Calculus of Peace: The Taliban come knocking

“Calculus of Peace” def: Conflict only requires one participant to exist, actual peace requires all parties engaged.

It’s deep winter in the Hindu Kush and the Taliban hideaways in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Snows block the passes and mountain routes needed to carry out their insurgency against the National Government and NATO forces. Over the past 10 years, the Taliban has used winter to recruit, rebuild and re-arm, but this year there are some critical differences.  Entire Taliban units, sometimes as large as 12-15 men, have been surrendering. This has not occurred since the rapid collapse of the Taliban Control of Afghanistan in 2002.

The National Government forces are operating deep inside areas previouslyconsidered safe havens for the Taliban. Even the drug lords are finding it harder to bribe soldiers at check stops. The aggressive use of armed and unarmed drones keep eyes in the are 24/7 and that makes it difficult for insurgents to gather or move in decive numbers to overun remote police or military garrisons. Even in light of some NATO members excelerating their exit strategy, significant US forces remain to continue the steady, intense pressure applied to Taliban forces.  The population as a whole, is not enamored with the Taliban and the available fighters are spending more time working for the drugloards where the money is better.

So the Taliban are actually coming to Peace Tables in earnest. In addition, the high casulaty rate experienced by Taliban upper management and instability in Pakistan are forcing Taliban leadership to seek inroads with the Government in order to survive. If these overtures are indeed sincere, we may be edging towards  the satisfying the calculus of peace requirement that both sides in conflict must desire peace in order for it to occur.

Whether Afghanistan can survive without conflict, well thats a different equation.

Libya

I’ve been pondering the real reason for the intervention in Libya. It can’t really be about humanitarian issues because government protestors are being gunned down in Yemen, Bahrain and especially Iran and Syria today.

It can’t be because Ghadfi (Khadfi,Gadhfi?) is a terrorist supporting,oppressive threat to the civilized world as Obama, Feinstein and a host of anti Iraq Democrats are claiming. What about oil? Well the US doesn’t get more than 2% of it’s foreign import from Libya, That doesn’t say the same for the Brits, France, Italy and Western Europe who are the largest Libyan oil importers.

It certainly doesn’t make sense that the US or our Allies would back rebels that seem to be composed of Al Queda supporters and mercenaries that fought against us in Iraq.

So what is it then? The only logical answer is that Obama and Hilary have never gotten over being mad at Libyan terrorists for trying to kill Doc Brown and Marty in “Back to the Future”. It was the clearest demonstration of Khadfi’s attempts at fomenting global terrorism.

New twist on an old saying

Closing the barn door after the animals are out is an idiom or analogy that I’ve heard most of my life and to me is synonymous with lack of foresight, execution and futility. Which to me are just key words for the Obama administrations Foreign Policy.

To say that the Administrations responses to events around the world are just short of catastrophic and certainly a comfortable fit amateurish and disinterested. Only now, with the combined lack of response to Japan’s crisis, our own fuel cost crisis and the domino effect in the Middle East are drawing some form of notice from the rest of the world and the synchophantic US media.

The animals are out of the barn Mr. Obama, especially in Libya and as Col Gdaffi is on the verge of suppressing the rebellion with Tuareg tribesman from Mali (seasoned guerrilla fighters, Syrian and Eastern European mercenaries, Team Obama finally moves to make some feeble show of support for military support.

Who are you going to support directly now Mr. President? Best you can hope for is now a protracted ground war, atrocities and much civilian death. So now it seems you are not only closing the barn door after letting the animals out, but you are going to strafe the animals as well.

Another fine success for the big O.

Say You Want a Revolution

During the last six weeks a chain of events have begun that many see as a wave of unrest within the Arab world. In January, the people of Tunisia, joined by the rank and file Military, threw off 30 years of corrupt dictatorship in a relatively bloodless revolution.

