► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Arthur Herman’

President Obama’s Pentagon cuts are indefensible

by Mojambo ( 93 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Military at January 6th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Say what you want about the piss poor Republican candidates we have, all but Luap Nor understand defense policy. We are on the verge of our military being gutted and just wait until Obama gets re-elected. If Leon Panetta had any gumption he would do as Rick Perry urges – resign rather then submit to emasculating our armed forces.

 by Arthur Herman

You have to give President Obama credit. It takes serious gall to tell the American military to its face that you are putting it on the road to second-class status.

That’s exactly what our commander-in-chief did at the Pentagon yesterday, as he announced nearly half a trillion dollars in new spending cuts, after already chopping $480 billion during his first three years in office. He also set out plans for drastic reductions in our force size and continuing weapons programs, including the F-35 fighter — our last best hope for maintaining American dominance in the skies.

Obama’s been trying to reassure Americans all this won’t endanger our national security or our strategic interests. Everyone in or out of uniform who’s free to speak knows better — and that with a full-scale war still underway we are standing on the brink of our weakest military posture since Jimmy Carter, and our smallest forces since before World War II.

[……]

More important, President Obama doesn’t understand that our military’s role isn’t just fighting wars. It’s providing a strong strategic presence that will influence events in our favor — and away from that of adversaries and rivals. Even he admits these drastic cuts can only come through shrinking that presence world-wide, which means deep cuts in our forces in Europe and the Middle East, while expecting a shrinking navy (which could wind up with barely 230 ships by 2020) and air force to keep our interests safe in the Pacific region — where China is surging.

Yet as the latest confrontation with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz shows, while a war rages in Afghanistan and a peace threatens to come unglued in Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, the Middle East is still a major crucible of conflict. And even if our European allies are willing to take up the slack and beef up their defense budgets as we leave — a highly dubious proposition — our vote on what happens there and with a belligerent Russia and increasingly anti-Western Turkey will count for less and less.

Still, the lasting damage the Obama chainsaw does is not to our military’s present, but to its future.

Of course, Obama’s team says it can still defend that future by spending smarter and cutting out “waste, fraud, and abuse” — this, from the people who inflated our deficit by $1.5 trillion, and gave us the $787 billion non-stimulus and Solyndra. In fact, it’s the programs that define the cutting edge of future military technology, and will lead the next military revolution, that are now the most in peril.

A good example is the Future Combat Systems, the program for transforming the Army and Marines into highly mobile forces with unmanned combat vehicles and other futuristic technology launched by Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. The program itself was axed two years ago, with the promise that the resources allocated for modernization would go directly to the Army and Marines. Don’t count on that now.

[…….]

Unlike our big army or naval bases, these programs have little or no constituencies, which means they get little attention or protection from Congress. Yet they are vital to preparing America for its future wars, and to its credible strategic presence. A cash-strapped Pentagon is bound to cut them first, even as our present force structure is dwindling to potentially perilous levels.

Fortunately, some of the Republican presidential candidates have seen the danger coming. Mitt Romney has urged keeping the defense budget at 4 percent of GDP — it’s currently less than 3 percent — and wants to expand the Navy’s desperately endangered shipbuilding program. Rick Perry has asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to resign rather than accede to cuts that are, in Newt Gingrich’s words, “very dangerous to the survival of the country.”

Still, until Congress and the American public wake up to the peril lying ahead, Obama will continue his program of unilateral American disarmament — that is, unless the 2012 election can stop him cold.

Read the rest – America’s Disarmed Future

Tags:
Posted in Barack Obama, Military | 93 Comments »

Desert Storm Myths Debunked; and Obama and Hillary both incompetent

by Mojambo ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Egypt, Election 2008, Iran, Iraq, Middle East at February 28th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

The vaunted coalition that George H.W. Bush put together was not due to last very long as it was limited in scope to strictly the liberation of Kuwait. There was no “New World Order” and frankly making alliances with nations such as Syria, Pakistan,  and Saudi Arabia is loaded with danger.  Foolishly, we allowed Saddam to survive and we are paying the price for that today.

by Arthur Herman

Twenty years ago today, ground operations in Operation Desert Storm came to a halt. American arms had won their most dazzling success in two generations, perhaps ever.

After five weeks of round-the-clock air strikes, forces under Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf shattered Saddam Hussein’s army, the biggest and most heavily armed in the Middle East, in just five days. The victorious 34-nation coalition lost only 392 killed, 294 of them Americans. Saddam had been driven from Kuwait; his regime teetered on collapse. A bright, new, world order seemed in the offing.

But two decades later we can see how many Americans, including our leaders, drew the wrong lessons from Desert Storm — creating myths that haunt us to this day.

