To El Jefe’s way of thinking, the military has concluded what bases it needs, and which are surplus, and that ought to be the end of it. The Congress goes through similar chicanery with weapons systems and other appropriations, giving the services weapons they don’t want because they’re built in the right congressional districts, and depriving them of needed items for the same reason. When the service staffs conclude what is needed, again, that ought to be the end of it.
The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Base Closure Follies
To El Jefe’s way of thinking, the military has concluded what bases it needs, and which are surplus, and that ought to be the end of it. The Congress goes through similar chicanery with weapons systems and other appropriations, giving the services weapons they don’t want because they’re built in the right congressional districts, and depriving them of needed items for the same reason. When the service staffs conclude what is needed, again, that ought to be the end of it.
Wine and Cheese
Monday, August 22, 2005
The Heroic "Minutemen"
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
Chester, over at Adventures of Chester, calls attention here to MEMRI’s transcript of an astonishing broadcast on Iraqi television, the interrogation of a piece of excrement named Ramzi Hashem Abed, a captured Iraqi terrorist. The whole thing is worth reading here, and as Chester says, the reels and reams of this stuff coming out now should be seen on American television. Of course that won’t happen, because the media is no doubt afraid it would cause people to understand that the Iraq War is a just one. Here’s a brief excerpt:
(from Al-Fayhaa TV)
Interrogator: "What is your full name?"
Abed: "Ramzi Hashem Abed."
. . .
Interrogator: "What organization do you belong to?"
Abed: "Ansar Al-Islam."
Interrogator: "What organization is this?"
Abed: "It is bin Laden's group."
. . .
Interrogator: "Did you kidnap women?"
Abed: "Yes."
Interrogator: "There were operations of kidnapping and rape, carried out by the squad you belong to?"
Abed: "Yes."
Interrogator: "Tell me how many rape and kidnapping operations were carried out. My information says that the kidnapped women were university students or daughters of famous people. You raped them and got money for it, and if they were not slaughtered afterwards.... Did this really happen?"
Abed: "Yes, it did."
. . .
Interrogator: "You bastards. This is Jihad? You call this Jihad? "
Interrogator 2: "Did you participate in the rape and murder?"
Abed: "No. Just one who worked for the PUK. She was a Kurd."
Interrogator: "In the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan?"
Abed: "Yes. We brought her too."
Interrogator: "And you raped her?"
Abed: "Yes."
********
(from Al-Iraqiya TV)
Interrogator: "Did you rape anyone?"
Abed: "Only one woman, a relative of mine."
Interrogator: "A relative of yours. You kidnapped her and raped her?"
Abed: "No, we did not kill her."
Interrogator: "You didn't kill her, only raped her?"
Abed: "Yes."
The MEMRI site linked above has the whole transcript, and a video as well.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Undiplomatic Diplomats
As is well-known, Nuevo Laredo has been convulsed by violence caused by feuding among the various drug cartels, and the Mexican government’s sporadic efforts to crack down on them. Ambassador Garza stated that he has “been clear” that his “…primary responsibility as ambassador is the safety of United States citizens.” Earlier this year, the Chronicle tells us, Ambassador Garza, evidently publicly, requested the State Department to issue travel advisories alerting Americans to the border violence.
As soon as is possible, Ambassador Garza should be quietly recalled, and replaced by somebody ready to play in the major leagues. Ambassador Garza is indeed supposed to look to the safety of American citizens, but his primary, overarching responsibility, is the advancement and protection of the state interests of the United States. This is not accomplished by open and public insults by the US Ambassador to the host government.
Certainly, Ambassador Garza might find it necessary to complain to the Mexican government about the problems in Nuevo Laredo, perhaps even close the consulate. The Mexican authorities are certainly aware of the US government’s view of problems in Nuevo Laredo, but what purpose is served by airing of a friendly government’s dirty laundry in the papers ?
The current Mexican administration is as friendly a neighbor as we are ever likely to have in that quarter. A publicly understanding, diplomatic, tone by our chief diplomat in the area is more likely to be helpful than public hectoring. The US has plenty of trouble coming down the pike in Latin America (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba). There is no sense in buying more.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Inundated
Monday, August 8, 2005
Rumblings in Japan
Prime Minister Koizumi had previously made it clear that he was going to treat the postal reform Bill as a referendum on his government and its policies, and he seems to be making the high-stakes bet that the Japanese people will approve of what he’s doing, and return the LDP to power.
Elections for the House of Representatives are to be held 11 September. Apparently there is a real chance that the Socialists, now called the “Democrats” could wind up running the next government.
