China’s ‘arsenal’ spurs warnings
On top of the earlier post this evening…here’s some more evidence of possible awareness of the real threat of the ChiComs to U.S. national security…this time coming from teh rarified military atmosphere of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Such being the case, now what do we intend to do about it?
Admiral ‘Perplexed’ by Snub at Hong Kong
It was just last week that the Chief commented that in his humble opinion that the US Navy’s top brass was being taken for a ride by their ChiCom counterparts, who effectively were playing them for a bunch of chumps. After this incident, there are signs that this is starting to penetrate their awareness.
The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific said he’s “perplexed and concerned” by China’s last-minute decision to deny a U.S. aircraft carrier entry to Hong Kong for a previously scheduled port visit. The USS Kitty Hawk and its escort ships were due to dock there for a four-day visit Wednesday until they were refused access. Hundreds of family members had flown to Hong Kong to spend Thanksgiving with their sailors.
Nice slap in the chops from our ChiCom “friends”. Commenting further, CinCPAC noted:
“It’s hard to put any kind of positive spin on this,” Adm. Timothy Keating told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday…
Gosh Admiral, d’ya think so? Can you remember something about the ChiComs – Chinese COMMUNISTS – maybe not REALLY having the interest of the world’s leading capitalist power at heart? (Hmmmmmm. Think. Think. THe clue’s right there on the edge of awareness….)
It’s even better that it’s part of a pattern:
It was the second time in a week that China refused to let U.S. Navy ships into the port. Two U.S. minesweepers seeking to refuel and shelter from bad weather in the South China Sea had asked for permission to enter Hong Kong three or four days before the Kitty Hawk. Those ships were denied, Keating said.
And all this unfriendliness came after we extracted our own spinal columns in our effort to be pals and play nice with the ChiComs:
The developments come as the U.S. military has been trying to bolster ties with the Chinese military to prevent misunderstandings and the potential for miscalculation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Beijing earlier this month and high-level commanders have traveled back and forth between the two Pacific powers. Chinese warships visited U.S. naval bases in Pearl Harbor and San Diego last year, and the two navies have since held basic search-and- rescue exercises together.
Asked if the refusal to let the Kitty Hawk into Hong Kong would hurt the U.S.-China military relationship, Keating said: “We’ll keep working it of course, but it is difficult for me to characterize this in a positive light.”
DUH!
It’s an ill wind indeed that blows no good…and at least now there MAY be an inkling of what we are really up against with what is shaping up to be a significant Communist superpower.
Our forces can’t carry on like this, says General
With the Clintonista administration, indeed, under BOTH Bush administrations there has been a marked tendency to try tu run our military “on the cheap”. This, to any rational mind, must inevitably result in ony one outcome: deterioration of the ability of military forces to successfully perform its mission. This reality is coming home with a vengeance to the Brits after the Blair-Brown EngSoc regime has had its way for years of skimping and shortchanging what remains of the once proud Royal Army.
The head of the Army has warned that years of Government under-funding and overstretch have left troops feeling “devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue”, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, reveals in a top-level report that the present level of operations is “unsustainable”, the Army is “under-manned” and increasing numbers of troops are “disillusioned” with service life.
Gen Dannatt states that the “military covenant is clearly out of kilter”, and the chain of command needs to improve standards of pay, accommodation and medical care. “We must strive to give individuals and units ample recuperation time between operations, but I do not underestimate how difficult this will be to achieve whilst under-manned and with less robust establishments than I would like.”
This is NOT the way that a nation’s military forces deserve to be treated…whether they are the Brits, or us.
The report, a copy of which has been seen by this newspaper, reveals for the first time the general’s concerns on virtually every aspect of the Army, from levels of pay to the quality of food in canteens.
Russia Pours Billions in Oil Profits Into Nanotech Race
Back in the mid-1980s, a joke made the rounds that the Kremlin was preparing a major announcement: After a decade-long top-secret crash program, socialist science had succeeded in building the world’s largest microprocessor.
That was then. After sleeping through the high tech revolutions of the late 20th century, the Russian government is dumping billions into the burgeoning science of nanotechnology. The Kremlin last June announced the creation of Rosnanotekh, a state nanotechnology corporation slated for $5 billion in initial funding — an outlay that propels Russia past China in nanotech spending, and puts the country on a par with the United States in government-funded nano research.
Russia shooting for another technological “surprise” like Sputnik? (Remeber though, the ChiComs are lurking out there too.)
Democrats go on record opposing Iran strike
Pre-emptive move to pacify peacenik left.
Still reeling from the fallout of authorizing the Iraq war five years ago, Democrats in Congress are determined to put themselves early on record as opposing American military action in Iran.
In recent days, many Democrats have gone to great lengths to denounce President Bush’s strategy on Iran, including his decision to label Tehran’s Quds military force as a terrorist group and his statement that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.”
Politically this is not bad grist for a real Repblican mill.
US imposes strict economic sanctions on Iran
The United States has announced its toughest action against Iran since the aftermath of the 1979 revolution by instituting a raft of unilateral sanctions.
The unprecedented steps are designed to cut international financial support to Teheran’s theocratic regime as well as targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corp, which is accused of supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq.
OOOOOOOOHHH! They’re surely shaking in their boots now!
UPDATE – Just in case you don’t know why Iran doesn’t take the West seriously:
Iranians study nuclear physics in Britain
The Foreign Office has cleared dozens of Iranians to enter British universities to study advanced nuclear physics and other subjects with the potential to be applied to weapons of mass destruction.
