|
|||||
|
|||||
Fight Less, Win More - Nathaniel Fick, Washington Post
Welcome to the paradoxical world of counterinsurgency warfare -- the kind of war you win by not shooting. The objective in fighting insurgents isn't to kill every enemy fighter -- you simply can't -- but to persuade the population to abandon the insurgents' cause. The laws of these campaigns seem topsy-turvy by conventional military standards: Money is more decisive than bullets; protecting our own forces undermines the U.S. mission; heavy firepower is counterproductive; and winning battles guarantees nothing. The first tenet is that the best weapons don't shoot. Counterinsurgents must excel at finding creative, nonmilitary solutions to military problems.
Surging Politics – Victor Davis Hanson, Washington Times
Critics of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq called for by President Bush in January, early on cited American losses and then announced the plan's failure. Supporters have seen progress from new tactics (which, many argue, should have been adopted far earlier). Such wide disagreement over a military campaign in progress is not that unusual. Sixty years after World War II, historians, even with the benefits of hindsight, still argue over the cost-benefit ratios and strategic results of diverse battles from Operation Market Garden to Okinawa. The U.S. military reports that the surge in Iraq has helped reduce violence and defeat terrorists. But its officers also warn of manpower shortages, as well as commitments in Europe, Japan, the Balkans, Korea and elsewhere in the Middle East. We can't maintain the surge at present manpower levels in Iraq indefinitely. So how do we know whether the surge is working — especially whether its apparent present tactical success will translate into long-term strategic advantage?
The Saudis and Us – National Review editorial
We have no illusions about Saudi Arabia. It is a Wahhabi state that is on both sides of the War on Terror. But neither do we have illusions about our strategic situation in the Middle East, where our credibility and staying power are in doubt and an Iran with hegemonic ambitions is ever more powerful. Considered in this context, the $20 billion Saudi arms deal that is getting criticized from both the right and the left is a net benefit to our national security. If the Saudis and other Gulf states do not believe that we are utterly committed to their defense, they will seek to appease Iran and become even less cooperative with us. Saddam Hussein’s regime was long one of the most important counterbalances to Iran, and now it has been replaced by a weak central government with ties to Iran. We need another counterweight and have to look to the Gulf.
Good, Bad, Ugly in Iraq - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now "hunkered down with a small group of sycophantic cronies, increasingly detached from the business of running a government." Speaking not for attribution, this was the message conveyed by a former ranking Iraqi government official in London over the weekend. The current drift at the top, he added, could only be reversed by "a strongman at the top." Asked if there was such a potential pro-Western leader in the military, he said, "one can always be found. All it would require is a wink and a nod from Washington." But he conceded this was highly unlikely as the Bush administration's objective in toppling Saddam Hussein was to establish democracy.
Meet the New Face of Terror - Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, Washington Post
The last thing that seven Iraqi policemen at a checkpoint in Ramadi in late July saw was a woman approaching them. Seconds later, she detonated her explosive vest, killing herself and everybody else at the site. Just two weeks earlier in Pakistan, some would-be female suicide bombers were less successful in martyring themselves. When government forces stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque, several women were among the die-hards hoping to make a stand. "We wanted to carry out suicide attacks . . . but we didn't have sufficient explosives," one woman later regretfully told the BBC. Surprised? Don't be. Female participation in jihadist groups and operations has grown alarmingly in recent years. And unless we come to terms with the phenomenon, female Islamist militants might be an important part of our future.
Frustration at War without End – Greg Sheridan, The Australian
John Howard's tough-minded letter last week to his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, revealed for the first time in The Weekend Australian today, bespeaks a level of real frustration at the Iraqi's inability to move the political process forward inside Iraq. The US troop surge, which Howard supports and which has taken the US troop presence in Iraq to more than 160,000, has one overriding purpose: to create enough security so that Iraq's political leaders can cut a broad political deal. Other analysis this week suggests that the very nature of war has changed in the Middle East so that even the security success reported in the surge so far may not translate into a sustainable outcome. Howard initially had a lot of time for the former Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Howard thought Allawi had the best chance of pulling together the disparate political factions so that some deal could be worked out. But in the end it was impossible to generate enough support for him.
A Harsh Fate awaits all Collaborators – Graham Stewart, London Times
Will the British Army’s Iraqi interpreters be left to swing when we withdraw from Basra? Those deemed to have collaborated with an occupying power are invariably at the mercy of summary justice when the occupiers leave. This was the case for America’s South Vietnamese helpers when the Vietcong closed in. Their desperate attempts to scale the US Embassy gates and clamber on board the last helicopters out of Saigon in 1975 were among the most harrowing images of the Vietnam War. There were similar scenes at the fall of Yorktown in 1781. Imminent defeat in the American War of Independence was not a total disaster for the 7,000 British soldiers preparing to lay down their weapons. After a period in captivity, they had the prospect of returning home to Britain. But for those Americans who had loyally fought with them, it was an unmitigated catastrophe. They faced being lynched.
Inventing Atrocities – James Robbins, National Review
Invented atrocities usually demonize the enemy. That makes sense – it is normal in war to think that the bad guys are capable of anything. We are fortunate in the war on terrorism in being faced with an enemy we don’t have to stigmatize. Al Qaeda’s principle war-fighting method involves killing noncombatants en masse, and they further make the case for us by videotaping their acts of torture and brutality and posting them on the web. You don’t need a master propagandist to spin evil out of beheading helpless hostages. But what to make of the recent spate of Americans claiming that they themselves participated in atrocities? The reward for this act of bravery is fame, travel, maybe a book contract. There is an antiwar industry and politicians out there ready to help, since telling these kinds of stories serves their interests. Back in Koestler’s time people were blind to clear evidence of real atrocities; today they jump at stories clearly fabricated or exaggerated. Yes, it hurts the war effort, besmirches the rest of the unit, and further demeans the United States in the eyes of the world, but who cares?