The failed bill is even more controversial than it sounds, because Japan Post runs a large part of the Japanese personal savings system: postal savings accounts have formed an important part of the Japanese economy since Emperor Meiji, and over 80 percent of citizens have postal savings accounts. Japan Post holds about a quarter of total personal assets in Japan, and is also in the life insurance business: between 55 and 60 percent of Japanese have a postal life insurance policy. Clearly, this bill threatens to upset many apple carts.
According to the English language Japanese newspaper Mainichi Daily News online, Prime Minister Koizumi has told his party leaders that the LDP will not endorse 37 members of the House of Representatives who voted against the postal bill when it was in the lower house, and that the LDP will put up new persons to run in their places.
Some of the LDP politicos, however, don’t seem sure that Mr. Koizumi’s bet on elections is the best play. Japan Post employees have always been a bulwark of LDP support. How are they likely to feel about privatization ? Perhaps this is one reason why Kozuimi’s move to hold snap elections has produced some disagreement even within Mr. Koizumi’s government. Under the Japanese Constitution, the Cabinet requests that the Emperor order elections, and the Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries Minister, Mr. Shimamura Yoshinobu, tried to gum up the works by refusing to sign the request; whereupon Mr. Koizumi fired Mr. Shimamura and took the Agriculture portfolio himself. That much public disagreement with the boss is unusual in Japanese politics.
The LDP, either alone, or in coalition, has dominated Japanese politics for virtually the entire post-war period, except for a few years in the 1960’s. A cornerstone of LDP policy has always been the US-Japan alliance. The Democrats have historically been much more skeptical of the US tie’s value. America needs a strong Japanese ally right now, so the upcoming election will be important.
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
On Cheese
Yesterday, El Jefe went to the grocery. It is almost never a good idea to send El Jefe marketing alone, particularly on an empty tummy, and especially not when he’s on a diet. God only knows what may come home in the grocery sack.
Yesterday, for once, I was good. But I was sooo tempted not to be. Our local Kroger had samples of some really yummy Parmigiano-Reggiano. Yes, the real stuff, all the way from Reggio Emilia in sunny Italia. Nice big blocks of it. Alas, if I came home with such a thing, I’d probably wind up looking like Nagasaki after Bock’s Car came to town, and a good thing too, or I'd be broke and the size of one of Saddam's palaces. I had to be content with a couple of samples, and fantasizing how it might taste with a decent bottle of wine. But that stuff was GOOD. Wish I could quit thinking about it today.
A New Iranian President
The outgoing President, the ostensibly liberal Muhammad Khatami, despite the hopes of journalists and other right-thinking people in America and Europe, was little more than a time-server, because the presidency means nothing more than serving as a compliant lapdog for the mullahs. Mr. Ahmadinejad, the mullahs’ chosen standard-bearer, can be expected to be an even more obedient pet.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory in the runoff portion of the sham presidential election should have been no great surprise. With a collapsed economy, disaffected young people, a restive business class, riots in the major cities, and the Europeans and Americans pressing the mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions, it is no surprise at all that the clerical dictators would want to be certain of their total political control. Nevertheless, the decision of Iran’s rulers to go for total political power, and to lock out so-called “reformists” will prove in the long run to be a fatal error.
There is little doubt that the Mullahs rigged the results. The Iranian newspaper Kayhan, which parrots the Mullah line, published the news of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory even before the polls closed, just as they had done the week previously. Aides for Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defeated rival, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, have told the press that many of their supporters and observers at polling stations were arrested and beaten.
However, this is not to say that there was not quite a bit of genuine support for Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad was certainly the candidate of the regime’s enforcers, and most fanatic supporters, but he also seems to have had the support of many of those who have suffered most from the Islamic regime. While the mobs and mullahs were busy throwing out the Shah, killing dissidents, destroying the middle class, burning books and making a botch out of the war with Iraq, the economy has been contracting, rather than expanding, unlike the Iranian population, two-thirds of which is under 35. In the last elections, people voted, rationally enough, for a change, the so-called “reformer,” Khatami, who revealed his powerlessness by doing exactly nothing. People may be excused for thinking the reformers are worse than useless.
“Supreme Guide” Khamenei, known affectionately in Tehran as “Ali Shah” – because he’s really a Shah, just without the birthright-- stated after the polls had closed that any effort to bring people into the streets to protest the theft is just not in the national interest. Not in the demonstrators interest either, as Ali Shah was too nice to mention that such would get them killed, tortured or imprisoned. Michael Ledeen, as well informed as anybody in the West about events in Iran, quotes Iranian bloggers as saying Ali Shah called out the Basiji (the regime’s rent-a-mob that beats up students and dissidents) to stuff the ballot boxes claiming that “Islam is in danger and it is necessary to save it by any means.”