In the past nine months about 60 Iranians have been admitted to study postgraduate courses deemed “proliferation-sensitive†by the security services. The disciplines range from nuclear physics to some areas of electrical and chemical engineering and microbiology.
Never fear! Help is on the way!?
When confronted with the figures this weekend, the Foreign Office admitted that it was reviewing the vetting for sensitive areas of study and planned to announce an overhaul within the next few weeks to make procedures more rigorous.
Now THAT’s reassuring – they’re “reviewing” their procedures an plan to announce an overhaul…sometime.
After going on to discuss the current situation in more detail, as well as some possible improvements, one glaring omission remains: what will be done regarding those already admitted? Still reassured…or not?
Tony Blair: Iran extremism like rise of 1930s fascism
In his first major address since leaving office, former Brit PM Tony Blair has issued a Churchillian warning on the relentless nature of the Islamofascist enemies of Western Civilization.
Islamist extremism is similar to “rising fascism in the 1920s and 1930sâ€Â, Tony Blair said last night in his first major speech since leaving office. At a prestigious charity dinner in New York, the former Prime Minister said that public figures who blamed the rise of fundamentalism on the policies of the West were “mistaken”.
He told the audience, which included New York governor Eliot Spitzer and mayor Michael Bloomberg, that Iran was the biggest exporter of the ideology, and that the Islamic republic was prepared to “back and finance terror” to support it. “Out there in the Middle East, we’ve seen… the ideology driving this extremism and terror is not exhausted. On the contrary it believes it can and will exhaust us first,” he said. “Analogies with the past are never properly accurate, and analogies especially with the rising fascism can be easily misleading but, in pure chronology, I sometimes wonder if we’re not in the 1920s or 1930s again.
The kernal of his warning is clearly stated:
He added: “There is a tendency even now, even in some of our own circles, to believe that they are as they are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would leave us alone. I fear this is mistaken. They have no intention of leaving us alone. They have made their choice and leave us with only one to make – to be forced into retreat or to exhibit even greater determination and belief in standing up for our values than they do in standing up for theirs.â€Â(emphasis added}
An excellent triumph of truth over head-in-the-sand political correctness.
Senators slam lack of Arab support
In spite of all the brouhaha about the war, etc., this shows a singular lack of sympathy to a hands-off response to the problems of trying to find Arabs truly in support of Middle East peace – al long as Israel still exists.
Close to 80 senators – including all those running for president -signed a letter calling for greater Arab support for the peace process ahead of the international conference the US is planning for November.
The election’s coming, and the smell of Jewish votes is in the air! (Or is this just TOO cynical? In some cases yes, in all too many other cases, nah, not nearly cynical enough.
“The success of such a meeting, and ultimately the peace process itself, will depend on the cooperation we receive from the larger Arab world, particularly from those Arab states with close relations with the United States who have not yet signed agreements with Israel,” read the letter, in an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia. It was due to be sent to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later Tuesday.
The letter also calls for Arab countries to “recognize Israel’s right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions” and to “pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, reject terror and accept prior agreements, and isolate Hamas until it takes such steps.”
What’s the upshot of this? Probably not much, given that so-called “moderate” Arab groups are already displeased that anyone has the nerve to expect some form of real behavior from the Saudis.
But those very stipulations would derail the effort to get the Saudis on board by setting preconditions and criticizing Saudi efforts at mediation between Fatah and Hamas, the Arab American Institute argued on its Web site.
The letter also calls for Arab countries to “recognize Israel’s right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions” and to “pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, reject terror and accept prior agreements, and isolate Hamas until it takes such steps.”
Humph! The NERVE of the Senate to impose pre-conditions, little things like letting Israel continue to exist, and rejecting terror. This apparent offense to the Arab American Institute of these simple concepts of Israel existing and no terror shows their true colors, and they ain’t red, white, and blue!
Sarkozy brings ‘new tone’ on role in NATO
Kyrgyzstan’s foreign minister sought to allay U.S. concerns about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in an interview, maintaining that the burgeoning alliance is not a military organization and is not designed to limit U.S. influence in the region.
In spite of this diplospeak, the record of the meeting tells another story altogether:
The bloc linking China, Russia and four Central Asian states…
(a central Asian anti-American version of a sort of wannabe NATO?
…startled the U.S. government at its 2005 summit in Kazakhstan with a call for a deadline for the closing of all foreign bases in the region. Kyrgyzstan is home to the Manas base, the key U.S. Air Force site for supporting the mission in Afghanistan.
The SCO countries also granted Iran “observer” status in the organization, something the United States was denied.
Of course, given that none of the participants are really very sympathetic to the Islamist agenda, they’re supposedly not QUITE cutting off their noses to spite their face:
Kyrgyzstan, considered the most politically liberal of the Central Asian states, hosted the most recent SCO summit in its capital, Bishkek, in August. Speaking through an interpreter, (Kyrgyz President) Mr. Karabaev, who met with top Bush administration officials on a visit here last week, said there is a “common understanding” among all the SCO partners that Manas will be available to the United States and its coalition partners as long as needed for stabilization and counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan. All the SCO members “do recognize that the base helps to solve issues of international security in our region,” he said.
Sort of like the Donks here in the US, who inveigh ad nauseum against the war in Iraq, but won’t cut off the funding, or for that matter impose a surrender date-certain.
Weasels one and all!
