Same Lyrics, Different Beat

The plan is to create chaos and force political rivals to work together as they struggle to wrap their mind around what is happening. The plan includes ignoring laws and discarding good governance to achieve desired political objectives. The plan is to create as much fear and uncertainty as possible to cloud the judgment of the various parties involved. The hope is that by creating enough chaos everyone eventually gets tired and agrees to concessions.

This is North Korea's plan, right?

Nope. This looks to be Barack Obama's plan with the FY14 defense budget sent to Congress. Now political rivals, no not China and the US, but Republicans and Democrats - must find a way to work together as they struggle to wrap their mind around a budget that ignored - outright - the statutes related to sequestration. The last couple years suggest that's unlikely.

This is the worst possible way to govern, but good governance towards stability that would save the taxpayer money be damned, because political objectives must be met - the primary political objective apparently being to avoid making tough choices. Congress will fight it out, eventually get tired (probably sometime in Q2 next fiscal year), and will concede to concessions.

Don't tell me North Korea is acting irrationally unless you are ready to say the same about the way the President is handling sequestration. North Korea is playing games with the lives of others in the region, but Barack Obama is playing games with the jobs of Americans. Either way, the objective is political instability until everyone is worn out.

Kim Jong Un and Barack Obama are basically executing the same political strategy under different contexts. Worth noting that Kim Jong Un will likely ultimately lose because the world elites are not stupid and refuse to put up with people who create dangerous instability, but Barack Obama will likely ultimately win because American elites choose to act stupid and will put up with a President who creates dangerous instability.

Thinking Americans might want to ask themselves why the President of the United States is executing political strategies and tactics in America targeted at Congress that have everything in common with the political strong arm tactics being used by North Korea today, and whether that political standard is good enough.

Budget Thoughts

I don't really want to get too deep into the budget discussion yet because a memo (PDF) and a PowerPoint (PDF) isn't exactly a plan. I have only a few initial thoughts.

The memo and the PowerPoint were both written with the expectation they would leak to the media. This sets the expectation moving forward that everything will unfold in public.

The CNOs PowerPoint that breaks out State by State impact is written like one would write a highly political document. All indications are the Navy put the document together, but it very much looks like the White House is coordinating everything. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subject to interpretation.

The evil here is not sequestration, it is the Continuing Resolution. Even if OSD canceled the Joint Strike Fighter tomorrow, the Navy could not move money around from that program to any other budget to make up for any specific budget shortfalls, because the Continuing Resolution that is the current budget the Navy is operating under prevents exactly that type of big decision making or movement of money around the budget. The CR is probably written that way so that no politicians pet project gets canceled. The Continuing Resolution is the posterchild of bad governance.

Both political parties own sequestration, but in my opinion Democrats own more of it than Republicans since Democrats have not yet produced a single alternative to sequestration. Sequestration has not happened yet though, so right now Democrats simply own something that may or may not happen.

Both political parties own the Continuing Resolution, but in my opinion Republicans own more of it than Democrats and as of right now it is the current law. While it is true the Senate has not passed a budget in the lifetime of every child that will enter kindergarten this fall, the details of the Continuing Resolution have not been an important issue for Republicans who have been dead set in protecting industry interests over DoD interests. There are opinions out there that the Continuing Resolution is another example of how weak the leadership of Buck McKeon is as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and he has basically thrown the DoD off the boat in support of the House leaders priorities. It was noteworthy Defense News didn't name Buck McKeon to the top 100 individuals in Defense.

Either way, the Continuing Resolution prevents the services from preparing for sequestration because it prevents any significant movement of money inside the budget. The worst case scenario is a year long Continuing Resolution, and if combined with sequestration the damage will be much more significant than just sequestration.

All we can really say with certainty is that the Republican Party has changed over the last four years, and the CR and sequestration have revealed for anyone paying attention that the Republican Party is no longer the political party that represents the DoD as has traditionally been the case in American politics, although with the Continuing Resolution written as is today, the Republicans party is still very much the political party of the defense industry.