Of course the Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), the “eyes and ears of the Islamic Revolution” and the Basiji would support Mr. Ahmadinejad, because he is, after all, one of their own: in the early 80’s, Mr. Ahmadinejad was part of the “Internal Security” section of the Pasdaran, and rumor has it he was even one of the hostage takers when the Tehran “students” and other odds and sods and assorted rabble invaded the US embassy all those years ago.
Only in the context of a hopelessly ruined country like the Islamic Republic could Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defeated opponent, Mr. Rafsanjani, (who has old Pasdaran connections himself), be considered a “moderate.” Mr. Rafsanjani presided over the final repression of the Islamic Revolution’s fellow-traveler idiot “moderates” – secular and leftist republicans who thought they could sup with Satan Khomeini to cast out Devil Shah. While Mr. Rafsanjani was President, dissidents were tortured at home, and murdered abroad; Iranian backed terrorists helped blow up the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, Argentina; and the Iranian economy slide towards complete collapse, which began with the Revolution, accelerated.
But Mr. Rafsanjani’s Iran is likely to be paradise compared to what’s in store under Mr. Ahmadinejad. He has his work cut out for him. The Economist says that 200,000 Iranians are emigrating a year, and unemployment is at least 16 percent, possibly higher. Inflation is at least 17 percent per annum, possibly more.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said today that “[t]he deprived…and the poor people will be the first priority on my agenda.” Who knows what this means ? The mullahs hate capitalism. Iran is as closed an economy at present as the Soviet Union in its worst days. Barely a fifth of economic activity is in private hands. While the population has grown by a third since the end of the Shah, the economy, in real terms, has lost a seventh of its 1979 value. Things are going to get worse. Probably, judging on his conduct as Tehran mayor, Mr. Ahmadinejad will embark on a large-scale soak-the-rich campaign, and increase subsidies for food, housing, and the state controlled sectors of the economy.
The political costs of this are, for the moment, minimal. The middle and upper classes hate the regime anyway. The economic and human costs will be severe. Privatization, and foreign investment, such as it is (mostly European), is probably finished. Iran, with its vast resources, and its educated urban population, should be rich. In the Shah’s time, Iran was really developing, and considered a greater economic power than, say Turkey, with a real economic future. Today, Iran is on the royal road to basket-case status.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that people have “religious duties” rather than “human rights.” Personally, Mr. Ahmadinejad is said to be an “ascetic” who will seek to purge Iran of “corruption” – both of the financial variety, which is rampant, and of the “moral” type – that is elimination of anything that smacks of Westernization. Ladies: better ditch the booze, and buy your veils now, if you plan on staying. Far wiser if you get hold of your relatives in LA or Texas and join them.
A collision with the United States is imminent. The economy of Iran is imploding, and since the mullahs have locked out the reformists, there will be nobody to blame for the impending disaster. Consequently, the clerics need to whip up nationalism, so they can blame their difficulties on foreign enemies – that is, on us. The mullah government will put whatever cash isn’t spent on food subsidies for the urban poor into weapons: particularly of the nuclear variety. They will also, to the extent they are not doing this already, stir up the rebels in Iraq against the Americans, and the pro-American government there.
Long term, the only option left for the mullahs to maintain their regime will be to mortgage Iran to China. China has money enough, weapons enough and need for oil enough to be interested in propping up the mullahs. A small number of Chinese troops in Iran would buy the mullahs immunity from military problems with the United States.
In the end, however, this is going to be a sucker bet. Not even the Chinese have enough money to save the mullah regime from its fundamental irrationality. The mullahs are too old, and too hated by elite society and anybody who works for a living, to long survive. Eventually economic reality will catch up to them too, as it did to the Soviet Union, and even to China. Unfortunately, the landing will not be a soft one. By choking off all paths towards liberty or reform, Ali Shah and his gang have ensured that the revolution that unseats them will be a violent one. Ultimately, the “Supreme Leader” and his mullah gang will do little more than completely discredit the idea of Islamic religious government.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Journalists and “Omerta”
“Jail was something a journalist had to endure on occasion. It is, to quote ‘The Godfather’s’ Hyman Roth, “’the business we have chosen.’”No stronger evidence of how off-track the American journalistic profession has gotten could be offered than by Richard Cohen’s comparison, quoted above, of journalists to mob figures, even fictional ones.
Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 2 August
2005, p. A13.
Mr. Cohen writes today about Judith Miller, who has become a martyr to all right-thinking journalists because she chose to go to jail rather than testify in court as to her source of information in the Valerie Plame affair. If you, your neighbor or El Jefe were to refuse to testify when properly subpoenaed to do so, we would go straight to jail without passing go or collecting $200.00. But because Ms. Miller is a “journalist”: because she writes for the New York Times, and is not a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief, much less a ditch-digger or a blogger; Mr. Cohen and his pals in prestige journalism maintain that, simply by virtue of their occupation, “journalists” have some special legal privilege not to comply with the same law the rest of us do.