GOP senators offer new timeline for Iraq
A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: Call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is almost out of office.
Interesting timing there…”almost out of office”…not TOO much of a waffle there, eh?
The RINOs are (unfortunately) alive and well in the Senate, coming up with a bastardized proposal that combines the worst of Bush’s and the Donk’s ideas for the Iraq war.
The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the mission of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a goal of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.
Oh great! We’ll still be there on duty, but we won’t be ACTIVELY fighting…in other words, we’ll still be targets, but will be unable to engage in proactive tactical engagement to prevent being attacked. Also, the surrender by date certain provision is included in this load of crap.
The RINO leading roll call:
Co-sponsors of the bill include Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Of the sponsors, only Voinovich is not up for re-election in 2008.
Meanwhile, the Donks and the RINOs are arguing about just where the timeline should be drawn.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he worked closely with Voinovich until late Thursday in the hopes of striking a compromise proposal. Levin wants to set the goal in nine months, but acknowledges he doesn’t have the votes to pass it. After Voinovich suggested extending the goal to 15 months, Democratic support dissipated, said Levin, D-Mich.
This reminds the Chief about the girl who agreed to sleep with her boyfriend for $1,000,000. When he suggested that she might be willing to do so for $5 she took great offense replying “What kind of girl do you think I am anyway?!”
His answer: “Your answer to the first question established THAT. Now we’re just negotiating the final price.”
Unfortunately, such is the state of our Congress.
Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say. They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
This is obviously good for Israel, and it’s good that the US was willing to acquiesce to the Israeli actions…but…at the same time the US administration is crowing about making deals with the NorKs that has them “giving up” their nuclear ambitions in exchange for US aid.
This sounds to the Chief like the Foggy Bottom Boys at the State Department are gettind rolled again, with the NorKs getting to have their cake and eat it too, by getting the US to assist their basket-case economy while they are REALLY just moving their nuke efforts offshore and continuing business as usual.
As for Syria…after receiving loads of WMD type stuff from Saddam before we went in to Iraq, this is just more of THEIR style of business as usual…which makes it even more reprehensible for the recent friendly fiendly excursions of various US luminaries as Donk Prez wanna-be Dennis “the Red” Kucinich and former Senator Abourezk (Donk – SD) to kiss the hem of the robe of Bashir Assad and his Hesbollah house-guests.
As usual, another mess in the Middle East.
The Chief was catching up with some stuff and found this at MEMRI.
Abourezk on Hizbullah TV: The Arabs Involved in 9/11 Were Cooperating with the Zionists
Kind of breath-taking to find a noted if not notorious South Dakotan with unabashed sympathy for Islamoterr organizations and their agitprop memes. I suppose the former Senator felt like he just had to keep up with Kucinich on the TV.
You don’t have to take my word for this stuff…the video is also at MEMRI…so you can see this venting of anti-semetic and pro-Hezbollah propaganda for yourself.
The following are excerpts from an interview with former U.S. senator James Abourezk (D-SD), which aired on Al-Manar TV on August 30, 2007. To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1551.htm.
To start with:
Interviewer: “Mr. Abourezk, welcome to Al-Manar TV.”
James Abourezk: “Thank you very much.”
Interviewer: “It’s good to have you.”
James Abourezk: “Yes, I watch Al-Manar on one of the cable channels in America.”
Chief’s note: Al-Manar is the TV service of the Damascus-based, Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization. Supposedly Hezbollah is not supposed to have access to US cable access, and although this apparently is NOT enforced it doesn’t stop Abourezk from complaining about the non-enforced policy anyway. (Hmmmm. with Abourezk’s office in Rapid City, is the cable outfit there carrying this, or is Abourezk hanging our these days in D.C., or somewhere else?)
Interviewer: “Good, that’s excellent. Especially [considering] the fact that Al-Manar TV was banned in the U.S. Does that really show something which is like shooting the freedom of expression?”
James Abourezk: “Well, freedom of expression is free for those whom the government likes. If they don’t like them, freedom of expression goes out the window, apparently.”
Right, Senator…that’s why you have been arrested for seditious (if not treasonable) activity! NOTE: The constitutional definition of treason against the United States includes “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”.
Hezbollah is definitely an enemy of the United States. One can quibble about an enemy not existing without a formally stated declaration of war…but the Chief, in his simplicity, uses a simple reality check: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Again. Hezbollah is an enemy force in the world.
After calling Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz “a real snake” for fefusing to support an Islamofascist agenda, he moves on to another topic: Hezbollah terrorists are “resistance fighters”.
Interviewer: “You also called Hizbullah and Hamas ‘resistance fighters.'”
James Abourezk: “They are.”
Interviewer: “While the U.S. administration brands them as ‘terrorist organizations’…”
Maybe because they are noted for committing acts of terrorism.
James Abourezk: “That was done at the request of Israel. That name was done at the request of Israel – that the United States calls them terrorist organizations.”
Now we get down to it: the whole misunderstanding of the “resistance fighters” is due to the influence of the evil Jews. (All together now: Seig Heil!) After some further discussion of how the REAL terrorists of the world are Israel, it’s time to get back to one of the the current fave raves of the (Daily)Kos gang: 9-11 Conspiracy!
Interviewer: “Here I need to ask you something, which is growing and escalating in the Western world, and particularly in the U.S., which is this immense wave of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment, lumping all Arabs together as ‘terrorists.’ This was clearly manifested in movies and TV series, like 24. Why? Why now? Is it just after 9/11?”