Regardless of the partisan politics, it is going to be a very difficult year for defense. A smaller budget for defense is not a bad thing by itself, indeed I believe the DoD budget is too high and taxpayer money is wasted today in defense spending absent strategy. It is my opinion the clear and present danger to the defense of the United States is not less money for defense, but poor governance by elected officials in the management of less money for defense.

As of right now, poor governance by elected officials in the management of less money for defense is exactly what is going on with the Continuing Resolution, and regardless of who folks believe is to blame politically, both political parties own some responsibility and deserve criticism for the way the DoD budget is being managed. It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next several weeks, because with the White House apparently involved in the response process by the DoD, it could get pretty ugly.... indeed very politically ugly particularly when it becomes time for new political appointments and the administration likely has fewer extremely smart and well respected non-partisan experts carrying their water.

I have a theory that because Bob Work has been Undersecretary of the Navy that both the Obama Administration and the Navy has avoided a lot of public criticism from the greater naval community, which unlike the public think tank communities of the other services (particularly Army) who think tactically and primarily in terms of money/programs, naval thinkers tend to think about big picture strategy and foreign policy and historically have written criticisms that can come off the press with politically damaging blows to the confidence in political leaders (indeed George Bush took several hits from 2005-2008 from the naval centric community that were so devastating they land on John McCain as a second order of effect). Everything I am seeing from Obama's second term appears to be right out of the Jimmy Carter playbook for DoD management, starting with a politico heavy appointment list absent any truly respected defense expertise. History says that kind of poor governance will catch up with the Democratic Party in 2016.

I tend to believe that when Bob Work leaves in May(ish) (and I believe the absence of Hillary Clinton at Department of State will result in a similar effect), not too long after it is going to get ugly as the really smart people start to unload on the Foreign Policy and Defense establishment after holding fire for four years, and I won't be surprised at all if it is through those broadsides that a Republican Party foreign policy is reborn over the next 4 years. It really surprises me the Obama administration doesn't intend to appoint Bob Work to be SECNAV, because usually those guys are pretty smart about keeping the their opponents off guard. It is my opinion the Navy has been living in 4 years of the Bob Work Effect, which has basically provided a buffer effect from the really sharp criticisms from nearly every serious defense person in DC regardless of political affiliation. My sense is the Ray Mabus Effect is simply not going to get it done for the Administration, and in all likelihood neither will the Chuck Hagel Effect or the John Kerry Effect.

Now think about the future of defense - a bunch of politico type appointments with very few highly respected experts or elder statesmen, a year long continuing resolution, sequestration or budget cuts of similar size, and the current partisan political environment. I'm thinking the next four years are going to look and sound like a train wreck in slow motion for the DoD.

And yet I am still glass half full...

That's Just Stupid

This is why the only thing I watched during both conventions was Bill Clinton. Hey - I used to work for the guy, I had to watch him. Otherwise... this is stupid.

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

Does it matter how or why, because ultimately there is simply no valid explanation absent the word "stupid."

Did they Photoshop in the aircraft? Attention political folks - next time steal from Navy.mil, I do!

SOPA

If you don't know, you need to start learning about it. This is one law that I strongly believe Congress will screw up in a big way, and I'm not going to sit quietly like I did with the Patriot Act. I'm almost convinced that only people who have indifference or contempt for American ideals like liberty and freedom would support this law.



Go to Wikipedia today, you will be given information how to contact your political leaders. Speak out, before you are silenced.

China and the Grand Old Party

I have a shortish article over at Right Web on the role that China is playing in the GOP primary campaign. As a left-slant piece it may not be of interest to everyone, but I argue that there's a growing divide in the GOP between the elite foreign policy apparatus (which remains centered around the DC think tank set, and broadly speaking has what many would call a neo-connish slant), and the corporate/commercial base on the question of China. The foreign policy types want to push in the direction of confrontation, while the more economic-oriented types are quite happy to maintain positive commercial relations, and are very resistant to anything that might provoke tension. Both of these factions, unsurprisingly, are represented in Mitt Romney's campaign, although his public rhetoric on China has been fairly confrontational. For what it's worth, I regard Romney as a strong-but-not-prohibitive favorite for the GOP nod, and then a mild favorite against Obama in the general.