The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that:
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
This has normally been understood that persons can write or speak as they please. This applies to everyone, to El Jefe, “journalists,” you, your neighbors, and ditch-diggers too. Of course, this is not, and has never been understood to be, without limits: for example, there are still libel and slander laws. But Mr. Cohen, and Ms. Miller, are claiming that the law recognizes, or should recognize a “reporter’s privilege” not to name sources. Some states do, in my view, wrongly, recognize such a right. Federal Courts, generally speaking, have not.
Ms. Miller, by her refusal to answer the Plame prosecutor’s questions is in effect contending that there is something more than the liberty to speak and write that is protected by the First Amendment: that “journalists” are a special, privileged class, who receive legal protections that the rest of us commoners (including, incidentally, bloggers like yours truly), do not.
What the press is really after, of course, is something like medieval “benefit of clergy.” In old English law, “benefit of clergy” meant that clergymen accused of offenses could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the King’s courts and subject only to an ecclesiastical court applying canon law. Ms. Miller, by declining to testify, as any regular citizen would be required to do, is in effect claiming that by the sole virtue of her employment by a newspaper, she is beyond the law that the rest of us must comply with.
That is not what the Constitution is about. The Constitution allows the Washington Post or the New York Times or CBS to print and to say what they will. Everyone enjoys that right. But "media outlets", because they are “media outlets” do not have rights the rest of us do not. Mr. Cohen can quote “Hyman Roth” from The Godfather (actually, Mr. Cohen, it’s Godfather II) till the cows come home, but what he’s after is not equal justice under law. If Ms. Miller wants to defy the court: if she chooses journalistic "ethics" over the law, because she thinks she owes her sources omerta, then this is the "business that she has chosen" and she is precisely where she belongs -- in jail.
One last thought: The prestige press is SERIOUSLY upset about Judith Miller. As I said, she has become a martyr to them, and they are out for some scalps. President Bush and the administration, in particular Karl Rove, who are likely to be blamed by the working press for this business, had better watch out.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Shorty
The Iraqi Rebels: A Working Theory
That said, however, we may occasionally excuse the ravings of the back pages because of the treasures located in the news pages. Wednesday, 22 June was such a day: the Times ran an extremely interesting article by David S. Cloud on the operational methods of the Iraqi rebels’ bomb-makers. Mr. Cloud’s article contained no new information, but did an admirable job of summarizing emerging trends in rebel operating methods.
In discussing the use against US forces of “improvised explosive devices,” or IED’s, the article describes “significant advancements in bomb design” including the increased use of shaped charges (dangerous to tanks and armored personnel carriers), use of infrared lasers as detonators (which avoids jamming countermeasures effective for radio-wave devises).
The article noted that the rebels “are probably drawing on bomb-making experts from outside Iraq and from the old Iraqi Army.” During May, the article says, there were about 700 attacks against American forces using IED’s.
The interesting question here concerns the composition of the rebel forces. The preparation of shaped charges, the use of infrared lasers for triggering, the recognition by the rebels of the need for new tactics to respond to US countermeasures such as electronic jamming, the increased targeting of Iraqi government police and military assets all indicate that the rebellion is no spontaneous uprising of Sunni Iraq; not the product of foreign Arab ardor to go to Iraq and kill Americans. True, the rebellion uses Sunni peasants and useful idiots from the Arab world to do the scut work – drive the suicide bombs. But the ability of the rebels to change their tactics, and their exploitation of available military technologies indicates that the rebels can draw on a substantial body of experienced military personnel. Who are these people ?
The most obvious possibility, of course, are officers and NCO’s of Saddam’s former Iraqi Army and intelligence organizations. But I think it’s possible to be more specific than that, to have a good idea exactly who these guys are, and this requires a brief digression. I’m going someplace with this, so be patient.
Despite all of the hullabaloo over the “Downing Street Memo” and what it supposedly reveals about the Bush administration’s intentions prior to war, the administration’s plans were obvious well before the start of Gulf War II to virtually any observer with a pulse. “Regime Change,” as it was called, was official US government policy for Iraq even before September 11. For my own part, I believed that there would be a war with Iraq on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Even when it became apparent that Saddam Hussein was probably not involved in that day’s terrorist acts, I believed and hoped that September 11 was going to be the end of Saddam and his regime. The world, in particular, the Middle East, had simply grown too dangerous for Saddam’s Iraq to continue to exist.