James Abourezk: “No, it’s after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Zionists were looking around for another enemy to have, because to them the Soviet Union was an enemy because they wouldn’t allow Jewish emigration. So they used that as an organizing tool, basically, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no more organizing about the Soviet Union. So they looked around, and they said: Well, the Muslims. Let’s find the Arabs and the Muslims, and make them the boogeyman. And that’s what they did.”
Interviewer: “But why did this sentiment of hatred increase after 9/11?”
James Abourezk: “Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs. It’s a racist sort of thing, really racist – you know, picking out these 19 or 20 terrorists – they were terrorists – and saying all the Arabs are like them. So, you know, people in America don’t really look at it that deeply, and they accept what the government and the press are saying.”
Of course the fact that approximately 3000 Americans were murdered by Islamoterrorists in the United States couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it? (Nooooo. It’s all a Jewish-Bushitlerian plot!)
With some discussion of US policies vis-avis Syria (Bad USA, good Syria!), he ends this with slavering adoration for the Hezbollah war on Israel.
Interviewer: “Sir, in 2001, you came all the way from the U.S. to Lebanon to congratulate Lebanon, the Lebanese, and the resistance for the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. Now what do you say during this time, which is in remembrance a year of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the earthshaking victory of the resistance, supported by the people of Lebanon. What do you say to them?”
James Abourezk: “That was quite an extraordinary thing, I thought. I actually marveled at the Hizbullah resistance to Israel, how they did it. It was a marvel of organization, of courage and bravery. I thought it was quite something.”
Interviewer: “Do you think it’s only the courage and organization that made them do this?”
James Abourezk: “Yes, absolutely. They were highly organized, the resistance, and they were very brave. They didn’t turn and run, like some Arabs armies have done. They were defeated because of that. But this is something new for the Arab world. I said at the time: The Lebanese army should ask Hizbullah to come and organize it, to train them, you know. And all the Arab armies should have the Hizbullah come and do that.”
OK. So Hezbollah is the model for the whole Arab world. Ponder that one! ’nuff said.
Fortunately this interview came to an end before I became TOTALLY nauseous. F.E.T.E.
Our ALLY?
Six years after visiting its brand of terror on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia has become a world-class exporter of Islamist violence. The toll is grisly: Well over 3,000 Saudi citizens roaming the world  and just as many schemers are actively involved at home  are managing terrorist networks and planning and executing suicide bombings and jihadist attacks that span the globe:
• More than 30% of the insurgents fighting the Lebanese army at the siege of the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp, which claimed a toll of well over 300 during the past three months, were Saudi fighters.
• Between 20 and 30 Saudis intending to be suicide bombers cross into Iraq every single day. Several thousand more are there fighting, tasked with killing Americans and the aShiite Muslims they view as apostates.
• The ranks of Al Qaeda have been fattened in the past three years, once again with Saudi recruits. More than 1,000 Saudis are currently training in a Qaeda camp in Syria, which itself is the subject of contentious negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the Syrians, who still refuse to arrest them or shut down the camp. Young Saudi men are also training in Al Qaeda camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Unfortunately there’s even more on this.
Giuliani: Clinton Spewing ‘Political Venom’ on Iraq
One day after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., sharply questioned the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Rudy Giuliani blasted his Democratic presidential rival, accusing her of spewing “political venom” in the Iraq war debate. “I don’t know what she’s trying to say when she’s accusing a general of the ‘willing suspension of disbelief,’†Giuliani said Wednesday on the “Randy and Spiff” show, a radio program which airs in Atlanta. The former New York mayor repeated his criticism of the Democratic frontrunner for president later in the day Wednesday during a media availability in Akron, Ohio.
The piece has more details of Rudy’s critique…but you get the drift.
The Chief heartily concurs with the Mayor in this case.
Is China quietly dumping US Treasuries?
The economic shell game that the US has been playing for far too long in maintaining a ruinous trade deficit with the ChiComs may be on the verge of ending…with some very unpleasant consequences for us, and for much of the rest of the world’s economy.
A sharp drop in foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds over the last five weeks has raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States, leaving the dollar increasingly vulnerable.
# China threatens `nuclear option’ of dollar salesData released by the New York Federal Reserve shows that foreign central banks have cut their stash of US Treasuries by $48bn since late July, with falls of $32bn in the last two weeks alone.
Perhaps not coincidently, Taiwan is making sounds about renewing its quest to re-enter the UN, something the ChiComs harshly reject as being a preliminary move towards independence. Their stated policy is to counter such a move with all means – including military force.
Two top advisers to the Chinese government gave strong hints in August that Beijing should use its estimated $900bn holdings of US Treasuries and agency bonds as a “bargaining chip”, words taken as an implicit threat to trigger as US bond crash if provoked.
The US policy of defending Taiwan could be quietly abrogated, under the threat of ChiCom economic pressure…like dumping off US T-bonds, which could seriously affect the status of the dollar internationally, with immediate further ramifications on the world energy market.
The picture is further complicated by US ATTEMPTS to pressure a currency market revaluation of the ChiCom Yuan to try to stanch the trade hemmorhage, which (surprise, surprise, is being received with little enthusiasm in Beijing.
Neither alternative would be good for us. If YOU were Dubya, do you throw Taiwan off the bridge, or watch the dollar be brought down, triggering a serious recession if not an actual depression. We do have one thing in our favor. They hold so much of our debt paper, if they crash it, they lose a lot of money. Of course, they ARE Communists, and just maybe the money is NOT the object at all.
