tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7419013383611729422024-03-19T00:54:17.661-04:00Generally SpeakingMG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-19360497124907191142015-06-26T09:36:00.000-04:002015-06-26T09:36:29.088-04:00No Good Options<br />
News about ISIS, the self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate occupying large parts of Iraq and Syria, has been reported on a daily basis in US news media for the past year. Pundits, politicians, and various national security "experts" have offered opinions regarding the effectiveness of a US strategy to disrupt and destroy ISIS and whether a US strategy exists. That strategy began with a bombing campaign last August with little effect to date on ISIS's ability to take and hold territory.<br />
In February President Obama sent to congress a request for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS. Many of the abovementioned critics of the strategy are among the 535 members of congress to whom the request was sent. For six months congress has ignored the request for the AUMF.....no full committee hearings, no floor debates, no votes. I suspect it may be because they would have to acknowledge in the debate several uncomfortable facts:<br />
1) The moderate Free Syrian Army is a myth<br />
2) The Iraqi army is a tragic failure despite ten plus years of "training" by US forces and billions of dollars in arms and equipment provided by the US and subsequently surrendered to ISIS when Iraqi forces deserted<br />
3) Iraq is a country but not a nation and many Iraqi leaders in Bagdad distrust the US<br />
4) Iraqi Sunnis in ISIS held territory do not trust the Shia government in Bagdad and see ISIS as the lesser of two evils<br />
5) If ISIS is defeated in Syria, it is still a civil-war torn mess with Assad in place<br />
6) It would probably take 120-150,000 US troops occupying Iraq and Syria for ten years at a cost of two trillion dollars to destroy ISIS there<br />
Given these facts, which allow for no good options, it is little wonder that congress is reluctant to publicly debate the AUMF request. It is much easier and politically less risky to criticize from the sidelines. Unfortunately, that is not what congress was elected to do.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-9875818140301183442015-03-06T15:29:00.000-05:002015-03-06T15:29:10.761-05:00It's All About Us<br />
The speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint session of congress has produced a great deal of commentary by politicians, policy makers, and pundits in the United States. Virtually all of this commentary has focused on a triangle of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The fact is that the negotiations on Iran's nuclear program in a structure referred to as P5+1. Sitting across the table from Iran is not only the United States but also Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. All of these sovereign nations have their own perceptions, interests, and motivations which are not necessarily fully aligned with those of the United States.<br />
None of these politicians, pundits, and policy makers have raised the possibility of these other nations embracing the negotiated framework agreement and the United States declining to do so. Only Britain among them has consistently supported American positions. France and Germany have differed with the United States on several important issues in this century. Russia and China have obvious reasons to disagree with American positions. Russia is currently the subject of economic sanctions imposed by the United States and China seeks to exert its position as a diplomatic peer of the United States. It is possible that America and Israel (and likely Britain) could find themselves isolated from the rest of the community of nations on this issue.<br />
When the myth of the "exceptional nation" collides with realpolitik and the interests of other sovereign nations.....myth loses.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-42086051620111379172015-03-02T14:41:00.003-05:002015-03-02T14:41:54.370-05:00Alarming<br />
In a 19 January blog entry I noted that the United States planned to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS. The US has already given weapons such as TOW missiles to the Syrian rebel group Harakat Hazm. Unfortunately, yesterday Hazam was pushed from its headquarters in Aleppo by an al-Qaeda affiliate after having been pushed from its former headquarters in Idlib. As a result of these defeats Hazam has decided to dissolve and the al-Qaeda backed al-Nusra group that defeated them has taken possession of the US provided TOW missiles. If military planners developing the strategy to "disrupt, dismantle, and destroy" ISIS are not alarmed by this development they are overwhelmed by wishful thinking.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-38329364103153453182015-02-09T17:18:00.000-05:002015-02-09T17:18:33.614-05:00Arithmetic and Radical Jihadism<br />
If you choose to engage the question of whether we are winning the Global War on Terrorism you may want to consider the fact that there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Sixty two percent of them are under the age of thirty. Many of these young Muslims are disenfranchised, unemployed, repressed and angry or frustrated by totalitarian governments and bleak futures. Sixty two percent of 1.6 billion is about one billion. Half of these are men; 500 million men. Assuming that just one percent of these angry young men might be inclined toward radical jihadism, that gives five million potential jihadists. The US military response to organized radical jihadism is to attempt to disrupt, degrade , and destroy these organizations. Executing this military response requires killing, capturing, or seriously wounding individual jihadists. The US government estimates that the air campaign against ISIS has killed three to five thousand ISIS fighters and that ISIS is recruiting new fighters at a faster rate than we are killing them.<br />