Moreover, the US needed a salutary example for other Middle Eastern rulers of the consequences of not working with the American government on Al Qaeda and on other matters. The fall of Saddam was the obvious means of frightening other area despots into cooperating with the US. Consequently, from January of 2002 forward, that is, as soon as the Taliban was finished in Afghanistan, I expected US attentions would turn to Iraq, and I begin to make my own preparations.
I started reading up on the Iraqi military. I re-read everything I could find on Gulf War I, and hunted down everything I could find in English on the Iraqi military’s order of battle. In particular, Global Security.org, and Anthony Cordesman’s absolutely superb papers on the Iraqi military at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) were invaluable. My friend T gave me Kenneth Pollack’s excellent book The Threatening Storm, which supplied more information. In March or April of 2002, I located a detailed map of Iraq, a giant plastic overlay and some colored markers, and began putting the Iraqi military on the map – and, with everybody else, watched and waited on events.
The first thing I noticed, was that Saddam’s military deployment was, well, goofy. The ground threat was coming out of Kuwait. I would have expected to see more troops in the south, near the Kuwait border, both to fight the invading coalition forces, and to keep the Shiites in line. I also would have expected to see significant deployments along the Euphrates River, and south of Baghdad. This did not materialize. Instead, Saddam kept the bulk of his power in Sunni Iraq, mostly at points north of Baghdad.
War came in early 2003 – later than I had thought. I expected war in late January or February of that year, and we now know that February was the Pentagon’s target date, but events were delayed by the foolishness at the UN with the French. In any case, in early March, when it was apparent that things were at last coming to a head, I stated keeping a War Diary – a sort of notebook of what was transpiring politically in Iraq, noting the movements of military units, pertinent political news, etc.
I kept up the War Diary all through the mobile campaign, right up to the fall of Baghdad. My working assumption was that once an Iraqi unit was in contact with a US unit on the ground, the Iraqi unit in question, because of superior US maneuverability and airpower, was effectively toast. There were a few exceptions (the 51st Infantry Division by Basra held out for awhile, as did the 11th Infantry, north of the Euphrates round Naseriyeh), but by and large, the assumption seemed to hold up till the Army and Marines took Baghdad. It’s also interesting how much I was wrong about, but that’s another story.
In any case, right about the time of the fall of Baghdad, a strange thing began to happen. When US forces – Marines from the east. 3rd Infantry Division [Mech.] from the South -- approached Baghdad, the city was not reinforced by the 12 or so divisions available north of the city. Because of US command of the air, it is doubtful much could have reached Baghdad anyway, but the Iraqi command did not even make the effort. Whole corps just started to disappear, before US forces caught up to them. The following is an excerpt from one of the last couple of entries in my War Diary, (16 April 2003), wrapping up my notes on the mobile campaign:
The Special Republican Guard (SRG) was apparently the primary unengaged force left to the Baghdad garrison (see notes for 6 April), and it did not show to advantage. However, there is little or no information as to the disposition, or even the continued existence, of its units. The SRG is a really strange formation to begin with – part secret police, part palace guard, part combat formation, part property custodians, which is perhaps why it seems to have simply melted away. Where did it go ?
I will feel better when these units are more definitively accounted for, because to the extent Saddam had any loyal units beyond his Companion bodyguards (40 men), or the terrorists and bandits in the Fedayeen Saddam and the Popular Army – this bunch was it.…
What followed was a detailed listing of units of Saddam’s “Special Republican Guard” – last known whereabouts, whether they engaged US units (which most did not) and any other details I had. But in any case, in the last days of the war, the most loyal, devoted and well-trained portions of Saddam Hussein’s military apparatus (perhaps 20,000 men) just folded right up and vanished.
I had hoped that these units had given up and gone home. But evidently, they did not. Clearly Saddam expected the invasion, and planned a post-invasion guerrilla campaign. His best troops just disappeared, evidently to fight this campaign – and so did the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every intelligence organization seriously interested Iraq was certain the Saddam regime had them, and I, for one, am still not buying they were wrong.
We do not know, yet, what happened to WMD’s. But we should have a pretty good idea, now, what happened to parts of the military units described above – in particular the Special Republican Guard. In particular, its officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. Certainly the SRG included the troops most devoted to Saddam, and were probably the most well trained and equipped in the Iraqi services. Although I have no direct evidence on point – it’s my belief and contention that the core of the present insurgency are cadres from the missing SRG military units I mentioned, along with their comrades from the former Iraqi intelligence services and secret police. These are the experienced people who can build shaped charges, use laser detonators, and who probably have the new Iraqi military pretty well infiltrated.
Certainly, there are plenty of warm rebel bodies with no prior or only low level pre-war military experience. But the sophistication of the attacks on Allied forces indicates that the government’s contention that the insurgency is primarily run by “Former Regime Loyalists” – is correct.