Within a week the beginnings of popular revolt spread to Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. Spurred on by social media flash rallies, thousands of silent Egyptians, representing college students, middle class, shop owners and of course more than a smattering of religious extremists, poured into the street calling for the removal of Mubarak. Caught off guard, American response was subdued and disconnected and still seems to have missed the bigger picture.

By the time Mubarak stepped down at the Army’s insistence, serious uprisings were occurring in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen and Algeria. Iran is trying to pretend that there is not a new wave of popular unrest and China is facing increasing occurrences of cival revolt. In China’s case, they are working fast to curtail internet access and ability of crowds to gather. News out of Tripoli today is that Ghaddifi has fled, even while his thugs are still spraying protesters with automatic weapons fire.

In Egypt, the protest movement is not yet satisfied that the military will affect reform and are calling on the West to guaranty their revolution. This is a good starting point and a window that the Obama Administration would be well advised to take steps to insure. The result of American indecision and inaction will likely be the secular and moderate voices will be swept away by a more aggressive and prepared Moslem Brotherhood and other Islamic extremist.

The consequences of which would be devastating.

How did this wave begin? Is it some uniquely organized revolt that is having a domino effect on the Arab world? No, the fact that unrest is active in Iran, China and is simmering just below the surface in Indonesia, half of Sub Sahara Africa demonstrates its a shared fatigue of oppressive and greedy regimes. It appears to be the beginning of a new wave of Democratic rule in places that have never known or experienced this type of freedom before.

So how did it begin? Well all great events require a catalyst and it looks like this one is the result of the law of unintended consequences. The combination of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the social media revolution are key parts of the equation. Yes, you read correctly the spark began with the two US led wars, or maybe more accurately, the results. The masses in the Arab world watched the events of the last 8 years since the invasion of Iraq and saw that while they questioned the methods and certainly the involvement of Western Powers, they liked the long term aspect of increased social and economic opportunity.

Social media began flexing it’s muscle starting with the US election in 2008. Access by computer, phone and other smart devises provide a degree of immediacy and direct participation never before available. In 2009 Iran experienced Twitter revolt 1.0. Did not succeed, but it did not fail or go away either. In the US, social media fed the Tea Party Populist movement and allowed the world to watch. As the new year dawned, events reached the tipping point and critical mass was achieved.

People were able to see their friends, family and neighbors marching in protest. They saw the reluctance of the military to crack down, they saw they could outmaneuver and in many cases overwhelm the security forces and do it before the world cameras creating check with leaders such as Mubarak and Gaddafi.

It’s become harder to intimidate the masses when it can be watched 24/7 from all over the globe. In each instance, as China is dealing with now, it has been impossible to put the internet genie back in the bottle and transparency is the net result.

What is next is contingent on who ultimately takes control in Egypt and what happens next in Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia. China has great risks at having the fragility of their economic house of cards exposed and if the Clerics gain control in Egypt and force a new wave of oppression, then the wave may stall somewhat.

So watch Iran, Iran will be the pivotal player in what could become one of the greatest social changes in world history.

America Thanks You Col. Richard Winters

Last week (January 2nd, 2011) Richard Winters, one of the key figures of the Book and outstanding historical archive “Band of Brothers” passed away at age 92. The word of his passing didn’t filter through to the media until Monday the 10th.

The reason – thats the way Dick Winters wanted it, no attention drawn to himself till after his funeral. His desire to never seek out the limelight or to try and capitalize on the fame brought to him by being one of the “Band of Brothers”. A few years ago a movement started to get Winter’s the medal of Honor. Never did Col. Winters participate or campaign for the medal. He continued to repeat the line from one of his comrades, “was I a hero in the war? No, but I served in a company of heros”.

To me, and thousands of others, Richard Winters is the poster boy for the image of the American Soldier. He was a volunteer. He was a gifted leader that knew his first duty was to the men who served with him. He tried to live and lead by example. It is rare to see a person who universally seemed to impact all he touched with his integrity, sense of duty, determination and intellect.