Mitt Romney Proclaims Love for Seapower

Danger Room has a good article on the Mitt Romney whitepaper, An American Century, A Strategy to Secure America’s Enduring Interests and Ideals. I've read it, and I admit that I haven't taken it very seriously even though I probably should, because it does give quite a bit of focus on the US Navy.

The real issue for me is that I have a hard time taking any of it seriously because the content in the Romney whitepaper is very generic. It reads like someone spent 48 hours with a few Navy Admirals and got the PowerPoint Full Court Press.

What I'm hoping for is that the paper leads to a true defense policy discussion in the 2011 election. The Obama administration went from a President promising to end the wars we are in to being the President who engaged in what is now SEVEN wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Uganda. I don't care if these are drone wars, clone wars, or small wars - we are bombing seven nations on two continents and in a few cases - including a nuclear power whose government is publicly against our bombing policy. When this global war foreign policy is matched against the Presidents defense cut economic policy, the Obama administration appears to lack a coherent grand policy or even a coherent foreign policy that can be articulated.

We are a nation that has been at war for 10 years. We are clearly due a defense policy debate.

Is it possible the Mitt Romney white paper will bring about this policy discussion? I suppose it is possible, and I for one hope it does. The white paper spends a lot of time discussing shipbuilding and the US Navy, but can the candidate actually articulate any of it with factual information to an American public audience that has been brainwashed into thinking land war in Asia and drone war in Africa is OK, NP, NET GOOD? I think good defense policy questions related to seapower would stump Mitt Romney and just about every other Presidential candidate except maybe Gingrich. I'm actually surprised Romney hasn't been asked any questions yet on the topic, but that probably means they are waiting for the right time knowing this is low hanging fruit for embarrassing the guy in a public spot.

Anyway, check out the Danger Room article - it's very good, and check out the white paper to get a sense how seapower could enter the election cycle. Should the nation build 15 ships a year as Mitt Romney suggests? In my opinion, not until a President can articulate a national defense policy that drives a national strategy that informs naval leaders what ships to build, and why to build them. No disrespect to Big Navy, but the six ships they would build a year would probably not be the best choices for America today in my opinion, and Admiral Greenert may have called for a strategy to guide his choices, but he hasn't advocated a strategic vision for seapower of his own publicly since becoming CNO.

Finally, last I checked the only Presidential candidate for 2012 with a genuine seapower advocate on their staff who has the intellectual muscle to truly inform a candidate on policy or military strategy discussion related to seapower is Barack Obama, who could easily call on UNDERSECNAV Bob Work to brief him and help him develop seapower policies for his administration.

Until Mitt Romney or some other Republican advocating seapower hires someone who reaches the level of respected seapower professional near Bob Work, like a Seth Cropsey, Bryan McGrath, or Mackenzie Eaglen, don't expect whitepapers written by political advisers who once witnessed a Navy PPT brief to impress me. Seapower is a big boy grand strategy topic that ranges the entire spectrum of foreign policy from global nuclear war to offshore economic security assistance. Absent professional intellectual advisers and experts preparing a politician on the issues, a serious policy discussion with a seapower focus will quickly make uninformed politicians look like the village idiot.

For example, icebreakers is a top five maritime policy topic in October 2011 as part of the Arctic Ocean security discussion. I doubt a single Republican candidate, nor even the POTUS, could name or even count the number of operational icebreakers in the US Navy (zero) or US Coast Guard (zero). Mitt Romney discusses the number of Navy ships, but what is the average age of the nations Coast Guard Cutters (over 40 years). Speaking for myself, I would absolutely love to hear what President Obama has to say about the future of the nuclear triad in the US. These are big boy discussions, and I'm thinking our domestically focused President would struggle - a lot - sounding informed on a topic like that. After 10 years of war, I pray I'm wrong about that, but alas war in Washington appears to have been outsourced to the established bureaucracy.

A defense policy discussion would prove it one way or the other, and after 10 years of land war in Asia, it is certainly time for our nation to have a very serious defense and foreign policy discussion as an election cycle approaches.