Do the math.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-52360255755111539062015-02-01T15:51:00.000-05:002015-02-01T15:51:35.713-05:00That Costs Extra<br />
I own two seat licenses at Heinz Field, home of the Pittsburgh Steelers. On the open market they are worth about twenty thousand dollars. That fact alone does not gain admission to a single game for me. The Steelers say that if I want to attend games for a single season I have to send them several thousand dollars more. That costs extra. Thus, I have "skin in the game"financially as I watch my favorite team live.<br />
Many people believe that the complex American defense budget is too large. In fact, it is larger than that of the next fourteen countries in the world COMBINED. Many of those same people are also concerned with a widening civil-military gap and rising US militarism. Two elements of the proposed 2016 US defense budget are the $534 billion base budget and the additional $50 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO); totaling $585 billion. The OCO budget funds the war in Afghanistan and other counter terrorism operations. So we have a Pentagon seat license costing $534 billion per year. If we want the Pentagon to actually do something they tell Congress that's going to cost you another $50 billion. That costs extra. Congress usually approves (aka, buys the season tickets) with taxpayer dollars. Most taxpayers are unaware of the fact that they have been charged extra.<br />
In order to address the concern of the widening civil-military gap and rising militarism, we might consider a small change in the way we fund the OCO budget. We could add the proportionate cost of the OCO to every American's individual tax return as a separate war surtax. This would amount to approximately $1,000 per year for each taxpayer.....creating "skin in the game" for both the average citizen and Congress. MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-35127475583557581252015-01-19T12:33:00.000-05:002015-01-19T12:33:38.985-05:00Who Owns These "Boots on the Ground"?<br />
Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby announced last week that approximately 1,000 American service members would soon be deploying to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar to train "moderate" Syrian rebels to fight against ISIS. He said that the training will begin in the early spring and that if training goes well, trainees will return to fight in Syria by the end of the year. He added that 15,000 trained Syrian rebels will be required to reclaim parts of eastern Syria now controlled by ISIS and that about 5,000 can be trained per year.<br />
He did not address three points that I believe are important. First, who will pay these "moderate" rebels during their training and upon their return to the Syrian battlefield? Second, does this cohort of fighters represent an extra-governmental militia or is this militia part of the US military: what is its status under international law and the Geneva Conventions? Third, is this militia subject to the Geneva Convention and is the US responsible for the militia's actions under the Geneva Conventions?MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-6556581125591992972015-01-15T13:24:00.000-05:002015-01-15T13:24:28.715-05:00Our "Not-Enough" Volunteer Military<br />
Air Force spokesman Ray Alves recently confirmed that Gen. Herbert Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, recently wrote to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh that "ACC believes that we are about to see a perfect storm of increased demand, accessions reductions, and outflow increases that will damage readiness and combat capability of the MQ-1/9 (Predator drone) enterprise for years to come". Gen. Carlisle added, "I am extremely concerned". The combination of increased demand for drone sorties, not enough "volunteers" to operate them, and an exodus of qualified operators from the service is creating a 'perfect storm" that jeopardizes one of the cornerstones of the US "global war on terrorism".<br />
Although it is remarkable that this military occupational specialty would be the one that raises "extreme concern" to our All-Volunteer Force given the operator's working conditions and low personal risk, the Air Force response is equally remarkable. Col. Alves indicated that monetary bonuses (bribes) would be the most likely response. Is ours, in fact, an All-Volunteer Force if we have to bribe someone to join it? Is the All-Volunteer Force model fair, efficient, and sustainable? MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-89744329354083352452015-01-02T15:07:00.000-05:002015-01-02T15:07:13.379-05:00Surrender<br />
In the twilight of thirteen consecutive years of war in which less than one percent of Americans have served, a number of national security luminaries have lamented the widening civil-military gap and the rise of American militarism. Among those recently expressing these concerns are James Fallows, Dr. Andrew Bacevich, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, and Gen. Stanley McCrystal. All of them clearly identify the risks to national security and our country's social fabric that these trends present. The writers identify the sacrifices that of those who serve thoroughly and compassionately: suicides, multiple deployments, PTSD, homelessness, etc.. These sacrifices were aggravated by an All-Volunteer Force concept that exempts every American citizen from any obligation to protect and defend the security and liberties to which they all lay claim. <br />