Looks like the ChiComs are getting ready to score a big win over us, without a shot being fired. Lao Tzu would be proud of his descendants for implementing his ancient advice.
Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
A federal judge struck down a key part of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday in a ruling that defended the need for judicial oversight of laws and bashed Congress for passing a law that makes possible “far-reaching invasions of liberty.”
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, allowing the government time to appeal. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: “We are reviewing the decision and considering our options at this time.”
As an alternative philosophy the Chief would offer this tag from Cicero:
SILENT LEGES INTER ARMA. (In time of war, the laws are silent.)
Endgame: American Options in Iraq
George Friedman at StratFor has given some thought to possible outcomes in Iraq, given the current state of affairs over there. He makes too much sense as he develops his favored scenario:
The new U.S. mission, therefore, must be to block Iran in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The United States cannot impose a government on Iraq; the fate of Iraq’s heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by the United States. But the United States remains an outstanding military force, particularly against conventional forces. It is not very good at counterinsurgency and never has been. The threat to the Arabian Peninsula from Iran would be primarily a conventional threat — supplemented possibly by instability among Shia on the peninsula.
The mission would be to position forces in such a way that Iran could not think of moving south into Saudi Arabia. There are a number of ways to achieve this. The United States could base a major force in Kuwait, threatening the flanks of any Iranian force moving south. Alternatively, it could create a series of bases in Iraq, in the largely uninhabited regions south and west of the Euphrates. With air power and cruise missiles, coupled with a force about the size of the U.S. force in South Korea, the United States could pose a devastating threat to any Iranian adventure to the south. Iran would be the dominant power in Baghdad, but the Arabian Peninsula would be protected.
This goal could be achieved through a phased withdrawal from Iraq, along with a rapid withdrawal from the populated areas and an immediate cessation of aggressive operations against jihadists and militia. It would concede what the NIE says is unattainable without conceding to Iran the role of regional hegemon. It would reduce forces in Iraq rapidly, while giving the remaining forces a mission they were designed to fight — conventional war. And it would rapidly reduce the number of casualties. Most important, it would allow the United States to rebuild its reserves of strategic forces in the event of threats elsewhere in the world.
This is not meant as a policy prescription. Rather, we see it as the likely evolution of U.S. strategic thinking on Iraq. Since negotiation is unlikely, and the three conventional options are each defective in their own way, we see this redeployment as a reasonable alternative that meets the basic requirements. It ends the war in Iraq in terms of casualties, it reduces the force, it contains Iran and it frees most of the force for other missions. Whether Bush or his successor is the decision-maker, we think this is where it must wind up.
If this doesn’t seem to be a very tidy outcome, check out the alternatives detailed in the piece. It could be FAR worse.
Tenet’s Pre-9/11 Efforts Faulted
The Chief NEVER had any faith in this holdover Clinton appointee from the get-go. After all, he was part of the same establishment as Jamie Gore-lick who was responsible for the so-called “wall of separation” between the CIA, FBI, etc. that prevented their sharing and coordinating intel/counter-intel information. I never saw that Tenet ever had any problems with this…it’s no wonder that the CIA fell off the cliff when it (attempted) its operations under these conditions.
Former central intelligence director George J. Tenet and his top lieutenants failed to marshal sufficient resources and provide the strategic planning needed to counter the threat of terrorism in the years before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a long-secret CIA report released yesterday.
Despite promises of an all-out war against terrorism in the late 1990s, leaders of the spy agency allowed bureaucratic obstacles and budget shortfalls to blunt the agency’s efforts to find and capture al-Qaeda operatives, said the report, by the CIA’s inspector general. It also faulted agency leaders for failing to “properly share and analyze critical data.”
The executive summary of the formerly Top Secret report is available in PDF format here, direct from the CIA!
U.N. translator charged in U.S. visa scheme
As if we needed any more reasons to dissociate the US from the UN…
U.S. authorities today arrested a U.N. translator and two other persons on charges of running an extravagant scheme to sell U.S. visas, mostly to Russian and Uzbek nationals. Vyacheslav Manokhin, a relatively low-ranking U.N. staffer, was accused of providing requests on U.N. letterhead for U.S. visas to allow aliens to attend U.N. conferences that didn’t exist or that the visitors did not attend. The scheme had apparently been in operation for years.
“Manokhin used his position at the U.N. to make it appear as though the U.N. supported the visa applications, so that the aliens could enter the United States, purportedly to participate in conferences organized by non-government organizations, by the U.N. or by entities associated with the U.N.,” according to a statement issued yesterday by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. “In most instances, the alien was successful in obtaining a visa and entering the United States.”
Obama warns Pakistan on terror
HUH?
Sen. Barack Obama yesterday said he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf fails to more aggressively hunt down and eliminate al Qaeda strongholds and terrorist training camps there.
“Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan,” said Mr. Obama, setting benchmarks on millions of dollars in future military aid to Pakistan.
Let’s see now? B. Hussein Obama expresses repeated statements of total opposition to the war in Iraq. given the situation in northwestern Pakistan’s tribal areas, a large US intervention would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
The Illinois Democrat acknowledged the military and political difficulties of such an effort in the “wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains.” He said it would be difficult to convince nomadic tribes living there with few ties to the Musharraf regime or any government that the U.S. is not there to occupy their lands. “It’s a tough place. But that is no excuse,” Mr. Obama said.
