The Hill</a>, Gillibrand, New York's junior senator, who was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton, is using the controversial issue of gays in the military to solidify her support among gay voters. (Liberal congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is expected to challenge Gillibrand in the Democratic primary.) Gillibrand is considering offering an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill that would put an 18-month “moratorium” on discharges of homosexuals in the military. According to <a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98193.asp">The Advocate</a>, a gay publication, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has endorsed the idea and wants to suspend discharges permanently. As of this writing, we don’t know whether Senator Gillibrand actually will offer gratuitous legislation to circumvent and nullify the law. We do know that her politically motivated move to the LGBT Left, described in <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gillibrand-mulls-move-left-on-gays-2009-07-13.html">The Hill</a>, is unworthy of serious consideration by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Advocates of repealing the 1993 law are showing poor judgment in trying to persuade President Obama or Secretary Gates to simply stop enforcing the law -- an action that would violate their oaths of office and betray the interests of the troops they lead. It is simply wrong to play political games with an established law, upheld several times by the federal courts, which was written to protect morale, recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force. Senator Reid, as majority leader, should know this better than anyone. His endorsement of a proposal that would allow the president to ignore existing law undermines the constitutional authority of the U.S. Senate, which Harry Reid leads. There is no justifiable reason for any elected or Pentagon official to suspend enforcement of the law for the sake of persons who are not eligible to serve under the clear language of the 1993 law. Even the Washington Post, which advocates repeal of the law, advised gay activists in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603985_pf.html">June 27 editorial</a> that they “should not be looking for ways to get around existing policy.” In 1993, overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress passed the law to protect good order, morale, and readiness in our military. Instead of worrying about political payoffs, President Obama, Secretary Gates, and every member of Congress should remember the interests of our men and women in uniform, which should be their paramount concern. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ3ODJlMmZhNmJjZGFhNzZjZGFjODM3ZjkxNzhlNzI= Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:10:26 -0400 The Limitations of "Fake Right, Go Left" -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNiNWJkOGI1ZTA0OTY5MjBlZjZkMDMzOTUzMjg4MDE= <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/07/this-is-why.html">Deebow at Blackfive</a> has an interesting perspective on President Obama’s announced plan to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/12/obama-orders-review-alleged-afghan-mass-grave/">investigate the Afghans</a> for killing POWs in the fall of 2001: <blockquote> Having spent a bit of time as an Embedded Trainer (kind of like being an 18B, master logistician, finance guru, operations specialist and contract specialist all rolled into a big warrior/diplomat tortilla), I can tell you that we had one really big picture tactical and strategic rule by which my partner Capt. Jack and I lived by: Afghanistan is their country and as such we are here to train them how to be an Army and not to get into how they conduct their business unless it will interfere with our mission objectives or place us in danger (because their were only two of us vs. their entire company). . . . My job was to teach them to be an effective fighting force, and part of that was to be how they treated their enemy. But a couple times, I was staring down the barrel of my M4 with my back to my buddies trying to make my point about how prisoners are treated while the Afghans (more of them than me) stared down the barrel of their AK-47 trying to explain to me the way they deal with prisoners. Tense moment in my military career for certain. </blockquote> Considering how sensitive the situation in Afghanistan still remains, and how much we’ve learned about <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E2ZTIxMWJlYmRiMDc5ZWM5ZjQwNmI5MGE3YmU1MmY=">respecting and accommodating cultures</a> that are very different from ours, this might seem like a bad time to dredge up old charges. But as Deebow points out, from Obama’s perspective, it’s the perfect time: <blockquote> This isn't about getting the Afghans to search their souls and decide if they treated their enemies well. Having worked with them and understanding their culture, they are not encumbered by many of the ethical dilemmas that our soldiers face when dealing with an enemy who is ruthless and does not share our respect for laws or regulations in the conduct of war. And it isn't about finding blame either... It is about the fact that Sonia Sotomayor starts her confirmation hearings today. It is about his Health Care Nationalization program. It is about the continued skyrocketing unemployment and dismal economic malaise that gets lightly skimmed by the Old Media everyday. It is about "QUICK!!! LOOK OVER THERE!!!" as the Chicken Littles of his administration try to distract attention from what their real goals are and try to seize more and more power. </blockquote> Speaking of Sotomayor, I’ve been struck by the contrast between her testimony today and that of John Roberts and Samuel Alito at their confirmation hearings. Roberts and Alito stood up for their beliefs and defended them ably, knowing that it might lose them some votes, whereas Sotomayor’s strategy has been to shamelessly deny or disavow everything she’s spent the last 20 years saying. Now where could she have learned that? In an odd way, that’s why I’m willing to cut President Obama a tiny bit of slack, about the size of a postage stamp, on the Afghan war-crimes thing -- because, as with 95 percent of what he says, you know he doesn’t mean it. I’m pretty sure that deep down, Obama understands what things were like in November of 2001, and his inclination is to let Afghans be Afghans. So I suspect that in the end, this investigation will yield nothing more than an equivocally worded statement of regret. Still, you have to wish that Sotomayor and Obama would be more like Roberts and Alito. Instead of backing off and denying and rationalizing and cheese-paring their rhetoric, Roberts and Alito said what they believed and defended it, like grown-ups. That’s why they will be remembered as influential Supreme Court justices, while Sotomayor will be a minor figure -- and why Obama will go down in history as a man of fine words but few results. Winning people over is harder than tricking them, but the respect it gains is much deeper. Last week an environmental group <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2MxMmM4ZTk3NjE2MGQ2OTZhNjIzMmMzNDZiZDBkMzY=">draped Mount Rushmore</a> with a banner bearing Obama’s face and the legend AMERICA HONORS LEADERS, NOT POLITICIANS. The cause they were supporting, Waxman-Markey, is nonsense, and their methods were juvenile, and the implicit disdain for the grubby business of meeting the people’s needs, instead of simply ruling over them, is offensive. Even so, the banner had half a point. A politician becomes a leader by holding strong beliefs, putting forth a persuasive case for them, and then, once in office, following through and making them work. You don’t become a leader by spin-doctoring your way into office and sneaking legislation through, hiding your real views all the way; and when it comes to security, you don’t become a leader by following reasonable policies while holding them at arm’s length and covering your nose. Obama’s plan for the presidency, if he had one, was evidently to get into office and then massively increase the role (and debt) of the state before anyone noticed. But people are already starting to notice, because when you gain power by misleading the voters, your support is built on sand. In similar fashion, the American and Afghan militaries may be glad that Obama is letting them do their job, but things like the war-crimes investigation show that he’ll toss them aside at a moment’s notice if he needs to create a distraction or placate some pressure group. It’s hard to lead when you’re always going in two directions at once. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNiNWJkOGI1ZTA0OTY5MjBlZjZkMDMzOTUzMjg4MDE= Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:35 -0400 Space Birds, Sitting Ducks, and the Dogs of War -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmEzYTBmOWM1NjliYjEzMDZlMTA1YjVkOTMwMDNmN2U= High-tech weaponry is an enormous advantage, but <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6638694.ece">one analyst thinks</a> America must keep in mind that other countries can build or buy countermeasures fairly easily: <blockquote> Aircraft carriers, navy destroyers, short-range fighter aircraft and forward bases such as Guam and Okinawa in the Pacific Ocean are becoming increasingly vulnerable to technology and tactics being developed by America’s rivals, [Andrew] Krepinevich argues in the July issue of Foreign Affairs journal. Even new areas of supremacy, such as US dominance of global positioning satellites that guide “smart” bombs to their targets, are becoming a “wasting asset” as states such as China develop the space technology to destroy them. China already has the ballistic missiles and laser technology to destroy low-orbit satellites on which the military depends. Krepinevich claims America should devote more resources to cutting-edge nanosatellites to maintain its technological lead and should invest in missile interceptors and laser energy defences that could counter the threat from adversaries deploying their own “smart” weapons . . . In wars of the future, “smart” rockets and missiles will be readily available to non-state forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, let alone traditional powers such as Russia and China, which already have the technology and the ability to sell it on. Despite this, the Pentagon is spending billions on short-range strike aircraft that need to operate from forward land bases or aircraft carriers vulnerable to missiles, submarines and drones. </blockquote> The article discusses a 2002 war-games exercise in which “a surprise attack was launched on the US fleet by swarms of Iranian suicide vessels and anti-ship cruise missiles. More than half of the US ships were sunk or disabled in ‘the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.’” It’s reminiscent of Col. Billy Mitchell’s <a href="http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/mitchell_tests/AP14.htm">1921 demonstration</a> that the warships of the day were sitting ducks for bombers. That result began the U.S. Navy’s long shift to airpower, and it’s possible that Krepinevich’s article could cause a similar fundamental rethink. Speaking of which, here’s one of my favorite <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20090713.aspx">high-tech military system nicknames</a> (which is a lot more than just a cute name): <blockquote> One of the reasons that the number [of] terrorist suicide bomb attacks, and casualties, are occurring at a lower rate in Afghanistan, compared to Iraq, is that there is better technology available to detect suicide bombers . . . One of the more recent purchases is 300 Fido XTi explosives detectors. This 2.7 pound device can detect explosives with the same accuracy as a dog. These electronic devices are expensive, at about $22,000 each, but they are small enough to mount on a robot, or, via a cable, a safe distance from the troops . . . everyone benefits because of the bomb attacks that are foiled, and the bombers who are taken alive, and interrogated to find the permanent (and difficult to replace) members of the bomber team. </blockquote> These days, by the way, Afghan troops have replaced Americans at most of the roadblocks and checkpoints where bombers like to strike. I’ll bet Afghans perform most of the interrogations too. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmEzYTBmOWM1NjliYjEzMDZlMTA1YjVkOTMwMDNmN2U= Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:53:28 -0400 From 40-Mile Hops to Round-the-Clock Pilotless Flight -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZiNDc3YTZjNDg4ZmU0Yzg3N2VmYzhhY2RjMjQ0OTc= The era of U.S. military aviation began <a href="http://www.travisairmuseum.org/html/wright_brothers.html">100 years ago this month</a>. Check out the specs that the Wright brothers had to meet: <blockquote> July 27 [1909]: Orville Wright, with Lt. Frank P. Lahm as passenger, performed the first official Army flight test at Fort Myer. They flew for over an hour, meeting one of the specifications for a military airplane. August 2: The Army accepted its first airplane from the Wright brothers after the aircraft met or surpassed all specifications in flight tests at Fort Myer. The Army paid the Wrights the contract price of $25,000 plus $5,000 for speed in excess of 40 miles per hour. August 25: The Army leased land at College Park, Maryland, for the first Signal Corps airfield. October 26: At College Park, after instruction from Wilbur Wright, Lt. Frederick E. Humphreys and Lt. Frank P. Lahm became the first Army officers to solo in a Wright airplane. November 3: Lt. George C. Sweet became the first Navy officer to fly when he accompanied Lt. Frank P. Lahm of the Army on a flight at College Park. Lt. Sweet was the official observer for the Navy at the trials for the Wright Flyer. </blockquote> You have to wonder what Orville would have thought of a military aircraft that not only can fly without a pilot and perform complicated maneuvers, but can stay aloft for days and be <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090707.aspx">refueled in mid-air</a>: <blockquote> The original DARPA test has an F-18 fighter, modified to operate without a pilot, equipped with new refueling software and hardware, that was able to successfully refuel in the air. The new air force and navy systems are going to use UAVs (an Air Force X-45C, and a Navy X-47B) to get refueled. With this capability, a UAV can stay in the air longer, and no longer have to spend several hours returning to base, landing, refueling, and taking off and returning to its patrol area. . . . the first generation of [robotic] aircraft will be remotely controlled from the ground, or another aircraft, most of the time. . . . But the new generation of robotic (as opposed to remotely controlled) bombers will receive their orders, and then be sent off to do the job (with a human flight commander observing it all remotely, ready to abort anything not going according to plan). The in-flight refueling is necessary because unmanned, as well as manned, aircraft can carry more weapons if they can refuel during the mission. For UAVs, such refueling enables these aircraft to stay in the air for days at a time. That's what UAVs are built for. Since fighter pilots have to sleep, and their aircraft are not built for round-the-clock missions, UAVs have a major edge. </blockquote> These systems use a manned tanker to refuel the UAV (with automated refueling software), but research on UAV-to-UAV refueling is <a href="http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/173/uav-to-uav-refueling-developed.html">already underway</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZiNDc3YTZjNDg4ZmU0Yzg3N2VmYzhhY2RjMjQ0OTc= Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:01:46 -0400 They Love Us in Nairobi -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmQwNGM2OTY0YmUxYTNhNWY1MTQ0ZGE1M2ZjMDgzZmE= According to the <a href="http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/623.php?nid=&id=&pnt=623&lb=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/about.php?nid=&id=">Program on International Policy Attitudes</a> at the University of Maryland, Kenyans and Nigerians are wild about America. No surprise there, in view of who our president is; presumably other sub-Saharans would be similarly enthusiastic. Out of Africa, we are rather less popular. The Germans, for some reason, are narrowly pro-America, and India, after years of assiduous courtship by President Bush, only slightly anti. Among the rest . . . well, all you need to know is that our biggest fan is Egypt. <img src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/989adda683cf4ea55df3b0b828d061b0.jpg" alt="graph of poll results" width="300" height="480" /> Judging from the results of the poll, taken between April and June of this year, Mexicans appear singularly unmoved by our generous immigration policies, our friends the Iraqis seem less than grateful for being rescued from tyranny, and the “special relationship” with Great Britain looks to have dissolved around the time the Beatles did. There’s no surprise in any of this, really. The most powerful nation makes a convenient scapegoat for all the world’s troubles and every nation’s inadequacies. Another three and a half years of Obama apologies may conceivably shrink the red bars by a point or two, but as long as America has the world’s strongest economy and its most powerful armed forces, it will unavoidably continue to attract jealous hostility from despots and democrats alike. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmQwNGM2OTY0YmUxYTNhNWY1MTQ0ZGE1M2ZjMDgzZmE= Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:43:14 -0400 Clash of Cultures -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU1ZWYzNDIwNjMwNTQ5MjQ0MjgxNTdkYzMwNDk1ZjQ= Elsewhere on our site today, Gabriel Ledeen <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTk1YmM2MzAzYTUxODZkNjdmNzI0MmU2NjI0ZjY0M2E=">reviews</a> Marine lieutenant Wesley Gray’s <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1591143403">Embedded: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army</a>. The book recalls Gray’s 2006 tour of duty in Haditha, training an Iraqi Army unit to take responsibility for protecting the nation. One point that Gray makes is that Iraqi attitudes and beliefs are very different from those of Americans: <blockquote> The conversations Gray recounts are priceless and make a fascinating study for anyone trying to understand the war, the Iraqis, or Iraqi society. Here are a few excerpts from Gray’s conversations with Iraqi soldiers: “In Iraq, it is mandatory to beat your wife! To not beat your wife is considered unmanly. Men who do not beat their women allow their women to take advantage of them through their powers of seduction. I think Western pressure to stop wife beating will only lead to a systematic weakness in Iraqi men.” “First Division is paid at a higher rate than everyone in our division because their pay officers know even more people than Captain Tseen does at the Ministry of Defense. Americans like to call this corruption. We call this getting things done. . . . All pay officers skim pay. Why do you think being the pay officer is such a highly regarded position in the Iraqi Army?” </blockquote> And the culture clashes continue today. A few days ago, an Army logistics officer <a href="http://s4atwar.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/things-i-some-iraqis-believe/">posted this list</a>: <blockquote> Things Some Iraqis Believe 1. Scorpions eat sand. 2. Sand storms are caused by Americans driving their vehicles in the desert to kick up the dust. 3. We take pills in order to be able to walk around with all of our equipment on. </blockquote> After which a security contractor in Afghanistan came up with <a href="http://knightsofafghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/07/things-some-afghans-believe.html">the following</a>: <blockquote> Things Some Afghans Believe 1. US and ISAF forces are here to conquer Afghanistan and steal the oil. 2. The <a href="http://www.icrc.org/">ICRC</a> is actually a front for <a href="http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/storia.asp?idlingua=5">Christian crusaders</a>, and they force locals to convert to Christianity in order to receive medical treatment. 3. There is a brothel on every US base, staffed by local girls kidnapped by US forces. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU1ZWYzNDIwNjMwNTQ5MjQ0MjgxNTdkYzMwNDk1ZjQ= Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:32:24 -0400 The (Free) Irbil Five: Meeting Iran's Preconditions -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzAzNzVlM2E3YmFlMTJhMWIyOWQ0NmNiMmMyZDQ4OTQ= Immediately, the context you need: Since the beginning of U.S. operations in Iraq in 2003, fully 10 percent of our combat fatalities there have come at the hands of just one Iranian weapon -- <a href="http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2006/12/iranian-ieds-mvp-of-global/">the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator)</a>, designed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator">to penetrate the armor</a> of the M1 Abrams main battle tank and, consequently, everything else deployed in the field. It is how the Iranian regime has been killing your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers serving in Iraq. I’ll wager you were not aware of that rather damning statistic. How do I know it? Well . . . I asked a friend in the Pentagon in 2007. If ambitious journalists would like to share this with their readers and viewers, please do. The numbers are not secret; I am sure they have even been updated. Perhaps they were published elsewhere around the same time. If they were, chances are you never saw it. And those who have seen the figure likely saw it right here at The Tank on National Review Online. Because I wrote it. Over and over. If you're not pissed off yet just by the context, maybe you will be when you consider today’s news. And you thought freeing jihadi Gitmo detainees to beach resorts in Bermuda was an assault on reason? Now President Obama, in his breathless quest for a pointless international stage-show starring himself and Iran’s messianic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has decided to release <a href="http://www.nysun.com/editorials/irbil-five/47001/">the Irbil 5</a> -- Iranian Quds Force agents detained in a January 2007 raid on their safehouse in Irbil, Iraq. Oh, I’m sorry. I meant to say the Iranian “consulate” in Irbil. That it never had diplomatic status is just one of those silly details that clutter up the narrative. Kind of like that pesky little “10 percent” detail. Michael Ledeen provided an introduction to this <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWIyM2MyYmZkZWNjODFlZjkyMmMwYTI3MmU1NTgzMzY=">earlier at The Corner</a>. Permit me to quickly give you a rundown. And if you don’t leave furious after reading it, you should have perhaps checked for a pulse before you showed up. Five men, Iranian terror facilitators who were key to ensuring that the maximum number of your brothers and sisters would die inside combat vehicles without saying goodbye, are now free be recycled back into service for the Iranian regime’s terror machine. While the Associated Press is already <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gK1dWI5NIluLyrqUBumrC0W23FjgD99ARFJ80">dutifully referring to the Irbil Five as “diplomats,”</a> let’s just put to the side for a moment their specific job titles. Let’s also set aside that referring to them as “diplomats” is ignoring the U.S. military’s adamant insistence that they are no such thing, but rather Quds Force operatives -- one of them a very senior officer, at that. The American military is not to be trusted, of course. But the AP, well, they’re the watchdogs, dontchaknow . . . Perhaps an AP scribe is calling the Pentagon right this very second asking how many U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed by Iranian EFPs. In theory, it is possible. As far as Iranian diplomats go, let’s keep in mind that it was the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, who coordinated the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, snuffing out 241 Marines and ushering in another quaint Iranian innovation: Suicide truck bombings -- and simultaneous coordinated suicide bombings at that. The administration is already spinning the release of the Irbil Five as business as usual. One article I noticed early in the day noted that the release of the Iranians was already planned as part of the disengagement agreement the administration reached with Iraq to free prisoners before the end of this year. That’s a load of bunk. Why? Because within the context of what Iran is already doing to its own people, including again today in streets across Iranian cities, the principled decision would be to pull the rug on any plans to release any of the Iranian regime's thugs, operatives, or representatives. The explanation that this was already long in the works, as if the Obama administration just never noticed it, does not wash. The Obama administration is not stupid or unaware. It may be foolish in the decisions it makes, but not for lack of knowledge or awareness. This is simply the next concession handed to the Iranian regime, the foremost state sponsors of terrorism in the world -- the head of the snake, by the new American president. All for what? To “reset” relations? To bring them to the table, where the president will cast his spellbinding charm upon them? Or is it simply to satisfy an ego-driven campaign commitment to stage the greatest international-relations vaudeville act since Neville Chamberlain’s good-faith meeting with Der Fuehrer? Candidate Obama said famously that he would hold talks with the Iranian regime “without preconditions.” Oh, really? Perhaps he was just not specific enough to overtly say “without American preconditions.” It seems Iran has set preconditions of its own. And President Obama is obliging at every turn. Mum and dispassionate on the Iranian slaughter of its own people while the world’s most evil regime is challenged from within; affording them an astounding American presidential statement that Iran has a right to nuclear technology; and now releasing five Quds Force operators with American and Iraqi blood on their hands back to the terror regime. The Obama administration has already let slip from time to time that they expect little to come of meetings, discussions, and negotiations with the intransigent Iranian regime, which insists -- with the aid of our own president, it should be noted -- that nuclear technology is its right. Perhaps the administration is once again planting seeds that it hopes will stay obscured for now -- so that later, when Ahmadinejad and Khamenei stay true to form and talks fail, Mr. Gibbs can say from the White House press-room podium, “Look, we said long ago that the likelihood of success was slim.” All the while, in order to play high-profile charades with the foremost state sponsor of terrorism, an exchange is made. Four Quds Force operators and at least one senior Quds Force commander are returned to Iranian circulation. And in return we get . . . well, nothing. The administration hopes that Iran will change its mind and come to the picture show. You know, the one where the administration quietly doesn’t expect the Iranians to stop their race for nuclear weapons anyway? Yeah, that show. Hopenchange. Compelling, isn’t it? One thing is for certain. Our forces are less safe in Iraq because of the liberation of the Artists Formerly Known as the Irbil Five. And America has never appeared feebler in the eyes of her deadly enemies. Ten. Percent. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzAzNzVlM2E3YmFlMTJhMWIyOWQ0NmNiMmMyZDQ4OTQ= Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:13:45 -0400 No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E2ZTIxMWJlYmRiMDc5ZWM5ZjQwNmI5MGE3YmU1MmY= Here’s a fascinating <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4442">transcript of a press conference</a> with Larry Nicholson, the commanding general of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan. His men have just kicked the Taliban out of the Helmand Valley, a poppy-growing stronghold; now they must continue to build trust among the locals while preparing to eventually hand over the region to Afghan troops. The general’s statements show how deeply the lessons of counterinsurgency from the surge in Iraq have been absorbed throughout the U.S. military. “Marine diplomacy” might sound like the punch line to a joke, but in Afghanistan today, it’s an indispensable part of America’s arsenal. From the very beginning of the operation, the emphasis has been on winning over the locals: <blockquote> Seven days ago tonight, we inserted -- at 01:00 local, we inserted about 4,000 Marines and sailors into the Helmand River Valley, over a period of about seven hours. The intention was to go in big, strong, fast; overwhelm any opposition and frankly save lives on all sides but most specifically save civilian lives . . . these are areas that have been visited before by coalition forces and Special Operations forces. But they never stayed. It was always just passing through. The number-one question we’re getting across the board right now is, how long are you staying? And one of my requirements, to every one of our company commanders, was that within 24 hours of hitting the deck, you will have a shura [consultation] with the local elders. . . . The focus of this operation from the very beginning has been on the people, not the enemy. And I know that may sound very strange, and I got some raised eyebrows even with talking to Marines, but our focus is to get to the people. So the -- you know, on the way, we’ll take care of the Taliban. But get to the people. So the fact that the Taliban in large part have decided to flee the area, often leaving significant weapons caches and weapons and IED, you know, components behind is in our -- I think in our great favor. </blockquote> Integrating Afghan troops with U.S. units is a key part of the plan, and it has several benefits: taking advantage of the Afghans’ cultural knowledge, training them in counterinsurgency tactics, and reassuring local residents that it’s not just a foreign invasion: <blockquote> I’m not going to sugarcoat it. The fact of the matter is, I -- we don’t have enough Afghan forces, and I’d like more. You know, imagine right now I’ve got 4,000 Marines in Helmand with about 600 . . . 650 Afghan forces. Imagine if I had 4,000 Marines with 4,000 Afghan forces. . . . they are such force multipliers, because as you move through areas, they see things we’ll never see. They understand intuitively what’s going on in an area that we’ll just never get, no matter how much cultural training our guys get. So they are absolutely essential. And of course everything we do -- everything we do -- is with an eye towards turning over and transitioning to them . . . One of my biggest fears -- as we move into the Helmand River Valley, if I’m a local, and I just see a company of U.S. Marines come by with no Afghans, you know, how does that inspire confidence in my government? How does that make me believe in -- that -- in something -- that something positive has happened? It doesn’t. And again, it’s just another bunch of foreign troops moving through the area. . . . So we have sort of subdivided and sliced and diced the existing Afghan forces that we have and moved them down into every formation we have, so that there are no Marines on the battlefield that don’t have Afghan forces with them. </blockquote> Marines are learning to apply their superior force with a light touch: <blockquote> One thing we learned in Iraq . . . the surge was great, the surge provided more troops and more equipment; but at the end of the day, you can’t surge trust, you can’t surge cooperation, you can’t surge personal relations. Those have to be built over a period of time. If we go into a town and it requires lots of damage to the town and we’re killing local people, even if we kill Taliban, those local fatalities and the damage we cause is going to resonate. And I think one of the things that the [provincial] governor has been so public about this week is that we don’t have one -- as far as I know right now, we have not had one civilian casualty in the past seven days. Now, that’s -- you think about 4,000 Marines, 600 Afghans, moving through an area, at least 20 engagements with the enemy, and to the best of our knowledge -- and we stay very close to this -- we’ve not had a civilian casualty. </blockquote> They use a variety of weapons to achieve their goals: <blockquote> I made sure my guys understood that stability ops started the day we hit the deck -- the day we hit the deck, when we see our first locals. Because again, we choreographed this very closely with the governor, and . . . the governor through his networks got the word out: When the Marines land, stay. Don’t leave. The Marines are coming in, but stay there. And furthermore, approach the Marines, go up to the Marines. . . . Clearing for us, as I’ve told our guys a hundred times, can be moving into an area, handing out Jolly Ranchers and drinking tea, or it can be a very kinetic, house-to-house fight. And I’ve told our guys: You should expect some of both. And you’d better be able to hand out Jolly Ranchers and 5.56 ammunition with equal enthusiasm and accuracy. And so I really think that our guys have taken this to heart. They feel like they’re part of something special, because they are. We’ve taken a hell of a large swath of Taliban heartland away from them. And again, our job now is to inspire the people, inspire confidence in the people that we’re going to stay and that their government is there to take care of them. And that’s -- the heavy lifting is just ahead. That’s going to be the really hard part. </blockquote> And amid all the friendship-building, basic logistics are not being neglected: <blockquote> The number one threat here right now today is not the Taliban, it’s the heat. And as I said, it is hot as fire. Every day we’ve got helicopters, day and night, pushing all manner of logistics, but especially pallets of water to the Marines. I am more than confident -- and I stay in touch with my commanders down there -- I am more than confident that we’re getting the amount of water they need in a timely manner. No one is going without water. My problem, and what I’m fussing about with my staff, is that the water’s not cold. We need to freeze that water. We need to deliver water that’s pretty well frozen. It will thaw out very quickly. So we’re working on that. Also trying to get them a special meal this weekend, get some steaks down there. And these guys sure as hell have earned it. So we will have some helicopters this weekend flying in a special meal to the guys. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E2ZTIxMWJlYmRiMDc5ZWM5ZjQwNmI5MGE3YmU1MmY= Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:06:33 -0400 What Part of "Eligible" Does Gates Not Understand? -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhlZmEwNTNjZGRmMzE3YjlmNTQ3MGQ4MTQ3MTQ0ZDY= On June 30, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAYS_IN_MILITARY?SITE=MAFIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">announced</a> that he had asked the Defense Department general counsel, an Obama administration political appointee, to find a more “humane” way to enforce the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The 1993 law, <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=29">Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.</a>, is usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” even though it codified almost word-for-word long-standing Defense Department regulations affirming that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in uniform. It is unsettling to hear the secretary of defense making comments that betray serious misunderstandings of the law, which he has had more than enough time to review. It has been suggested that recruits or officers who withhold information relevant to their eligibility, but are “outed” by someone else, should be entitled to accommodation in the military. Secretary Gates should consider whether such a provision would create an incentive for partners of gay servicemembers to help them avoid “adverse action,” i.e., honorable discharge, by disclosing their homosexuality. Secretary Gates should be mindful that according to <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=">four annual </a><a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=">Military Times</a><a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE="> surveys</a> of active-duty subscriber/respondents, the law as passed by Congress enjoys widespread support. Federal courts have upheld it as constitutional several times -- as recently as last month. It was enacted by Congress to protect good order, morale, and readiness in our military -- matters that should be Secretary Gates’s primary concern. The problem here is not the law -- it is the Clinton-era administrative policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is inconsistent with the statute. For many good reasons, Congress deliberately rejected President Bill Clinton’s proposal to let homosexuals serve in the military as long as they do not say they are homosexual. The Clinton administration imposed the policy on the military anyway, in the form of enforcement regulations that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District determined to be inconsistent with the law. President George W. Bush could and should have dropped Clinton’s convoluted administrative policy years ago, but failed to do so. Gates’s equivocation appears related to the highly publicized stories of Lt. Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and former Army Arabic-language translator, and Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force weapons systems officer (WSO) who is frequently misdescribed as a pilot whose training cost $25 million. (The number is questionable in any case, since Air Force figures provided to the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces indicated that it costs approximately $3.1 million to train a fighter or bomber pilot.) Both are being discharged because they are homosexual. Gates should know that although Lt. Col. Fehrenbach did not intend to reveal his homosexuality, he still is not eligible to stay in the Air Force. If he and Lt. Choi were misinformed about their eligibility to serve, that does not change the clear meaning of the law or justify its suspension. Even the Washington Post, which advocates repeal of the law, advised gay activists in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603985_pf.html">June 27 editorial</a> that they “should not be looking for ways to get around existing policy.” The only “humane” thing to do is what President George W. Bush should have done years ago: administratively drop the contradictory policy known by the catch-phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Secretary Gates is authorized by law to rescind the Clinton-era enforcement regulations, and he could also exercise his power to restore “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms before President Clinton eliminated it. Current law fully authorizes such action -- no additional legislation is required. During the debate on this year’s defense authorization bill, House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D., Mo.) said he would schedule hearings on gays in the military at an unspecified future date. Gates’s directive to the DoD general counsel appears to be a preliminary step toward “modification” (read, circumvention) of the 1993 law. Gates should not take any action that ignores congressional intent and circumvents, redefines, or violates Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. Doing so would be an affront to Congress and a violation of the oaths of office taken by the president and the secretary of defense. Emotion and misinformation should not be allowed to stampede Congress into repealing a law that is important to the troops that Gates is charged to lead. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhlZmEwNTNjZGRmMzE3YjlmNTQ3MGQ4MTQ3MTQ0ZDY= Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:06:03 -0400 Robert McNamara, the War-Fighting Auto Executive -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGU5YWZiMzk3ZWZmMGMyYTUzMWY1MDhlNDcxYTU4OTM= An <a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2007/1/2007_1_29.shtml">interesting article</a> (from a magazine I used to work on) examines the 15 years that Robert McNamara, the Vietnam-era defense secretary who died yesterday at the age of 93, spent as a whiz-kid executive at Ford Motors. McNamara, a brilliant student and business professor, had spent World War II in the Army doing what he later made a career of: analyzing processes statistically to make them work better. <blockquote> The Stat Control team had coordinated the Allies’ global bombing campaign . . . by compiling and analyzing reams of data on planes, bombs, airfields, fuel depots, pilots, crew members, and targets. McNamara had squeezed 30 percent more flying hours out of Gen. Curtis LeMay’s B-29 bombers simply by getting a handle on the numbers of crews and planes and rescheduling them more efficiently. </blockquote> Soon after the war’s end, he and his Army colleagues joined Ford, and McNamara emerged as the leader of the group. Among the gearhead “car guys” who still predominated at Ford, McNamara had a reputation for other-worldliness: <blockquote> In the 1960s Ford men often repeated the story of how McNamara had “designed” a car while sitting in church one Sunday. He showed up for work the next morning with a piece of paper on which he had laid down the contours of a new model. Only he hadn’t done it with a drawing, as a car guy would have. His doodling had been in numbers. He had written down a desired length, weight, cost, investment level, and price, with no word about how the car should look or feel. </blockquote> McNamara showed little patience for frills, ornamentation, or sentiment. He dismayed car buffs by changing the Thunderbird from a sexy two-seater to a boring four-seater. Yet McNamara’s specialty, cutting waste and maximizing output, was exactly what Ford needed as it emerged from a stagnant era of one-man rule by its elderly founder. When he erred, it was the result of being ahead of his time, as when he tried to sell cars based on safety and gas mileage before those things became important to buyers. Yet if McNamara was the right man at the right time for Ford, he was the wrong man at Defense -- or at least the wrong man to fight the Vietnam War; if he had left office after the 1964 election, he would be remembered as one of the best defense secretaries. His problem was that the techniques that had served him so well when allocating resources in an air war, and in rationalizing well-defined industrial processes, proved much less applicable to a jungle guerrilla war where the enemy was widely dispersed and the biggest cost item -- American lives -- was hard to control and impossible to set a value on. McNamara and his analysts kept solving problems only to find that the terms of the problems had changed. The efficiency-maximizing approach, as practiced by McNamara and others, had worked during World War II because the Allies enjoyed material superiority; a high level of casualties was expected and accepted; there was little or no public dissent; and when they beat an enemy, it stayed beaten. In Korea the first three of these were still true, more or less; but in Vietnam, and today in Afghanistan and Iraq, only the first one is. Logistics and planning remain extremely important, of course; but today it’s also necessary to take into account many more things involved in a war that cannot be reduced to dollars and numbers and pins on a map. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGU5YWZiMzk3ZWZmMGMyYTUzMWY1MDhlNDcxYTU4OTM= Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:55:56 -0400 Tank Roundup for July 6 -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ1N2E0ZTMwYTk0ODAzOWU0NDRhNGI3ZGMyOGIwYTM= An interesting overview of why <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20090706.aspx">making peace between Israel and Palestine</a> won’t be as easy as Obama seems to think: <blockquote> The West Bank is thriving, while Gaza just scrapes along. The smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Gaza still operate, sustained by cash to bribe Egyptian police. Iran is the main source of cash, and the Egyptians are willing to tolerate that as long as Hamas does not provide a sanctuary for Sunni Arab terrorists (who are at war with Egypt.) Egypt still believes several terrorist cells in Gaza are plotting attacks in Egypt . . . </blockquote> Bill Roggio reports on <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?tag=China&blog_id=7">Uighur terrorists in China (and recently in Pakistan)</a>. In both conflicts, neither side is known for its exemplary conduct, but the situation goes to show that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is an active terrorist organization, however much Obama may romanticize it as a national liberation group: <blockquote> [July 6:] More than 140 people were <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5650SW20090706">killed</a> and 816 were wounded, and hundreds more were arrested after Uighurs staged protests in Urumqi, the capital of China's northwestern province of Xinjiang. The government claimed foreign extremists were behind the riots. [April 20:] The Pakistani government has <a href="http://www.geo.tv/4-27-2009/40784.htm">deported</a> nine Chinese Uighurs to China after detaining them in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The nine Uighurs conducted attacks on Pakistani security forces. Uighurs train and fight alongside al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan. . . . </blockquote> In the Vietnam War, communist fighters used urine-soaked rags to confuse American “people sniffers.” More recently, strips of foil dropped from planes have thrown off radar systems. And today the battle between <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/china-looks-to-undermine-us-power-with-assassins-mace/#more-14329">high-tech weapons and low-tech countermeasures</a> continues, this time with China trying to neutralize America’s information advantage: <blockquote> . . . several thousand microtransmitters . . . broadcast signals -- 10,000 of them -- on the frequency of a SAM [surface-to-air missile] site. From the perspective of a HARM [high-speed anti-radiation missile] looking for a ‘lock’ on a SAM radar signal -- this meant an air-to-ground picture that looked like 10,001 SAM signals, only one of which was real. </blockquote> <a href="http://warisboring.com/?p=2360">Tanker-transport plane to gunship in four hours</a>: <blockquote> This spring, the Marines decided to buy nine kits for their KC-130J tanker-transports, each kit comprising Hellfire and Viper Strike missiles and bolt-on sensors — with a door gun, optional. The result, code-named Harvest Hawk, turns a tanker into a gunship, in just four hours, on the cheap. </blockquote> The report goes on to say that the Air Force is now borrowing the Marines’ idea. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ1N2E0ZTMwYTk0ODAzOWU0NDRhNGI3ZGMyOGIwYTM= Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:02:07 -0400 Re: The Declaration of Independence -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGFiYWZjMjMzMzUyNjU4MTY1MjRlNmFlN2Y3OWY3YzQ= Thanks for the reminder, Gregory. As Jonah Goldberg <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIzMTdkZmVlOGRhMjRiMjcwYmI5NDlmY2MxZGUxYmM=">has pointed out</a> at The Corner, every year someone tries to make a case that the real pivotal event behind the Declaration occurred on July 2, not July 4, but there’s a reason we celebrate on the Fourth: Celebrating Independence Day on the Second of July would be like celebrating your wedding anniversary on the day you got engaged. (And to be fair to Joseph Ellis, he admits as much at the end of his article; I think this was simply a case of a Daily Beast headline writer trying too hard.) Regarding the Declaration itself, nowadays people tend to focus on the second paragraph and gloss over the rest, but to me, the essence of the document lies elsewhere: In the opening, which admits the importance of explaining the reasons behind a revolution, instead of just storming the barricades; in the passage beginning “Prudence, indeed,” which points out the wisdom of a take-it-slow approach; and in the bill of particulars, which details the British government’s numerous offenses against the colonies, and the many attempts the colonists made to work things out (remember, the Declaration was adopted more than a year after Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill). You wouldn’t know it from the defiant tone of the Declaration’s most frequently quoted passages, but it really was adopted more in sorrow than in anger, and a similar hesitancy, and similar clarity about causes and reasons, would have well served most of the world’s other revolutions, successful and unsuccessful. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGFiYWZjMjMzMzUyNjU4MTY1MjRlNmFlN2Y3OWY3YzQ= Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:29:41 -0400 The Declaration of Independence -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDJmMzZiNWUzOWRiNjg2MjUyNzk5NTFmYmQyMjcyMWI= On this Fourth of July I thought it appropriate to post a reminder of what this holiday is about: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDJmMzZiNWUzOWRiNjg2MjUyNzk5NTFmYmQyMjcyMWI= Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:30:11 -0400 A Realistic Approach to Somalia -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM1MWExYjAzNDNlZTAxNmYwZTRjNGFmOTI1MzI1Nzk= Today my weekly <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham070209.shtml">“Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> 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: <blockquote> 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.” </blockquote> 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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM1MWExYjAzNDNlZTAxNmYwZTRjNGFmOTI1MzI1Nzk= Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:56:59 -0400 Slashing the Military to Pre-9/11 Levels -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY5NjMxMTEzYmM0MDZhNzk4NDgxODBjZDU3MmE3NzM= 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: <img id="__mce_tmp" src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/ac30a7ecf2ca94ba6c00f083cc40586e.jpg" alt="" /> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY5NjMxMTEzYmM0MDZhNzk4NDgxODBjZDU3MmE3NzM= Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:35:43 -0400 MVP Act Clears a Hurdle -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTYyMWEyZjQzNjFhOTc3ZGY2NDMxZDdmYmIyM2I2Y2Y= The House Administration Committee <a href="http://gop.cha.house.gov/MediaPages/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1577">has approved</a> 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 <a href="http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/soren_dayton/2008/may/09/unions_oppose_military_voting_bill_because_it_expands_private_sector_workforce">riled up</a>. 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 <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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.) <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTYyMWEyZjQzNjFhOTc3ZGY2NDMxZDdmYmIyM2I2Y2Y= Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:59:55 -0400 Fighting Intensifies in Somalia -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y3OTA4OTkzNmVlMjA4NDY3NzQxMTQyMGEzOTUwMGY= Today my weekly <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham062309.shtml">“Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> 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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y3OTA4OTkzNmVlMjA4NDY3NzQxMTQyMGEzOTUwMGY= Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:13:58 -0400 Inclusion and Exclusion -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQ0NmY3NzA0MDRkOGJkMmM3ZTRmYjM0ODA4MDkyODc= At Phi Beta Cons, <a href="http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhjY2NkYmM4NDQ2N2QyOTdkYWNjYzlmNDUxOGM3MTg=">Robert VerBruggen links</a> to an article by a U.S. Naval Academy professor who details the widely divergent admissions standards Annapolis uses for whites and non-whites. <a href="http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWU3ZDRhNGRmNDg5YWM0ZWJjZWViNjZiZDQzMTg4MTk=">Roger Clegg opposes</a> 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 <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI1M2Y0YTlmZWNlMGE3MWY0MWYyYjEyMzc5N2FiN2M=">written</a> <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlhZDE3OTMzODJjZDMzNGU4Mjg1OTI3OTJmYTBiNDc=">extensively</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8313/07-19-MilitaryVol.pdf">Congressional Budget Office study</a>: “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 <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNiOTY2NDM1YTI5ZjZlMDM4ODA2YmQ5ZmIzM2IyYWE=">Steve Schippert has written</a> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQ0NmY3NzA0MDRkOGJkMmM3ZTRmYjM0ODA4MDkyODc= Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:25:46 -0400 Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am' -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmU5YzdmZmY4Yzk3MTI1YjExNDliMmI0Y2ZiMTljN2Y= This <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/" target="_blank">story </a>is interesting: Senator Boxer chides a brigadier general for calling her "ma'am." <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="344" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ryEGmkjv8R8&hl=en&fs=1&" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ryEGmkjv8R8&hl=en&fs=1&" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed> </object> I think maybe she missed the fact that "ma'am" and "sir" are terms of respect in the military. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmU5YzdmZmY4Yzk3MTI1YjExNDliMmI0Y2ZiMTljN2Y= Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:24:46 -0400 An Ode to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhjODZhYzhlMzgwMzg2NWRjOWFiZDUxNzU4M2NlNWM= 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. <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="512" height="296" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/j7NtpFEKwTX7birk4jJL8A" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="296" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/j7NtpFEKwTX7birk4jJL8A" allowfullscreen="true"></embed> </object> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhjODZhYzhlMzgwMzg2NWRjOWFiZDUxNzU4M2NlNWM= Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:11:43 -0400 Those Wacky Uighurs, Episode 17 -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzAyOGUxZDQwZmE1MjU1NGY3NDU0YzU2M2U5YWMxNzY= 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 “<a href="http://www.fox.com/prisonbreak/">Prison Break</a>,” 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzAyOGUxZDQwZmE1MjU1NGY3NDU0YzU2M2U5YWMxNzY= Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:29:41 -0400 The Russians Get Bolshy (Again) -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY5MGQ4NDQxOWIzMzJlY2M4NzE5YzFlZWEwM2ZhMTg= <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060909f.cfm">The invaluable Peter Brookes</a> 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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY5MGQ4NDQxOWIzMzJlY2M4NzE5YzFlZWEwM2ZhMTg= Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:16 -0400 Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Gays-in-Military Law -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmIyM2U1ZThmZTgwNjM5YzgwOTk5YjZkNTU2ODE5NDg= On Monday the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368_pf.html">Supreme Court denied a petition</a> 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 <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=29">Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.</a>, 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmIyM2U1ZThmZTgwNjM5YzgwOTk5YjZkNTU2ODE5NDg= Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:20:00 -0400 More NRO on Radio for Conservatives -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTc1MmJkZjYxMjY1NjVjN2ZmN2IyNDQxMTNmNmVhNDg= A few weeks ago, <a href="http://brassballsradio.com/index.php/2009/05/17/brass-balls-radio-show-50/">Mark Steyn guest-hosted</a> for Wendy Sullivan and Mike Williams on their Brass Balls Radio show, which is now a part of the new <a href="http://www.rfcradio.com/">Radio for Conservatives</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.rfcradio.com/shows/american-watchtower/">Steve Schippert Show</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.rfcradio.com/">streams at RFC Radio at 1:00 p.m. EDT</a>, 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 <a href="http://threatswatch.org/dailybriefings/2009/06/07/">hotspots around the world</a> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTc1MmJkZjYxMjY1NjVjN2ZmN2IyNDQxMTNmNmVhNDg= Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:05:12 -0400 Morocco's Comprehensive Counterterrorism Approach -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY5Y2ZiMDIwZjliMzBlZjU0ZTNhODMzM2Q5ODgxMWE= Today my weekly <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham060409.shtml">“Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a>—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: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY5Y2ZiMDIwZjliMzBlZjU0ZTNhODMzM2Q5ODgxMWE= Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:27:42 -0400 Counterterrorism Under Obama -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGVjYzI0NWNlMjZkNTM5YjM5OTg4NWI2ZTM2ZWQ2NTA= I was recently interviewed by Patty Satalia, a journalist with <a href="http://www.wpsu.org/" target="_blank">WPSU</a>, 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 <a href="http://conversations.psu.edu">http://conversations.psu.edu</a>. Readers who want to offer feedback can also comment on the "discussion board" immediately below the videos. I look forward to hearing your comments. <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="512" height="312" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="flashvars" value="config=" /> <param name="src" value="http://conversations.psu.edu/flowplayer-3.1.0.swf?0.15284736310279856" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="312" src="http://conversations.psu.edu/flowplayer-3.1.0.swf?0.15284736310279856" flashvars="config=" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed> </object> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGVjYzI0NWNlMjZkNTM5YjM5OTg4NWI2ZTM2ZWQ2NTA= Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:46:46 -0400 Godspeed, Private William Long -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTUwYjhmMDJiOTc1MjdiZGJlNTA4NTBmYzkwZTI3NzE= Please go to <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/06/private-william-longs-father-in-interview-with-little-rocks-katv.html">Blackfive</a> 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. <blockquote> 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. Godspeed, Private William Long. [<a href="http://www.armywifetoddlermom.blogspot.com/">Hat tip to AWTM for the link</a>.] [<a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/06/the-shooter-in-the-arkansas-recruit-killing.html">Jimbo's post about it here</a>] </blockquote> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTUwYjhmMDJiOTc1MjdiZGJlNTA4NTBmYzkwZTI3NzE= Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:58:48 -0400 Little Rock Soldier Murdered, One Wounded at Recruiting Center -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU3MTFkM2QyMmRkOTg4YWM5OGM5OWY5OTk2ZWRiYjE= 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 <a href="http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0609/627959.html">KATV coverage</a>. <blockquote> 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. . . . </blockquote> Some <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQACNshVFYt6M9CDykHq6DKqPhiwD98I1JIG1">reports</a> are presuming they were recruiters, but they were not. They were young local soldiers assisting their recruiters in what is called Hometown Recruiting Assistance. <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> We do not yet know their names, but service members and veterans alike already offer prayers and condolences to the families. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU3MTFkM2QyMmRkOTg4YWM5OGM5OWY5OTk2ZWRiYjE= Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:30:28 -0400 Yemen: From Bad to Worse? -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE4NGFjOTBmZTdmMTUyMTE0ZmRiNDlmMzY3MGExOWE= The last time we <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGEyYjdmYjg3NDUzZjUxNWQ0ZmM3YjE0YTA4ZTJmZjA=">mentioned Yemen</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/close-guantanamo-funding-senate-obama">delayed by a year or two</a> 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 (<a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202009/news/regionalnews/bronx/ny_terror_plot_foiled_170221.htm">as was done</a> 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 <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/893ibjxl.asp">religious practices are scrupulously indulged</a>. The Yemenis, as the biggest bloc of terrorists at Guantanamo, were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/world/middleeast/24yemen.html">a major factor in the decision</a> 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 <a href="http://janenovak.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/yemen-on-the-brink-of-war/">Jane Novak</a>, the doughty Yemen watcher, writes: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> The biggest danger sign is that Ali Salem al-Beidh -- the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956703,00.html">former Soviet stooge</a> and later vice president who briefly led an independent South Yemen during <a href="http://www.yca-sandwell.org.uk/history_7.htm">the 1994 civil war</a> and has lived quietly in exile ever since -- has returned to politics and <a href="http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/09/05/23/10316154.html">claimed leadership</a> of the separatist Southern Movement. Yemen’s tensions have been growing for some time, and are <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/05/28/saada-reflares/">not confined to the south</a>; 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 <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/03/01/yemen-new-terror-camps-as-city-falls-to-jihaddists/">cooperated with al-Qaeda terrorists</a>. 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 <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/05/28/saada-reflares/">leveled</a> <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/05/27/international-crisis-group-saada-report/">village</a> and <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/05/27/yemen-arrests-party-leader-and-mp/">suppressed</a> <a href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/05/04/yemeni-authorities-prevents-6-newspapers-from-distribution/">opposition</a> <a href="http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=16760">group</a> aside. But if Saleh can’t hold Yemen together, there’s no reason to support him, and it <a href="http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/05/25/bloody-protests-in-aden-more-videos/">looks increasingly likely</a> that he can’t. Earlier this month, U.S.-brokered <a href="http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=705">peace negotiations</a> 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 <a href="http://www.moo.gov.kw/Default.aspx?nid=8271&pageId=60">down 74 percent</a> compared with the same period last year? That won’t improve anyone’s disposition. The understandably cranky editor of the Yemen Post takes a <a href="http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=1&SubID=770">plague-on-both-your-houses</a> approach: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE4NGFjOTBmZTdmMTUyMTE0ZmRiNDlmMzY3MGExOWE= Thu, 28 May 2009 16:28:11 -0400 The Warrior Legacy Foundation -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTliZjU0YWM1NGNmMGRkYTUxNjUyMTc3ZTYyMTc3NDg= All of us -- military or civilian, serving warrior or veteran -- are indebted to the <a href="http://www.warriorlegacyfoundation.org/staff/default.asp">good men</a> who have launched the <a href="http://www.warriorlegacyfoundation.org/">Warrior Legacy Foundation</a>. 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. <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> Indeed. <a href="http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/11478-Warrior-Legacy-Foundation.html">Bruce Kesler</a> hits the nail on the head. <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <a href="http://www.warriorlegacyfoundation.org/general/register_member_type.asp">Sign up</a> 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.” <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTliZjU0YWM1NGNmMGRkYTUxNjUyMTc3ZTYyMTc3NDg= Tue, 19 May 2009 18:52:49 -0400 Rep. Akin Challenges FY2010 Naval Budget and Priorities -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDFjYWFjYzlmNjk5ODg2NGEwYzJhN2QxNmRjMTE0MDU= 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. <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDFjYWFjYzlmNjk5ODg2NGEwYzJhN2QxNmRjMTE0MDU= Fri, 15 May 2009 18:09:59 -0400 Obama Shuns Plan to Evade Gays-in-Military Law -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlMDRkM2I0OThhZWVjNTJiNTkwZjhiOWE5MzQzMmI= 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, <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=299">Section 654, Title 10</a>, differs from Bill Clinton’s <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336">“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”</a> 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 <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7549797&page=1">ABC News program “This Week.”