What concerns me about these writers is their shared rejection of military conscription as a remedy to the widening civil-military gap and rising militarism in America. The All-Volunteer Force makes it too easy for limited liability patriots, chicken hawks, and a disengaged citizenry, none of whom have "skin in the game", to go to war. These writers all argue that military conscription is a "political non-starter". By buying into this argument these writers are surrendering to a discredited political elite the moral high ground in what should be an important national dialogue. In 1783 George Washington wrote that "it may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a portion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it".MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-53460166158222956992014-12-31T08:15:00.000-05:002014-12-31T08:15:43.353-05:00Answer<br />
Many writers have noted the ever widening civil-military gap; the disconnect between the American people and their military. Less than one percent of Americans have served in our long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The gap is reflected on Capital Hill. The 114th Congress that will be seated in January will have the smallest percentage of military veterans since before WWII. Only eighteen percent of the House members are veterans. In 1977 it was seventy nine percent. In the Senate twenty percent are military veterans. Even more remarkable is the fact that the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and his two predecessors are not military veterans; an unprecedented succession. <br />
I would suggest that America's decision to exempt all citizens from an obligation to protect their freedoms and liberties through military service may explain this trend. The All-Volunteer Force is the single biggest cause of the civil-military gap.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-9147329366114861672014-12-09T14:31:00.000-05:002014-12-09T14:31:25.309-05:00Troubling Bumper Crop<br />
The success of the United States in establishing a sustainable democracy in Afghanistan depends not only upon military actions but also on an Afghan government free of corruption and a strong economy. Last month the United Nations issued a report stating that Afghan opium cultivation increased by seven percent over 2013 and opium production increased by seventeen percent. This increase followed a forty nine percent increase in 2013....the highest levels since the fall of the Taliban government in 2002. In the late 1990's the Taliban government completely eradicated opium cultivation in Afghanistan. Despite a US goal to eradicate opium production it has increased exponentially since our occupation. Now the Taliban both tax and participate in opium production. Opium production represents approximately twenty percent of Afghan GDP and recently three judges quietly released from prison an Afghan drug kingpin who was serving a twenty year sentence.<br />
The report represents another data point in engaging the question.....why are we still spending American blood and treasure in Afghanistan?MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-41342263863532075492014-12-02T10:09:00.000-05:002014-12-02T10:09:23.118-05:00Arithmetic<br />
In my book "Skin in the Game...Poor Kids and Patriots" I ask whether the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) is working and will work in the future based on fairness, efficiency, and sustainability. Emerging arithmetic is helping to answer the question. Major General Allen Batschelet, commander of the US Army Recruiting Command, was quoted in the Army Times, stating "We are finding fewer and fewer people who are qualified to serve" as a result of obesity. Elevated high school dropout rates and adolescent asthma also reduce the pool of those who qualify. Today fewer than 3 in 10 Americans in the prime recruiting age group meet the recruiting standards. By the year 2020 that ratio may fall to 2 of 10.<br />
The Army alone needs to recruit about 80,000 new people each year. The other services also have recruiting requirements. Each year about four million Americans reach the age of eighteen. The "propensity to serve" in the military (those willing) is about 8% and has declined over the past decade. Here's where the arithmetic gets interesting. If 30% of the recruiting pool is able to serve and 8% is willing to serve that means that 2.4% of the pool is both willing AND able to serve; 2.4% of four million is 96,000 available to all the branches of the military. Demand exceeds supply under current conditions and the AVF is unsustainable. If either the "propensity to serve" (willing) or those qualified (able) falls, the arithmetic gets worse.<br />
Now may be a good time to ask if the All-Volunteer Force will work in the future.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-38594649648306091672014-11-24T08:25:00.000-05:002014-11-24T08:25:26.154-05:00Budget blinders<br />
The Obama administration requested that Congress appropriate an additional $5.6 billion on Nov. 10 to finance the fight against ISIS. This is in addition to the $59 billion already in the 2015 defense budget for "Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)". In 2014 more than $30 billion of the $80 billion in this account was spent for things totally unrelated to winding down the Afgan war. Congress has not asked for an accounting of what the $30 billion was spent on but does know that the Pentagon uses the account to circumvent congressionally imposed spending caps on the Pentagon. The OCO account is not subject to the spending caps. This became evident when the Pentagon asked Congress a few weeks ago if it could use OCO funds to support the troubled F-35 fighter program. The F-35 is not yet certified for combat so can have no impact on the Afgan war or ISIS in 2015. The House Defense Appropriations Committee denied the request. If the Pentagon could take money out of the existing $59 billion OCO budget for the troubled F-35 why does it need $5.6 billion more to fight ISIS? Might it be because the fear of ISIS is easier to sell than the troubled and controversial F-35 and the Pentagon sees another way to get more funding? The Pentagon's bureaucratic error was asking for permission rather than forgiveness.<br />