One myth is that Desert Storm was the “good war” in which America and the world drew together to defeat a tyrant, compared to the deep divisions over the more recent Iraq war.

In fact, resolutions authorizing military action in Kuwait faced fierce opposition from the likes of then-Speaker Dick Gephardt, future Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Chuck Schumer and then-Sen. Joe Biden, and passed the House and Senate by inches. The first President George Bush went ahead despite the nay-sayers and prophets of doom and the thousands of protesters chanting “no blood for oil” — essentially the same folks who’d later brand his son a liar and war criminal.

A similar myth hovers over that amazing coalition, with not just the Brits and Aussies but also France (which sent 18,000 troops) and Greece and Pakistan, not to mention Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Its success bred the notion that the rightness of US military action rests on the number of nations willing to support it.

In fact, that coalition was a one-time event. There was no new world order, only an American president taking bold action and other countries calculating it was in their best interest to go along.

Plus, pressure from that same coalition helped to cut the campaign short and left Saddam in power — a gross mistake that would give Iraq’s dictator more than a decade to rebuild his power base, at brutal cost to the Iraqi people, before the United States under George W. Bush returned to complete the job. That is, it was thanks to that vaunted coalition that Americans threw away the advantages gained in the most successful military campaign any of them had ever witnessed.

And that was the other problem. Night after night, we saw videos of precision-guided smart bombs blowing up Iraqi positions with breathtaking accuracy. Smart weapons go back to Vietnam, but in Desert Storm they were 74 percent of all bombs dropped. Together with Stealth bombers and the new GPS guidance systems, they made war seem a clean, bloodless video game.

As we’ve learned since, most if not all wars aren’t like that. Grinding and violent, they require boots on the ground, boots from tough hardened units like Marines and airborne. They require men ready to charge a position and take it fighting room to room, bayonet to bayonet — as Marines did in Fallujah in 2004.

Wars also require a moral commitment to victory, a stoic endurance and patience at home as well as abroad. Desert Storm made the burden seem easy; when the Iraq campaign failed to be a rerun of 1991, many Americans asked for their ticket-money back. What they needed instead was a dose of sober realism about what our military could do after years of Clinton budget cuts, and how long it would take.

Desert Storm was the last hurrah of a military fed on Cold War budgets. It wasn’t GPS or smart bombs that destroyed Saddam’s military but old-fashioned planes and tanks and training — training that enabled our tank crews to shoot faster than the Iraqi automatic loaders.

[…]

Read the rest: Debunking the myths of Desert Storm

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by their mishandling of the North African crisis as well as their  poor treatment of old friends and allies shows that they are both out of their league. Neither one was prepared to take that 3:00 AM phone calls. Yes the White House and Foggy Bottom are staffed by blithering incompetents who see the world the way it ought to be rather then as it really is.

by Michael A. Walsh

Remember the ad Hillary Clinton ran against Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign?

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” it began. “But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world.

“Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world . . . Who do you want answering the phone?”

Now we know the answer: neither of the above.

Since the winds — and fires — of change began to sweep North Africa two months ago, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt and now in Libya, the Obama administration has distinguished itself by its utter ineptitude in dealing with what is both a crisis and a historic opportunity to change the governments and the culture of the Arab world.

The intelligence community failed to see the revolutions coming. The president adopted a strangely dispassionate, disinterested stance — hanging his spokesmen, both in the White House and at the State Department, out to dry.

“The president puts out statements on paper sometimes,” said new White House Press Secretary Jay Carney last week, in reply to a reporter’s question about what was taking Obama so long to weigh in on Libya. Carney also blamed a “scheduling issue” for the lack of a rapid response.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton — “someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world” — came off like she’d literally woken up at 3 a.m. and stumbled out to face the cameras armed only with a mouthful of platitudes. Sounding more like a grief counselor than secretary of state, she said:

“The world is watching the situation in Libya with alarm. We join the international community in strongly condemning the violence in Libya. Our thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been lost, and with their loved ones . . . We are working urgently with friends and partners around the world to convey this message to the Libyan government.”

The Maria Dolores, a US chartered ferry hired to evacuate American citizens from Tripoli to Malta, was too small to sail in rough seas and had to delay its departure. To add insult to injury, the White House even misspelled the name of the country as “Lybia” on Twitter.

And UN ambassador Susan Rice? She blew off a Security Council meeting on the Libyan crisis in order to attend a UN panel discussion on “global sustainability” in South Africa. The Roxy had better amateur nights than this.