Would Jim Webb be the Most Hawkish GOP Presidential Aspirant on China?

With the exception of Rick Santorum, maybe so.

For the most part, candidates for the GOP presidential nomination have avoided inflammatory rhetoric about the military threat represented by China. While former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has warned of the dangers of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States, China specifically does not figure prominently in his rhetoric. Rep. Michelle Bachman’s critique of China is limited mostly to the economic realm,saying recently, “With all the money that we owe China, I think you might correctly say, Hu’s your daddy.” One of the selling points for John Huntsman’s candidacy is the business opportunities generated by his recent ambassadorship to China. Similarly, Mitt Romneyhas emphasized China’s role as both an economic competitor and economic partner, more than as a military threat. Tim Pawlenty has argued that the United States should try to achieve China-like rates of GDP growth. Of the notable Republican candidates, only Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has sounded a note of warningabout China’s military ambitions, faulting President Barack Obama for “acquiescence to China’s saber-rattling in the South China Sea.”

I also talk some Red Dawn. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to bring myself to watch the North Korean Army invade Washington State.

Technology and Executive Power

My column this week is on the technological implications of the Obama administration's excuse for avoiding the WPR:

In the future, however, presidents may resort to airpower in order to avoid congressional limitations on their executive power. A longer-range concern is that as the United States continues to develop technologies that increase the distance between "shooter" and target, such as advanced drones and Prompt Global Strike, power over decisions of military and security policy would shift even more radically away from Congress and toward the executive... In the short term, members of Congress concerned about executive control over war-making powers might be best advised to pay closer attention to procurement decisions. If the president continues to claim the right to use certain weapons of war without Congressional oversight, then Congress is clearly within its powers to deny those weapons to the president, or at least to demand accountability.

A New Low Looms for US Politics of War

From The Cable:

"The president has been clear that he does not want a shutdown... But we are aware of the calendar, and to be prudent and prepare for the chance that Congress may not pass a funding bill in time, OMB today encouraged agency heads to begin sharing their contingency plans with senior managers throughout their organization to ensure that they have their feedback and input," OMB senior advisor Kenneth Baer said in a statement about the email. "As the week progresses, we will continue to take necessary steps to prepare for the possibility that Congress is unable to come to agreement and a lapse in government funding ensues."

In the event of a shutdown, all uniformed military personnel would continue to work but would stop receiving paychecks, an official familiar with the government's planning told The Cable. As April 8 falls in the middle of the Defense Department's two-week pay period, military personnel would actually receive a paycheck totaling half the normal amount. A large number of Pentagon civilians would be furloughed without pay for the duration of the shutdown. Support structures for military families, such as military schools, would remain open. When the shutdown ends, the soldiers would get their back pay but the civilians might not.

President Obama is about to become the first American President who fails to pay the Army while it is deployed overseas fighting in a war zone. I'm not sure how that fits into a reelection campaign, but it will sure look ugly when reflected as ones Presidential legacy through the prism of history.

We are going to have embedded reporters in Afghanistan getting paid while covering soldiers fighting and dieing during the Spring Offensive that are not getting paid. The government shutdown is starting to look a lot like the antithesis of executive leadership, and how this somehow politically helps the Commander in Chief or the political party in the majority is an enigma to me.

If the President wants to allow the minority to shut down the government for political purposes, he better demand a Defense budget first. Failure to do so leads to several political problems that no amount of spin can cover up during an election campaign.

Petraeus, Stavridis, and Willard Rise to the Top

Laura Rozen is doing some fantastic reporting over at Yahoo, and her article this morning regarding the shuffle taking place in the high positions of the DoD includes some important details few really know about. The key here is that General Petraeus is soon to be moving on from Commanding the war in Afghanistan, and there is a lot of speculation how the shuffle will break down.

Where will Petraeus go? Military analysts who have worked with the commander say he has long been interested in commanding U.S. forces in Europe--the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, SACEUR--a post currently held by Adm. John Stavridis. Some twenty-five years ago, Petraeus served as a speechwriter to then-SACEUR Gen. John Galvin, a defense analyst said, and Petraeus has been intrigued by the job since.