Uh…what’s so magical about the need to do this in Pakistan that doesn’t apply in Iraq, or for that matter, Syria, and Iran?
B. Hussein Obama is apparently untroubled by the presence of logical consistency in his consciousness.
Freed prisoners return to jihad, says US military
At least 30 former prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against US and allied forces following their release, the US military says. They have been discovered in Afghanistan and Pakistan but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman said yesterday.
Commander Jeffrey Gordon said that while in custody the men had falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.
WHAT!?? You mean that GITMO isn’t just filled with innocent camel drivers and date farmers as the anti-war moonbats would have us all believe?
Shocking, simply shocking!
Pentagon Rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda. In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote. He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.” (emphasis added)
YES! It’s high time this has been highlighted instead of supinely accepting Hil’s seditious (if not treasonous) conduct.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman’s answer “at once outrageous and dangerous,” and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Yeah. Dangerous to her image as a responsible candidate for the office of President.
Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment. “If we’re not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,” she said then.
First, planning ANY military maneuver is NOT a part of the responsibility of Congress collectively, or any individual member thereof, no matter what sort of demi-god status is granted by the MSM.
Second, there is no way to withdraw from Iraq under current conditions in “a safe and efficacious way” as far as the US national security is concerned, to say nothing of the probable fate of our in-country allies and associates after a US retreat.
Edelman’s letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: “We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.”
Quick! Somebody get the cluebat out and slap her to MAYBE get a clue about a concept she is apparently incapable of understanding: “operational security”.
Of course since she evidently doesn’t care about homeland security, or national security, why should the troops actual operational security be any different.
Democrats cut ‘John Doe’ provision
Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE DONKS?!
“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
LOST here refers to the long-pending Law Of the Sea Treaty. As a fromer naval personage, this is something that has attracted my attention at various times. When the original push for this was on in the 80’s, Ronaldus Magnus, Reagan himself, turned away from this proposal as a seriously flawed instrument whose impact will negatively affect US national security.
We are set to take a policymaking trip down memory lane with the Bush Administration urging accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea in a recent statement made by the President on the issue. The Treaty was crafted from 1973 to 1982 and 154 countries have become signatories to it, along with the European Community.
In 1982, President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty, claiming specific objections to its terms. Those objections have not been resolved.
This piece from Tech Central Station goes on to note the specific problems with this treaty, and also notes some of the more recent arguments advocating its ratification by the US as proposed by John Negroponte and Gordon England from within the depths of the Pentagon bureaucracy. Why are they arguing this? Essentially to give the Euros (and others) a warm fuzzy glow when they think of us! (Cough! Gasp! Retch! Spit!)
…if anyone suggested the Negroponte-England rationale for acceding to the Law of the Sea Treaty as a rationale for agreeing to Kyoto, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the re-establishment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, they would be laughed out of policymaking circles. Fair arguments can be made for joining any one of these treaties. But those arguments need to be made on the substance of the treaties, not just because “all the cool countries are doing it.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty remains flawed. It does little to advance American interests when it comes to freedom of navigation, it could prove environmentally harmful, it restricts American military and intelligence naval operations and it calls for technology transfers that could run afoul of intellectual property laws and be dangerous to boot. President Reagan was right to reject calls to sign the Treaty in 1982. The Bush Administration should reverse course and refuse to push for the enactment of the Treaty in the present day.
What they didn’t say at Kennebunkport
Spengler, one of the Chief’s favorite writers has this over at Asia Times.
Nothing like the imagined dialogue below will have occurred at the Bush family compound on the Maine sea coast during President Vladimir Putin’s July 1 retreat with US President George W Bush.
Putin, I expect, will have done his best to humor his American counterpart and keep him off his guard. Bush is prepared neither intellectually nor psychologically to understand what a Russian leader must do, and a practical man like Putin would not waste
words explaining the unexplainable to the uncomprehending. Putin’s unenviable task is to persuade Bush of his good intentions, while gaining maneuvering room to take measures that the US will regard as hostile. I have no idea how he tried to bring this off in Kennebunkport.But it is sobering to imagine how the conversation might have gone if Putin had told Bush the unvarnished truth.
The dialog follows. It’s well worth reading, and adds a very interesting perspective to the US-Russia situation. It’s semi-lengthy, and doesn’t lend itself well to fragmentary quotation, so go check it out – it makes far too much sense to ignore!
Tanya, Terrorism and Our Phoney War
Although the Chief doesn’t think that Newt is able to walk on water…what he does well, he does exceedingly well…and this piece of historical perspective is some of his best.
One place we visited in St. Petersburg in particular has got me thinking about the threats we face as a country and as a civilization — and how our leaders and elites have yet to honestly face up to these threats. They are, in significant ways, deluding themselves — and endangering us in the process.
The Dead of the Siege of Leningrad
On Sunday, we visited the Piskarevskoye Memorial Cemetery, dedicated to the victims of the siege of Leningrad (as St. Petersburg was called at the time) during World War II. For nearly 900 days, from September 1941 until January 1944, the German Army surrounded and besieged the city. At least 641,000 people died and perhaps as many as a million — the vast majority of them civilians — mostly from starvation and disease.
More than 500,000 of these victims are buried in the Piskarevskoye Memorial Cemetery. On its own, this massive place of death is sobering enough. But in the cemetery’s museum are two chilling displays, shown side-by-side, that speak volumes about the consequences for average people when their leaders fail to heed the words of evil men.