Monday, July 25, 2005
"Hanoi Jane" Takes Her Stand
The anti-war bus will supposedly run on “vegetable oil” although it seems probable that Hanoi Jane produces enough methane and hot air to power the thing all by her lonesome.
Hanoi Jane says that she has not “…taken a stand on any war since Vietnam” and that the bus tour is going to be "exciting." Yeah, right. The 70's are over, dear. Nixon resigned and we lost. As for your taking a stand: that’s important to know. You can bet that the foreign and military policy establishments burn gallons of the best Saudi midnight oil, wondering what Hanoi Jane the actress thinks about US policy towards North Korea, Iran, the war in Iraq or nuclear physics.
Attention terrorist high command: Call this lady's agent ! I’m sure you guys can find a suicide car bomb crew for her to pose with this time out.
Seriously, this should actually be a boon to the American war effort. I can’t think of a better way to rally support for the war than to have Hanoi Jane come out against it.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
William Westmoreland, RIP
A general-in-chief has no right to shelter his mistakes in war under cover of his sovereign, or of a minister, when they are both distant from the scene of operations, and must consequently be either ill informed or wholly ignorant of the actual state of things.
Hence, it follows that every general is culpable who undertakes the execution of a plan which he considers faulty. It is his duty to represent his reasons, to insist upon a change of plan; in short to give in his resignation rather than allow himself to become the instrument of his army’s ruin. . .
Napoléon I, Maxims., LXXII, p. 79 (Ed. David G. Chandler, Macmillan, 1988)
From the first I contemplated eventually moving into Laos to cut and block the infiltration routes of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and in 1966 and 1967 my staff prepared detailed plans for such an operation. . .Yet I recognized that blocking the trail would require at least a corps-size force of three divisions, and I would be unable for a long time to spare that many troops from the critical fight within South Vietnam. When at last, in 1968, our strength had increased sufficiently and the enemy had been depleted enough to make the move possible, President Johnson was so beset by war critics that he would take no step that might possibly be interpreted as broadening the war, which he had publicly announced he would not do.
In a discussion [in April 1967] . . .ex-presidential candidate Harold Stasssen asked if there was not some alternative strategy lying somewhere between a strategy of attrition and a strategy of annihilation. I replied that there was most certainly: block the Ho Chi Minh trail with ground troops. Yet Washington had ruled that out. . .
* * *
Yet, even with the handicap of graduated response, the war still could have been brought to a favorable end following the defeat of the enemy’s Tet offensive in 1968. The United States had in South Vietnam at that time the finest military force – though not the largest, ever assembled. The build-up of troops and the logistical support base were slow in coming, but at last they were there ready for decisive action. Had the president allowed a change in strategy and taken advantage of the enemy’s weakness to enable the command to carry out operations planned over the preceding two years in Laos and Cambodia and north of the DMZ . . .the North Vietnamese doubtless would have broken. But that was not to be.
William Childs Westmoreland, commander of US forces in the Republic of Vietnam from 1964-1968, then Chief of Staff of the US Army, died last week at 91. Ernest B. Furguson’s biography of the General is entitled: Westmoreland: The Inevitable General which almost perfectly sums up peers’ expectations of William Westmoreland from the moment he left West Point in 1936.
Commissioned into the artillery, Westmoreland entered World War II with the 9th Infantry Division, commanding artillery battalions in North Africa and Sicily, and becoming Chief of Staff of the division. Westmoreland rapidly caught the eye of three stars in the Army hierarchy: the Airborne generals Matthew Ridgway, Maxwell Taylor, and James Gavin, By the end of the war, Westmoreland was a full colonel.
Shortly after the war Westmoreland transferred to the infantry, and was offered command of a regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, then as now, one of the Army’s elite formations. The Army’s confidence in Westmoreland may be more adequately weighed when it is considered that during this time, the Army shrank in size from approximately 100 divisions to 16. While Westmoreland was serving with the 82nd Airborne, General Eisenhower, then Army Chief of Staff, is said to have ordered his personnel chief to prepare a list of 10-15 officers who had shown extraordinary promise during World War II: a group to be groomed as future Army movers and shakers. Membership in this circle has been debated, but almost all agree that Westmoreland was in it, along with his successor as commander in Vietnam, Creighton Abrams.
After his stint with the 82nd Airborne Division, an oddity emerges: In 1949, Westmoreland went to the Army’s Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, not as a student – but an instructor. Westmoreland in fact never attended the staff colleges: the CGSC, the Army War College, the National Defense University – which are the usual stops for somebody destined for senior military command. Westmoreland had a perfectly good excuse of course: he had been too busy doing – serving in the field with troops.