Another military analyst who has recently interacted with Petraeus in Afghanistan said Petraeus is worn out, and still recovering from prostate cancer.

"Petraeus is tired, really exhausted," the defense analyst said on condition of anonymity. "He stepped into the breach, and I think the plan was for him to come in and serve out the remainder of McChrystal's time. But McChrystal was well rested when he took the job. Petraeus is still recovering from cancer. He went from one extremely high-stress position to another."

Petraeus' departure from Afghanistan--likely in the summer--"has been in the works," the analyst said.

Although some national security hands have heard a rumor that Petraeus might be tapped for CIA director if--as many expect--CIA Director Leon Panetta is nominated to succeed Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense analysts close to the commander say they have a hard time imagining it. Petraeus "has spent his whole career caring about the military as an institution," one source said. He doesn't have that relationship with the civilian intelligence agency. Then again, the admittedly "bizarre" rumor persists.

A spokesman for Petraeus did not respond to queries on the general's plans.

Very few people have been discussing publicly that General Petraeus has been struggling with prostate cancer while Commander in Afghanistan. He has undergone radiation treatment and is in recovery, but it is one reason why many have described the General as tired.

I don't buy the "General is tired" argument, because I note that most of the people who describe General Petraeus as being tired come from the political side, not the military side. It would appear the further you are from the General the more tired he apparently is, which also suggests to me the "tired, worn out General" line of thinking is simply a political tactic towards planting doubt about the Generals health.

There is a reason for this. Within the next few weeks the President is going to announce the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and begin the process of political shuffling that puts new faces in new places in the top military positions around the globe. Everything is riding on who takes the top position.

Until March 16, the top name in the hat was General Cartwright, but on March 16 two very prominent Senators went to the White House and warned the Obama administration that General Cartwright was political poison. The President was warned that the sexual harassment investigation that barely got any traction in the news cycle will become a major issue in the appointment process, and will result in no votes not only on the floor, but also in committee. The Obama administration was warned that this will become a major political issue, and the cost for the appointment of General Cartwright will be high.

I imagine this was a blow to the Obama administration, because General Cartwright was their guy. While General Cartwright is supremely qualified as a military leader, the key is that General Cartwright has been the face of so many major military policy decisions made by the Obama administration. He has been the President's man out front on the political issues related to the Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense, Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, and Guantanamo Bay to name just a few examples. General Cartwright has been nothing short of brilliant as Vice Chairman, and has proven to have the political savvy necessary to navigate the trenches in addressing several of the Obama administrations most controversial policies related to the DoD.

But everything I am hearing says General Cartwright is 100% out, and will be going home. The Obama administration will not defend the investigation findings and punishments (or lack of) assigned to General Cartwright following the conduct investigation. Apparently I know this and Laura Rozen didn't when she wrote the article, which is probably the first time I knew something she didn't on all this inside baseball.

In theory, that would make Admiral Stavridis the only choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but not so fast. In a recent turn of events, there is a hard push being made to recommend the appointment of General Petraeus Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the suggestion being he has earned it. It is impossible to argue he has not earned it, he is clearly the most important General in the United States since Eisenhower, and I don't think that is even in debate. That doesn't mean it is a done deal.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a political job as much as a military job, and perhaps more so. There is some evidence that the Obama administration is resistant to the suggested appointment of General Petraeus, and it has a lot to do with Colin Powell.

If you recall, Bill Clinton kept a very popular General named Colin Powell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had a hard time controlling him due to his indenpedent credibility. The problem any administration faces when appointing a remarkably very popular General like Petraeus is that their credibility is independent, so if the popular military leader publicly disagrees with the President on a military policy it creates a serious political problem that potentially undermines the President as Commander in Chief.

There is a lot of speculation that President Obama lacks the credibility with the DoD to take the chance in appointing General Petraeus to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm not sure what to make of that argument, because it begins with a premise that President Obama is too weak to appoint a strong, independently politically credible leader as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm not sure I believe that though, because it would not match the facts when looking at other appointments, like Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton, for example.