The Diary of Tanya Savicheva
The first display is the diary of an 11-year-old girl named Tanya Savicheva, written during the siege of Leningrad.
In seven short entries below, she documents the deaths of her entire family — first her sister, then her grandmother, then her brother, her uncle, another uncle and finally her mother.
* Jenya died on 28th Dec. at 12.30 AM 1941
* Grandma died on 25th Jan. at 3 PM 1942
* Leka died on 17th March at 5 AM 1942
* Uncle Vasya died on 13th Apr. at 2 o’clock after midnight 1942
* Uncle Lesha on 10th May at 4 PM 1942
* Mother on 13th May at 7.30 AM 1942
The last entry in Tanya’s diary says simply, “Savicheva died. Everyone died. Only Tanya is left.”
And then Tanya herself died of starvation.
So what’s the point of recapping this sad piece of WW-II history?
Side-by-side with Tanya’s diary in the museum is another display that makes Tanya’s diary all the more disturbing. It is a September 1941 German High Command order to the German army in Russia. The order states with evil simplicity that “the Fuhrer has decided to raze the city of St. Petersburg from the face of the earth.”
The German army is ordered to attack and eliminate the city’s supply lines — to isolate the city and literally starve its inhabitants to death. “There is no point to prepare for the subsistence of the population….In this existential war, there is no point in maintaining these people.”
The Suicidal Behavior of Gordon Brown
As I stood there looking at this call for the annihilation of an entire city and the extermination of its residents and as I read the tragic story of a young girl just a few years older then my own granddaughter watching the slow death of her entire family, I was reminded of a recent book about the terrible consequences of attempting to appease evil.
Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England by Lynne Olson tells the story of how the British establishment lied to the British people and sought to avoid doing anything to antagonize Hitler even in the first year of World War II.
And then I thought about the suicidal behavior of new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown after the attempted terrorist bombings in London and Glasgow. Prime Minister Brown has reportedly banned his ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorism crisis in Britain. And he had also banned the phrase “War on Terror,” apparently because of its close association with his former Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush.
We aren’t quite this bad…yet…but the trend is set.
Newt has the situation NAILED in his conclusion:
Our ‘Phoney War’ on Terrorism
And as I thought about the new British prime minister’s unwillingness to tell the truth about the terrorists who are seeking to destroy Western civilization, I realized this: for the past six years, we have been engaged in a “phoney war”.
The period during World War II from 1939-1941 became known as the “phoney war.” After Hitler had attacked and occupied Poland, the Nazis had made their intentions clear, but the Allies did little to respond to Hitler’s aggression. In this period of “phoney war,” the British people eventually came to believe that they could avoid war. Children who had been evacuated from the cities began to return to their families.
And then, in May 1940, Hitler attacked France. The “phoney war” was over. The real war had begun.
How Many More Tanyas Will There Be?
Standing in that cemetery in St. Petersburg last week, I thought of all the other Tanyas who had died because their leaders refused to believe the evil words of evil men and refused to convey that truth to their people. I thought of today’s Tanyas — all the young girls and their families who are threatened by the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam.
Just as in the years leading up to World War II, the signs are all around us. The rise of Hamas. The re-arming of Hezbollah. The Iranian dictatorship’s relentless drive for nuclear weapons. Terrorists from New Jersey to London to Iraq and Pakistan who are saying repeatedly and publicly that they want nothing more than to kill us.
So my question is this: In our own existential war, do our leaders hear these voices that are determined to destroy us? And will our “phoney war” end on our terms, or the terms of our enemies?
Words to ponder, and act on.
Iraq fails to meet all reform goals, report will say
A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration’s reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said yesterday.
The “pivot point” for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on President Bush’s “surge” plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said. “The facts are not in question,” the official told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft is still under discussion. “The real question is how the White House proceeds with a post-surge strategy in light of the report.”
The administration situation is akin to closing the barn door after the stock has already escaped.
It didn’t have to be this way!
If the war had been pursued as WAR, not a police action, it wouldn’t be this way.
If the war had let the troops do what they are trained and prepared to do – pursue and destroy the enemy, it wouldn’t be this way,
If the administration hadn’t forced our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their back by legalistic rules of engagement, it wouldn’t be this way.
It’s often stated that our first priority had to be concern with “winning hearts and minds”. It seems to the Chief, that based on historical evidence (ref: WW-II with Germany and Japan) that if you grab them by the gonads and pull, that their hearts and minds will follow right along.
What to do now? How ’bout actually going to war for a change! Unfortunately, given our nearly totally screwed up subservience to political correctness, the chance of this happening is not likely.
The results of what the Chief fears will happen, ain’t going to be pretty…and it will be GUARANTEED that the Islamoterrs will be back with a vengeance, with full support from Syria, Iran, and the apparently soon to be Islamofascist Iraq.
Click on image for larger view. http://www.savage-productions.com/
The Chief REALLY REALLY hopes that he’s being overly pessimistic here…but…?
China’s Space Threat: How Missiles Could Target U.S. Satellites
The Chief has noted these sorts of developments, very often from coverage by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times. Here’s some more from another source – Popular Mechanics, which has lately been covering some serious topics, such as debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theorists that think the buildings came down from internal explosives.