Once again, President “Present” has signally failed to lead, preferring instead to hide behind a fog of “consultations with allies.” True, on Saturday he finally — in a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel — called for Khadafy to step down, and also took diplomatic action against the beleaguered regime, issuing an executive order that blocks property and other transactions.

Insiders say that Obama hesitated to take a public stand against the doomed dictator for fear that US diplomats might be taken hostage. But a great power can’t conduct a robust foreign policy in fear; that way lies the path of Jimmy Carter, whom Obama is coming more and more to resemble. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out recently, America is starting to look like Switzerland in its international irrelevance. Is that what Obama meant by “fundamental change”?

[…]

Read the rest here: Untested and Unready

Tags: ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Egypt, Election 2008, Iran, Iraq, Middle East | 130 Comments »

Sixty years and 134 years ago today

by Mojambo ( 170 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, History, Military, North Korea, Politics, South Korea at June 25th, 2010 - 11:30 am

Sixty years ago today (June 25, 1950)  the armies of North Korea invaded the Republic of Korea sparking the Korean War. The Korean War set the template for future “hot wars” that the West was going to fight i.e. that we were going to rely on the United Nations and that we were going to impose limits and restraints on our men in the field. Only when the Communists realized that newly elected president Dwight Eisenhower was prepared to use nuclear weapons was an armistice signed. To this day, North Korea is still officially at war with the South as no peace treaty has been signed.

by Arthur Herman

On June 25, 1950, 90,000 North Korean soldiers backed by 150 Soviet-built T-34 tanks poured across the border into South Korea. The Cold War had suddenly turned hot, and America found itself drawn into the longest war in its history.

Vietnam used to claim that dubious title. Now it’s Afghanistan. But the surprise communist invasion 60 years ago today began a Korean war that eventually saw an armistice but still no peace treaty.

Indeed, since major fighting stopped in 1953, more than 90 Americans and 300 South Korean soldiers have been killed in clashes along the DMZ barbed wire between North and South Korea — in addition to the 46 ROK sailors killed by a North Korean torpedo in March.

That summer of 1950 tested America’s commitment to the cause of freedom as never before, not even in World War II. There was no Pearl Harbor, and no American interests at stake in Korea but one: that other peoples should never be enslaved against their will.

The Soviet-backed invasion came just five years after V-J Day. It was the first serious test of America’s post-World War II strength of will and its new strategy of containing communism. Would America step up to protect an impoverished nation so far from any vital shore? Many feared the Truman administration, with its attention focused on Europe, would not.

They were wrong. President Harry Truman got off a plane in Washington and immediately agreed to swift action to save South Korea. He had been thinking about Hitler and Mussolini on the plane, Truman said; this time, the totalitarians would not get away with it. America would send in troops at once.

The problem was, there were no troops — or very few. In 1945, America had spent $50 billion on defense, in 1950 $5 billion. Its 8.25 million-strong military had shrunk to less than 600,000, most of them still in Europe. The Eighth Army’s four undermanned, underequipped divisions would somehow have to stem the massive communist tide, as Gen. Walton Walker fed his troops in piecemeal.

The shortage of manpower also forced the integration of African-Americans into front-line combat units. Indeed, the all-black 24th Regimental Combat Team scored the first American success, on July 20 at Yochen, where Lt. William Bussey became the war’s first African-American Silver Star.

By the end of July, 94,000 US and South Korean troops were clinging to a narrow perimeter around Pusan, at the southern tip of the Korean peninsula. One infantryman from the 34th Regiment remembered: “We stacked our dead around us for protection.” Gen. Walker told his men there was no retreat, because there was nowhere to go. “We must fight to the end.” If they had to die, he said, “at least we die together.”

But they held on, while waves of carrier-borne Navy planes pounded the sputtering North Korean attack. By now, Walker’s men were joined by the British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders of the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, as Truman’s decision to seek support from the United Nations began to kick in — and nations America had liberated in World War II, like Greece and France, stepped up in her support.

To relieve Pusan and reverse the war’s course, Gen. Douglas MacArthur launched his dramatic amphibious landing at Inchon on Sept. 15, and the long slow slog of retaking South Korea began.