Congress did the right thing by denying the request but should ask some tough questions of the Pentagon as a follow up......unless they don't want to acknowledge that the military-industrial-congressional complex is still alive and well.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-8863232658047618802014-11-16T10:27:00.001-05:002014-11-16T10:27:37.340-05:00Unbelievable<br />
It is clear to anyone who follows national security issues that all senior uniformed bureaucrats, most members of the congressional armed service committees, and all government contractors advocate for the repeal of sequestration, the across the board cuts in military spending. This is gospel for the military-industrial-congressional complex. Much of the argument against sequestration focuses on readiness, modernization, and end strength....none of the arguments are based on art work.....paintings.<br />
Nonetheless, the Army is spending $600,000 to purchase a collection of twenty three WWI paintings by Samuel J. Wolfe. The Army says that the paintings are "one of a kind historic documents" that are "the only known collection available at this time". How does purchasing the paintings contribute to readiness, modernization, or end strength. Test your answer on an Army Captain who can't take his company to the rifle range because the Army has no money for ammunition.....good luck.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-53608432325744941932014-10-11T09:27:00.000-04:002014-10-11T09:27:43.323-04:00Whose boots?<br />
The United States has committed to "disrupt, degrade, and destroy" ISIS in Iraq and Syria by employing air strikes and using local ground forces (the Free Syrian Army and the Iraqi army). The Free Syrian Army will be trained in Saudi Arabia by US forces. It is currently a myth. Two divisions of the Iraqi army, after having been trained and equipped by the US at a cost in the billions of dollars, laid down its arms and equipment and deserted at first contact with ISIS several months ago. They refused to fight. Most military analysts believe that an air campaign by the US and its "allies" will fail to "disrupt, degrade, and destroy" ISIS. These same analysts believe that to accomplish the mission, US "boots on the ground" will be required.<br />
If US boots are on the ground in Iraq and Syria, whose boots will they be? It is safe to assume that they will not be worn by the children and grandchildren of the politicians, pundits, and executives of Washington and Wall Street. They will be worn by poor kids and patriots from the third and fourth socio-economic quintiles of our country and the first socio-economic quintile will continue to be AWOL in defending the nation. Three hundred and thirty million Americans lay claim to rights, liberties, and security that not a single one of them is obligated to protect. We have fought two wars for the past twelve years in which less than one half of one percent of the American people have had "skin in the game" with devastating consequences for those who have served and their families: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, unemployment, homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.<br />
If we decide to commit US "boots on the ground" in a long, expensive war against ISIS we should do two things as part of the process. First, we should execute a lottery-based draft of both men and women without exemptions or deferrals of all 18-24 year olds who meet current enlistment standards. Second, we should impose a war surtax such that every American taxpayer receives a quarterly bill from the IRS for their share of the cost of the war, thereby not adding to our $17 national debt. Having "skin in the game" will cause limited liability patriots and chicken hawks to think twice about committing more American blood and treasure to another war in the Middle East.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-80733542485613582882014-10-03T13:49:00.000-04:002014-10-03T13:49:00.888-04:00Conceding Moral High Ground<br />
It may be surprising to learn that China, Iran, Russia, and the United States are in agreement on an important national security policy. They are united on the opposite side of an issue that 162 other nations have agreed upon. The issue is the 1997 Ottowa Treaty banning the use of anti-personnel land mines. Land mines do not discriminate between non-combatants and innocent civilians, often killing or seriously injuring innocents long after hostilities have officially ended. The Pentagon argues that the land mines are needed to defend the DMZ in Korea. Logic argues that the United States should sign the treaty and isolate China, Iran, and Russia on the issue. MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-12757469136828066232014-09-29T10:10:00.001-04:002014-09-29T10:10:19.264-04:00Policy on a Slippery Slope<br />
The Department of Defense announced last week a new policy that will allow illegal immigrants living in the United States to enlist in the US armed forces and be eligible for an accelerated path to US citizenship as a result. The program, Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI), will recruit illegal immigrants who came to the United States with their parents before the age of sixteen. The program is capped at 1,500 recruits per year.<br />