Col. Winters will be eulogized by people far more capable then me, but I just wanted to make a personal thank him and to promise to keep his memory as a guidon for myself and my sons as we journey through life.

Richard Winters, was a hero and stands as a sining example of whatalways makes me proud to be an American.

Why the Taliban (or any enemy force) Should Be Worried

Note To General Petraeus,

Make sure this video is flooded to each and every pro Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Somali Pirate sites that are being monitored by the DOD.

I can think of no worse PSYOPS weapon than letting the strutting crazies that despise everything about our country (I meant the terrorists, not the Obama Administration) see this video and understand that these are the soldiers that beat them on the battlefield at every turn.

Fanatics like the Taliban won’t understand it, they will view it as soft, passive and a sign of our decadence. They don’t get that one weapon that the US and some of our better Allies possess and that they can not counter is our sense of humor. The humor in many ways defines who we are and outside the box we tend to be.

It took the Germans several years in World War 2 to understand that American soldiers may seem undisciplined and lax, but we are un predictable, flexible and innovative. Several key German Generals commented that it was the hardest aspect for them to defend against, our un predictability.

Now, on a strategic level, many of the reasons that our enemies can stay in the fight is because they understand that politically we are predictable and if they have patience, they can outlast us.

Thats what makes this video spoof a great combat force multiplier. Enemies like the Taliban and Al Qaeda cannot understand that these very same Airborne Troopers will be hunting them down tomorrow, after choreographic their next dance video the night before.

Is Bigger Better ?

During the best of times, large ticket defense contracts are highly sought after plumbs. High profile successes that politicians can point to as a great example of taking care of their home state or district. For that reason, the political maneuverings engaged to secure a prime contract are often Machiavellian.

Sometimes the most critical aspect is the one that gets the least attention, is the US Military getting the best tool available, at a reasonable price.? Making the procurement procedure fit the needs of the supplier can and often does have a direct impact on the warfighter.

Case in point the DOD requirement for the long overdue replacement of the Air Forces Tanker Fleet.  For the last two years, Boeing and a partnership of Northrup and Airbus (European Aeronautical Defense and Space Co.) have battled for the Pentagon’s $40 billion dollar bid to replace the tanker fleet.

February, 2008, the Pentagon  announces that Northrup has been chosen to supply tankers built on the Airbus 300 design. Boeing protested the award and the Government Accountability Office overturned the decision. Boeing’s stipulation that the terms so favored Northrup/EADS that the process was far from fair and transparent.

According to noted Defense Policy Analyst at the Lexington Institute, Loren Thompson, the GAO findings “where so sweeping and definitive” that the airforce had no choice but to start the competition over.

Now the political firestorm starts, this time with the wave beginning overseas. From President Sarkozy of France to Gordon Brown of the UK all called the decision a blight on the Obama administration. The deep south gulf States of Alabama and Mississippi have mobilized their Congressional delegations, Senators and Governors to pressure the DOD into re-considering the specifications for the new tanker. Both states stood top gain a couple of thousand jobs with aircraft assembly.

So why did Northrup drop its bid? Originally, the specifications were custom tailored to the A300 airframe, a very large aircraft. Northrup had long based their marketing strategy on convincing the Airforce that the bigger aircraft was more practical and better fit Air Force mission parameters.

But does it?

The GAO findings were very straight forward, the Northrup-EADS plane was not cost competitive with Boeing’s existing 767 Platform. Boeings Tanker was already being delivered to the Italian and Japanese Air Forces and had won the previous competition prior to AirForce cancellation. According to the Lexington Institutes Loren Thompson, “Airbus would be more expensive to build and operate even with subsidies”. Looking at the real requirements for a widely deployable tanker, with runway specifications similar to the C-17, the Air Force needed a simpler, smaller aircraft solution.

Seeing the failure of the bigger is better strategy, Northrup decided to cut its losses and pull out.  The finger-pointing will continue but the focus needs to remain clear, the Air Force urgently needs to replace its fleet, whose mean aircraft age is 47.

David Robison