With that said, there is a lot of chatter going around that plants quiet, very subtle doubt about the ability of General Petraeus, and whenever I see it (like in the Laura Rozen article) I tend to think this is part of an effort to keep General Petraeus out of Washington, or at least not as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff until after the election... just in case.

Ultimately, I think the Obama administration is stuck either way. If General Petraeus is not appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and at some point someone asks him if he is interested in the job and he says yes, then President Obama is going to be exposed to remarkable criticism for the way he treats America's most popular General since Eisenhower, particularly after General Petraeus took over Afghanistan in what was at the time a political crisis. On the flip side, if General Petraeus does get the nomination, then the President does take some risk for facing a serious problem should at any point the two men seriously disagree on a big military issue in public. I don't think the risk on the second point is very high, but it can't be dismissed either.

So basically there are two scenarios coming, and I include the position of Chief of Naval Operations because it is bound to the decision. The first scenario is if General Petraeus gets the CJCS appointment:

CJCS - General Petraeus
VCJCS - Admiral Willard
CNO - Admiral Stavridis

The second scenario is if Admiral Stavridis gets the CJCS appointment:

CJCS - Admiral Stavridis
VCJCS - Unknown
CNO - Admiral Willard
EUCOM - General Petraeus

For the record, Admiral Walsh is heading to PACOM and Admiral Bird is heading to Pacific Fleet.

Speaking for myself, I think both Admiral Stavridis and Admiral Willard would be great for CNO. I have nothing but good things to say about Admiral Stavridis, and quite frankly I think he is the best Admiral of this generation.

My only concern about Admiral Willard is that if you look closely at the Navy Flag promotions from those in the Pacific, the Carrier Admirals get every single good position that prepares them for career advancement while the Amphib Admirals get sent to career ending places. A better mix at the high end would be smarter, and that record says a lot of things about Admiral Willard that I think creates a perception he should, and I believe ultimately can address.

Libya: The First Real World Test of President Obama's Cooperative National Security Strategy

Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict, and pandemic disease.

The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East—ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence—including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia—so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions.

National Security Strategy of the United States, May 2010 (PDF)

I stood against the policy to intervene with military power in Libya. I have discussed my reasons, and others have articulated my reasons better than I have. I feel trapped when writing about Libya because my gut tells me I am watching a political train wreck in slow motion.

Of all the arguments that support the necessity for US involvement, I simply do not buy the strategic arguments made with one exception - we must support our allies. This argument was best articulated by Secretary Clinton following the Paris Summit Saturday. I remain unconvinced in my position on Libya, but that press conference by her was excellent.

"Supporting our allies" is the best argument the Obama administration has made. The President himself articulated that argument so poorly and so infrequently prior to taking military action that it never made an impact on me. I have to remind myself that the ugliness of the process by which policy was developed does not mean that the policy is bad. I remain skeptical of the Presidents policy, and I admit that skepticism makes it difficult to believe what the President is saying, but there is nothing to be done about it now except trust him until evidence suggests otherwise.

If we believe US policy for Libya is what the President says, then we can articulate the policy objectives of the United States to be:

1. Set Conditions for Coalition Operations
2. Support Coalition Operations With Unique US Capabilities
3. Support Coalition Nation Objectives

I am so used to the United States leading military operations globally that I actually find it difficult to believe there is a realistic alternative - let others lead. Some might say the US should never let others lead, but I would remind them that the existing National Defense Strategy of the United States is to concede that position of leadership when necessary.

I will note there is a lot of evidence that the United States military strategy being executed is in support of the policy articulated above. There are significant differences in Libya that suggests military operations reflect almost exactly what President Obama is saying.

Set Conditions for Coalition Operations

The unique military capabilities that have been demonstrated in Libya by the United States are taken for granted. Both Fox News and MSNBC reported on Sunday that 122 of the 124 Tomahawk missiles fired against Libya so far were from US ships and submarines. In other words, the United States took out the entire air defense of Libya in less than 36 hours with the USS Stout (DDG 55), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Scranton (SSN 76), USS Providence (SSN 719), and USS Florida (SSGN 728). According to various sources, the USAF also flew a total of 15 U.S. Air Force aircraft made up of F-15s, F-16s, and three B-2 Spirit Bombers. Also in the air were 4 U.S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs and an unspecific number of support aircraft including at least 1 EC-130J ( <--hit that link and listen) and a handful of EA-18G Growlers.