On one hand, this initiative can be viewed as an initiative by the Obama administration to ease pressure on immigrants and shore up its political support from the immigrant community. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a pernicious means to shore up recruiting into a stressed All-Volunteer Force. The reality is that the US military is knowingly enlisting felons into its ranks because, to some extent, as Charles Moskos (a respected sociologist at Northwestern University) wrote in 1988, "we can't get enough middle class kids to die for their country. This is the next step". <br />
One might ask, "is the All-Volunteer Force working and will it work in the future"? An alternative question is, "what if we had a war and no one showed up on our side"?MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-23675869845045474442014-09-14T19:51:00.000-04:002014-09-14T19:51:36.326-04:00Strategic questions<br />
As I continue to think about President Obama's address to the nation last Wednesday regarding ISIS, three questions keep coming to mind. First, an NBC poll found that a majority of Americans(62%) favor his plan. But an even larger majority of Americans (68%) are skeptical as to whether it will succeed. Why would a rational person support a plan that they are not confident will succeed? Second, the president said that US military involvement will be limited to air strikes and training and equipping Iraqi ground forces and the Free Syrian Army.....no US "boots on the ground". This is the same Iraqi army that we trained from 2004 to 2011 only to have it desert and leave behind its weapons and equipment at first contact with ISIS....two full brigades deserted. ISIS is now driving around Iraq and Syria in US Humvees given to the Iraqi army which subsequently abandoned them on the battlefield. As for no US "boots on the ground", I suppose that the special ops soldiers and "advisers" are wearing sandals or sneakers. Why would a rational person believe that either one of these "armies" is capable of successful military ground operations in the foreseeable future without invoking magical thinking? Third, how much will this cost and how will we pay for it? Has everyone inside the Beltway forgotten that America is seventeen trillion dollars in debt and continues to run a budget deficit?MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-34738797015519910322014-09-06T06:23:00.000-04:002014-09-06T06:23:37.578-04:00Military Justice?<br />
Earlier this year Congress chose to retain authority for the investigation and prosecution of rape and other forms of sexual violence in the military within the military "chain of command". Uniformed military bureaucrats convinced Congress that they could fix the problem. In fact, the problem goes back to the 1991 Tailhook scandal and has only gotten worse since then. Members of the "chain of command" have been perpetuators and enablers of sexual violence in the military for decades.<br />
On August 27 the Associated Press reported that an Army Major General, Michael Harrison, had "failed to properly investigate sexual assault and other allegations against a colonel on his staff and be retired at one-star rank". The allegations go back to March 2013. When enablers of sexual violence in the military are the principal administrators of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the system is broken and unjust.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-72342813578538311332014-08-23T18:28:00.000-04:002014-08-23T18:28:20.706-04:00Afgan Dysfunction<br />
Gaza, the Ukraine, ISIS, and China's flexing in the South China Sea are consuming the reporting capacity of the American media and the attention span of the American people. But the average American might be surprised to know that his country is still deeply involved in a war in Afghanistan that after 2341 US service members killed and 17,674 wounded is not going well. We still have 30,700 troops there costing several billion dollars per month. We are slated to leave Afghanistan at the end of this year and our primary mission is to train an Afgan army and national police force that can defend the country. We have been training these forces for twelve years. The forces will cost six to eight billion dollars per year to maintain. According to the World Bank, Afghanistan's GDP is twenty Billion dollars per year. Whom do you think will pay for the force, and for how long?<br />
Given the military and financial scenario above, it would be comforting to think that the internal politics and governance of Afghanistan were going well. In fact, these aspects of the Afgan reality may be more alarming than the military/financial mess. Afghanistan's presidential elections were held on 5 April 2014 with no candidate receiving a majority of the votes. Abdullah Abdullah received the most votes. A run-off between he and Ashraf Ghani was held on 14 June, Ghani was ahead in the vote count when both candidates claimed fraud and the run-off vote is now being audited, As a result, negotiations regarding a US presence there after 2014 are suspended. This months long delay has caused some Afgan "leaders" to propose an "interim government", essentially a coup, backed by the Afgan army, national police, and intelligence corps. This may be the best bad alternative for a country not yet ready for Jeffersonian democracy, but a crushing failure for American foreign policy. MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-4576924319521979082014-08-18T08:41:00.000-04:002014-08-18T08:41:25.870-04:00Reality<br />
This blog posting is not meant to be an apology for the Obama administration's reaction to events around the world. That said, I have been watching world events and national security decisions closely for two or three decades. In that time I have never seen a more complex set of problems with so few good options available. Threats are diverse and often ill-defined with almost all options riddled with downsides and potential unintended consequences. As always, the enemy has a vote. But in many cases we're not exactly sure who the enemy is. <br />