Read the rest here: The forever war

On June 25, 1876 – 5 companies of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment led by Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer (he was a Major General only in the Volunteer Army of the Civil War) were killed to the last man at the Battle of Little Bighorn in Montana Territory. The troops were the advance party of three columns that were to converge  from the East, West and South on the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians who were believed to be camped somewhere between the Little Bighorn and the Rosebud rivers. The U.S. Government wanted the Sioux to cede the Black Hills to the Untied States primarily because of rumors of gold to be found there. The Black Hills were considered to be sacred to the Indians and most of the Indians rejected the offer and many left the reservations to join Sitting Bull and other chiefs to resist. The fear during the 1876 campaign was not that the Army would be defeated but that the Indians would get away. Custer thought that he would find maybe several hundred warriors instead he struck the village which contained up to 2,000 warriors (there were only 560 or so soldiers in the 7th cavalry). Dividing his command into three parts he retained 5 companies under his direct command and attacked the center of the Indian camp, he was quickly repulsed and his men were strung out on a ridge for over a mile and slaughtered by companies. Gall lead the frontal attack on Custer while Crazy Horse and Two Moon attacked from the flank and rear. The Indians stampeded the soldiers horses (every 4th man held his own horse and the horse of three other soldiers) and by doing so deprived  the men of much needed ammunition. The Custer family lost George A. Custer, his brother Captain Tom Custer (commander of C Company), brother-in-law Lt. James Calhoun (commander of L Company), brother Boston Custer (a scout) and nephew Henry Reed. The other two parts of the regiment were divided into battalions led by Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen. Reno attacked the village before Custer did and was quickly stopped, and panicking – he lead his battalion into a retreat across the river and onto a hill in which he was besieged. Benteen arrived after a scout to the left and joined Reno on the hill that now bears his name and none of them arrived to aid Custer. Custer lost 210 men and Reno-Benteen lost around another 40 men killed. This was the worst defeat for the U.S. Army during the Plains Indian Wars. By the way, the Indians did not ride around Custer’s men on horseback but took positions in the high grass and broken ground and fired upon them (some Indians had repeating rifles) and fired great clouds of arrows upon them and it was all over within an hour. Most of the soldiers were scalped and mutilated. The next day the remnants of the 7th Cavalry entrenched on Reno Hill  fought off Indian attempts to annihilate them  until relieved by General Terry and Colonel Gibbon. Although called “Custer’s Last Stand” the battle really was the Northern Plains Indians Last Stand. The Army pursued them in a winter campaign and chased them into Canada where eventually  Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Gall all surrendered one by one.

Little Bighorn History and Photo gallery

General G.A. Custer

Captain T.W. Custer
Brothers Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer (L) and Captain Thomas W. Custer (R), Company C commander

Major Reno

Captain Benteen
After Custer, the 7th’s two senior officers, Major Marcus A. Reno (L) and Captain Frederick W. Benteen (R)

Sitting Bull

Gall

Sitting Bull and Gall. There are no photographs of Crazy Horse.

Tags:
Posted in Communism, History, Military, North Korea, Politics, South Korea | 170 Comments »

Losing India

by Mojambo ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, India, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at May 10th, 2010 - 11:00 am

It is sad to see the United States government show such disrespect to the world’s largest democracy India. India is a nation that is fighting its own war against Islamic terrorists and the relationship between the two nations needs to be much cozier. India also is a natural ally to the United States. Unfortunately  our commander-in-chief seems to have a great deal of affection for Pock-ee-stan (probably  because it is an Islamic nation). The Pakistani Intelligence Services (the ISI) is loaded with Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers. I’ve noticed that Obama has not even visited India yet even though he was nearby in Afghanistan.

by Arthur Herman

Some people weren’t at all surprised to see a Pakistani- American trained in Pakistan terrorist camps trying to blow up Times Square. These are the families of the 173 killed in the Mumbai bombing two years ago — and those of a Pakistan-linked bombing in Puna that killed 17 in February.

What New Yorkers were spared, Indians have been suffering for years. Indeed, authorities in New Delhi are still waiting to question another Pakistani-American, David Coleman Headley, a plotter of the Mumbai bombing who’s being held in Chicago — although the Obama administration has been slow to act on their request.

In fact, Obama’s feckless approach to cooperation in the War on Terror has been steadily driving a wedge between the United States and the world’s other big democracy. The partnership with India that George w. Bush carefully built is in shambles — jeopardizing our future in Asia.

One wedge issue is Obama’s deceptively cozy relationship with Pakistan. What the Pentagon and the media trumpet as Pakistan’s new “cooperation” in fighting the Taliban, Indian experts see as simply one jihadist wing of Pakistan’s secret service (the ISI) surreptitiously taking out the others, with our Predator drones doing the shooting.

New Delhi fears Obama is being duped into preparing the way for Pakistan’s domination of neighboring Afghanistan once the US withdraws — and effectively facilitating more terror bombings like Mumbai or those in Afghanistan that have killed more than 100 Indians working there, not to mention more Times Square attempts in this country.
[…]

Read the rest here: How Bam’s losing India

Tags: ,
Posted in Barack Obama, India, Leftist-Islamic Alliance | 109 Comments »