</a> 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 <a href="http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/default.asp">Flag and General Officers for the Military</a>, 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.” (<a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf">The list</a> 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 href="http://cmrlink.org/2009/04/barney-franks-sidestep-strategy.asp">a recent interview</a> 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 <a href="http://cmrlink.org/sitrep.asp">CMR SITREP Blog</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlMDRkM2I0OThhZWVjNTJiNTkwZjhiOWE5MzQzMmI= Thu, 14 May 2009 17:49:25 -0400 Basic Instincts: Defense and Cuts Are Synonyms -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY0NDJhMTE3YzhiM2E0YTBlMjY4YTZlMGNmMzRjYjc= 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 <a href="http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-engineer-missile-defense-cuts,0,1566374.story">parts of missile defense</a> 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 <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/obama-budget-cuts-target-military-funding/">Washington Times</a> 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. <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <blockquote> "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said. </blockquote> 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 <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc2NTc1MjZkMTAxNDZiOWVkMjNhZmEzZjVmMjBlZDM=">Brian Riedl</a> at The Corner: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> Veterans are quite skilled at spotting dog-and-pony shows. We’ve been around the block a few times. Can you hear it? “Bark-Bark-Neigh.” <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY0NDJhMTE3YzhiM2E0YTBlMjY4YTZlMGNmMzRjYjc= Fri, 08 May 2009 17:59:07 -0400 How Does Closing GITMO Make Us Safer? -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODIyYjc2NzE5OWRiNmFlMWVmOGFmMDUxMjhmM2EyODA= The question is fundamentally basic. The contrarian answers are full of nuance and little sense. <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="560" height="340" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9rj6COrcGhA&hl=en&fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9rj6COrcGhA&hl=en&fs=1" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed> </object> Mr. President, please reconsider your decision to press ahead without any alternative. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODIyYjc2NzE5OWRiNmFlMWVmOGFmMDUxMjhmM2EyODA= Fri, 08 May 2009 10:03:33 -0400 Obama May Revive Military Commissions -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGViZmMzODFlNTMwNGNjNzQyNTI4NGM3Y2JjNTcxMTA= It looks like the Obama administration is considering <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1" target="_blank">reviving</a> military commissions to try detainees held in Guantanamo. If the administration makes such a decision, it looks like they will also attempt to revise some evidentiary rules to provide the detainees with greater rights (a more cynical person might say they will make slight tweaks to save face with the Left). About 8 months ago, in a Northwestern Law Review essay, I noted that the military commissions would not go away as a result of the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision, and also noted that whoever won the presidency would face serious obstacles preventing either trials in federal court or the creation of a national-security court. In the essay I made a few targeted suggestions for reforms, mostly focused on structure and political influence. That essay is <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1229462" target="_blank">here</a>. Of course, it's important to note that during the campaign, candidate Obama declared he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.” You can almost hear Jim Geraghty's keyboard beginning to click and clack with an article about <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ3MDE3OGUyODU2NGU0OGI2YTc1NjYyMGNlZTc1N2U=" target="_blank">expiration dates</a> . . . <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGViZmMzODFlNTMwNGNjNzQyNTI4NGM3Y2JjNTcxMTA= Sat, 02 May 2009 16:24:48 -0400 The Private Sector and Combating Somali Piracy -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM5YzlkMzI4ZGZjYjdlMmM0MzYwNjEwNjRmNmM0YTY= Today my <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham043009.shtml">weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> suggests some ways in which the private security sector can contribute to countering the piracy off the Somali coasts. In contrast to both what I describe as the “pusillanimous school” that frets about private security firms “inevitably lead[ing] to an escalation in violence” as well as those who advocate putting armed security personnel on most, if not all, commercial vessels transiting through pirate-infested waters, I argue that while “the private sector is crucial to resolving the piracy threat, it will not be by putting armed security teams on commercial vessels.” Rather, the essay outlines some other possibilities: <blockquote> First, private security firms with tactical expertise can provide merchant marine crews with professional training in any of a number of measures which commercial vessels can take to make themselves less vulnerable to pirate attacks . . . include[ing] non-lethal means which the crew can deploy when an assault occurs as they are underway . . . Second, other firms that specialize in intelligence and security offer an array of services which commercial shippers might avail themselves of to their benefit . . . Given that it is increasingly clear that the piracy gangs are employing spies at various ports to pass along information on prospective targets as well as monitoring ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship communications, ship owners would benefit from thorough [operational security] assessments conducted by professionals which would identify changes needed in current countermeasures as well as suggest additional steps . . . Third, security experts can also assist governments and, more specifically, port authorities in the region to implement their obligations . . . [including] assistance with conducting assessments of the vulnerabilities of their facilities, reviewing and updating their security plans, and carrying out active measures to counter threats . . . Fourth, private firms are a critical component in . . . the only sustainable response to the scourge of Somali piracy, the stand-up of effective coastal patrols along the Horn of Africa’s littorals. </blockquote> The article goes on to detail some of the rationale behind and characteristics of the proposed coast guard before concluding: <blockquote> Last week the International Maritime Bureau reported that, notwithstanding the increased naval presence, the Gulf of Aden and eastern coast of Somalia saw ten times the number of attacks on merchant shipping during the first quarter of this year compared with the same period in 2008 . . . Given that the first months of the year are not the most favorable meteorologically for forays in the skiffs used by the brigands, one can only imagine that the year ahead will be another record year for piracy. Thus the United States and other members of the international community need to get behind a concerted effort to promote durable solutions to the challenges to global order and security emanating from the Horn of Africa. Such a push needs to summon “all hands on deck,” including those experienced hands found among private security firms. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM5YzlkMzI4ZGZjYjdlMmM0MzYwNjEwNjRmNmM0YTY= Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:23:28 -0400 Somalia & September 12th: The New Groundhog Day -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDVmY2EzMWQ0NjZhZGRiOWVmYTFkMWVhY2Y5MGM4NTU= Knowing that our State Department killed any chance of a secular government in Somalia a couple of years ago, and in the context of the Good Al-Qaeda-Trained Sheikh Aweys' glorious return from exile, please read the following in order. The VOA waters it down: <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-24-voa27.cfm">Somalia Opposition Leader Calls for Removal of AU Peacekeepers</a> <blockquote> There have been hopes that Aweys' return might lead to reconciliation between the Islamist factions. In his first address since his return, Aweys praised the parliament's recent approval of Islamic law in the country. But he questioned whether the government will implement Islamic law adequately, given that the government has the support of Ethiopia and the United States. Aweys also said that African Union peacekeepers should leave the country before negotiations with the government begin. He warned that if the peacekeepers do not leave, they will be targeted by insurgents, just as Ethiopian troops were before. </blockquote> The BBC gets down to bacterial tacks: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8020548.stm">Shifts in Somalia as exile returns</a> <blockquote> Speaking to supporters in Mogadishu, Mr Aweys described the government of President Sharif as being appointed by the enemies of Somalia. "Mr Sharif's government was not elected by the Somali people and it is not representing the interests the Somali people," he said. He described the African Union peacekeepers is Somalia as "bacteria" who should leave or he will fight them. Members of the radical Islamist group al-Shabab were said to have been at his welcoming rally and reliable sources say that Mr Aweys is talking to its leadership and other Islamist groups, including the newly formed umbrella organisation Hisbul Islam or Islamic Party. </blockquote> And the AP tells you all you need to know about the result: <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gY8FUsWiKHhIpvrzbrQ2zemD8K8gD97Q3T700">Insurgents attack AU peacekeeping bases in Somalia</a> <blockquote> Armed fighters attacked two African Union peacekeeping bases in Somalia's capital, and a witness said he saw the bodies of three civilians killed. The attack was launched Saturday afternoon, several days after Somalia's hardline opposition leader warned AU peacekeepers to leave the country or face attacks. [ . . . ] In the separate attack on the parliament complex earlier Saturday, mortars missed the parliament building where lawmakers were discussing the national budget. </blockquote> Any questions? You need to know this stuff for context before the news cycle gets more urgent and dire. Somalia is lost, and was lost because we lacked clarity and principle at the State Department. The Pentagon, for the record, objected to State's insistence that 'moderates' among the ICU be included in any new government and instead sought to directly aid the secular TFG government. This is what you get. What we got. It would be ugly either way. It is Somalia, after all, that needs a generation to recover at best. The question is when that starts. As it stands, Somalia is now al-Qaeda's eastern toehold on Africa (matching al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM] to the west) and growing in size, strength, and scope. Its al-Shabaab franchise, which Aweys founded and still in effect leads, controls more territory than the hapless government. When we are attacked again -- and the day will come, for they desire it -- it will have deep al-Shabaab Somali roots. Piracy is a popular topic these days. Once an American captain was taken hostage, anyway. Will anyone ask the president in his third prime-time presser what the course and direction is for our Somalia policy, and through which means and to what ends? Maybe we should wait until a few shopping malls and train stations go boom to be curious enough to ask. Then it will be in vogue and all the rage, and sitemeters will burn right off of Web pages and magazines will fly right off racks for those who hop on board when it's too late to prevent tragedy, but not too late to share episodes of supposed pure genius. I don't pretend to have all the answers tucked away inside a partitioned MENSA mass. But I know at least one thing when I see it . . . Welcome to September 12th, the new Groundhog Day sans the comedy of Bill Murray. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDVmY2EzMWQ0NjZhZGRiOWVmYTFkMWVhY2Y5MGM4NTU= Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:55:18 -0400 9/11 Style Photo Op Cost $329K -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE2YzllOGVhMGRkYmQ2NjBmNzg0MjZhMzQ2NjgyYzE= Mary Katherine Ham writing at The Weekly Standard <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/white_house_scare_force_one_ph.asp" target="_blank">notes</a> that the NYC "Scare Force One" Photo Op cost $328,835. So, at $329K, can we at least see the photos? How about some of that openness and transparency? <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE2YzllOGVhMGRkYmQ2NjBmNzg0MjZhMzQ2NjgyYzE= Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:59:03 -0400 Wireless Warfare -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTkxMmI4NmM4NzM0NDI0ODUxY2NmMDAwN2ZiM2U1MDQ= In today’s New York Post, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/04272009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_cyberspy_threat_166390.htm">discusses</a> the growing threat that Internet spying, hacking, and vandalism pose to our military and civilian institutions: <blockquote> In recent years, the threat has grown from probes by amateur hackers to premeditated, government-sponsored assaults for the purposes of penetrating or affecting political, military, economic and industrial information or operations. It's not only government and industry networks that are of interest but also such "soft targets" as Wall Street. Even such critical civilian infrastructure as the national air-traffic-control system is the cybercrosshairs. Not long ago, it was reported the Chinese and Russians had "mapped" America's electrical power-grid networks, which would almost surely be hit with a cyberattack if there were ever a military dust-up. Just think of the havoc and distraction the national command authorities could face if the lights were to go out across the country at the same time a conflict were to break out involving US forces. That's scary stuff -- and just one example. </blockquote> Brookes <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/11122008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/chinas_cyber_spies_138262.htm">wrote on this same subject</a> last fall, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. The military site Strategy Page has also been covering information warfare. Last week it <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090423.aspx">provided some background</a> on the dimensions of the threat . . . <blockquote> The earliest signs of major foreign attacks was the highly damaging Code Red virus of 2001, which apparently came from China. It was discovered, picked apart and the origin of the virus was traced. China denied any responsibility and believed they had got away with it. This penetration was on the same scale as several others in the last three years. There have been at least ten major attacks, hitting targets like the State Department, the National Defense University, the Naval War College and Fort Hood. Each of these cost $20-30 million to clean up after. Nothing was said about how defenses were adjusted as a result of these attacks. But that's normal, as hacking is all about keeping your own secrets, and finding out what everyone else's are. </blockquote> . . . and on <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090424.aspx">what is being done to counter it</a>, complicated by the usual interservice rivalries: <blockquote> For several years now, the air force has been planning to establish the new Cyber War operation and use it to gain overall control for all Department of Defense Cyber War activities. The other services were not keen on this. That resistance, plus the nuclear weapons problems, have led to the Cyber Command operation being scaled back to being the 24th Air Force. This organization will handle electronic and Internet based warfare. . . . All the services are scrambling to get their Cyber War defenses strengthened, but the air force wants to be in charge. This effort is not appreciated by the other services. If nothing else, all this creates a spirit of competition which has made Department of Defense networks, in general, more difficult to hack into. . . . The U.S. Air Force is also advocating more Cyber War attacks, as a way to cripple the attackers, and make it clear that, if you hack America, there will be consequences. Apparently there has already been some offensive operations, but no one is giving out any details about when, how, and who the target(s) were. </blockquote> Whatever safeguards are in place to counter the threat, let’s hope the various agencies are taking the advice offered most of a decade ago by NRO’s managing editor, and recruiting from America’s <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_sndgs10.html">large supply of hackers</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTkxMmI4NmM4NzM0NDI0ODUxY2NmMDAwN2ZiM2U1MDQ= Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:16:40 -0400 Public Opinion Regarding the Interrogation Memos -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTEzMzU4NmJlMmJmYTZlZTA0MWZhOGEzNzAyYmIzOTI= Our friend Prof. Jon Adler, an NRO contributor, has an interesting <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1240755893.shtml" target="_blank">post</a> at Volokh where he summarizes a recent Rasmussen poll regarding the treatment of detainees and the release of the OLC memos. A minor point -- Jon refers to them as the "torture memos," which I'm not willing to do yet, mostly because torture is a legal term of art, a point I'll explain in greater detail below. As such, I don't know enough about what was done to conclude that everything described in the memos rose to the level of torture (i.e. satisfied the statutory definition of torture). A nit picky point, but one that I think is important when we consider how some polls ask the public about their opinion on torture. His snips from the Rasmussen poll: <blockquote> * 77 percent of voters say they have "followed news reports about the release of government memos about the Bush administration’s interrogation of terrorism suspects" either "Very closely" or "somewhat closely." * 42 percent of voters believe America tortured terrorist detainees; 37 percent disagree. * 58 percent of voters oppose further investigation of the Bush Administration's treatment of terrorist detainees. * 58 percent of voters believe the recent release of memos describing interrogation techniques "endangers the national security of the United States." </blockquote> Compare that with <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a1100Days.pdf" target="_blank">this</a> ABC News poll which found: <blockquote> Most Americans support Obama’s release of previously secret Bush administration records on torture, but by a fairly tepid 53-44 percent, with strong supporters and strong opponents about evenly matched. And the public continues to divide, now by 51-47 percent, on the question of an investigation into the Bush administration’s treatment of terrorism suspects, with vast partisan and ideological divisions. (emphasis mine) </blockquote> What is interesting about this poll is that in Question 29 (page 18 of the .PDF), the poll asks respondents for their opinion about Obama's position on torture. Then in Question 30, it asks about Obama's position on "the interrogation of terrorism suspects." I'm not a pollster, but I'm sure that order of questions can impact the results because the respondent may not separate the two analytically. In fact, most "informed commentators" seem unable to separate the two. Torture is a crime, interrogation is not. Let me explain a little further. Torture is a crime, and as with all crimes, the meaning of the term is specifically defined by law. An analogous example involves killing another person: Quite simply, killing is not a crime but murder is, because there are instances where an individual kills someone but the act is not criminal (accidental non-negligent killings, killings in self-defense, killings with combatant immunity, killings to defend others, etc.). My point here is not to open the door to a debate over what torture is (that's already been done, by statute), nor is it to morally equate murder and torture. Rather, my point is to emphasize that torture is illegal only when the elements of that crime are satisfied; it is a legal term of art. Thus, there is illegality when the facts show that specific acts were committed with a specified mental state that satisfies the definition of what society has collectively deemed "wrong" in the torture statute. If you say something is torture, you're saying it satisfies the statutory definition and is therefore a crime, just as if you say something is murder, you're saying it satisfies the elements of that crime. With regard to the actions of the CIA, maybe the definition of torture was satisfied, maybe it wasn't; I don't know. But I do know that coercive interrogation falling short of that legal definition is not a crime. Which brings me back to the order of the poll questions. The average person being polled may not get these legal distinctions; therefore, when ABC asks a question about coercive interrogation -- a legal practice -- right on the heels of a question about torture -- an illegal practice -- that order of questions is bound to skew the results. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTEzMzU4NmJlMmJmYTZlZTA0MWZhOGEzNzAyYmIzOTI= Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:36:55 -0400 Obama Administration's Assault on the American Warrior Commences -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFmZTk0MjVhMjAyNGZkNmZjOWI0MjIyMmNiMGMxODE= The assault is relentless. It is enraging. And today, the Obama administration's assault on those who dare to defend America from terrorist thugs who rejoice in publicizing beheadings, mass murder, and pure evil are on notice: "You will be punished. We're coming after you." The target audience now includes the American Warrior. The Obama administration has abdicated the Warrior's defense, refusing to appeal the 2nd Circuit's decision that more photos should be released from investigations of the detention of enemy fighters from the battlefield. The Obama administration has sided with the ACLU and abandoned our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. This cannot stand. Brace yourselves for the Obama administration's full on assault on the American psyche, while we in the Warrior Class gear up, strap up, and engage in our defense and our nation's defense by taking the fight right back to its source. Earlier this week, it was the Bush administration's legal advisers, who had the audacity to write opinions on the legal limits of "enhanced interrogation techniques." They dared to include as legal for use against terrorists procedures that are part of our own Special Forces' training. Then yesterday the Obama administration could not resist its instinctive temptation to renege on its original pledge that it would not go after CIA and military interrogators who, as the administration put it, were simply following orders and guidelines determined from above. Today, the very legacy of the American Warrior is directly <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-interrogation_24apr24,0,3258830.story">under assault</a> as part of that same process. <blockquote> The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse by U.S. personnel during the Bush administration of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least 44 pictures will be released by May 28, making public for the first time images of what the military investigated at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Defense Department officials would not say exactly what is contained in the photos but said they are concerned the release could incite a Mideast backlash. </blockquote> A Mideast backlash? The Obama administration -- and those at the Pentagon not standing up in vociferous defense of its warriors -- had better buckle up for an American backlash. Pay attention here. <blockquote> The photos, taken from Air Force and Army criminal investigations, apparently are not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But some show military personnel intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint. </blockquote> The photos are not egregious. Not even rising to the level of panties on heads. But no matter. The assault is on. And your president -- your Commander in Chief -- supports it. The release of these images serves no practical purpose, except perhaps for "enhanced prosecution techniques" against our own. Understand clearly that the purpose of the release -- and the Obama administration’s decision to do so willingly if not energetically -- is to denigrate the American Warrior and to further the assault on the American psyche. Those we were detaining (rather than summarily executing in the field, mind you) were being locked away at a time when beheadings were commonplace, men were being killed by slowly lowering them into 55-gallon drums of acid, and teens refusing to join al-Qaeda in Iraq were being crucified -- literally crucified -- in the public square and given just enough water to keep them alive and their public suffering great enough to serve as AQ's example to the rest. The children of resistant families were baked in ovens, folks. And our boys are the evil ones? Not on your bleeping life. Not on my watch. Not on our watch. From the indispensable Jake Tapper of ABC News, consider <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-adminis-3.html">this context</a>. <blockquote> The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/">ACLU</a> for all information relating to the treatment of detainees -- the same battle that led, last week, to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for harsh <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/former-bush-off.html">interrogation methods</a> that human rights groups call torture. Courts had ruled against the Bush administration's attempts to keep the photographs from public view. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh tells ABC News that "the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency." </blockquote> No. It is a sign that the Obama administration holds no perceived loyalty to the American Warrior and is, in fact, putting them under assault in a display of loyalty instead to the ACLU. Is your mind calculating this? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/aclu.prisoners.photos/">Where is our Secretary of Defense?</a> <blockquote> The Department of Defense announced in a letter addressed to the federal court on Thursday that it would release the photos. In a copy of the letter posted on the ACLU's Web site, acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said that 21 photographs would be released and that the government "also is processing for release a substantial number of other images." </blockquote> Mr. Gates, if you cannot muster the principle and courage to stand against this, then our support for you as the remaining adult on the newly formed children's playground may well have been misplaced. You have instantly become indistinguishable from the rest. This has me so angry I'm practically spitting out my own teeth. I've had enough. Apologizing to Europe and the Muslim world for America, the warm reception of Chavez, blaming America for Mexican drug cartels' murderous rampages, and the threat of prosecuting Bush administration officials because of their legal opinions on what does and does not constitute torture. And now, the American warrior class is openly and clearly in the crosshairs in a media campaign to denigrate them and cast dishonor upon them and, once again, America. The aim of the release is to assault America in the court of public opinion, using the wholly owned media PR subsidiary as the armored assault vehicle. And the administration, through its acquiescence, is at minimum enabling this, choosing consciously to end the public defense of the American warrior class and its very legacy. Perhaps the administration is acting with willful disregard for them by taking direction from the ACLU/Soros/Moveon.org hard Left in a form of electoral quid pro quo. At worst, the administration is directly aligned with them and acting in concert rather than taking direction from them. Either way, the principled defense of the warrior is over, by choice of the Obama administration in directing the Pentagon to end the defense short of SCOTUS. It is an outright abdication. I say no. Not now, not ever. The Left got away with an all-out assault on the American veteran and military service during Vietnam. It will not happen again. And most certainly not from the military's own Commander in Chief. Not without a bold, determined, and passionate challenge the likes of which have never been seen. For the exodus of good men and women from a military under assault from its own administration is likely to begin as service commitments come to an end. Retention just took a hit, as officers and NCO's alike begin to understand that they have been left in the wind. Recruiting just got more difficult. The next logical step for this anti-military administration is to submit the American Warrior to the jurisdiction of a kangaroo International Criminal Court. Don't think the American Warrior isn't watching and thinking. International law, rather than American sovereignty, is all the rage these days in the White House after all. The Warrior will begin to question precisely what it is that he risks all to defend. And when faced with the fact that he may remain undefended in doing so, his risk expands and the once-booming clarion call to service reduces to distant whispers. And that will be . . . the end. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFmZTk0MjVhMjAyNGZkNmZjOWI0MjIyMmNiMGMxODE= Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:58 -0400 Administration Plans to Release GITMO Detainees into U.S. -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzZkNGZkNjE3Y2MwZDFhNzA2MTI2MTNiZjE0NDQ4NGE= The Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-release24-2009apr24,0,7979465.story?track=rss" target="_blank">reports </a>that the Obama administration is preparing to release Chinese Muslims detained in Guantanamo into the U.S. The detainees, known as Uighurs, were captured in Pakistan in 2002; prior to their capture, they received military training in Afghanstian in terrorist training camps. Advocates for the Uighurs repeatedly cite them as an example of the innocent detainees held in Guantanamo, but according to the report, "former U.S. officials have said government information indicates that the Uighurs may pose a danger if released." Our own Andy McCarthy <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDcyNWRiYmFkM2RjMWYxNjA5MzM4YjI5YmNlMTc3NDk=" target="_blank">noted</a> that "an elementary understanding of jihadist ideology would alert one that militant Muslims do not confine their jihad against a single country." In a related post, Tom Joscelyn over at The Weekly Standard <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/obamas_uighur_problem.asp" target="_blank">notes</a>: "A number of the Uighur detainees held at Gitmo have openly admitted that Abdul Haq ran the terrorist training camp they attended in the Tora Bora Mountains. Time and again the detainees admitted that they were personally trained by either Abdul Haq or his former partner in crime, Hassan Mahsum, who was the leader of the ETIM before he was killed in Waziristan in 2003." Why does that matter? Well, the Obama administration has designated Abdul Haq a terrorist, all of which raises the question -- how can we release into the U.S. individuals who are committed jihadists and have received training from terrorists? <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzZkNGZkNjE3Y2MwZDFhNzA2MTI2MTNiZjE0NDQ4NGE= Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:36:53 -0400 Getting Some Facts Straight about the Somali Pirates -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjFlMzkwOThjNGIxODU0NmU2Zjg1M2M5YjYzNDUzMzE= Today my weekly <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham042309.shtml">“Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> discusses both common misperceptions about and complexities relating to the burgeoning phenomenon of Somali piracy. Among the misconceptions which I try to correct is the “myth of the good pirate” defending Somali waters from illegal fishing and waste disposal, pointing out the environmental threat which the pirates’ criminal activities pose. I also tackle the persistent erroneous perception that the Islamic Courts Union clamped down on piracy, noting that the only instance where the militants actually acted against pirates was when the latter hijacked a boat belong to one of the largest donors to the Islamist cause. I also try to disentangle both the question of ransom payments and the issues surrounding the legal framework for prosecuting captured pirates, observing that there were disadvantages to recourse to domestic United States jurisdiction (as is the case of Abdiwali Abdikadir Muse, the one surviving pirate from the gang of four who tried to take the MV Maersk Alabama) as well as significant questions about the efficacy of continuing to pass along the cases to be tried by third-party states like Kenya (as is the case with the eleven pirates captured last week by the French navy). <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjFlMzkwOThjNGIxODU0NmU2Zjg1M2M5YjYzNDUzMzE= Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:31:09 -0400 Supping With the Devil -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDZhYzRkMzYwNTEyODQyMjhhMWY3N2JmMmIyODc4YWM= Cozying up to dictators when they’re on our side is one of those unpleasant duties that mature nations are forced to take on. During World War II we sent matériel and supplies to Joe Stalin on a vast scale. The result: 40-odd years of repression in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, with a few stragglers like Kim Jong Il still going strong today and aftereffects elsewhere that will take decades to overcome. Yet it was the right thing to do, considering the alternative. Sometimes you have to choose between something terrible and something even worse. A case in point: Saudi Arabia. Whether or not President Obama should have bowed to King Abdullah, it’s vitally important for the United States to stay friendly with the Saudis, even though their <a href="http://hrfssaudiarabia.org/">poor</a> <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/saudi-arabia/page.do?id=1011230">human-rights</a> <a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119126.htm">record</a> and <a href="http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/Archive.html#SAUDI%20ARABIA">anti-Semitism</a> are well documented. Oil is the least of it; Saudi Arabia faces a <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=111268&d=26&m=6&y=2008">serious threat from terrorist attacks</a> by ultra-zealous extremists. That puts the Saudis on America’s side in the fight against al-Qaeda, not only in Saudi Arabia but in much feebler <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/01/arabian_peninsula_al.php">nearby states like Yemen</a> as well. Then there’s Egypt. It’s another <a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119114.htm">brutal</a> <a href="http://en.eohr.org/?p=43#more-43">dictatorship</a>, but its need to suppress Islamist terror can make it an ally of Israel and the United States. Lately Egypt has been having trouble with Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah: Hamas uses tunnels beneath the border to smuggle <a href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/04/making_smugglers_pay_underwrit.php">money</a> and <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080096.html">arms</a> from Egypt into Gaza, while Hezbollah not only <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0415/p06s04-wome.html">does smuggling of its own</a> but targets Egypt for terror strikes, including plans to <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20090417.aspx">shut down the Suez Canal</a> and <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180887.htm">carry out attacks on tourists</a>. Together, Iran and its proxies have been accused of plotting to <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079098.html">overthrow the Egyptian government</a>. This is just one of the many violent conflicts that divide the Muslim world. All of them tend to support <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D370D866-2E6F-4B60-AEB6-6081D8017850">Josef Joffe’s contention</a> that if Israel did not exist, Palestine would be much worse off, because all its Muslim neighbors would be fighting over it. Many more cases, current and historical, could be cited of repressive regimes like these serving as bulwarks against even greater repression. Sometimes working with dictators is in America’s best interest, and for that reason, Congress should make clear that companies that deal with shady foreign governments (like <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702859.html">apartheid South Africa</a>) in accordance with American law and policy should not be held liable decades later for that regime’s human-rights abuses. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDZhYzRkMzYwNTEyODQyMjhhMWY3N2JmMmIyODc4YWM= Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:06:36 -0400 Get the Lead Out -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmJiMjU4NWM3NzM0MDE0ODYyN2NhMGE1NGRiNGFiYWU= For the last decade or so, the military and the Defense Department have been <a href="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/04/3970334">going green</a>, and most of the measures have worked well: Reducing the use of paper, replacing volatile solvents, cutting down on heavy metals, adopting more fuel-efficient engines, and so forth. Occasionally, though, a change can have unintended consequences. In 1999 the Army began using lead-free ammunition for training purposes to cut down on lead contamination in the environment. The best substitute was found to be a mixture of tungsten and either nylon or tin, which was formulated to have the same density as lead. Unfortunately, it now appears that tungsten, once thought to be safe, <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/04/toxic-tungsten.html">could itself be a carcinogen</a>. The results are preliminary, obtained from a small sample of lab animals subjected to high dosages, so it remains unclear whether this “green” ammunition poses a threat to the public, or even to soldiers -- as long as they avoid the fate of this unfortunate Frenchman: <blockquote> The only documented case of acute tungsten poisoning in medical literature comes from a French artilleryman who drank wine that had been poured down a gun barrel as part of an initiation ritual. The barrel was a new type incorporating tungsten alloy, and particles were picked up by the wine. The soldier suffered from seizures and kidney failure, but recovered after five months. (His comrades threw up the mixture before they could suffer toxic effects.) </blockquote> The Army has also been testing an alternative type of lead-free ammunition based on bismuth, which is believed to be fairly non-toxic, and certainly less nasty than lead. At least, that’s what they say now . . . <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmJiMjU4NWM3NzM0MDE0ODYyN2NhMGE1NGRiNGFiYWU= Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:36:14 -0400 War Is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWMxNzRlYmNmMDhiN2E2ZWFlMzQ5ZWZjZDJmMDY3ZTY= One by-product of the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the resurgent threat of polio. The Taliban thinks vaccination is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5057026/Taliban-blocks-UN-polio-treatment-in-Pakistan.html">an evil Western conspiracy</a>: “Extremist clerics have used mosque loudspeakers and illegal radio stations to spread the idea that the vaccinations cause infertility and are part of a US-sponsored anti-Muslim plot.” The Afghan Taliban relaxed its opposition to vaccination two years ago, but in Pakistan the Taliban <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20090416.aspx">is rigidly opposed</a>, and the disease spreads easily across national borders, especially in this region and especially during wartime. The result: Despite a campaign by the Afghan Ministry of Public Health to <a href="http://quqnoos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2835&Itemid=48">vaccinate all children</a>, polio <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20090419.aspx">remains stubbornly persistent</a> in both countries as well as in India (and <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/2009-02-17-voa48.cfm?CFID=171030191&CFTOKEN=95238716&jsessionid=00301a8bbb7b9986065d5140746a711b1367">Nigeria</a>, where anti-vaccine rumors are also prevalent). A terrible disease that has scourged mankind for millennia could have been permanently eradicated by now, but instead it is coming back, thanks to a rigid dictatorship equipped with the lethal combination of modern armaments and medieval views. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWMxNzRlYmNmMDhiN2E2ZWFlMzQ5ZWZjZDJmMDY3ZTY= Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:58:15 -0400 Gates on Gays in the Military: Why So Difficult? -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI1M2Y0YTlmZWNlMGE3MWY0MWYyYjEyMzc5N2FiN2M= Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking yesterday at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, gave an equivocal answer to a question about the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That law, which is frequently mislabeled as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is technically named Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. Missing the opportunity to express clear support for the law, Secretary Gates suggested that repeal would be “difficult” to implement. The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates17-2009apr17,0,3824214.story">Los Angeles Times</a> spun the story as a near-endorsement of repeal, for which servicemembers should prepare. That overstated impression could have been avoided if Secretary Gates had explained why it would be so difficult for military men and women to cope with the cultural and operational consequences of repealing the 1993 law. The <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4404">transcript</a> quotes remarks that appear to equate the cause of gays in the military with President Harry Truman’s executive order to end racial segregation in the military in 1948. The secretary added, significantly, “I'm not saying that's a model for this.” It should be noted that Truman's executive order proudly advanced equal opportunity, but its primary purpose was to serve the needs of the military. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to uniformed military personnel because its provisions might detract from the needs of the military, which is charged to confront enemies that are not subject to similar rules. (Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Nov. 30, 1992, p. C-40.) Furthermore, the civil-rights analogy breaks down completely when logically and consistently applied to gender integration. We need and support women in our military, but Pentagon officials do not order women to live in constant conditions of what current law describes as “forced intimacy” with persons (men) who may be sexually attracted to them. Would Secretary Gates support this “nondiscrimination” policy, and advise military women that they had better get ready to accept “change” such as this? In the interests of good order, morale, and team cohesion, of course he would not. Consistency requires that Secretary Gates fully support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and avoid leaving the impression that that it will or ought to be repealed. Given what is at stake, it is important that the secretary not handicap a congressional debate that hasn’t even begun. It would have been more helpful if he had taken the opportunity to explain the harmful consequences of pending legislation, HR 1283, which would assign special status to homosexuals in the military. The bill, if passed, would forbid discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” defined as “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether real or perceived.” President Obama, Pentagon officials, and far-sighted members of Congress need to evaluate that concept by anticipating its logical conclusion. The new law would require acceptance of professed (not discreet) homosexuals and same-sex couples in all branches and communities of the military, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines. The military, which does not do things halfway, will follow the historic civil-rights model and do everything possible to make the new paradigm “work.” Officials will mandate professional “diversity training” to overcome personal reservations and desires for sexual modesty in living conditions offering little or no privacy. Such attempts to impose radical social and cultural change would be inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, under a corollary “zero tolerance” policy, any military man or woman who expresses disagreement or legitimate concerns about professed gays in the military, for any reason, will be assumed “intolerant” and in violation of the new law. This mandate would be particularly divisive among men and women whose moral convictions are thrown into direct conflict with the new military law—starting with the chaplains. Disciplinary penalties and denials of promotion would end the career of anyone who dissents. As a result, thousands of valuable troops could feel compelled to avoid or leave military service. Given the press of recent national security events, it is possible that Secretary Gates has not reviewed the respectful statement in support of the 1993 law that was personally signed by more than 1,100 retired <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=350">Flag and General Officers for the Military</a> and delivered to his office on March 31. The names include a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several service chiefs, and a number of combatant command, theater, and major U.S. and allied force commanders who have led the men and women of our armed services at every echelon, in both peace and war, past and present. In this op-ed published in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704_pf.html">Washington Post</a>, four flag and general officers from each service expressed particular concern about crippling losses among careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable. Flag and general officers who have not yet signed the Flag & General Officers for the Military statement may do so by downloading and sending in the form that is included in this article: <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=350">Repeal of Law on Gays in the Military Would Break the Volunteer Force</a> The article includes additional information on on ways that concerned individuals, both military and civilian, can help to support the 1993 law. There are many serious issues on the public agenda today, but President Obama's stated intentions indicate that this issue requires immediate attention. Congress should question severe cuts in military funds for planes, ships, and weapons, but those things can be easily replaced. It would be far more difficult to restore the culture of the all-volunteer force, on which our national security depends. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI1M2Y0YTlmZWNlMGE3MWY0MWYyYjEyMzc5N2FiN2M= Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:02:59 -0400 The Pirate Economy -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRkNGRjZDk3Y2QzZDY2MmRjY2I3MTMwNDI2YzNjMTU= Today in an invited <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4817">commentary for ForeignPolicy.com</a>, the daily online edition of Foreign Policy magazine, I discuss the structure of the Somali pirate syndicates. As I observe, “Not only are the Somali pirates well-organized, but they have proven to be highly resilient to changes in the strategic environment.” Despite the number of people involved in the process, however, I suggest that “some are more susceptible than others to pressure from the international community” and some options to consider might include legal moves against the payment of ransoms. Nonetheless, my essay argues that “because piracy has come to play such a huge economic role in communities where the marauders are based, attacking the enterprise requires the building up of local political and security capabilities so as to reduce the extent of the areas of ‘lawlessness’ that the pirates have exploited up to now,” concluding: <blockquote> Undoubtedly, a robust military response like that delivered Sunday by the U.S. Navy to the captors of Captain Phillips (and the French Navy last Friday to the pirates holding the yacht Tanit and its French civilian passengers) will be needed again to deal with pirate actions underway and to deter other potential maritime hijackings. Of course . . . various naval efforts need to be better coordinated, if not integrated. Ultimately, however, piracy is far more complex than any naval patrol; it will require more than just the application of force to uproot piracy from the soil of Somalia. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRkNGRjZDk3Y2QzZDY2MmRjY2I3MTMwNDI2YzNjMTU= Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:21:37 -0400 Somali Piracy: Forget International 'Resolutions,' Hillary -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RmOGU4MmVjN2ZiNGQ5Mzk4ZTliM2E2ZDc1NTY0MWY= <a href="http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/04/">This</a> is worth repeating here. <blockquote> I caught just enough news earlier to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describe the pirates as just "criminals" and go on, as SecState's generally do, about the need for an "international resolution." Two observations on that, really quickly. 1. The root word of "resolution" is "resolve," to mean either a solution or sheer determination. International "resolutions" fly out of the UN building at Turtle Bay with all the alacrity of a printing press in overdrive. Yet none of them contain a workable "solution" or have the necessary teeth to accommodate any "sheer determination." Two of the most pressing crises the UN has been grappling with for years have been the Iranian nuclear program and the various threats and human rights violations emanating from a belligerent North Korean dictatorship. How are those working out? 2. The Secretary of State might prefer to refer to barbarous pirates off the Somali coast as "criminals," but as I <a title="ThreatsWatch.Org: Commentary: Somali Piracy: A Solution" href="http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/04/somali-piracy-a-solution/">wrote last night</a> it is more appropriate to consider them "maritime thugs -- terrorists at sea." And, as noted at <a title="The Tank on National Review Online: Somali Piracy: A Practical Solution - Steve Schippert" href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGZjM2QxNTk2MzRjZjVjYzZmMWJlMWNlNDg5MGMzMWE=">The Tank on National Review Online</a> earlier today, "the potential of al-Qaeda in (or entering) the mix must not be ignored." What's more, the last UN "resolution" where resolve and solution were actually employed, the American President was the one widely derided as "criminal" for actually doing so. Expect little "resolve" or "solution" from any UN "resolution," though one would receive wide media fanfare and photo ops. The "solution" will necessarily fall upon the "resolve" of the private shipping firms who must operate their vessels in the danger zone, taking action themselves in protecting their property and crew members. The US Navy can only do so much and is, as on display today, quite necessarily reactive in nature. This does not deter the maritime thugs -- terrorists at sea. It presents a solvable obstacle. That's what my thoughts in <a href="http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/04/somali-piracy-a-solution/">Somali Piracy: A Solution</a> are all about. The best way to prevent successful piracy and defeat the pirates is to harden and defend the mosquitoes' targets, not sparsely occupy a space with sledgehammers. </blockquote> There's really no getting around the last point above, and no denying the two listed regarding UN "resolutions." The solution requires will, not another cobbled and watered-down "resolution" from a feckless United Nations. Cliff May emailed a note wondering if perhaps the reason we have not already pursued such a defense of our shipping vessels is because of "some ridiculous treaties we’ve signed in recent years prohibiting the use of lethal force in these situations." I replied: <blockquote> What a fantastic question. My fantastic answer: Break them. "It's my country's crew's lives or the pirates? I choose us. Next question." </blockquote> I don't know the answer to that yet. We're both looking into it. But I wholeheartedly agree with Cliff that if some stupid treaty is the reason we are not protecting our civilian shipping vessels, folks really ought to know that. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RmOGU4MmVjN2ZiNGQ5Mzk4ZTliM2E2ZDc1NTY0MWY= Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:50:47 -0400 Somali Piracy: A Practical Solution -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGZjM2QxNTk2MzRjZjVjYzZmMWJlMWNlNDg5MGMzMWE= The Somali pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama off the Horn of Africa has brought the threat to the forefront for Americans, probably in large part because the ship was operated by a 20-man American crew. The problem is significant, and the approaches to it varied. But a simple truth remains: The best way to defend against the piracy is at their point of attack -- aboard the ships they approach and attempt to board. Employing the U.S. Navy and other navies is a vital part of policing the waters, but unless they can be everywhere immediately, they are left off in the distance, reacting after an attack rather than preventing the action. Our naval forces are often reduced to sledgehammers swinging at swarming mosquitoes. The pirates are not stupid; they are risk-averse and follow the baseball adage of “Hit it where they ain’t.” Accepting this persistent fact for what it is, the most effective way to protect civilian shipping vessels is to have well-armed security teams aboard them that can sink approaching speedboats and other vessels deemed a threat before they can come alongside, and can kill pirates as they attempt to board if that fails. Otherwise, we are left with business as usual: Showing up after the fact to a hostage situation or watching states and shipping firms pay seaborne terrorists massive ransoms for the return of their men, vessels, and cargo. This should be an unacceptable option considering how acutely aware we are of the established threat and risks. We are not about to assign teams of Marines and Navy SEALs to the hundreds of international civilian vessels that make the journey around the Horn of Africa each week. This suggests the useful practicality of private security firms. After tackling the logistical challenges, these firms can be contracted as shipboard escorts through the danger zone(s). In the overnight at ThreatsWatch, I wrote the skeletal details of this concept in <a href="http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/04/somali-piracy-a-solution/">Somali Piracy: A Solution: Security Aboard Ships -- Not USS Sledgehammers -- To Fight At The Point of Pirates' Attacks</a>. <blockquote> It is the only solution -- sans magical liquidation of all pirates and their havens -- that is fast-reacting enough or cost effective enough. (Have you ever checked the expense tab of operating a US Navy destroyer for a 24-hour period of steaming? It's an expense only a stimulus's mother could love.) What does the security team look like? Pretty simple, actually. 4-6 men from the contracting outfit, with small arms with enough reach and punch to introduce a speedboat to the ocean floor. There is an array of potent automatic rifles available. The team should possess at least one .50 caliber weapon for both range and punch. Certainly no 5.56mm M-16's. As well, some form of grenade weapons should be on hand (RPGs, grenade launchers and/or other shoulder-fired explosive weapons suitable for maritime use.) Night scopes and night vision goggles are essential as well. There are plenty of arms experts who know what would and would not work best. Point is, it isn't rocket science. Get it done. It must be made known that all small craft deemed a potential threat that come within 500 meters of any vessel in the open seas risk being fired upon and sunk upon approach. The specific logistics for maximum efficiency can be a challenge, but the basics here are pretty simple -- at least on paper. There is no need for the contracted maritime security team to be aboard the vessel outside demonstrated high-risk zones. That, currently, is the float around the Horn of Africa. It is surely possible to coordinate embark and debark points at the ends of that leg of a particular ship's journey. This can happen at a port of call or, most efficiently, via scheduled smaller craft along the way. </blockquote> These security teams can disembark a contracted northbound ship and then board another contracted southbound ship, doing the same at the other end, keeping them in rotation and precisely where they need to be: Where the threat is. This is most efficient for the private contracting firm, and least intrusive (and least expensive) for the shipping entity. It’s high time we start taking this problem seriously and treating it with the priority it deserves rather than continually ceding the initiative to a seafaring enemy. And, as former Indian intelligence chief B. Raman reminds us, the <a href="http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers32/paper3141.html">potential of al-Qaeda</a> in (or entering) the mix must not be ignored. <blockquote> The possibility of links between al-Qaeda and at least some of the pirate groups needs to be taken seriously. Ever since 9/11, al-Qaeda has been wanting to organize a major act of maritime terrorism to disrupt world trade and the movement of energy supplies. Many of these pirates -- if well-trained and well-motivated by al-Qaeda -- could provide a new source of oxygen to it. The time has come to treat the campaign against the Somali pirates as seriously as the campaign against al-Qaeda. </blockquote> Some may disagree. Some may have better potential solutions. That’s a good thing. But let’s have the debate and act already, acknowledging what we can and cannot do with our naval forces, and get on with it. Enough already. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGZjM2QxNTk2MzRjZjVjYzZmMWJlMWNlNDg5MGMzMWE= Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:11:17 -0400 1000+ Flag/General Officers Affirm Law on Gays -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlhZDE3OTMzODJjZDMzNGU4Mjg1OTI3OTJmYTBiNDc= More than 1,000 retired <a href="http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/default.asp">Flag & General Officers for the Military</a>, including 47 four-star leaders from all branches of the United States military, have taken a firm stand in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That statute, <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=29">Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.,</a> frequently is mistaken for the administrative policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” On March 31, 2009, the independent Flag & General Officers for the Military project delivered 1,050 hand-written signatures endorsing a concise and respectful <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FlagOfficersLetterPOTUS-033109.pdf">Open Letter</a> addressed to the White House, Pentagon, and members of Congress. <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf">A list of the statement signers</a>, which has since climbed to over 1,100, is posted on the website, which also presents the brief statement of support for the law that the officers endorsed. <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf">We, the Undersigned Flag & General Officers</a> In addition, Flag & General Officers for the Military posts an <a href="http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM%20Issue%20Overview%20033109.pdf">Issue Overview</a> that sets forth reasons why they are concerned about the impact on recruiting, retention, and overall readiness if Congress passes legislation to repeal Section 654, Title 10. The law passed in 1993 with bipartisan, veto-proof majorities in both houses, and federal courts have upheld it as constitutional several times. An introduction to the open letter notes: <blockquote> Among us are a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several Service Chiefs, a number of combatant command, theater, and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with a Medal of Honor recipient and hundreds of flag and general officers who have led the men and women of our armed services at every echelon, and in both peace and war, past and present. </blockquote> The 1,000+ star-studded letter, which was prompted by the reintroduction of legislation into the 111th Congress to repeal the 1993 law, could be decisive in refocusing the course of the debate: <blockquote> Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force. As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law. </blockquote> My organization, the <a href="http://cmrlink.org/">Center for Military Readiness</a>, provided administrative support for the Flag & General Officers for the Military project. We are deeply grateful to this distinguished group of leaders who have stepped forward to defend sound principles and policies for the all-volunteer force. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlhZDE3OTMzODJjZDMzNGU4Mjg1OTI3OTJmYTBiNDc= Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:37:38 -0400 Pirates Undeterred -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2RjMGY2MjZmNTYzMDNmYzljYmIyMzM2OWZhNGQ0N2I= Earlier today my <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham040209.shtml">weekly “Strategic Interests” column</a> for the World Defense Review argued that a recent string of attacks indicate that “the Somali pirates have hardly been cowed by the international naval presence” and “have simply shifted their operations to areas which they know are not being patrolled, with strikes increasingly taking place on the high seas.” Moreover, after reporting the latest additional force deployments to the area, I contend that “the increased international naval presence in the waters of the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the western Indian Ocean actually heightens” risks: <blockquote> First, there is a risk of a naval incident involving the various vessels and flotillas operating in a relatively tight area -- most of the patrols have been concentrated in the Gulf of Aden -- and each following different and often contradictory rules of engagement . . . it is a tribute to the professionalism of the naval officers on all sides that nothing untoward . . . has yet occurred during the counter-piracy operations. Second, there is the risk of a terrorist incident targeting the naval vessels . . . There are already indications that . . . al-Shabaab is in fact developing a primitive maritime capacity . . . would it be too far-fetched to imagine the temptation which the assembling fleet must present . . . [even] before al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden weighed in? </blockquote> After commenting on the implications of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s recommendation that the international community build up local coast guard capacity and offering his suggestion on how it might be practically implemented, I conclude: <blockquote> The Secretary-General’s recommendation is highly significant in that the pragmatic path it advocates -- privileging the allocation of resources to effective and legitimate local actors who recognize the challenge that the piracy poses to their own interests and are willing to work against it -- is not only the one most likely to most likely deter the pirates from their marauding, but also the approach that holds the most promise of reducing the chaos in the Somali lands which, alongside the opportunity for unimaginable wealth, is the principal driving force behind the ongoing attacks on the seas off the Horn of Africa. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2RjMGY2MjZmNTYzMDNmYzljYmIyMzM2OWZhNGQ0N2I= Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:17:46 -0400 China's Military Power and Taiwan Relations: The Question of the F-16 C/Ds -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWNjZmMwMjA3NmVjMDI1ZTUwOGM3MTNjMTNjNjdkNTQ= Today in a <a href="http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21166">commentary for National Interest online</a>, the web edition of the foreign-policy journal The National Interest, I discuss the link between the publication last week by the U.S. Defense Department of the report Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2009 and United States relations with the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. The essay begins by observing that despite the overtures that Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou has made towards the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since taking office last year, including the reestablishment of direct air, shipping, and postal links for the first time since 1949, the Pentagon report concludes that “there have been no signs that Beijing’s military dispositions opposite Taiwan have changed significantly.” To the contrary, the PRC’s relentless military build-up means that “the balance of forces continues to shift in the mainland’s favor.” Thus: <blockquote> To counter the growing military threat to its national security, the ROC’s Ministry of National Defense’s first-ever Quadrennial Defense Review, published earlier this month, adopts a two-pronged approach. First, it aims to focus on the creation of an all-volunteer, professional military, the cost savings of the slightly smaller force freeing up resources for modernization. Second, to preempt the PLA achieving air superiority, the Taiwanese are renewing their effort to purchase American-built advanced fifth-generation F-16 C/D fighters . . . [notwithstanding the fact that] the George W. Bush administration refused to even accept the Taiwan’s formal request for the sale in 2007, much less authorize it -- despite our pledge in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) that “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” </blockquote> This time, however, Congress has weighed in with the unanimous passage last Tuesday by the House of Representatives of a resolution reaffirming Congress’s “unwavering commitment” to the TRA and, the very next day, with the sending of a letter to President Obama signed by a bipartisan group of 30 senators in support of the framework legislation. The article concludes: <blockquote> During the campaign last year, Obama expressed support for the “one China” policy. Nonetheless, he also congratulated Ma on his election and called for the PRC to respond to it “in a positive, constructive, and forward-leaning way” in order to “demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the practical and non-confrontational approach that President-elect Ma promises to take . . . will be met with good faith and progress.” Specifically, then-Senator Obama appealed to Beijing to reduce its military deployment along the Taiwan Strait. One year later, President Obama’s own Defense Department has reported Beijing’s answer. The president faces a tough combination of issues: reining in U.S. military commitments abroad, stimulating economic activity at home (Taipei’s request to buy the F-16 C/D fighters alone would be worth nearly $5 billion to an American defense industry facing the prospect of major cuts in Pentagon procurement), and maintaining both the balance of power in East Asia and his own and America’s credibility on the world stage, Obama could do far worse than to follow the letter and spirit of the TRA and permit an old ally to have the means to defend itself -- and, in so doing, secure U.S. interests amid an otherwise disadvantageous shift. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWNjZmMwMjA3NmVjMDI1ZTUwOGM3MTNjMTNjNjdkNTQ= Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:51:35 -0400 The Obama-Matic (TM) Content-Free Euphemism Generator -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmEzZWY3MWRhYWYyNTFjYWRjNTM1M2M0OTA5NDdjZmY= Sometimes you just have to hand it to the Obama administration. What better way to signal a new beginning than to rename the boring old War on Terror as the <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Njk5NTRjOTRhN2I1MjVhMDM3ZjU5YmUzMmRiNDc2NGM=">Overseas Contingency Operation</a>? The phrase has an almost Dadaist purity, like that <a href="http://www.geocities.com/allon_art/dadajunk2.html">random-word spam</a> we all used to get a few years ago. And you can’t deny that whenever anyone hears the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation,” the first thing they’ll think of is a violent struggle against Islamic extremists. Either that or airline scheduling software. Anyway, Obama is nothing if not ambitious, and he seems determined to extend his revolution to every area of life. That’s going to require a lot more <a href="http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html#Newspeak">Newspeak</a> phrases. Yet think of all the hours that must have gone into devising “Overseas Contingency Operation”! Since it’s the duty of every citizen to help our president in this time of crisis, The Tank presents the Obama-Matic (TM) Content-Free Euphemism Generator (patent pending), to simplify the critically important job of governmental obfuscation. Simply pick one word apiece from columns A, B, and C, string them together, and you instantly have a one-size-fits-all Obama-compatible catch phrase -- impressive-sounding, devoid of meaning, and entirely suitable for any concept that needs obscuring. A B C Multilateral Correction Mechanism Interactive Development Procedure Comprehensive Reaction Capability Proactive Sovereignty Deployment Worldwide Preemption Adjustment Cross-cultural Resolution Process Transnational Diversity Revision Progressive Cooperation Facility Universal Consensus Program Un-Bush-like Totally-not-wimpy Solution <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmEzZWY3MWRhYWYyNTFjYWRjNTM1M2M0OTA5NDdjZmY= Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:49:52 -0400 Mission Before Me: On Supporting Vets Running for Public Office -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTkzOWQwNjQ4YzAxNzc5YTk3MTdkODdmZGJjNDE2YWM= Earlier this week, Andrew Breitbart wrote an excellent column at the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/dreaming-of-president-petraeus-and-an-american-sur/">Washington Times</a> explaining why he longs for the 2012 presidential candidacy of David Petraeus. <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/i-wish-i-had-written-this.html">Matt Burden at Blackfive</a> linked to Andrew’s column and said, “I wish I had written this . . . ‘cause I am right there with this guy,” and when I echoed Matt, my level-headed friend Jenson Daniel responded via <a href="http://twitter.com/Steve_Schippert">Twitter</a>: <blockquote> <a title="jensonsdaniel" href="http://twitter.com/jensonsdaniel">jensonsdaniel</a> @<a href="http://twitter.com/Steve_Schippert">Steve_Schippert</a> Replacing politicians w no knowledge of global financial & security flows w vets with only security experience = no change.<a href="http://twitter.com/jensonsdaniel/status/1385664834"> about 17 hours ago</a> from web <a href="http://twitter.com/Steve_Schippert/status/1385500342">in reply to Steve_Schippert</a> </blockquote> This deserves a more thorough explanation than the limited scope and interface of Twitter affords, and The Tank -- the military blog of a conservative publication -- is perhaps the most appropriate space for it. First, acknowledging that Jenson may not disagree, what is more important than specific knowledge or expertise in any one given area is the right set of basic core principles. Specific expertise is what congressional (and presidential) staffs are for. Take for instance Dr. Bill Frist, the former Tennessee senator. His expertise as a medical practitioner was helpful, but in no way assured that good health care-legislation would be written or voted for by him as a United States Senator, or bad legislation opposed. But what's more important is that his medical experience in no way qualified him for the plethora of other issues an elected representative must engage and correctly address in associated legislation, good and bad. What is most important is a solid set of core conservative principles, guided by and symbiotically shaping solid character and an understanding of and respect for the Constitution as a document defining the limits of federal governance. A solid staff armed with topical expertise is intended to ferret out legislative language that is inconsistent with constitutional limits, damaging rather than helpful to the area in question as a whole, and incongruous with good governance or oversight. This critical assist with the tomes of text passing through the halls of Congress ideally helps the principled senator or congressman to follow those conservative core principles which constitute his makeup; core principles embedded within our Constitution -- that which constitutes us, as a nation. And it is with this approach that I am more comfortable affording at least initial support to a veteran of military service running for office than I would be toward one who has not, all other things and knowledge of the individual being equal. The military is not a monolith, and its members have as varied political views as the rest of American society. It is a slice of American society. If it were not, we wouldn’t have brigs, military police, an internal justice system, etc. But there is also something unique about those who wear and have worn the uniform. And that is, on the whole, that one can comfortably expect the military individual to possess a certain set of core values and convictions that is on another level. They have put their money -- and their personal physical safety -- where their mouth is, in a sense. As I explained earlier in encouragement to a friend experiencing some professional stresses, there is an admirable -- and in times of stress and duress, irreplaceable -- sense of “Mission Before Me” that is sporadic in American civilian society, but commonplace in military service. This reasonable expectation of character and principles is why more military members and veterans, when they begin thinking politically, find that they fall on the conservative side. Not all, by any stretch, but a majority. Many of them would actually be more along the lines of “classical liberals,” but there is no room for them in the leftist-led Democratic party of today. Saying so from experience, in most instances the military member joins with a sense of duty and these principles already largely in place, consciously recognized or not. It is only later that they take interest in or become aware of politics. And they find that, when they do, they happen to be conservative. It's not the other way around. And this is why they are confident in their views rather than responsive to rhetoric. With the challenges facing us, from those already in existence to those being recklessly placed before and upon us and our children yet unborn, that sense of “Mission Before Me” will be the ingredient that pushes back the tide of encroaching socialism and the economic erosion that has followed every embrace of socialism in history. And with economic failure goes security and civil society as we have known it. Take a look around the world, or perhaps barely as far as Mexico, and have a look at the effect economic collapse has on both security and civil society. Do not look for specific expertise or experience in those you elect to govern on the vast array of critical issues before us. See Mr. Geithner (appointed by those elected) and Vice President Biden, if you like. No, look for character and core conservative principles. Because if you possess both, you can err from time to time as being human requires of us, but you will always be guided in the right direction no matter the specific topic among the vast. And when it comes to elected officials, their direction dictates the direction of us all. "Replacing politicians w no knowledge of global financial & security flows w vets with only security experience" = huge change. Because it's about the character and principles that lead to good decision-making, not single-issue expertise in any area, security or otherwise. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTkzOWQwNjQ4YzAxNzc5YTk3MTdkODdmZGJjNDE2YWM= Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:45:14 -0400 What Did You Do in the Overseas Contingency Operation, Daddy? -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA0MmU1NmI1YTg3ZjVjZDYyMDdlZjBjYTY1ZmNkYmM= I’ve never actually seen a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac, but the other night, on the way home from work, I did notice a BMW with vanity license plates that said PHISH. Then, even more depressing, I went to the grocery store and heard a Muzak version of Aerosmith’s “Dream On,” with a female vocalist yet. Once I got that out of my head (which took most of the next day, and I’m sure I’ll be dealing with the psychological scars for decades), I realized that a BMW Phishmobile is the perfect metaphor for the Obama administration. Back in 1968, when Obama and I were seven years old, hippies occupying the college president’s office used to pause between tokes of righteous herb and say, “Hey man, what if, like . . . the freaks took over the whole country, man? Wouldn’t that be groovy?” Thankfully, 1968-vintage freaks never took over, probably due to a surfeit of righteous herb and similar products. But their successors did, and while they’ve cleaned up their act a bit, they’re still playing the same old jams: Barack Obama is to Abbie Hoffman as Phish is to the Grateful Dead. And as <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlhM2VkZjVjOTM0N2E0OWVlZjNiNzM1NTg3NzgwM2M=">Overseas Contingency Operation</a> is to the Global War on Terrorism. President Obama understands better than anyone the power of words; he saw how Guantanamo, perhaps the most humane military prison in history, became a watchword for abuse simply because everyone kept saying how terrible it was. So now he and the smart folks in his administration are using the same technique in reverse, to make a long and grueling war that they know they have to fight sound as boring and antiseptic as a Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmNiYjBhYWYyMzJkNzZmOGQ0MWFiZGVkODNhMmUxMTE=">Abandoning the phrase “enemy combatants”</a> was just the beginning. The next step came when Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, deliberately refrained from using the word “terrorism” in her first appearance before Congress, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509597,00.html">explaining</a>: <blockquote> I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. </blockquote> Presumably, the miscreant who commits one of the pesky incidents Secretary Napolitano alluded to will now be called a “man-caused-disaster-causing man.” After all, why tar somebody with the ugly term “terrorist” simply because he murders a few hundred people? That would just spread fear. Similarly, describing a village-by-village struggle against ruthless and fanatical guerrilla warriors as an “Overseas Contingency Operation” is an effective way to defuse opposition, mostly because nobody knows what the hell it means. Here’s an experiment. Go to the parking lot at a Phish concert (they’re touring this summer -- and can it possibly be coincidence that they announced their reunion shortly after Obama was elected? I think not) and give the assembled stoners a multiple-choice quiz: ---------------------- Overseas Contingency Operation is: 1. an emergency medical service for travelers 2. this awesome metal band from Wisconsin that opened up for Thursday on their last tour 3. the title of Borat’s next movie 4. a really interesting situation that some guy from the Nigerian Finance Ministry e-mailed me about -- and by the way, can you loan me five grand? I’ll pay you back, honest 5. the evil imperialist war of aggression in Afghanistan that Bushitler started ---------------------- I doubt that more than 15 percent will answer it correctly. Seriously, I think Obama actually expects that rebranding the GWOT with three words chosen at random from the Bureaucrat’s Big Book of Obfuscation will make a difference -- and he may even be right. Not that anybody abroad, friend or ally, will pay it any mind, and his Code Pink pals certainly won’t be fooled. But a large fraction of Obama’s supporters deeply believe in the paramount importance of rhetoric, and assume that everyone else does too. So if Obama can come up with a meaningless but inspiring phrase and repeat it often enough, maybe he actually will change the way middle-of-the-road Americans think. After all, that’s how he got elected. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA0MmU1NmI1YTg3ZjVjZDYyMDdlZjBjYTY1ZmNkYmM= Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:19:47 -0400 The newly named Overseas Contingency Operation -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlhM2VkZjVjOTM0N2E0OWVlZjNiNzM1NTg3NzgwM2M= Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive wrote a humorous <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/mancaused-disasters-complicate-overseas-contingency-operations.html" target="_blank">post</a> about the end of the "Global War on Terrorism" and the beginning of the new "Overseas Contingency Operation." Stated differently, the war our brave men and women are fighting is now better described as a thing we do because of a disagreement. (One has to wonder, will we need to rename the "<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/200303134a.jpg" target="_blank">War On Terrorism Expeditionary Medal</a>"? Perhaps Battle Stars will now be renamed Unpleasant Experience Stars . . .) For those of you who may be wondering just what the heck a contingency is, Mike Goldfarb <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/re_obama_renames_the_war_on_te.asp" target="_blank">points out</a> that a contingency in philosophy is "the status of propositions that are not necessarily true or necessarily false." I suppose some <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/857lzqko.asp" target="_blank">Ivy League</a> guy in the White House thought this was an appropriate term. Which begs the next question: Now that the term "enemy combatants" is <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTY3MzZlNTZlNDdhMTJiMGRjYzkyZDU3NmMwMWViY2E=" target="_blank">no longer en vogue</a>, what will we call our enemies in this Overseas Contingency Operation? Alien unlawful enemy combatants is so passé; what other possibilities are there? Perhaps "not-so-nice contingent operators" or "misunderstood persons wrongly swept up in an overseas contingency." So many semantic options, so little time. I'm hoping some Republican will eventually man-up and tell the White House that if all these people are innocent folks, wrongfully imprisoned by that evil Bush administration (in President Obama's words, "<a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_fires_back_at_Cheney_on_0322.html">folks that we just swept up</a>"), then why not move them into the Lincoln Bedroom as a national apology? In fact, he could even give them "jobs that Americans won't do," tending to the new <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/betterlife/2009/03/michelle-obama.html" target="_blank">White House vegetable garden</a>. Mr. President put your money where your mouth is, relocate these wayward souls, and let the global healing begin! <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlhM2VkZjVjOTM0N2E0OWVlZjNiNzM1NTg3NzgwM2M= Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:05:22 -0400 Dubious Dubai Deal -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk3ODllZGVhYmFkNDk3ZWUxMGNiZWI4N2RhMDhhYmM= Henry Sokolski has a <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzRhYTc2OWY0MzY4ZDgxZmRkMDA4ZDQzMjJhNzE4MWY=">piece on the homepage</a> about a proposed agreement with the United Arab Emirates on nuclear-technology cooperation. From that description, it may sound about as interesting as an article on Belgian wool tariffs, but it’s very much worth reading. The proposed agreement, signed in the final days of the George W. Bush administration but not yet sent to Congress, would give the UAE assistance with civilian nuclear-power technology -- provided they submit to inspections and agree not to use it in ways that could lead to developing weapons. The trouble is, as Sokolski explains, that these provisions are not enforceable; they depend entirely on the goodwill of the UAE. That still might not seem like much of a story; after all, the UAE isn’t going to nuke anyone, if only because it would disrupt the petroleum market (though they have been cozy with Iran in the past). Unfortunately, the State Department is touting the UAE agreement as a pattern for similar nuclear-cooperation deals with Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Libya, whose motives are much more questionable. The idea behind these agreements is to use civilian nuclear technology as a carrot to get important states in a critical region on our side (or at least not too strongly against us), while also keeping them from building nuclear weapons. And there’s nothing wrong with that bargain -- if it works. But it will only work if the enforcement provisions have some teeth, and that’s why Congress should take a long, hard look at the UAE agreement before giving its assent. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk3ODllZGVhYmFkNDk3ZWUxMGNiZWI4N2RhMDhhYmM= Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:18:55 -0400 National Medal of Honor Day (Really, It's Today, I Swear) -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzA5NTE4ODVlOGE2ZGIwNDNkZjIzMTUxZjk4NDgwZjQ= Today is National Medal of Honor Day. Over at <a href="http://www.mudvillegazette.com/031723.html" target="_blank">Greyhawk</a>, there's a pretty good roundup of blog posts and other stories about the day including links to some very moving stories of sacrifice. Perhaps most disappointing, even sickening: a Google News <a href="http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22National+Medal+of+Honor+Day%22&start=0" target="_blank">search </a>of "National Medal of Honor Day" returned 28 results. By comparison, "Octomom" returned 6,242 <a href="http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Octomom" target="_blank">results</a> while stories about torture and Guantanamo returned 5,510 <a href="http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=torture+%2Bguantanamo" target="_blank">results</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzA5NTE4ODVlOGE2ZGIwNDNkZjIzMTUxZjk4NDgwZjQ= Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:42:03 -0400 Direct Action Against Alleged Terrorists -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjkxNDllMWQ4ODc1MmI4MWNiZTM3MTE2YjAwYmY1Nzk= Readers interested in law-of-war issues should find <a href="http://gsmcneal.com/2009/03/23/direct-action-against-alleged-terrorists/" target="_blank">this post</a> of interest. In it I preview the January/February issue of The National Security Law Report in which <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/facinfo/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=Faculty&ID=283" target="_blank">David Luban</a> (Georgetown University Law Center) and <a href="http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=6581" target="_blank">Amos N. Guiora</a> (University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law) <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1364608" target="_blank">debate </a>the legal framework applicable during the recent conflict in Gaza. Professor Luban asks, “Was the Gaza Campaign Legal?” while Professor Guiora suggests a new legal framework which he terms “Proportionality ‘Re-Configured.’” It’s an engaging dialogue, and nicely frames the difficult legal issues our troops (and the nation) face when dealing with non-state actors. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjkxNDllMWQ4ODc1MmI4MWNiZTM3MTE2YjAwYmY1Nzk= Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:17:38 -0400 "An intense, 6-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda . . ." -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWUyYWI4ZWZmMzg4OWU5YmFkYTBjMzQ1ZDhkNTgyMTY= <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-predator22-2009mar22,0,2028263.story">This</a> just warms my heart: <blockquote> "An intense, 6-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda . . . that militants have begun turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust . . . The pace of the Predator attacks has accelerated dramatically since August, when the Bush administration made a previously undisclosed decision to abandon the practice of obtaining permission from the Pakistani government before launching missiles from the unmanned aircraft. Because of its success, the Obama administration is set to continue the accelerated campaign despite civilian casualties that have fueled anti-U.S. sentiment and prompted protests from the Pakistani government." </blockquote> Thanks to <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/intense-6-month-campaign-of-predator.html">Ann Althouse</a> for pointing it out. I should also note that I love her new tag, which is an instant classic: "<a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama%27s%20war%20on%20terror" target="_blank">Obama's war on terror</a>." Somehow I doubt the Obama administration wants that tag circulating. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWUyYWI4ZWZmMzg4OWU5YmFkYTBjMzQ1ZDhkNTgyMTY= Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:00:10 -0400 Guantanamo and Trials for Terrorists -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUwZWUzMTg1NjVhZTlkOTdlMWIwMGFmMjVmMWY4YTE= Tank readers may have missed Andy McCarthy's recent Corner <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDZhMjdhZDhhM2RkNmM5YjEwNjBhNTY3N2NhYmE2NTU=" target="_blank">post </a>regarding his upcoming debate at Chapman Law School and repeat performance on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight. Andy also has a great piece up on the <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTY3MzZlNTZlNDdhMTJiMGRjYzkyZDU3NmMwMWViY2E=" target="_blank">front page</a> regarding how the Obama DOJ is engaged in a semantic dance regarding the words "enemy combatant." This is required reading for those of you who want to get yourselves up to speed on how much (or how little) has changed. A fair inference one can draw is that media framing can seriously impact the perception of legitimacy associated with presidential actions. On the legitimacy point, the more scholarly inclined among you may find my recent <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350651" target="_blank">piece</a> in the Richmond Law Review of interest (click on Download to get a free copy of the .PDF and to read beyond the abstract). At first blush, my argument might seem inconsistent with prior positions I've taken regarding the military commissions. But if you read closely. you will see that my argument is a pragmatic one, grounded in the reality that while military commissions and national-security courts may be our most effective policy option, they will face some serious legitimacy challenges from civil libertarian and human-rights critics. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUwZWUzMTg1NjVhZTlkOTdlMWIwMGFmMjVmMWY4YTE= Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:32:04 -0400 Living MoH Recipient May Be Coming -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmU4NTMyMzQ3MzI5MTc4YjUxZTA4ZjliNTUyZGFhNGU= According to recent comments made by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, a Marine may become the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor for America's fight in Afghanistan or Iraq. Conway stated: "We have a case that I sent an investigating officer out to take a look at on the West Coast that, if proven, I think will prompt me to recommend the Medal of Honor for a living Marine." The full story is <a href="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_conway_MoH_031109w/" target="_blank">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmU4NTMyMzQ3MzI5MTc4YjUxZTA4ZjliNTUyZGFhNGU= Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:31:13 -0400 The Chinese Navy's Somali Deployment -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzEyNTRkNDY1YTNkYTYyNGMxODA5ZGRhMGRkOTBhN2E= The official Chinese <a href="http://english.people.com.cn/90001/6609275.html">People’s Daily reported this week</a> that three vessels from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), deployed in the Gulf of Aden and nearby waters as part of a worldwide naval mobilization against the Somali pirates, would be relieved in late April or early May by another flotilla. Deputy naval chief of staff Rear Adm. Zhang Deshun disclosed that the deployment would henceforth be an ongoing mission. Today my <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham031209.shtml">weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> takes a closer look at China’s newest engagement with Africa, examining the “considerations, political and otherwise, beyond any marginal tactical utility motivating the launching of the PLAN’s first major operation abroad.” In the end, I discern a number of different factors at play, including: <blockquote> First, there are domestic political considerations . . . Second, China’s leaders are constrained to maintain appearances abroad . . . Third, the deployment has also given the PRC an opportunity to assert its military umbrella not only over its recently reclaimed territories of Hong Kong and Macau, but also over what Beijing views as the breakaway province of Taiwan . . . Fourth, the vessels dispatched on the mission . . . represent the modern PLAN as well as China’s domestic naval industry at their best . . . Fifth, even as it shows itself off to other navies, the deployment gives the PLAN an unparalleled opportunity to observe the operations and tactics of other fleets up close in relatively tight quarters . . . Sixth, the Chinese navy now has a reason to do in the maritime environment off the east coast of Africa what the 1,636 PLA personnel assigned to six UN peacekeeping missions in Africa . . . have been doing: achieving a level of tactical and operational familiarity with the African environment that few other outside countries have mastered since the end of the colonial period . . . Seventh . . . Chinese leaders and others will not be unaware of the stake the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has attempted to acquire in [Somalia’s] potential petroleum deposits . . . Eighth, while the deployment can be interpreted as proof of the PRC’s increasing willingness to bear its share of the burden for the maintenance of the freedom of the seas and other global commons . . . that same engagement might also signal something not quite as benign. </blockquote> The article concludes: <blockquote> The incident earlier this week whereby five Chinese ships, including a (PLAN) intelligence vessel, shadowed and blocked an unarmed civilian-manned American oceanographic ship, USNS Impeccable, operating in international waters south under the authority of the Military Sealift Command, is disconcerting, following as it does on the harassment, again in international waters, of another unarmed U.S. civilian ship, USNS Victorious, just last week by a Chinese patrol boat. These incidents are a reminder of the challenges that the United States and its allies can expect from a resurgent China shaking off what it views as the humiliating stain of colonialism on what is otherwise a millennial history of imperial glory. While alarmism contributes nothing to strategic analysis, neither is reflexive irenicism a particularly useful policy perspective. Hence, occasioned by these unfortunate incidents, American policymakers and analysts need to take another closer look at the recent deployment of a PLAN flotilla to the already crowded waters off the eastern coast of Africa, trying to understand China’s strategic calculus and discerning its implications for American interests, both in the region and beyond. Hysteria may be out of order, but prudent caution is still called for. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzEyNTRkNDY1YTNkYTYyNGMxODA5ZGRhMGRkOTBhN2E= Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:55:07 -0400 A Threat to Border Security -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGMyNzkzZTY0ODVhYTQ5NGNlYzYwN2EyNzhiOGIwZjQ= At Armed Forces Journal’s website, <a href="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/03/3931814">Peter Brookes describes</a> the appalling carnage in Mexico’s border areas between rival drug gangs, who are competing for a market that has expanded greatly in recent years in the wake of Colombia’s success in suppressing its own cartels: <blockquote> Some observers have characterized the fighting in Mexico as a low-grade civil war. Worse yet, by many estimates, the violence is escalating — and getting increasingly grisly. For instance, in January, Mexican authorities arrested a man accused of dissolving as many as 300 bodies in bubbling vats of acid for a Tijuana-based drug lord, earning him the nightmarish nickname “El Pozolero,” after a local stew. The same week, Mexican prosecutors reported three severed heads found in an ice box. A headless body was also discovered in a canal in Ciudad Juarez, a town known as Mexico’s deadliest — just over the border from El Paso, Texas. Last year, the drug war in Mexico consumed nearly 6,000 lives — double the number in 2007. </blockquote> As Brookes points out, the problems this situation creates for the U.S. go beyond law enforcement to include security as well, since lawless border areas around the world are often used as havens for terrorists, staging areas for attacks, and conduits for cross-border human smuggling. What to do about it? The simplest answer would be to legalize the cartels and let Obama tax them out of existence. Seriously, though, the problem with that plan is the same as with all drug-legalization fantasies: Hardened and psychotically vicious criminals will not become law-abiding simply because you reduce their distribution expenses. The case of Colombia shows that drug gangs can be fought successfully if America provides money, matériel, and expertise to a government that is committed to fighting them. To reduce crime, addiction, and the chances of terrorist acts in the U.S., helping Mexico suppress its drug gangs would be an investment well worth making. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGMyNzkzZTY0ODVhYTQ5NGNlYzYwN2EyNzhiOGIwZjQ= Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:16:05 -0400 Sudan's Bashir Indicted for War Crimes -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWUxOTZmMTkyMmJmZDk4YTBjNDI5MWE3MWJmMWQ1MDE= My weekly <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham030409.shtml">“Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> reacts to today’s <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc639096.pdf">decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC)</a> to charge Sudanese president Umar Hassan al-Bashir with five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes for his role in the humanitarian disaster that is Darfur. While, even without the genocide counts originally sought by the prosecutor, the charges authorized by the ICC and the <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc639078.pdf">accompanying arrest warrant</a> represent “a significant milestone in the historic global campaign against impunity for high-ranking perpetrators of the most serious violations of international humanitarian law and other human rights abuses,” the essay suggests that “what happens next will be less a legal matter than a geopolitical question since there is no chance that the Sudanese ruler will be appearing voluntarily at The Hague anytime soon to answer the charges pending against him.” I discount fears of reprisals against the two international peacekeeping forces currently deployed in Sudan, the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) force watching the fragile peace between Khartoum and South Sudan -- among whom are 15 U.S. police officers -- and the hybrid African Union/United Nations mission in Darfur (UNAMID), noting that the majority of the peacekeepers are Africans from some 30 African countries and that the African Union continues to lobby for a suspension of the ICC proceedings, rendering it “highly unlikely that Bashir and members of his regime would want to turn other African governments against themselves by targeting the mainly African UN personnel.” Instead, I argue that “more likely, in fact, is the possibility that the indictment might serve as a pretense for other leaders in Khartoum’s ruling National Congress Party . . . and the military to consider a move against the Bashir” and that such an internal coup, backed perhaps by the People’s Republic of China and various Arab countries which have invested heavily in Sudan, might even accelerate the forces already at work dissolving the Sudanese state. Recognizing that I need not belabor here where the national interests of the United States not only in ending the various conflicts in Sudan, but also in helping bring about a sustainable security balance in the critical Horn of Africa subregion, are to be discerned as such a scenario to unfolds, I conclude: <blockquote> While it is far too early to know whether and how long Bashir will manage to avoid answering for his crimes before an earthly tribunal, in many ways the charges brought against him mean that he is no longer master of his own fate, to say nothing of his continuing to play a dominant lead in the ongoing drama of Sudan. On the global stage, the ICC indictment may be a judicial action carried out in conformity with international law, but its enforcement will depend on the political will of the UN Security Council which referred the Darfur case to the Court in the first place. However within Sudan the indictment will take on its own inexorable momentum as other actors acquire considerable say, not just over what role Bashir is allotted, but over the shape of the future Sudan -- all in an accelerating dynamic process that is likelier to be ultimately determined by geostrategic realities and Machtpolitik rather than by jurisprudential norms. Consequently, while the short-term outlook is unclear, the contours of the end state are already discernible. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWUxOTZmMTkyMmJmZDk4YTBjNDI5MWE3MWJmMWQ1MDE= Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:44:34 -0400 Release of OLC Memos Regarding GWOT -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTE4ZjVlYzNlZDJiNGU4YzkzMDFjNzkxMzRiYzY5ODU= DOJ announced today the release of Office of Legal Counsel memoranda drafted during the Bush administration regarding counterterrorism efforts. These are significant legal policy documents. Hat tip to Bobby Chesney for the pointer: <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoforeignsurveillanceact09252001.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoabmtreaty11152001.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memorandumpresidentpower03132002.pdf">Memorandum Regarding the President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memojusticeauthorizationact0482002.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitarydetention06082002.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memodetentionuscitizens06272002.pdf">Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)</a> <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoolcopiniondomesticusemilitaryforce10062008.pdf">Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)</a> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTE4ZjVlYzNlZDJiNGU4YzkzMDFjNzkxMzRiYzY5ODU= Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:28:11 -0400 How to Respond to Somali Piracy -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTAyY2VmM2NkOGY4ZmQzNWFkZmUzMjFlMDdlYTQ1OGU= Responding to the most recent successful hijacking by Somali pirates — the seizure Sunday of the Greek-owned, Maltese-flagged container ship MV Saldanha while a British warship HMS Northumberland watched helpless nearby, unable to intervene because the attackers had already taken hostages — as well as to the dispatch of the supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and its strike group to a deployment that includes anti-piracy operations in the Arabian Sea and western Indian Ocean, <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham022609.shtml">my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> today suggests a more “sustainable” approach to assuring maritime security in the region. The essay’s argument opens by raising a number of issues with the reliance on a naval build-up in the region and then, in answering them, poses what I believe to be the key question: <blockquote> [I]f sending more naval vessels to the region is neither particularly effective nor sustainable and the international community has shown little stomach for trying to effectively address the problems arising from the collapse of the onetime Somali Democratic Republic and the failure of any unitary successor state to emerge, what might constitute a realistic response to the threat, at least in the intermediate term, that is, between that time in the next few months when either more urgent crises or simply required rotations take most of the current international naval presence away from the waters off Somalia and such moment in the as-yet-undetermined future when Somalis (other than those in Somaliland who constitute a separate case) manage to establish for themselves something resembling a legitimate government capable of fulfilling its international legal obligations, including preventing outlaws from using its territory to attack peaceful international commerce? </blockquote> After defining the “green waters” of the “littorals” as the environment where the challenge of piracy needs to be met and defeated, I examine the case of Southeast Asia, where regional cooperation, both multilateral and interagency, has significantly reduced incidents of maritime piracy in recent years, for “lessons learned,” even if the latter region is not East Africa. The piece ultimately concludes: <blockquote> [I]ncreased capacity by willing partners as well as cooperation between neighboring states can significantly advance maritime security along the East African littoral — and do so in a far more sustainable fashion — than simply increasing the number of naval vessels from the United States and other outside powers throughout the region in deployments which simply cannot be sustained. However, given that the naval and coast guard capabilities in the region are neither as advanced nor as robust as those in Southeast Asia, the United States and the rest of the international community needs to do more to assist in the building up of counter-piracy coalition, partnering, as appropriate, with states in the area, effective and legitimate authorities in the territory of the former Somali state, subregional organizations, and the African Union. With its emphasis on “smart power” . . . the administration of President Barack Obama ought to find that strengthening the ability of America’s regional partners to assert basic control over the littoral is the most effective path towards nurturing and sustaining maritime security in otherwise perilous waters off the Horn. Foreign Military Finance (FMF), Section 1206, Section 1207, and other security cooperation funds should be made available to begin now the task of building adequate regional coastal security forces. In short, coming to the assistance of local actors who recognize the challenge that Somali piracy poses to their interests and are willing to work against it will not only serve the broad national interest of the United States in mitigating the threat and protecting the freedom of seas (and do so economically and efficiently), but it will help reduce the chaos in Somalia itself which, along with opportunity, is the primary cause of the scourge in the first place. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTAyY2VmM2NkOGY4ZmQzNWFkZmUzMjFlMDdlYTQ1OGU= Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:30:56 -0400 Media Objectors to New Dover Photography Rules Can Pound Sand -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzEwZGYyYzgyY2M4MTUwODlmZDhmZTdmYTJhN2I5NGQ= The news that the media will once again be allowed to take pictures and footage of flag-draped coffins of our returning fallen has received a lot of praise and criticism. For my money, Matt Burden once again sums it up best at <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/02/there-is-no-fou.html">Blackfive</a>. <blockquote> It took me a good hour and a walk in the rain to calm down enough to publish this post. Why? <a href="http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=8205">Because it's Code Pink and other anti-war outfits</a> that are pressuring the government (the articles all state pressure from politicians and "<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hffZhu28b89R29R4cZgwSH_hy23AD96JDG680">a leading military families group</a>"). And it's Jawn Carry who also thinks it's a good idea. Yes, the family has to authorize the taking of the photo. That seems like a reasonable enough control mechanism doesn't it? It would if no one would ever abuse those photos. Do you really believe that Code Pink and the other organizations responsible for this reversal of policy will respect the intent of the new policy? These are the same people that held signs outside of Walter Reed at night when the buses of wounded troops from OIF and OEF rolled in (I saw the sign) that said: "You got maimed for a lie." So what about the soldier's wishes? Don't they matter as much, if not more, in this case? Or are we just going to provide "a sobering reminder to all Americans"? </blockquote> Thanks, Matt. I hope those here go to Blackfive and <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/02/there-is-no-fou.html">read it all</a> and follow the links. The first national article I read on the decision yesterday contained a line that I have failed to find in subsequent reports, nor have I found again the original report. But in the first paragraph it contained an objection that was quite revealing. I am paraphrasing from memory here, but absolutely confident in the recollection. After noting the decision as a victory for the media, who have long simply wanted to "honor the fallen troops," the article noted objections from the media regarding the requirement of permission from families because it "made it nearly impossible to photograph the planeloads of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover." That early graph is quite telling. If the aim is to honor the fallen, then with the permission of the surviving family, the best way to honor a fallen American man or woman is to capture their indiviual coffin and procession. Name them. Explain who they were, what they did, why and where they served. That's honoring them. But most of the media simply doesn't want to get dragged out to individual funeral processions. It's quite a bother. Instead, their objectives are often disconnected from honor and instead focused on journalism critical of war efforts. Don't take my word for it. Look at the coverage of the Iraq war sans images of draped coffins. How many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were you introduced to? How many reports of individual stories of sacrifice, courage and honor did you hear? How many of the fallen did you actually get to know as they were dutifully honored by the national media? Now, contrast that struggle with how many times you have read daily and cumulative U.S. body counts on the morning paper's front page, heard the numbers on the radio on the way to work, or seen the figures displayed on the evening news? Quite a revealing exercise, no? Well, images of groups of coffins being unloaded from the backs of millitary cargo planes at Dover are the graphic equivalent of the same: body count. Rarely is that image intended to honor. If it were, there would be some honoring within the accompanying text of precisely who rests beneath the Colors, what they did, and how they served. So those who object to the family permission requirement being applied to media photography of both the Dover arrivals and the individual ceremonies at the resting places of the fallen can, quite frankly, pound sand. When it comes to protecting and respecting our fallen brothers-in-arms from self-serving media exploiters, we do not operate with "no-income-verification loans." We've followed your history and find you with a record of bankruptcy and unworthy of credit. Seriously. Pound sand. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzEwZGYyYzgyY2M4MTUwODlmZDhmZTdmYTJhN2I5NGQ= Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:28:40 -0400 Yes, It's Hamas Aid, and It's $900M of Cognitive Dissonance -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzJiMDQ0YjY0MTJlMzUyOGYzODY3OTkxZjVhY2NhNDA= While we are preached to via the humorless yet hysterical "Fiscal Responsibility Summit," leadership by example -- a pillar of military service -- has no home in this White House. For with the last breath of the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" came news that the administration plans to spend nearly $1 billion of American tax money (or, more likely, freshly minted additional paper) to rebuild Hamas terrorists' home turf. All the while, a critically important Department of Defense initiative to undermine al-Qaeda's opium cash cow and popular support within the tribal areas of Pakistan is short of funding by $167.5 million. Let's be clear here. Our forces in harm's way and in the heat of battle in Afghanistan and, by extension, Pakistan can go pound sand regarding their efforts to diminish the enemy's cash lifelines and capabilities. But Hamas terrorists? Help is on the way. Pronto. This -- espcially within the given context -- is simply unconscionable, no matter your politics. This is not "fiscal responsibility." This is <a href="http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/02/cognitive-dissonance/">cognitive dissonance</a>. And I object with every fiber of my being. <blockquote> This is not a cry from this writer to end all foreign aid. Far from it. But it is a vociferous cry to reconsider the foolishness of assisting Hamas to any degree - let alone to the tune of nearly a billion dollars -- in reconstructing Gaza after Hamas' incessant rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns finally drew the wrath of the Israeli Defense Forces. Would we rebuild Japan with Tojo still in place, or Germany under a surviving Hitler? And would we send them nearly $1 billion while our own economy is incessantly being described as "the worst crisis since the Great Depression"? And most importantly, would we do this while our own operations are short funding, where our own troops are at ever-increasing risk? The answer is clearly, no we would not. At least not then. But today, under an Obama administration, the answer is apparently "Yes we can." Our own generals requested 30,000 troops in order to roll out a new strategy and fight terrorists in Afghanistan and they got but 17,000 committed. Our efforts to combat al-Qaeda's narcotics money tree and undermine their popular support in Pakistan are expected to be short-funded $167.5 million with no redress in sight, yet the commitment is already made to spend $900 million of your tax dollars rebuilding Hamas' home turf. Make sense of that. </blockquote> Maybe you can, but I sure can't. Jules Crittenden calls it the <a href="http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/02/24/hamas-stimulus-plan/">Hamas Stimulus Plan</a>. Go ahead and argue otherwise. The administration tried to dodge this by assuring us that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations." But that feeble defense rings as hollow as a fortune cookie because there is ultimately just one distributor (and confiscator) of aid in Gaza: Hamas. And this frees them to spend other funds directly on rearming. Truly, "the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus." In the mean time, the DoD plan to undermine al-Qaeda in Pakistan is left to pound sand. Maybe the administration will get to it later, when it's a high enough priority. We've got to be "fiscally responsible." And $167.5 million is an awful lot of money in these tough times to go pouring into a terrorist haven, dontcha know. I hope NRO's Tank readers will take the time to read <a href="http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/02/cognitive-dissonance/">Cognitive Dissonance</a>, forgiving for the moment the self-link. There's simply no other way to describe this administration's actions. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzJiMDQ0YjY0MTJlMzUyOGYzODY3OTkxZjVhY2NhNDA= Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:56:35 -0400 Pundit, Heal Thyself -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWRlYTlmMmI1MTgxMDE3NmQ1YWMzMDllMTgxYjVmNzI= It’s often remarked that people condemn most vehemently in others the things they are guilty of themselves. At The Weekly Standard, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/joe_klein_kremlin_apologist.asp">Michael Goldfarb</a> discusses one prominent example of this: Joe Klein’s sometimes ugly, sometimes comical obsession with “neoconservatives.” (Sometimes, when he’s feeling particularly honest, Klein will get a bit more explicit and kvetch about <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGIyZmYxN2UzNzFhODJiOWVkY2JhNzYxNGI1ZTQ4YmM=">“Jewish neoconservatives”</a> with “divided loyalties.”) Klein explains in his Time.com blog that all Vladimir Putin’s Russia wants is peace, friendship, and global prosperity. Anyone who thinks they may be taking our new and inexperienced president for a ride is obsessed with settling decades-old scores. And hey, why all the fuss over Kyrgyzstan’s closure of an American air base? Only a blinkered neocon, one who hasn’t noticed that the Cold War is over, would think the Kyrgyz are actually serious about their threat, or that Russia might be pulling some strings in order to yank Uncle Sam’s chain. (Including, of course, those notorious neos at the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06kstan.html">New York Times</a>.) As usual, Klein is the one trying to refight the Cold War. It was a common rationalization -- both during the Cold War and afterwards, in the works of historians like Richard Rhodes -- that every time America criticized the USSR or made any hostile moves, it was a reckless provocation, whereas when the USSR did the same, it was either a rational response to American actions or else mere posturing, not meant to be taken seriously. You know those rambunctious Russkies. Klein can’t get over the fact that (a) the term “neoconservative” has long since become so vague and overused as to lose any meaning except as an all-purpose epithet, and (b) during the Cold War, when neoconservatives flourished, they were right. So he tirelessly, and tiresomely, invokes them as the nefarious manipulators behind whatever he happens to be feeling grumpy about. Though I will give Klein credit for this: He certainly is not guilty of what he calls “the neoconservative tic of searching for -- at times, creating -- enemies rather than opportunities.” Not him. After all, he’s found one enemy that serves equally well for every problem, so why bother searching anywhere else? <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWRlYTlmMmI1MTgxMDE3NmQ1YWMzMDllMTgxYjVmNzI= Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:03:34 -0400 . . . and Connections -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZmMWFkMGFiYjQ3NzhiNTY5ZDJiZjQ0YzM2NWZmODc= In the Digital Age, military forces are struggling, as they have since the Bronze Age, to circulate information efficiently among themselves without cluing the enemy in as well. <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090219.aspx">Strategy Page reports</a> that, ostensibly for security reasons, the British Army recently tried to bar its soldiers from blogging, posting comments on websites, using social-networking sites, and playing on-line games. The Brit brass quickly learned that this particular horse left the barn long ago, as a <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2240705.ece">virtual mutiny</a> among the troops led to a quick withdrawal of the order. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is finding ways to take advantage of modern information technology while addressing legitimate secrecy concerns: <blockquote> The military got into the act by establishing official message boards, for military personnel only, where useful information could be discussed and exchanged. All this rapid information sharing has had an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the troops, something that has largely gone unnoticed by the mass media. . . . Most junior officers grew up with the Internet, and many of the older ones were using the Internet before it became popularized in the 1990s. Even the generals of today, have experience with PCs when they were young, so have no trouble getting into this new form of communication. The military is eagerly building a "battlefield Internet" for use during combat, and parts of this are up and running and heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan. </blockquote> So information technology, properly used, can promote intra-military communication and keep it from going extra-military. At Counterterrorism Blog, <a href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/02/is_twitter_useful_afterall.php">Roderick Jones discusses</a> another part of the communications revolution: Twitter, and how it promotes communication between the military and the public, with benefits for both. <blockquote> Twitter emerged as a powerful networked communications platform during the <a href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11/twitter_comes_of_age_reporting.php">Mumbai terrorist attacks</a>, when a stream of tweets marked #Mumbai (# being the global tagging system Twitter employs) gave a seemingly real-time commentary on events as they unfolded in Mumbai. Similarly, Twitter has been used to communicate the message and activity surrounding the riots in Greece using the <a href="http://metasecurity.net/2008/12/31/globally-networked-anarchism-griot/">#Griot tag</a>. These are examples of the network effect working with a rapid communications platform and developing a powerful narrative from many different observation points. The style is anarchic but increasingly compelling. . . . Twitter in conjunction with other tools, continues the trend of making ordinary citizens active producers of potentially actionable intelligence. </blockquote> While the potential remains for accidental disclosures of sensitive information, on the whole, Jones writes, Twitter has already shown itself to be a valuable tool “in the National Security space.” <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZmMWFkMGFiYjQ3NzhiNTY5ZDJiZjQ0YzM2NWZmODc= Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:13:04 -0400 Collisions . . . -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNlZTAwM2RhZmZmYjI5MmJjMzg2ZjYwMGU2MGE4NTk= Some interesting stuff, as always, on <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/">Strategy Page</a>. <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090220.aspx">This item</a> provides historical context for the recent British-French submarine collision. How rare, historically, have such collisions been? Not particularly, it turns out -- especially during the Cold War, when submarines were more numerous, and many were built and staffed according to Soviet standards: <blockquote> Most of the collisions during this period involved Russian subs bumping into other Russian subs, or inanimate objects (icebergs, oil rigs). Western boats had far fewer collisions because they had better sonar, and better trained and more experienced crews. </blockquote> Though, as a comment to this item points out: <blockquote> While you might expect collisions between SSNs [attack subs] and the things they are assigned to follow once in a while, it's quite unexpected to see a collision between two boomers [missile-launching subs] whose job it is to stay as far away from one another as possible. </blockquote> Speaking of collisions, a serious and ever-growing threat to military and civilian security is <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20090220.aspx">space junk</a>: <blockquote> Currently, over 300,000 dangerous objects 10 mm (.4 inch) in size have been identified. The smallest of these is capable of disabling a satellite, or damaging a spacecraft. That's because these objects hit at very high speed (9-10 times faster than a bullet) if they, and their target, are coming from different directions. There are nearly 18,000 objects 10 centimeters (4 inches) or larger. These can do some catastrophic damage, to satellites or spacecraft. </blockquote> The article describes a number of agencies -- military and civilian, U.S., foreign, and international -- that are doing their best to keep track of all the debris and warn satellite operators if a direct hit appears likely. The newest of these is the USAF’s Space Based Surveillance System, which will begin operations this spring. Its stated purpose is to defend against space warfare, in the form of hostile spacecraft launched with the purpose of taking out American satellites, but it will probably spend most of its time tracking orbital junk. Meanwhile, a worldwide non-governmental group called ISON (International Space Observation Network) uses a network of professional and amateur astronomers to watch out for potential collisions and warn the operators of the satellites involved: <blockquote> ISON already has spotted 152 larger (over 10mm) objects that have never been reported by any of the government organizations. The Internet based amateurs are often the first to spot a lot of this new activity, mainly because they have more eyeballs, and, in some cases, impressive optical equipment, searching the skies. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNlZTAwM2RhZmZmYjI5MmJjMzg2ZjYwMGU2MGE4NTk= Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:22:26 -0400 Persistance of Somali Piracy, U.S. Navy and other Responses -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQwYmI4ZTVjMmIxY2IxNjI5NmQ4ZWEyOTFmNTg3ODM= This week <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham021909.shtml">my “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> provides an updated analysis of the piracy phenomenon off the coast of Somalia and international responses to it, warning that the challenge “is not just ongoing, but incidents of attempted hijackings may actually increase” despite the efforts to counter them. After reviewing the unprecedented level of international political and security cooperation—including United Nations resolutions and other efforts, multilateral and bilateral agreements, the stand-up United States-led Combined Task Force 151, the extension of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Naval Forces Africa “Africa Partnership Station” to Africa’s eastern littoral, and the deployment of other naval forces to the region—my article turns its attention to the “less promising indicators” among the Somali, including the internal contradictions within the ineffectual “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) of Somalia, the rise of nefarious influence of piracy in the institutions of the semi-autonomous Puntland region, the continuing resurgence of the Islamist extremism spearheaded by al-Shabaab, and the pressure that Somaliland is increasingly under. Thus I conclude: <blockquote> No doubt considerable progress has been made in recent months in the international community’s appreciation of the challenge represented by the Somali pirates. However, much more remains to be done before the threat can be diminished. Ultimately . . . the problem of Somali lawlessness at sea will only be definitively resolved when the international community summons up the political will to adequately address the underlying pathology of Somali statelessness onshore. Absent a minimal framework of legitimate and effective governance in what was formerly the territory of the unitary Somali state—and I would include as an essential attribute of such governance some sort of coast guard capability, probably externally supported, perhaps with its resources divided between Somaliland (assuming the upcoming elections are held, their conduct legitimate, and the aftermath stable) and Somalia proper (under United Nations, African Union, or subregional tutelage until the TFG or whatever alternative interim arrangement might emerge in its stead proves itself effective and capable of handling such responsibilities)—the specter of piracy will always be looming just over the horizon. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQwYmI4ZTVjMmIxY2IxNjI5NmQ4ZWEyOTFmNTg3ODM= Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:09:48 -0400 Return of the "Ungendered Military" -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk0N2MxZTYxN2Q1MDNiZmIxOThmNjZkNGMxODAyODQ= On Sunday, February 8, the Boston Globe published my op-ed titled <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/08/open_door_creates_problems?mode=PF">“Open Door Creates Problems,”</a> paired with a column by Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, titled <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/08/military_just_catching_up?mode=PF">“Military Just Catching Up.”</a> The Globe also invited both of us to comment on the opposing article: <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/08/the_writers_react_to_each_other/">“The Writers React to Each Other.”