The United States is not only war weary but also financially challenged, diplomatically weakened, and politically gridlocked. Policing the world may have to give way to these realities.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-78625055705597885392014-08-07T05:41:00.000-04:002014-08-07T05:41:40.875-04:00Academic Fraud<br />
On Juy24 the New York Times published a lengthy article reporting that Montana Senator John Walsh plagiarized a paper he wrote while a student at the US Army War College in 2007 while serving in the National Guard. The Times reported that "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as Carnegie or Harvard papers. and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors' exact-or almost exact- language without quotation marks"<br />
The paper was required for graduation and graduation from a war college is a requirement for promotion to general officer. Senator Walsh was promoted to general officer rank after graduation and holds that rank now in retired status. Plagiarism is thoroughly described in the War College's Handbook and the faculty constantly reminds students of the requirements for academic integrity. The Times article further reports that the War College's "current student handbook "states that plagiarism will result in disenrollment and that discoveries of academic violations have led to degrees being rescinded and names being scraped off the bronze plaques honoring graduates on campus."<br />
It will be interesting to see how the Army handles this situation. If Senator, or Major General, Walsh is found guilty of plagiarism his degree should be withdrawn and, therefore, his promotion to general officer revoked since he failed to meet the promotion criteria. Colonel Paul Yingling wrote several years ago that "a private who lost his rifle was punished more than a general who lost his part of a war". Will institutional cowardice and political pressures be the response to academic fraud?MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-62547693515500256752014-07-21T11:46:00.000-04:002014-07-21T11:46:19.428-04:00Ooops!<br />
I find the recent reporting by the American media on the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 interesting in that it fails to report a similar incident as background. On July 3, 1988 the US Navy ship Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace killing 290 passengers, 66 of whom were children. Iranian Air Flight 655 was a regularly scheduled flight on its normal route and was struck by an American missile while climbing. The Iranian aircraft was three times the size of a combat aircraft and was "misidentified" by the Vincennes state of the art electronic equipment operated by highly trained Navy professionals.<br />
Two wrongs do not make a right. In this case only two tragedies. But, "fair and balanced" reporting would provide perspective to the American public.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-29427675319079581392014-07-16T08:27:00.001-04:002014-07-16T08:27:38.578-04:00Hiding the Cost<br />
If you are an American taxpayer who believes that the Pentagon budget of more than $500 billion per year is too big (it is larger than that of the next ten nations in the world combined) then I have a data point that may make you feel even more uncomfortable. The Pentagon budget, I would argue, is understated by at least $150 billion per year because it does not include the Veterans Administration budget. The cost of the VA would not exist but for the activities of the Pentagon. It is also likely that the VA budget will rise at a faster rate than either the Pentagon budget or the overall federal budget over the next ten years. Militarism is very expensive therefore its supporters work to obscure its total cost.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-77796408071443376742014-07-01T11:34:00.000-04:002014-07-01T11:34:19.634-04:00Ironic<br />
I find it ironic that the Congress of the United States is planning to sue the executive branch of the government for "failure to enforce the law and executive overreach". The irony is that Congress has, for decades, abdicated to the president the power to go to war.....perhaps the most important decision that any nation makes.<br />
Article one, Section eight of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to...declare War". The last time they did so was June 5, 1942. Every significant military operation initiated by the United States since then (Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Iraq) has been initiated without a constitutionally based declaration of war as provided for by the Founding Fathers. Rigorous debate and an unambiguous vote by each member of Congress on a declaration of war may reduce our current tendency to go to war and our steady march toward militarism.MG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741901338361172942.post-77520305544988036322014-06-23T08:52:00.000-04:002014-06-23T08:52:27.140-04:00Military Capability<br />
One of the interesting, but uncomfortable, questions not being asked by politicians, pundits, and the Pentagon as we wring our hands over the current crisis in Iraq is how the Iraqi military that "experts" deemed capable of defending Iraq has failed so miserably. The Pentagon spent billions of dollars and years training and equipping the Iraqi military. In the first meaningful test of its effectiveness it's folding like a cheap tent with almost two full divisions deserting, American supplied equipment falling into enemy hands, and some Iraqi cities being surrendered without a fight.<br />
It appears that the misjudgments, lies, and absence of accountability that led us into Iraq in 2003 continued through our departure in 2011....4400 lives and three trillion dollars laterMG Dennis J Laich (ret.)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01133337457245412201noreply@blogger.com0