Why do the Alumni Get the Pentagon's Plum Jobs? - Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute
There was a time when the assignment of top jobs in the joint force resembled the workings of the congressional seniority system more than a merit-based selection process. Representatives from each of the three military departments were awarded a roughly equal number of positions, with certain commands seemingly reserved for a particular service. That system is now gone, replaced by a joint command structure in which Navy Department alumni get most of the plum jobs. The Bush Administration plans to replace the Marine general and Navy admiral who currently head the joint staff with two more sea-service representatives. Admirals are running Central Command and Southern Command, while retaining their lock on Pacific Command. Such a lopsided preference for one military department would have been unthinkable in the Clinton years, leading to bureaucratic warfare in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. But looking at the apportionment of senior military positions under Bush, it's as though the Navy and Marines had become separate departments, while the Army and Air Force had reunified after 60 years of separation. What does this "sea change" mean? Is it a reflection of passing circumstances, such as the Army's preoccupation with Iraq, or a more durable pattern? An examination of forces driving the change suggests that the rising tide of Navy leaders is unlikely to recede anytime soon.
Spin is the Last Refuge of the MoD – Vicki Woods, London Daily Telegraph
The young corporals were lucky it was last Saturday they were talking to me. Had the wedding been today, they would have been in breach of new guidelines from the Ministry of Defence, which ban soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public, posting on bulletin boards (which must include posting comments on the Telegraph online), playing in multi-player online computer games, or sending text messages or pictures to phones without the permission of a superior. The guidelines state that "all such material must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence", and they apply whether the Serviceman is "on-duty, off-duty or in spare time". "Bloody MoD can't get our medals out," spoken by a serving corporal wearing No 2s and his Telic medal does not "enhance the reputation of defence" when "defence" means the MoD. Bad boy! The thousand press officers will all be very, very cross. But since I specially didn't mention your cap-badge, you should be OK. The MoD press office, now calling themselves "Team Defence", would like to keep the public perception of "Defence Identity and Brand Management" tightly in their own hands. The recently released strategy document from their new head of press (now called "Director General Media Communications") is a horrible bit of PowerPoint guff which aims to teach MoD spinners how to spin better (which gives the lie to Gordon Brown's airy promise to dump the "culture of spin").
High-Maintenance Musharraf – New York Times editorial
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped head off what could have been a political cataclysm by calling Gen. Pervez Musharraf at 2 a.m. in Pakistan on Thursday and talking him out of seizing new powers to suspend Parliament, hamstring the courts, curb street demonstrations and guarantee himself a new presidential term. But the crisis may only have been postponed. Pakistan’s military dictator has worked himself and his friends into a tight corner. Pakistan’s location, adjoining Afghanistan, Iran, India and China, makes it one of America’s most important allies. General Musharraf’s reckless political trajectory is turning him into one of the Bush administration’s most dangerous partners.
Reversal of Fortune – Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Benazir Bhutto is not the sort of woman who inspires indifference. Admirers and detractors alike broadly agree that the former two-time prime minister is Pakistan's most gifted politician: an Oxford Union-trained debater, an heiress to the Pakistani equivalent of the Kennedy name, and hardly less beautiful today than when she first took office in 1988 at the age of 35. Beyond that, opinions diverge. Either she is the hope for the country's democratic future or a blast from its corrupt past; the authentic voice of its people or the emblem of a self-serving elite; a martyr or a mesmerist. Now Ms. Bhutto is poised to again play a leading role in Pakistan's political life, after an eight-year absence from the country. Rumors have been flying since late last month that she met secretly with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in Abu Dhabi to discuss a power-sharing arrangement. These are rumors she makes no effort to deny during a visit Wednesday to the Journal's editorial offices.
India’s Tough Choice on Iran - Sadanand Dhume, Washington Post
With last month's consummation of a landmark agreement to cooperate with the United States on civilian nuclear programs, India took another large stride from the periphery to the center of the global order. Not many countries can boast a special relationship with the world's sole superpower, an economy that's expanding at upwards of 8 percent per year, and a democracy lauded for holding together a billion people of every conceivable class, color and creed. Indeed, at times it seems as though most everyone has reason to smile upon a rising India. For idealists here's proof that democracy belongs as much to poor countries as to rich ones, and that you don't have to choose between democracy and development. For realists, a large English-speaking country with a free market and rule of law is a reassuring presence in a neighborhood that includes both an unpredictable China and the turmoil of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Meeting the Risks of Proliferation – Richard Lugar, Washington Times
In a remote corner of Southern Europe, the United States and Albania recently scored a quiet but important victory in the battle against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This success points the way toward helping resolve some of the greatest threats the world faces from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The location was Albania's mountainous interior. During the Cold War, the predominantly Muslim nation was a Maoist dictatorship, the most isolated country in Europe and one of the most anti-Western in the world. Its journey from tyranny toward democracy has been determined but fitful — just a few years ago the country's economy and government collapsed when the population was seized by a nationwide Ponzi scheme.
The Need to Know – New York Times editorial
Like many in this country who were angered when Congress rushed to rubber-stamp a bill giving President Bush even more power to spy on Americans, we took some hope from the vow by Congressional Democrats to rewrite the new law after summer vacation. The chance of undoing the damage is slim, unless the White House stops stonewalling and gives lawmakers and the public the information they need to understand this vital issue. Just before rushing off to their vacations, and campaign fund-raising, both houses tried to fix an anachronism in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant to eavesdrop on conversations and e-mail messages if one of the people communicating is inside the United States. The court that enforces the law concluded recently that warrants also are required to intercept messages if the people are outside the United States, but their communications are routed through data exchanges here.
-----