Then the Korean Conflict came along: Westmoreland did not go immediately, but when he did, it was in command of possibly the most coveted unit available for a colonel: the 187th Infantry Regimental Combat Team (Airborne) – a separate reinforced parachute regiment previously commanded by a Brigadier General. Westmoreland did well enough in Korea to garner a Brigadier General’s star at the young age of 38, but Korea meant there was little further time for education, other than a three month course in advanced management at Harvard Business School.
Westmoreland thus rose to very lofty command rank absent the theoretical and intellectual education normally considered a routine requirement. Westmoreland’s position as commander in Vietnam required from him not only the ability to command troops, and plan and direct their operations; but meant he needed to actively participate in the evaluation of political and military intelligence; in the formulation of national and theatre strategy, the making of logistical and force-structure plans, and engage in continual interaction with US and foreign politicians and with the media. Westmoreland became what Napoléon called a “general in chief” in probably the most politically and strategically complex war America ever fought with arguably insufficient intellectual ballast.
But command in war was Westmoreland’s destiny, and there is no doubt that he discharged it to the best of his ability. But one wonders if the man was out of his depth ? Westmoreland arrived in Vietnam in 1964, and presided over the US escalation of that conflict. When Westmoreland arrived in-country, there were 16,000 US troops. By 1968, the force under his command had swollen to over 500,000.
The full history of the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam, and the battles during his tenure is beyond the scope of this piece, but some discussion is in order. Westmoreland shattered several North Vietnamese regular infantry divisions at Khe Sanh in 1967-1968, inflicting disproportionately huge losses on the enemy. Similarly, in 1968, Westmoreland won the biggest American battle of the war, making a shambles of the Viet Cong’s “Tet Offensive” that was supposed to end the war in the communists’ favor.
Perhaps the finest hour of Westmoreland’s military life was his decision to abandon the Tet cease-fire and alert US and South Vietnamese forces when it became clear that a massive communist offensive was imminent. His decision won this battle and saved thousands of lives. After Tet, the Viet Cong were finished as a political and military factor: the war would be decided, ultimately, by North Vietnamese regular troops. Westmoreland’s “big unit” war of 1967-1968 kept the harried Viet Cong away from the South Vietnamese cities and allowed the South Vietnamese time to build an army.
Yet arguably, Westmoreland devoted insufficient time and attention to this latter task: leaving the heavy lifting on this task for his successor, Creighton Abrams. Westmoreland allowed the South Vietnamese to become too dependant on the Americans. At its most elemental level, war is decided by the successful mastery of time, space and available forces. Lyndon Johnson controlled the space in which the war would be fought; he controlled the available forces; and, as for time, Westmoreland appears to have failed to appreciate its strategic importance: the need to win the Vietnam War, or making it appear, politically, that it could be won, before the patience of the American people was exhausted.
Westmoreland presented the Johnson administration with plans that would have undoubtedly ensured the survival of the Republic of Vietnam and an American victory. This involved the expansion of the war to Laos and Cambodia in 1967-69, and the movement of large numbers of US forces into those countries and possibly into the southern parts of North Vietnam to block the Ho Chi Minh Trail (by which Hanoi supplied both the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese troops in the South). This would have required about 200,000 additional US troops, and the mobilization of US reserves: both from the Army Reserve component and from the National Guard. (90,000 of these troops would not have left the US; they would have reconstituted the US strategic reserve, which is what Westmoreland would get). The Johnson Administration balked.
With this decision, it became clear in retrospect, the United States, and the people of South Vietnam, lost the war. The liberals protest that the US violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia: however, neutrality has obligations – these countries were unable and unwilling to prevent the violation of their neutrality by North Vietnam. When the United States failed to block the Ho Chi Minh trail (thus isolating the battlefield), it tied its own hands: limiting itself to a second-best strategy of attrition, that is, attempting to wear down North Vietnam by totaling up “body counts” – by destruction of its units within South Vietnam. Since the Ho Chi Minh trail could not be interdicted, this was a losing proposition.
It is Westmoreland’s reaction to the Johnson administration’s rejection of his strategy – the right strategy: the strategy that would have vindicated the sacrifices of 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, that would have meant the triumph of our just cause -- that is deserving of scrutiny. Westmoreland was the commander in the field, the man supposedly entrusted by the government with planning the battles and winning the war. He presented a plan for doing so. The government rejected it: and he took it in silence. Why didn’t he resign, as Napoléon would have suggested ?