For China, a nation that has already sent humans into space and developed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), the technology involved in the test was hardly remarkable. But as a demonstration of a rising military posture, it was a surprisingly aggressive act, especially since China has long pushed for an international treaty banning space weapons. “The move was a dangerous step toward the abyss of weaponizing space,” says Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, an independent defense research group in Washington, D.C. “China held the moral high ground about space, and that test re-energized the China hawks in Congress. If we’re not careful, space could become the new Wild West. You don’t just go and blow things up there.” In fact, after the Chinese test, India publicly stepped up its development of antiÂÂsatellite technology. And some Israeli officials have argued that, given China’s record of selling missile technology to Iran, Israel should develop its own program.
As always, the ChiComs bear close watching.
A couple of pretty good commentators have noted an increasing probability of war with the Iranians. Since they have apparently accumulated enough material to make nukes, this prospect should make one check to see that their powder is being kept dry.
Actual damage from a limited number of weapons would be minimal…but then again…what if they did an EMP attack designed to fry microchip electronics? Visualize no cars (control computers gone), no computers, no cell (or other modern phones), no radio/TV (all modern gear uses chips), etc. NOT a pretty picture.
“Classic” or other vehicles that lack computers, EFI, electronic ignition, etc. would still work, as would old “tube” based electronics.
Anyway…the first of these notes goes back a few weeks to May, from the inimitible Spengler in Asia Times. The other is more recent warning note from veteran commentator Arnaud de Borchgrave.
Why Iran will fight, not compromise
What can the West offer the Islamic Republic of Iran in return for giving up its nuclear ambitions and kenneling its puppies of war? The problem calls to mind the question regarding what to give a man who has everything: cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, kidney failure, and so forth. Iran’s economy is so damaged that it is impossible to tell how bad things are. Except perhaps for the oilfields of southern Iraq, and perhaps also northern Saudi Arabia, there is nothing the West can give Iran to forestall an internal breakdown….
What strategic consequences ensue from Iran’s economic misery? Broadly speaking, the choices are two. In the most benign scenario, Iran’s clerical establishment will emulate the Soviet Union of 1987, when then-prime minister Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged that communism had led Russia to the brink of ruin in the face of vibrant economic growth among the United States and its allies. Russia no longer had the resources to sustain an arms race with the US, and broke down under the pressure of America’s military buildup.
The second choice is an imperial adventure. In fact, Iran is engaged in such an adventure, funding and arming Shi’ite allies from Basra to Beirut, and creating clients selectively among such Sunnis as Hamas in Palestine.
I continue to predict that Iran will gamble on adventure rather than go the way of Gorbachev….
Which leads to this rather unpleasant conclusion:
An old piece of diplomatic wisdom states that one always should give one’s enemy a way out. But I see no way out for the pocket empire of Persia. Ahmadinejad and his generation of Revolutionary Guards will fight, and cautious old men like Rafsanjani will not be able to stop them.
An impressive sampling of US establishmentarians seem to be salivating at the prospects of taking on, and presumably taking out Iran.
“The case for bombing Iran,” was the headline over Mr. (Norman) Podhoretz’s long piece in the June issue of Commentary, the magazine he edited for 35 years (until 1995) and where he serves as editor at large. “I hope and pray that President Bush will do it,” Mr. Podhoretz wrote. His son-in-law Elliott Abrams is deputy national security adviser to President Bush. His son John is a columnist for the New York Post.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent, added his powerful voice recently to the case for military action against Iran in response to its purported killings of U.S. troops inside Iraq. “I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq… and to me that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers,” he said.
Denials from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice notwithstanding, it is an open secret in Washington Vice President Dick Cheney does not believe diplomacy-cum-sanctions will persuade the mullahs to forgo their nuclear ambitions. David Wurmser, a former member of the Douglas Feith politico-military team at the Pentagon, is deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security  and a hawk on Iran. A co-author, with Mr. Feith and Richard Perle, of the controversial 1996 White Paper “Saving the Realm,” which referred to Israel and advised then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to repeal the Oslo agreements on a Palestinian solution, keep Gaza and the West Bank, and establish a democracy in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
The word among the neocon family is Mr. Cheney believes Mr. Bush will stick to his pledge not to leave office 16 months hence with Iran’s nuclear facilities unscathed. Either Iran comes clean and stops its nuclear fuel enrichment process under IAEA control, or Tehran faces Mr. Bush’s military option. Two U.S. aircraft carriers are now 30 miles off Iran’s coastline in the Persian Gulf.
Would this REALLY happen? The Chief would not bet against it, especially considering the demented state of mind of the Iranian “leadership”.
THE GATES INHERITANCE, Part 1
The tortured world of US intelligence
Asia Times, has come out with with a very interesting and lengthy deep background on the US Intel establishment, and one of its leading lights, none other than our current post-Rummy SECDEF Gates:
Robert Gates has returned to Washington as secretary of defense with a quiet vengeance and with all the skills acquired in his rough-and-tumble years in the intelligence bureaucracy still intact. His laden resume, gathered over many decades, is evidence that Washington’s tortuous, often misguided foreign policies did not begin with the Bush administration, and will not end with it. In this three-part series, Roger Morris, formerly a senior staffer of the National Security Council, provides not just a portrait of the real Robert Gates, but a history of America’s global covert action and intervention.
Although this piece IS lengthy, it has a lot to show and tell about how we got to be where we are today. I’m not sure that I buy into the whole deal, but there’s enough substance there to bear some close thought.
This is only part I of 2 more to follow. The content does NOT fill the Chief with optimism concerning the conduct of US foreign policy. Maybe it really IS too late to work within the system any more, but I truly hope that’s an overly pessimistic assessment.
But still…what if it’s not?