That makes the US contribution an Expeditionary Strike Group (ARG + escorts and submarines) and no more than 40 USAF aircraft, only 15 of which are actually USAF strike aircraft so far. Libya is the first war participated in by America outside the Western hemisphere since WWII where the US has not deployed an aircraft carrier. The reason that is significant is because a single US nuclear aircraft carrier has more strike fighter aircraft than what the USAF has committed to Libyan operations to date. Despite the overwhelming show of force the last 24 hours, the US military footprint supporting operations against Libya is actually very small by US military standards.

Kicking down the door by destroying the entire air defense and command and control capacity of Libya in 36 hours is a capability unique to the United States. It would take at least 100 more aircraft or perhaps every Tomahawk capable ship from all European nations to do what the US Navy and USAF did this weekend - and we made it look so easy on TV with 5 naval vessels and less than 40 USAF aircraft that the whole world, including American citizens, takes that unique military capability of the United States for granted.

I'm not suggesting Libya was a bastion of defense, but I challenge anyone to develop a way Europe could have knocked out the Libyan air defense and C2 networks without using significantly more assets or nuclear weapons. What the US military did to Libya in a 36 hour period was a lot more impressive than folks realize, because no one else in the world could do it.

It seems to me this initial phase of military operations meets the criteria for the first policy objective of the United States stated above.

Support Coalition Operations With Unique US Capabilities

I am hesitant to make predictions, but I do believe that if we draw upon the policy as laid out by President Obama, US military operations are about to scale down considerably relative to the last few days. There will still be support aircraft like EA-18s, EC-130J, tankers, etc... operating but it won't surprise me if USAF strike fighter sorties become much less frequent as the fixed targets are eliminated.

Based on my read of US policy, the following assets will conduct the majority of operations over and around Libya from now on:

• Italy* - NMM Giuseppe Garibaldi (CVS 551), NMM Francesco Mimbelli (D 561), NMM Andrea Doria (D 553), NMM Euro (F 575), NMM Chimera (F 556), NMM Fenice (F 557), NMM San Marco (L 9893), NMM San Giorgio (L 9892), NMM Libra (P402), Elettra (A 5340), Etna (A-5326)
• France* - FS Forbin (D 620), FS Jean Bart (D 615), Charles de Gaulle (R 91), FS Dupleix (D 641), FS Aconit (F 713), FS La Meuse (A 607)
• United Kingdom* - HMS Triumph (S93), HMS Westminster (F237), HMS Cumberland (F85)
• Belgium - 6 F-16s
• Canada - 6 CF-18s for Operation MOBILE. Also HMCS Charlottetown (FFH 339)
• Denmark - 6 F-16s
• Greece - 4 F-16s, 1 R-99, HS Themistoklis (F465) and HS Limnos (F451)
• Norway - 6 F-16s, 1 P-3
• Qatar - 4 Mirage 2000-5EDA Fighters.
• Spain - 4 F-18s, 1 CN-235, 1 tanker aircraft, SPS Méndez Núñez (F104), SPS Tramontana (S74)
• United Arab Emirates - mix of 24 Mirage 2000-9s and F-16s

* I am unable to keep track of the number of aircraft involved by these nations, but they represent numbers of aircraft on par or greater than the United States.

Noteworthy that is at least 60 strike aircraft from the Libya coalition without adding in the US, France, UK, or Italy to conduct operations over Libya. Additionally, I suspect the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) may be used in some circumstances helping civilians, as close air support against ground targets is what the aircraft on that ship can do.

Support Coalition Nation Objectives

It is noteworthy that the only aircraft carriers supporting operations for Libya are being fielded by Italy and France. There is evidence both nations will continue to contribute strike fighters as part of the coalition. Based on naval presence and numbers of contributing strike aircraft my assumption is that the United States will turn military operations over to either France or the UK, and the US policy objective will be to support the French and UK policy objective - which I read to be remove Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi from power.