The Johnson administration thus disposed of Force and Space, and Time ran out after the Tet Offensive, The Tet Offensive battle, thanks largely to Westmoreland, was an American victory. But with no apparent strategy to win the war in sight: the American people concluded the strategy was bankrupt, and, in El Jefe’s opinion wrongly, withdrew support from the struggle. Millions of South Vietnamese are still paying the price.
Shortly after Tet, the Johnson administration kicked the General upstairs, making him Chief of Staff of the Army, and replacing him with Creighton Abrams, probably a better commander, who focused on building up the South Vietnamese armed forces, in the little time he had left before the American abandonment of South Vietnam. The Nixon administration treated General Westmoreland rather shabbily, although his tenure as Army Chief of Staff during the sad years of impending defeat in Vietnam would have been difficult under the best of circumstances.
After the war, General Westmoreland wrote an excellent memoir, A Soldier Reports, which is required reading for anybody interested in the Vietnam War. He ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for Governor of South Carolina; sued CBS for libel over a television “documentary” called The Uncounted Enemy; and served as a target for various groups of anti- war liberals unfit to shine his shoes.
General Westmoreland lived until 91, thus outlasting most of his contemporaries. He seems to have been blessed with a singularly happy home life. With some perspective, and appreciation of the political and social forces that he had to contend with, we can see now that General Westmoreland was thrown into a hopelessly complex political and military situation for which his education, experience and training supplied no precedents; and in which he was inadequately supported. History will be kind to him.
The General will be buried on the grounds of the Military Academy at West Point, of which he was, at one time, the commandant. Rest in peace.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Baker's Dozen, or Lagniappe
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Somebody Call Karl
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
El Jefe Out of Town
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Bombings in London
But the bomb makers and their infrastructure could not operate without financing, the quiet sympathy and support of people willing to hide them – and governments in the Middle East willing to look the other way while this goes on. As long as non-violent financial, political, and moral support for the jihadists is tolerated, none of us will be safe.
The jihadists are barbarians, all mired in the 11th Century: partly evil, malicious children, destroying for destruction’s sake; partly religious fanatics; partly butchers so certain we will never retaliate in kind. They do not fear us sufficiently. In general, that’s the problem with terrorists and their sympathizers in the Islamic street: the lack of fear. If not for themselves, then fear for their relations and their societies.
The barbarians need an education. One place where learning can be imparted is in the rebellious areas of Iraq. The coalition commanders should be encouraged to prosecute the war against the terrorists there with vigor, and to ensure that sympathizers of the terrorists, armed or no, pay a price for concealing, aiding and abetting attacks on coalition or Iraqi government forces. Meanwhile, if the generals in Iraq want more troops, they should get them, and spare no efforts to ensure every bullet finds its billet in as many terrorists as possible.
Another place for concentration of effort is in putting the squeeze on Al Qaeda and the jihadist movement’s covert supporters. Terrorists have to be recruited, indoctrinated, trained and armed. This is a big operation. Car bombers are not the brains end of their organizations. All this takes a pool of willing recruits, and an expert cadre of instructors and commanders. This must all be paid for. Until we go after the financial, moral and intellectual supporters of the terrorists, we’re going to get nowhere. This means bringing pressure to bear on the Syrians, the Saudis and the Pakistanis.
It’s time for a harder war. Lets not wait for the bad guys to bring the war to us. We should stop worrying about the lawyers, Guantanamo and the UN and take the war to the enemy.
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
"Deep Impact" Will Have Deep Impact
Radio communications between ground stations and Deep Impact take more than seven minutes each way, at 83,000,000 miles distance, so the final rendezvous of Deep Impact and Comet Tempel 1 (both moving objects), was controlled by the spacecraft’s own internal guidance system, which, three hours prior to impact, made three different course maneuvers to hit a particular, well-lit spot on the sunny side of Tempel 1. The probe impacted “right on target.”
Quite a triumph for NASA, and the Principal Investigators on the project at the University of Maryland and at Brown University, and for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California; but around the world, the general staffs of the major powers have just been shown something quite ominous, for them. The Pentagon, for its part, should be quite pleased.
Deep Impact demonstrates beyond argument that robot spacecraft can intercept fast moving objects, at great distance, under their own power and navigational control. The interceptor was able to alter its course to pick the best spot for interception – all while moving at 23,000 miles per hour. The military implications should be obvious: Not only does the United States have the ability to intercept comets for scientific purposes, or to attempt deflection of comets or asteroids threatening collision with the Earth – but the same technologies can be used to intercept other items – such as Ballistic Missile warheads. Deep Impact shows that Ballistic Missile Defense can succeed, and that the United States can be made safe from missile attack, assuming it summons the political will to spend the money.
There is no excuse now not to proceed with Ballistic Missile Defense. Most assuredly Deep Impact’s success yesterday will spur other powers to do so.