</a> My short commentary emphasized concerns that Sarvis either ignored or tried to answer with weak arguments, personal attacks, and false claims that don’t hold up when compared to my writings. The exchange reminded me of the arrogance of advocates who try to wrap harmful social agendas in the banner of “national security.” With little or no respect for military culture, some ideologues keep demanding that our military assume higher risks of social disruption that would hurt morale, discipline, and overall readiness. Consider this comment, posted in support of Sarvis’s position, which takes the prize for faux social science laced with anti-male attitudes common among feminists: <blockquote> I would encourage my daughter to be unafraid of people in general, and I hope that means that she can shower with anybody and not need to worry about it. The only problem with showering with a bunch of straight men is that they may well not have learned that women are people too, not objects to be lusted after, because we live in a wicked sexist society that has always allowed straight men to get away with harassing and assaulting women and anyone else they feel like, so long as it doesn't threaten the power structure. And we continue to promote the idea that women are there for the sexual pleasure of men. Just consider the current use of the word 'ho'. It's time for straight men to grow up. Are some straight men afraid of gay men because they think gay men might do to them what they might, given a chance without repercussions, do to a woman? Discuss. --by fredbob February 08, 2:03 PM </blockquote> A friend of mine had some fun with “fredbob’s” loopy philosophy: <blockquote> Maybe we should propose that before we tackle the whole gay issue we should first develop a comprehensive training program, with plenty of practical exercises, to teach all the “straight men” that “women are people too.” I think we’d have to start with some classroom instruction and then move to “supervised showers” where commanders and NCOs monitor the showers to make sure all are getting along without things getting out of control. Once we’ve developed sufficient self-control in the straight men, we need to introduce more of the straight women into the mix so they become “unafraid” of showering with “anybody and need not worry about it.” Once we get all the straight men and straight women in the showers together without it turning into some sort of gang rape or orgy, then we’ll have a sufficient basis of information to develop similar training programs for implementing the new gay paradigm. I don’t know how long such a training program will take, but since we’re basically reprogramming human nature, it could be a while. Of course, we’ll need refresher courses along the way. Will we be able to fight a war along the way? I doubt it, but we’ll surely have the “cleanest” military force in the history of the world! Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here. </blockquote> My friend’s spoof, unfortunately, is not much different from the social science fiction popular among feminists during the Clinton administration. In 1996, for example, Duke law professor Madeline Morris, an adviser to then-Secretary of the Army Togo West and Assistant Secretary Sara Lister, proposed the concept of an “ungendered military” in <a href="http://eprints.law.duke.edu/81/1/45_Duke_L._J._651_(1995-1996).pdf">a Duke Law Journal article</a> titled “By Force of Arms: Rape, War, and Military Culture.” According to Professor Morris, sexual misconduct in the ranks could be reduced by determined efforts to root out what she called “masculinist attitudes.” Will the Obama administration attempt to impose a “New Gender Order” on the military? For the sake of our men and women in uniform, let’s hope that hard-core feminists and their allies are not given a second chance to try. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk0N2MxZTYxN2Q1MDNiZmIxOThmNjZkNGMxODAyODQ= Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:50:16 -0400 FBI Considering Taking Away Counterterrorism Resources -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjM4YzkzNmZjNDVhMTNhN2MyNWE4YmUxZjFiZWU0MGU= In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI deputy director John Pistole <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/02/fbi-shifting-focus-from.php" target="_blank">said</a> that the FBI is considering shifting resources away from counterterrorism and national security and toward mortgage fraud! You read that correctly--there is talk within the administration to prioritize mortgage fraud over national security. The <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0znQbU_dQ_qpHuAxnKttyUR7LbQD969LLG01" target="_blank">AP </a>describes it this way: <blockquote> FBI Deputy Director John Pistole told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the bureau may reassign some of the positions that were reallocated to anti-terrorism work after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Such a move would be a further sign of the government breaking with the Bush administration's priorities, which pledged to assign every available resource to averting another terrorist attack. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjM4YzkzNmZjNDVhMTNhN2MyNWE4YmUxZjFiZWU0MGU= Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:17:47 -0400 Interpol Alert Regarding 85 Suspected Terrorists -- By: NRO Staff webmaster@nationalreview.com (NRO Staff) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjBiYTFiNDFiYTZjZjMyZmRhYTg1MWJiMDRhMmJmNDk= Interpol released an <a href="http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2009/PR200908.asp" target="_blank">alert </a>for 83 suspected al-Qaida members yesterday: "83 Saudis and two Yemenis are wanted at the national level by Saudi Arabia on terrorism-related charges, including links to al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan." On "Special Report" last night, Fox News reported that 11 of the 83 were individuals released from Guantanamo. A few other news sites are reporting the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=interpol+%2Bguantanamo&btnG=Search" target="_blank">same</a>. Others, such as <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/11/saudi.arabia.terrorists/" target="_blank">CNN</a>, make no mention of individuals released from Guantanamo. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjBiYTFiNDFiYTZjZjMyZmRhYTg1MWJiMDRhMmJmNDk= Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:05:57 -0400 Taliban Attacks in Kabul -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDIwNGZlOTAyOTVjZjJhYTQwYzZhZTQ0YzU2MzdmNjA= Doug Farah at the Counterterrorism Blog, <a href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/02/encircling_kabul_taliban_gaini.php" target="_blank">writing </a>about the recent Taliban attacks in Kabul, says they demonstrate that the Taliban is gaining ground, largely due to corruption and tolerance of abusive and extremist warlords and a feeble Afghan government unable to respond to frequent terror attacks. Perhaps most interestingly, Farah argues that "the attacks are important for several reasons: it shows the Taliban has good intelligence within Kabul, as well as an infrastructure of safe houses and access routes for combatants. It shows the ability to select specific targets and coordinate several different groups." <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDIwNGZlOTAyOTVjZjJhYTQwYzZhZTQ0YzU2MzdmNjA= Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:17:36 -0400 ICC to Indict Sudanese President -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjlkMzE0NGVkY2ZiNzM5OWJmMGMyNzU1ZjIzYzNkZWE= <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUSN11382183">Reuters reports</a> that judges at the International Criminal Court have decided to indict Sudanese President Umar Hassan al-Bashir for his role in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur, and to issue a warrant for his arrest—the first time such measures will have been taken by the tribunal against a sitting head of state. When prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo submitted his charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in July, I conceded in <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham071508.shtml">an analysis for World Defense Review</a> that, even if the three-judge panel confirmed the ten counts alleged against Bashir and issued the requested warrant, there would not likely be much immediate effect. I nonetheless argued that the legal proceedings will not be without geopolitical consequences, irrespective of their eventual juridical disposition. In fact, Bashir’s indictment by an international tribunal acting under a Chapter VII mandate from the United Nations Security Council would “weaken his regime even further as it increases the diplomatic costs for other governments should they choose to deal with him” and “immensely complicate the lives of diplomats seeking to keep myriad ramshackle accords and processes on life support.” A formal indictment would also cause hardliners within Bashir’s National Congress Party (NCP) to resist further cooperation with the undermanned hybrid African Union/United Nations force in Darfur (UNAMID) and slow down their already-lagging implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended the decades of civil war between the Arab-dominated Muslim north of the country and South Sudan—thus leading to increased likelihood of conflict in the short term. Nonetheless, I argued that, over the long term, a positive outcome could be discerned amid these difficulties: <blockquote> [W]hile rough patches lie ahead, [the ICC action] may well mark a watershed in the progressive isolation of the Khartoum regime as well as the continuing break-up of the artificial Sudanese state as rigged elections and other tensions lead to the collapse of the CPA and South Sudan then declaring its sovereign independence without waiting for the scheduled 2011 referendum foreseen by the accord. The break-up of Sudan would then deprive the NCP regime of the resources—recall that almost all of the country’s proven reserve of 6.4 billion barrels of petroleum are found in the South—which it has hitherto used to buy loyalty from the Arab Muslim population at the center and oppress the peoples of the periphery in places like South Sudan and Darfur. That would not only spell the end of an Islamist regime that once hosted Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but would also deal a major setback to mainland China’s strategy of penetrating Africa and, through marriages of convenience with local despots, acquiring privileged access to natural resources to fuel its rise to great power status while setting back democratic progress on the continent. Thus, in a broader perspective, indicting the Sudanese tyrant is not only a victory for the campaign against impunity in the case of one man, it may well also open the way to ending a whole series of conflicts and present a historic opportunity for both Africans and their American friends. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjlkMzE0NGVkY2ZiNzM5OWJmMGMyNzU1ZjIzYzNkZWE= Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:48:34 -0400 The Realities of War Mean Detaining Our Enemies -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMzNGMxZDg5YjIzYTU1NTZiY2YxYzhkMTI5NjA5NDQ= Solicitor General nominee Elena Kagan, in her confirmation hearing Monday, reinforced Attorney General Eric Holder's position on enemy combatants. Here is an excerpt from the exchange between Kagan and Sen. Lindsey Graham. as reported by the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-solicitor-general11-2009feb11,0,7158432.story" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times</a>: <blockquote> "Do you believe we are at war?" Graham asked. "I do, Senator," Kagan replied. Graham cited the example of someone who is not carrying a gun or fighting on a battlefield. "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?" he asked. He added that he had asked the same question of Holder, who replied that he agreed that person was on the battlefield. "Do you agree with that?" the senator said. "I do," Kagan replied. Graham said that under the law of war, the government can say, "If you're part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?" Kagan replied, "I think it makes sense, and I think you're correct that that is the law." </blockquote> Of course, this is nothing new. We've all known since the 2004 Hamdi decision that detention of enemy combatants is lawful. That realization seems to finally be hitting the Left. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMzNGMxZDg5YjIzYTU1NTZiY2YxYzhkMTI5NjA5NDQ= Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:23:32 -0400 NSA Jones Remarks -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EwY2I1YTdiMzcyNzhiYmU3NDk4MDk3ZmYyMWM5N2Q= The Council on Foreign Relations posted <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_munich_conference_on_security_policy.html">a copy of remarks</a> given by U.S. National Security Adviser James L. Jones at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009. A few excerpts: <blockquote> The transatlantic security partnership was largely designed to meet the threats of a very symmetric world. It was reactive. The NATO partnership was conceived to be a defensive and fairly static alliance. And I spent a good deal of my career in uniform serving within this framework. But to move forward, we must understand the terms national security and international security are no longer limited to the ministries of defense and foreign ministries; in fact, it encompasses the economic aspects of our societies. It encompasses energy. It encompasses new threats, asymmetric threats involving proliferation, involving the illegal shipment of arms and narco-terrorism, and the like. Borders are no longer recognized and the simultaneity of the threats that face us are occurring at a more rapid pace. . . . We know that NATO is a strong alliance, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known. Its capacity does not just come from the strength of its arms but from the enduring democratic values that bind our nations together. And from the iron-clad commitment that ensures our collective security. But I also know this. NATO must also change. It needs to become less reactive and more proactive. I think it needs to become less rigid and more flexible. It needs to become less stationary and more expeditionary. And it needs to become more, not less, essential to our collective security. . . . </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EwY2I1YTdiMzcyNzhiYmU3NDk4MDk3ZmYyMWM5N2Q= Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:24:09 -0400 Canadian Genius: Deserters Discriminated Against in U.S. -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTY3OGYyNWIwMWY0Yjc3ZWM4NzAzMjA2YTczNjY4MDg= <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/10/iraq-objector.html">This one</a> will tug at your heartstrings and cry out to your senses of humanity and social justice. Or not. <blockquote> A Canadian immigration official failed to consider the hardships a high-profile American deserter and his family would face if forced to return to the United States, a federal court judge was told Tuesday. In arguing Jeremy Hinzman's case in Toronto, lawyer Alyssa Manning told the court that deserters who have spoken out against the U.S. invasion of Iraq have been singled out for prosecution while others have been allowed to quietly leave the military. As a result, she told Judge James Russell, Hinzman would likely be the victim of "differential treatment" if returned to the U.S., something the immigration officer did not consider properly. </blockquote> Look, genius, splendid heroes of conscience who objected to the Iraq invasion like Jeremy Hinzman are not being "singled out for prosecution" unfairly because they voiced opposition just like others have. They are being fairly singled out for prosecution--no matter their grievances--because they are deserters. The difference between dissension and desertion is infinitely greater than a few letters. As for the crocodile tears evoked for Hinzman's family, yes, let's "consider the hardships." Their son chose to become high-profile. He also chose to volunteer for military service and subsequently chose to desert. In short, Jeremy Hinzman chose his family's "hardship," not the U.S. government, which is uniformly applying the law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Man up. No sympathy for deserters, regardless of any empathy we may feel for families who are also enduring the just consequences of their sons' actions. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTY3OGYyNWIwMWY0Yjc3ZWM4NzAzMjA2YTczNjY4MDg= Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:35:06 -0400 More on Yemen -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGEyYjdmYjg3NDUzZjUxNWQ0ZmM3YjE0YTA4ZTJmZjA= In The Weekly Standard, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/088ivqib.asp">Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn</a> detail how ineffectual Yemen’s central government is and how extensive its terrorist network has become. This is important because, while no final decision has been made, the Obama administration is seriously considering <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwMjE1OWY5YjQyZGQ4MmIxZmQ3ZDhlYmM3ZWRmMjk=">sending 90 or so terrorists back to Yemen</a>. Hayes and Joscelyn explain what a terrible idea this would be: <blockquote> Another top Bush administration official puts it more starkly. "Releasing hardcore terrorists back to the Yemenis will almost certainly guarantee that we will have to kill them or capture them all over again." This is because there are two obvious problems with releasing the Yemeni detainees from Guantánamo: the detainees and Yemen. </blockquote> Yemen’s government promises that any terrorists placed in its hands will be rehabilitated, but Hayes and Joscelyn scoff at this. Even Saudi Arabia, which is much more strongly anti-terror, could not make former mass murderers take up woodworking or air-conditioner maintenance: <blockquote> The U.S. embassy in Sana'a was bombed on September 17, 2008--ten civilians were killed, including one American. Al Qaeda in Yemen, now one of the strongest al Qaeda affiliates worldwide, executed the attack. The group's chief deputy, a Saudi named Said Ali al -Shihri, passed through Guantánamo and Saudi Arabia's jihad rehabilitation program--the one even hawkish U.S. officials point to as a success. Last week, al Shihri turned up in a jihadist Internet video, joined by three other terrorists. One of them, Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, was also released from detention at Guantánamo Bay and graduated from the Saudi reintegration program. In the video, the former detainees proudly proclaim that they are returning to the same jihad that landed them in the U.S. detention facility. </blockquote> But not to worry; Yemen has the situation under control. It just released 170 al-Qaeda suspects and is sure they won’t be any more trouble. How does Yemen’s government know this? Simple: The terrorists have all <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKcqKZHczzNt8oGtOcTzTZsBTEsQD967FIQG0">signed pledges</a> to be good. Problem solved. Amazing what a little hope and change will do. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGEyYjdmYjg3NDUzZjUxNWQ0ZmM3YjE0YTA4ZTJmZjA= Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:16:46 -0400 President Obama's Salute -- By: Gregory S. McNeal webmaster@nationalreview.com (Gregory S. McNeal) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzk2OTQ1YjQxYzdlZGI3ZWNiM2RkYjQ3YmFhNDI1OGE= Last night the news showed footage of President Obama's first Air Force One trip as President, with him walking down the stairs to his limo. At the base of the stairs was an airman, saluting. President Obama nodded at him and it appears he said something, but I didn't see a salute. That got me wondering if there are any photos of President Obama saluting, or if has he decided he will not be returning the military courtesy. Well, before the conspiracy theories start see <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/obamas-first-ride-on-marine-one/">here</a> for President Obama's salute. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzk2OTQ1YjQxYzdlZGI3ZWNiM2RkYjQ3YmFhNDI1OGE= Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:38:26 -0400 Stimulating Security Cooperation -- By: J. Peter Pham webmaster@nationalreview.com (J. Peter Pham) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzBkOTY3OGIwZDc2NTU2OWM2MWY3Y2FiNmM3OTgyMmY= This week <a href="http://worlddefensereview.com/pham020509.shtml">my “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review</a> focuses on the need for the United States to commit more resources to security cooperation in Africa. Citing both the importance of security cooperation—that is, military engagement to build up the capabilities of and relationships with allies and potential partner countries—in general and the growing strategic significance of Africa in particular, I note that security cooperation with states within the area of responsibility (AOR) of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) “still faces a number of challenges, some of which are common to the other five regional commands, while others are unique to the African context,” including the low starting capabilities of many African governments and their lack of resources. While the U.S. has paid increasing attention to this challenge—in fact, this week AFRICOM is holding its annual capstone Theater Security Cooperation Working Group conference in Garmisch, Germany—I argue that adequate political and material resources are still lacking, noting that last year less than one-half of one percent of the total $4.45 billion in funding available for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) went to the 52 African countries aside from Egypt. In the current fiscal year, just eight countries in AFRICOM’s AOR—the Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, and Nigeria—are slated to get anything from FMF, dividing up a rather modest $16.5 million; no FMF funds are budgeted for the other 44 African states. Likewise, most of America’s African partners have yet to benefit from resources made possible through so-called Section 1206 funds and Section 1207 authorities in the National Defense Authorization Acts. Thus, after making several specific recommendations to the Obama administration and the Congress, the essay concludes: <blockquote> As the United States undertakes a major strategic shift towards Africa and as America’s first president of African descent settles into his third week in the White House amid a severe economic crisis, there may indeed be an opportunity to be discerned in the confluence of developments . . . By more generously allocating political and financial resources to security cooperation programs in general and those under the aegis of AFRICOM in particular . . . President Obama now has a chance to simultaneously help America’s African friends begin achieving their own security objectives, enhance the U.S. military’s professional relationships and potential interoperability with these new partner states, and frustrate the efforts by other powers . . . to reduce our influence through the indiscriminate sale of their arms across the continent—all the while strengthening the domestic security industrial sector, reducing the cost of future defense acquisitions, and securing business for U.S. firms and creating jobs for American workers. Now that is the type of strategic stimulus we can all get behind. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzBkOTY3OGIwZDc2NTU2OWM2MWY3Y2FiNmM3OTgyMmY= Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:33:40 -0400 Close Guantanamo First, Ask Questions Later -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjUxMTBmMjJkOGQwZjcyZmM3MDM1NDA0NjQ3NGIxN2I= <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042009/news/worldnews/gitmo_terror_alarm_153443.htm">The New York Post reports</a> today on an analysis, prepared for House Republicans, of Obama’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as soon as possible . . . er, well maybe in a year or two. Or four. The analysis agrees with concerns (expressed <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwMjE1OWY5YjQyZGQ4MmIxZmQ3ZDhlYmM3ZWRmMjk=">here</a>, among other places) that sending a large number of terrorists to Yemen, whose weak government might charitably be described as neutral toward al-Qaeda and its murderous brethren, is not a good idea: <blockquote> "There are approximately 100 Yemenis in Gitmo who cannot be returned to Yemen because security in Yemeni prisons is laughable," said a House Republican assessment obtained by The Post. The analysis noted that 10 suspects in the bombing of the USS Cole escaped Yemen's "maximum-security" prison in 2003. </blockquote> The document goes on to point out that Obama has no plan for when Guantanamo can be closed or what will happen to its detainees afterwards. But committees, analyses, study groups, and a generous sprinkling of Magic Obama Dust will presumably resolve any minor difficulties involved in disposing of a couple hundred fanatical Islamists dead-set on massacring Americans. All told, Obama’s “Make it so!” approach to the Guantanamo dilemma involves a distressingly large portion of hope, but very little change. As <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNiMjQzODZiNWIwMDk2MjkwZmEyNmU5ZjYxYmYzNWY=">a recent NRO editorial</a> concluded: <blockquote> So to summarize: We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now; we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them; we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence; we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted. Underneath all the lofty rhetoric, we’re gratified to see that this is change George W. Bush could believe in. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjUxMTBmMjJkOGQwZjcyZmM3MDM1NDA0NjQ3NGIxN2I= Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:48:38 -0400 Solicitor General Nominee Should Respect Solomon Amendment -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg5ODc3MDdmNDFlNzk3ZWNmNjYxYzZiMjI2YTM1ZWY= Homosexualists who want to use government power to impose their agenda on the military know that in the new Obama administration, “people are policy.” To achieve their most radical goals through the courts, these activists surely are counting on Elena Kagan, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee for Solicitor General of the United States. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will be in a position to make or break scores of government policies and laws affecting the military, without the inconvenience of having to deal with elected representatives of the people in Congress. The <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/about_us.htm">Solicitor General</a>, who is legally required to be <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/about_us.htm">“learned in the law,”</a> supervises and conducts government litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. He or she determines which cases to appeal to the Supreme Court, and usually presents oral arguments in the most high-pressure environment any lawyer can face. (Ms. Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School, has no experience before the Supreme Court.) The Solicitor General’s office participates in the preparation of petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in Supreme Court proceedings. In addition, the office reviews “all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, which position should be taken.” When the Solicitor General allows adverse decisions to stand without appeal, lower-court judges sometimes are empowered to reinterpret, weaken, or incrementally nullify duly enacted laws. An example relevant to the Kagan nomination involves the Solomon Amendment, a law named for the late New York Republican congressman and former Marine Gerald Solomon. In 2003 a consortium of law schools and faculty called the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) challenged the Solomon Amendment in the federal courts. FAIR argued that Congress erred in passing a law that withholds federal funding for colleges and universities if they deny access for military recruiters on the same basis as civilian employers invited to participate in on-campus career days. This mandate, they said, is not fair to colleges and universities that forbid discrimination based on several factors, including sexual orientation. FAIR further maintained that colleges and universities should be permitted to accept federal funds even if they refuse to provide equal access to any employer, including the military, which does not accept homosexual applicants. This presentation wrongly implied that the armed forces are no different than any other “equal opportunity employer.” In November 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with FAIR’s argument and declared the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. The Solicitor General appealed the case, FAIR v. Rumsfeld, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prof. Elena Kagan was one of 54 law school faculty members who filed an amicus brief supporting FAIR’s legal argument against the amendment. Voting 8-0, (new Justice Sam Alito had not heard oral arguments) the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the legislation, and firmly rejected FAIR’s argument. If the Kagan amicus brief had any merit at all, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberals on the court would have found a reason to agree. Instead, the Supreme Court’s opinion was a unanimous rejection of the FAIR/Kagan argument. The outcome of this case would have been dramatically different if Dean Kagan had been the Solicitor General instead of a law professor endorsing a losing argument. Absent an appeal, the Third Circuit ruling would have nullified the Solomon Amendment by judicial fiat, without any review by the Supreme Court. Army veteran Flagg Youngblood of the Young America’s Foundation, who advocates for student rights, takes issue with elite schools that claim they have a right to taxpayer funding while simultaneously barring our military. In a Washington Times op-ed titled <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/30/solicitor-general-flimflam/print/">“Solicitor General FlimFlam,”</a> Youngblood noted that six major universities─Stanford, Caltech, Columbia, the University of Chicago, Harvard, and his own alma mater Yale─are still assigning “second-class, back-of-the bus status” to students who want to serve their country. In 2006-2007 Youngblood’s “Shameful Six” schools accepted almost $5 billion in taxpayer funding while continuing various strategies to circumvent the Solomon amendment. Students must travel miles away to other campuses if they want to take advantage of military opportunities that academic elites disdain with haughty contempt. Even Pres. Barack Obama, who was asked about this issue during the 2008 campaign, said that he disagrees with anti-military policies on college campuses─the same practices that his own nominee, Elena Kagan, has endorsed. Members of the Senate should question Dean Kagan closely and determine whether her elitist views in the Solomon Amendment case place her so far out of the judicial mainstream that she does not merit confirmation. Questions are even more important because easy confirmation would put Kagan on the short list for possible nomination to the Supreme Court. For starters, members of the Judiciary Committee should ask Kagan whether she can put aside her personal views and vigorously defend the Solomon Amendment, which protects the military’s right of equal access to inform college students of available opportunities. The senators also should ask Kagan whether she will defend the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve, Section 654, Title 10, which is usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The federal courts of appeal have upheld that statute several times. Will she follow those courts and zealously defend the law, or will she take the opposite position and undercut existing law by declining to appeal adverse lower-court rulings? Senators and the American people need to know whether Kagan really believes that the military is no different from other employers. If this is her view, will she respect Supreme Court precedents recognizing the principle of “deference” to the executive branch and Congress on matters of regulation and law affecting the military? If Dean Kagan’s answers are not satisfactory, senators should not vote to confirm her as America's next Solicitor General. Enormous power should not be entrusted to an official whose liberal philosophy and skewed priorities would do great harm to the all-volunteer force. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg5ODc3MDdmNDFlNzk3ZWNmNjYxYzZiMjI2YTM1ZWY= Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:55:09 -0400 Updike the Reluctant Hawk -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhlZTEyZTkxNGE1YmJmYWEzZWU5ZGU5OTdjYzUzYTc= In the wake of John Updike’s death, my old American Heritage boss, Richard F. Snow, has drawn my attention to this <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/on-not-being-a-dove-7529">long essay</a>, “On Not Being a Dove.” It’s rambling and ambivalent, and most of it is about what it was like to be John Updike (understandably, since it’s taken from his 1989 memoirs). But it’s an interesting look at another occasion when too many war supporters lacked all conviction, while opponents were full of passionate intensity. This passage highlights the way peace activists disdained the other side based on appearances and lifestyles—as did Updike too, it seems: <blockquote> The protest, from my perspective, was in large part a snobbish dismissal of Johnson by the Eastern establishment; Cambridge professors and Manhattan lawyers and their guitar-strumming children thought they could run the country and the world better than this lugubrious bohunk from Texas. These privileged members of a privileged nation believed that their pleasant position could be maintained without anything visibly ugly happening in the world. They were full of aesthetic disdain for their own defenders, the business-suited hirelings drearily pondering geopolitics and its bloody necessities down in Washington. The protesters were spitting on the cops who were trying to keep their property—the USA and its many amenities—intact. A common report in this riotous era was of slum-dwellers throwing rocks and bottles at the firemen come to put out fires; the peace marchers, the upper-middle-class housewives pushing baby carriages along in candlelit processions, seemed to me to be behaving identically, without the excuse of being slum-dwellers. </blockquote> Here he muses that his support for the war may have resulted, in part, from not wanting to be a chickendove: <blockquote> Two other factors, it occurred to me at the time, inhibited me from taking the handy dove position. I had been to Russia, and I had not served in Korea, which had been my generation's war to fight. I had hid out at Harvard, and then had not even gone into the peacetime army. I felt guilty at being 4-F, all the more guilty for being glad at the time, and hustling ahead with my career in those two years that I should have spent in barracks and canteens and the kind of boring clerical work that Philip Roth in his fiction has inflicted on Zuckerman. I would never know what I had missed, and read Roth's fictional versions of his army tour with envious interest. If Roth in person said, as he did, that the generals and presidential advisers knew no more about Vietnam and its alleged strategic importance than we did, he had earned the privilege of dissent, it seemed to me, in a way I hadn't. He had paid his dues. If Norman Mailer wanted to march in Washington and be briefly jailed and then write a funny, inflated, shrewd, skewed, pop-apocalyptic account of it, he, too, had earned the right, risking his life in the South Pacific against the fanatic Japanese while I, for my heroic part, was flattening tin cans in my grandfather's chicken house. If Kurt Vonnegut, having survived capture by the Germans and the Allies' firebombing of Dresden, wanted to fulminate in his woolly way against the powers that be, more power to him; he had paid a fair price for his skepticism and indignation. I had paid no such price; in fact, I had had a fine peaceful time being an American male in the middle of the 20th century. Defending the war (or, rather, disputing the attackers of it) was perhaps my odd way of serving, of showing loyalty to a country that had kept its hackneyed promises—life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—to me. </blockquote> The entire piece is worth reading, if you have some time and a tolerance for digression. I’d be wary of drawing too many parallels with the War on Terror, since, among other things, there’s no draft nowadays, and the casualty rate is a lot lower than it was in Vietnam. Still, it’s a reminder that hard choices often need to be made, and that easy answers often are wrong ones. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhlZTEyZTkxNGE1YmJmYWEzZWU5ZGU5OTdjYzUzYTc= Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:56:10 -0400 Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwMjE1OWY5YjQyZGQ4MmIxZmQ3ZDhlYmM3ZWRmMjk= At Long War Journal, <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/01/arabian_peninsula_al.php">Jane Novak writes</a>: <blockquote> In the face of Saudi Arabia's success against the al Qaeda organization, many Saudi operatives have fled to the more hospitable climate in Yemen, joining others who recently arrived from Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan. Al Qaeda in Yemen announced its merger with Saudi Arabia's al Qaeda organization to form al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP). The announcement came in its latest release of the online journal Sada al Malahim, or the Echo of Epics. A propaganda video was also released by the group on Friday. </blockquote> Wait, a minute—Yemen? Isn’t that where we’re repatriating a bunch of terrorists so that President Obama can brag about shutting down Guantanamo? Sure enough: <blockquote> President Saleh announced that the US will repatriate 94 Yemeni detainees within three months. . . . Saleh said Saturday that Yemen had rejected a US plan to release the 94 to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation. </blockquote> Now, I know President Obama has his reasons, and he’s a very smart man, but somehow I can’t help worrying that this might end up badly. After all, as Novak writes: <blockquote> Yemen has a troubling history of placating al Qaeda operatives, a history that includes early releases of convicted terrorists, multiple escapes, deal making with the terror group, and outright lying to the US on the status of al Qaeda operatives. In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the Aden port killing 17 US sailors, and 16 were killed in a terror assault on the US Embassy in Sana'a last September. </blockquote> So I don’t know; I’m not entirely convinced this is a good idea. Not to worry, though: <blockquote> Yemen is building a rehabilitation center with US assistance, and the FBI this week delivered a half million dollars worth of biometric collection equipment including mobile fingerprint sets. </blockquote> Moreover: <blockquote> Remarking on the status of the Yemenis at Guantanamo, [US Ambassador to Yemen Steven] Seche said, "Except in the case perhaps of some very hard-core elements, we believe that the majority of these detainees can be put productively into a . . . reintegration program with the goal over time of enabling them to find a way back into Yemeni society without posing a security risk." </blockquote> So that’s all right then. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwMjE1OWY5YjQyZGQ4MmIxZmQ3ZDhlYmM3ZWRmMjk= Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:23:05 -0400 iSpy; or, The Only Thing More Embarrassing Is All Those Kelly Clarkson Songs -- By: Fred Schwarz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Fred Schwarz) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODczYmY3OTAwODhmNDg1MzQ3OGQ2Mzk4Mzg3YTQxOTA= NRO colleague Kevin Williamson passes along this item from <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/sensitive-army.html">Wired.com’s Danger Room</a>: <blockquote> It's like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/">Burn After Reading</a>, the latest Coen brothers' flick, come to life. Well, kinda sorta. "A New Zealand man has found <a href="http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-man-finds-us-army-files-on-mp3-player-20090126-7pxt.html">confidential United States military files on an MP3 player</a>," the Age reports. He bought at an Oklahoma thrift shop, for less than ten bucks. Chris Ogle wasn't looking for secrets during his little shopping trip, of course. But when he brought the player home and hooked it up, "<a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/2453415">he discovered a playlist he could never have imagined</a>," New Zealand's TV One pants. The sixty files included personal details of American soldiers, equipment data, and what "appears to be a mission briefing." Most of the info comes from 2005, however. And there are no report of truly secret squirrel material. So it may not be enough to get Brad Pitt or Frances McDormand involved in a down-under remake, alas. </blockquote> I’m not sure what all this was doing on a soldier’s MP3 player, but the information it contained, mostly telephone and Social Security numbers, would probably not be of much use to a bunch of terrorists in the caves of Kandahar. So you have to figure the soldiers in question are pretty safe, unless this MP3 player falls into the hands of Code Pink. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODczYmY3OTAwODhmNDg1MzQ3OGQ2Mzk4Mzg3YTQxOTA= Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:34:16 -0400 Clearing Up the Super Bowl Flap -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWYzYzg1YmNmNWNiOGQ1YzlmNzRhY2JhNzk5ODZjNDE= Thanks to Mike Florio at ProFootballTalk.com for <a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/23/super-bowl-color-guard-flap-riles-up-fans/">getting to the bottom of the flap</a> over the percieved change in accomodations for the Color Guard at the Super Bowl this year--a flap which yours truly contributed to. Bottom line: Nothing has changed from previous years. <blockquote> We’ve received nearly 50 e-mails over the past 12 hours regarding a contention that the <a class="extlink" href="http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2009/01/are-you-ready-to-get-angry.html" target="_blank">Color Guard won’t be permitted to stay and watch the Super Bowl</a> after doing their duty during the National Anthem. The specific allegation is that Super Bowl XLIII will mark a change from past procedures utilized by the NFL. And plenty of fans are upset about it. While the members of the Color Guard (and all of the other extras who are involved in the various on-field events) won’t retreat to their seats in the stands like the members of the home team’s band at a college football game, this is standard practice, and it doesn’t represent a change of any kind. “The members of the Color Guard have always been our guests at a Super Bowl party in a compound on the stadium grounds where they watch the game on big-screen TVs and enjoy food and beverage,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told us via e-mail. “That is how we have done it every year.” That’s an important point, in our view. Because the outrage is being stoked by the contention that something has changed, presumably due to the economy. Well, nothing has changed. Per the league, this is the way it has always been done. </blockquote> Well, guess what? It appears that, in light of the reaction to what was a misperception, the NFL has actually decided to change course (which they did not do before, as many of us had incorrectly thought) and allow the Color Guard to <a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/23/nfl-changes-course-on-color-guard-issue/">remain in the stadium for the game</a>. <blockquote> A little while ago, we suggested <a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/23/a-possible-solution-to-the-color-guard-conundrum/">a potential solution to the Color Guard conundrum</a>. Since all players in the league (even those not playing in the game) have the ability to buy two tickets each, we called on enough of them to pony up their seats so that the Color Guard could stick around after playing their very important role during the playing of the National Anthem. We even offered to pay for one of the tickets. Thanks to the NFL, we can spend our $800 instead at one of the finer scrip clubs dining establishments in Tampa. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us that, after conferring with the league’s military liaison, the 12-member Color Guard will be permitted to remain in the stadium and watch the game. </blockquote> That's great to hear. Though I must say, it's a bit bittersweet. I hate it when some group or other squawks so loudly as to create a dust storm over nothing at all, only to find the targeted organization buckle even while it in fact had done nothing wrong. I can't help but feel there's a touch of that here. And, while seating the Color Guard is something universally accepted as a good thing and a fine gesture to the men and women in the military, it should be acknowledged that the National Football League was doing nothing this year that it had not done any other year. An emotional reaction based on the misperception otherwise caused the NFL to be considered in a slighting light--a characterization it did not deserve. So, to Commissioner Roger Goodell, Mr. Greg Aiello and the rest of the folks at the NFL, I apologize for any contribution I may have made to the characterization you certainly did not deserve. But more than anything else, thanks for making some special arrangements and seating our Color Guard. I also assure you they will be the best dressed men and women in the stadium. And, I should repeat here, I love the NFL. Almost as much as I love my Pittsburgh Steelers. Almost. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWYzYzg1YmNmNWNiOGQ1YzlmNzRhY2JhNzk5ODZjNDE= Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:39:26 -0400 Farewell, Mr. President -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTVkY2FlYTY0NjFlNjc4YmU2NTExYjQyZmU3NWQxN2Q= So much venom has been and is still thrust at former president George W. Bush, and it gets no easier to witness knowing that more serene days lie ahead for him in Crawford. In fact, with 8 years of retrospective, it seems more difficult today. It was, therefore, refreshing to see <a href="http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2009/photographing_bush/">this photoessay</a> from Time along with the accompanying audio of the photographers assigned to gather images during his presidency. It is well worth the few minutes of your time to take in. And, as can be witnessed in the images and verses this tribute video--written, performed and compiled by James Hooker--there was and remains a very special, unique and reciprocated connection between President Bush and the men and women of the military. (HiRes version <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3YbrXAFnUQ&fmt=18">here</a>.) <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="344" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C3YbrXAFnUQ&hl=en&fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C3YbrXAFnUQ&hl=en&fs=1" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed> </object> A thoroughly intelligent and decent man so loudly and unjustly derided as dumb, arrogant and negligent, we should all pray for and aspire to the grace he consistently displayed in the ugly face of it all. May we never afford President Obama such debasing, venomous and cruel treatment as we debate and criticize the policies and practices that we disagree with. History, I am confident, will be kind to President Bush. For it will not be written by the American or international media, nor by the classless who booed as he entered for the last time to "Hail to the Chief." But America, the nation he served and protected to the best of his ability, has been most unkind. It compels then, for <a href="http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2009/01/21/on-my-way-to-wanna-be/">those of us</a> who have harbored no hatred and angst--even in disagreement--to offer our hand in gratitude for service to our great nation. On my way to wanna be, I had my share of heart broke. I took my lumps, and dished some out Tempered by the thought, That we, all men of good cheer, Teach the men who follow. There's more here than the eye could see, On your way to wanna be. On our way to wanna be, Funny things occurred to you and me. And on our own we easily lose Sight of all we find. When I get to wanna be, I'll wait there for those good men Who let me walk with them for a while On my way to wanna be. Farewell, Mr. President, and thank you for your honorable service. Carry on, sir. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTVkY2FlYTY0NjFlNjc4YmU2NTExYjQyZmU3NWQxN2Q= Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:00:00 -0400 NFL: No Super Bowl Soup for You, Color Guard! -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRiNzYwYzcyYjQ2ZWYwYjhlNzY0OWJjNTU4MmFkZGI= This from one of my favorite MilBlogs, <a href="http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2009/01/are-you-ready-to-get-angry.html">The Thunder Run</a>, has me scratching my head wondering what's in the heads of NFL organizers and policy makers. The Color Guard, for the first time, will not be allowed to stay in the stadium to watch the Super Bowl? (Via my buddy John at <a href="http://www.thedonovan.com/">Argghhh!!!</a>) <blockquote> Since 9/11/01 it has become quite the event to have military color guards present the colors and be present during the singing of the National Anthem at sporting events of all kinds, and at Super Bowl XLIII this will also take place. So to say I was surprised when I received this email from a distraught Marine Mom would be an understatement: "My youngest Marine called me this morning. In the course of the conversation he made mention of being part of the Color Guard for the ceremonies at the Super Bowl. He has been part of other Color Guards at other games and has been able to enjoy the entire game after presenting the Colors. HOWEVER, this will not be the case this time. The 12 man/women color guard will be presenting the Colors and then will be escorted out of the stadium and therefore not allowed to see the game. Steven and the 11 others are quite upset about this and have asked that I see if I could contact someone and have that changed." What? The Super Bowl won’t let the military color guard stay and watch the big game? Yes you read that right. Was I skeptical? At first, but after I contacted the Tampa Bay host Committee through their <a href="http://www.tampabaysuperbowl.com/index.htm">official website</a> and spoke to Katie Wagner, I was assured that yes in fact her email inbox is full of emails from upset Marine Mom’s all asking for an explanation. To Ms. Wagner’s credit, who by the way was extremely gracious during my questions the Host Committee has no control over game day decisions; that authority rests solely with the <a href="http://www.nfl.com/">NFL</a>. </blockquote> Now, the military members of the Color Guard are likely to be the last to ask the NFL for the traditional honorary access afforded in the past, not keen on being presumptive and all. But I will. And many have, apparently. I love the NFL. Almost as much as I love my Pittsburgh Steelers, whom I would faithfully follow and support if they moved to a revived USFL. But I cannot come up with a logical reasoning for the decision. Certainly not a security issue. It can only be a matter of standing floor space or seating. And if that's the case, it's a sad allocation of priorities, what with so many of the tickets allocated to corporate sponsors of the league. The "official" flat screen television of the NFL, the "official" truck of the NFL, the "official" soft drink(s) of the NFL, and on and on and "officially" on. Well, the United States Military Services are the "official" liberty preservers and defenders of the NFL. And, while we may not be for sale, barter or exchange, these 12 individuals presenting the Colors of the United States of America and that which we defend might perhaps be afforded some honorary and symbolic accommodation. They don't ask for much in return for their "official" defense, and we all get a lot in return. Now, I don't know if the commissioner of the NFL had any direct hand in the decision-making process here, but he can assert authority in corrective measures regardless. So pony up, Mr. Goodell, and do the right thing. But you'd better be quick, because it would be quite shameful if your "official" product sponsors ponied up from their shares to do it for you and provided for your "official" defense providers. Or perhaps, in exchange, our boys should in turn perform the ceremonial flyover in olive drab Briggs & Stratton-powered ultralights arranged in the missing (12) man formation. Perhaps, Mr. Goodell, your truly wonderful league would feel slighted. Again, I love the NFL. And I also like Mr. Roger Goodell a great deal. As such, I expect this whole crazy snafu will be addressed in rather short order, because it really doesn't make any sense at all. It's probably, in all irony, a simple matter very familiar to the military itself; someone's likely following protocol to the letter without using their head. But until someone atop the NFL totem pole figures it out, it's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNwbjcuQUv8&feature=related">"No soup for you!</a>" this year for our Color Guard and those who serve with them. (An Ultralight Super Bowl Flyover, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaorEFl2tmE&feature=related">I really like that idea</a> . . . .) <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRiNzYwYzcyYjQ2ZWYwYjhlNzY0OWJjNTU4MmFkZGI= Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:39:18 -0400 Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center -- By: Elaine Donnelly webmaster@nationalreview.com (Elaine Donnelly) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU1NmE2MWRmZjVjN2JlOGZmMDVjNjA5ZDQ5M2I0OWU= On Wednesday, incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to a question by affirming that the Obama administration fully intends to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Gibbs provided no details, but his one-word response sparked several <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,479952,00.html">news reports</a>. Anyone who mistakenly believes that liberal members of Congress will not attempt to repeal the 1993 law, <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=29">Section 654, Title 10</a>, should take note. This threat to good order, discipline and morale in our military is very real and imminent. Others mistakenly believe that repeal of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military is a “done deal.” It is not. Activists pushing for repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military have experienced an unexpected setback for their cause. As I wrote in <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=">this article</a> for NRO, the recently released annual <a href="http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/">Military Times poll</a> found that 58% of active-duty respondents were opposed to repealing the law. The 2008 survey further found that if Congress repeals the 1993 law, 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. This is a poll, not a crystal ball, but indicators such as this should give pause to the new president and commander-in-chief, Barack Obama. Personnel losses anywhere near these numbers would devastate the volunteer force. The Michael D. Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara-based organization that used to call itself the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), issued a <a href="http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20090113.131047&time=13%2044%20PST&year=2009&public=0">news release</a> attacking the Military Times poll. The Palm Center aimed more fire at me for being so rude as to write about the implications of the survey. This is ironic, since the Military Times, owned by Gannett, is a liberal paper that has editorialized in favor of gay in the military. CMR has posted an article on <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/">our website</a> titled <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=342">“Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center,”</a> which addresses the Palm Center kerfuffle. For the sake of the troops he will lead as commander-in-chief, we hope that Pres. Barack Obama will give this issue the serious attention it deserves. When there is a conflict between the civilian gay-activist agenda and the needs of the military, the needs of the military must come first. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU1NmE2MWRmZjVjN2JlOGZmMDVjNjA5ZDQ5M2I0OWU= Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:04:22 -0400 Weakness Seeks a Friend In Obama Presidency -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiOTg1YTk0Mjg1YjgzYzZlODRiYWEyMWJhZTUxN2E= Earlier today, I <a href="http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJkOGUxMWEyNjMyMzFiOTQ5MGQxMTBiMTMwZDYxNTY=">remarked briefly</a> about President Bush's statement in his farewell address to the American people that "If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led." I also noted, in criticizing our NATO allies' military timidity in the face of darkness, that there are a few exceptions. Britain has clearly been one of those exceptions, and the British defense secretary, John Hutton, demonstrates this. Hutton offered up a scathing rebuke of the timidity of some fellow European NATO allies, who have often committed forces to Afghanistan but deployed them with orders and requirements that they avoid actual combat. He point-blank accused them of "freeloading on the back of U.S. military security." That'll leave a mark. And the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504194.html">Washington Post</a> left that pointed quote for the final paragraph of their story. "The campaign in Afghanistan is evidence of the limited appetite amongst some European member states for supporting the most active operation NATO has ever been tasked with," he added. "It isn't good enough to always look to the U.S. for political, financial and military cover. . . . Freeloading on the back of U.S. military security is not an option if we wish to be equal partners in this trans-Atlantic alliance." Meanwhile, typical of the standard fare between our own Departments of Defense and State, Britian's foreign minister, David Miliband, is visiting Pakistan and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4243018/David-Miliband-criticises-George-Bushs-war-on-terror.html">speaking an altogether different and damaging language</a>, criticizing "George Bush's 'war on terror'" to a receptive and sensitive foreign audience at the heart of a conflict we neither sought nor welcomed. That, too, will leave a mark. To demonstrate the value of timidity, Pakistan rounded up over one hundred members of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in the hours before his arrival. Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the name assumed by Lashkar-e-Taiba after it was 'banned' by Pakistan and is the group behind the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks in India. When Miliband departs Pakistan, they will be freed from their cells. We've seen this before. That's not the half of it. From this morning's <a href="http://threatswatch.org/dailybriefings/2009/01/16/">DailyBriefing</a>, it is clear that the overall condition is rife with weakness; a weakness hoping to find a friend in Barack Obama. <blockquote> 3. New Gates-Petraeus strategy for Afghanistan is meeting stiff resistance from outside Washington, and the UN is pleading with President-elect Obama not to change the current strategy, one which has been roundly criticized in the past for being ineffective. </blockquote> The march on Washington -- and away from our enemies -- has already begun. Consider the related stories for context. <blockquote> AFGHANISTAN <a title="NATO Nations Scolded for Shirking Duties In Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504194.html">NATO Nations Scolded by Brit SecDef for Shirking Duties In Afghanistan</a> - Washington Post <a title="The Associated Press: UN to Obama: Don't change Afghan strategy" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD95O7HNG3">UN to Obama: Don't change Afghan strategy</a> - AP <a title="Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504198.html?hpid=moreheadlines">Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan</a> - Washington Post <a title="Top Afghan general dies in helicopter crash - Los Angeles Times" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afghan-crash16-2009jan16,0,3628669.story">Top Afghan general dies in helicopter crash</a> - Los Angeles Times <a title="The Associated Press: US: Helicopter downed in Afghanistan" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD95O2OI00">Separate Incident: US: Helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, all survive</a> - AP PAKISTAN <a title="Pakistan cracks down on Jamaat ud-Dawa - Los Angeles Times" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan16-2009jan16,0,3064256.story">Pakistan cracks down on Jamaat ud-Dawa in Mumbai probe?</a> - Los Angeles Times <a title="Pakistan crackdown on eve of Miliband visit - The Independent" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistan-crackdown-on-eve-of-miliband-visit-1380416.html">Pakistan crackdown on eve of UK Foreign Minister's visit</a> - The Independent (UK) UNITED KINGDOM <a title="David Miliband criticises George Bush's 'war on terror' - Telegraph" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4243018/David-Miliband-criticises-George-Bushs-war-on-terror.html">British FM David Miliband criticizes 'George Bush's war on terror' while in Pakistan</a> - Telegraph </blockquote> We must hope that such weakness finds no friend in our new president, because President Bush was unfortunately on the mark last night. <blockquote> In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led. </blockquote> This much can hardly be disputed. It's right before your eyes. <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiOTg1YTk0Mjg1YjgzYzZlODRiYWEyMWJhZTUxN2E= Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:22:33 -0400 If America Does Not Lead . . . -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJkOGUxMWEyNjMyMzFiOTQ5MGQxMTBiMTMwZDYxNTY= In his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090115-17.html">farewell address to the nation</a>, President Bush spoke to America's leadership role in the cause of liberty and freedom in the world. And it should be remembered as one of the most compelling and frank messages delivered by the 43rd President of the United States in his eight-year tenure. <blockquote> In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led. </blockquote> Some of our free European friends may take exception to that stark remark. How then to explain, with a few <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-15-voa52.cfm">notable exceptions</a>, their governments' <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/12/asia/australia.php">hesitant handling and tepid direction of their forces</a> in the Afghanistan theater, where the return of darkness is not beyond the reach of tyrannical and murderous zealots? That is not leadership in the cause of freedom. And for now, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I got to say about that." <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJkOGUxMWEyNjMyMzFiOTQ5MGQxMTBiMTMwZDYxNTY= Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:49:35 -0400 A Defense Stimulus, You Say? -- By: Steve Schippert webmaster@nationalreview.com (Steve Schippert) http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzdmNDEwNDE0MmJjNTU1OTg1ZGM4ZjcxNjQ3YzRlMjA= Such logic will never survive the Congressional Gauntlet™, which is arrayed to defend stalwart economic and defense illogic. But I am energetically all for a defense stimulus, regardless. From our friends at <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/defense_stimulus.asp">The Weekly Standard</a>, the gist: <blockquote> Republican Whip Eric Cantor and the Economic Recovery Working Group held a hearing today featuring Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman. You can watch video of the event <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-t3x5Av6YY" target="_blank">here</a>, but one of the things to focus on is the support for a "defense stimulus," the outline for which was laid out by Tom Donnelly <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/007hewpv.asp" target="_blank">here</a>. From Romney's prepared remarks: </blockquote> <blockquote> I would like to see a significant portion of new spending to be devoted to the maintenance, repair, replacement and modernization of our military equipment and armament. Since the 1990’s dismantling of our military, we have tended to live off the assets that had been purchased in the past. These have been extensively employed in two Gulf wars and in Afghanistan. Bringing forward needed replacement and repair will boost the economy, enhance our national security, and importantly aid our men and women in uniform. </blockquote> <blockquote> This idea is just starting to gain steam, but as yet there's been no real argument made against such a program. Defense spending, as Donnelly explains, "not only make economic good sense, but would help close the large and long-standing gap between U.S. strategy and military resources . . . [and] would also satisfy the stimulus principles advanced by President-elect Obama: Military service and employment in the defense industry are jobs 'that pay well and can't be outsourced.'" </blockquote> Don't hold your breath. We all well know where defense stands when pitted against smiley-faced wind turbine farms (not near Cape Cod) and the zillions of "green jobs" the new government stands ready to "create." <hr width=100% size=2> http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzdmNDEwNDE0MmJjNTU1OTg1ZGM4ZjcxNjQ3YzRlMjA= Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:22:54 -0400