This policy, while shared by many Americans, may drive Americans nuts. The political left is split, with many not happy because President Obama has allowed the US to get involved in another war against an Arab nation. The right is also split, with many not happy the US is spending money for a third war when we already have two wars on our hands. The real political question going forward is whether the supporters of the President's Libya policy on both sides of the political isle will accept US involvement in a war where the outcome of objectives will be determined by someone else - specifically European and Middle Eastern nations both politically and militarily.

This approach that concedes political and military leadership in war to others is uncharted waters for existing generations of Americans, but it explains why Admiral Mullen told "Meet the Press" that one outcome is Gaddafi remaining in power. If US policy was deciding the outcome in Libya instead of others, Admiral Mullen would never have said that.

What is at stake in this political struggle regarding military use? As I see it, the fundamental promise of cooperative partnership that everything else in President Obama's National Security Strategy of the United States is built upon is at stake with Libya. The only way cooperative partnership will work as a strategic theory going forward in the 21st century is if the United States concedes ownership of political objectives to others when they take the lead to regional problems. Welcome to Libya, the first real world regional war where this theory is tested. The politics are likely to be ugly without strong Presidential leadership - leadership that has not existed to date.

If the strategic argument that Barack Obama has built US policy for Libya on is indeed to support our allies, now that we are involved - in my opinion what is at stake is the viability of existing European international partnerships as a legitimate foundation for national security strategy for the United States in the emerging 21st century global heterogeneous political and economic environment. We either trust in our European allies, or we don't. The President has made the policy of the United States to trust European leaders in France and the UK. Since they recently placed their trust in us for Iraq and Afghanistan, we know one possible ending.

Election 2010: The Navalist View

As we come upon election day there are exactly zero national races I will be voting on that make a difference. The only national Congressman in my area in a tight race is Scott Murphy, and I don't think he has a chance. His record has so little appeal to his district that he has been unable to run a single campaign commercial based on his record, and he isn't fooling anyone with the negative ads. When the Sienna poll says a Republican is winning by 9 in upstate New York, that means the race is over for the Democrat.

I can't wait to vote tomorrow though, but it is because of New York state races and not the national races. Among the National races to watch, only two are on my radar: Mississippi 4th District - Palazzo vs. Taylor and Maine 1st District - Scontras vs. Pingree.

Gene Taylor is in trouble. Real Clear Politics doesn't have good poll tracking for the race, but it is pretty clear it is a toss-up at this point. Latest internal polling numbers for both sides show a tight race, and the district is heavily Republican - which could hurt Gene Taylor in a year where the wind is blowing away from Democrats.

Gene Taylor has almost singlehandedly kept the Ingalls Shipbuilding division of Northrop-Grumman in the major surface vessel shipbuilding industry post-Katrina. The LPD-17 program in particular has not gone as expected, and it has become vogue to blame the shipbuilder for every problem even if it isn't always the shipbuilders fault. It is because of Gene Taylor that Ingalls was chosen to lead the restart of the DDG-51 class, because if the Navy had their way they would pick Bath every time. I don't know what will happen is Gene Taylor loses, but I do know one thing - Gene Taylor has been the most influential Congressman for the Navy in 21st century - and it can't be good for Ingalls if Gene Taylor loses to Steven Polazzo, although if the Republicans take the Senate then Senator Wicker from Mississippi could end up chairman of the Senate Seapower Subcommittee.

Chellie Pingree is also in trouble. After leading in the polls for most of the campaign season, suddenly she finds herself down in the polls to challenger Dean Scontras. As the district of Bath Iron Works, this district always ends up represented on the Seapower Subcommittee in the HASC. I have tried my best to like Chellie Pingree, but she never left a good impression from me - and in House Seapower Subcommittee hearings has not demonstrated that she knows what the hell she is talking about nearly all the time. The basic problem for me is that she never demonstrated any knowledge at all, giving the impression she didn't care enough to even learn about seapower issues (a bad thing for anyone in that district).

I know very little about Dean Scontras other than he seems to know a lot about green energy. Given the push by the DoD to solve energy cost issues right now, and how the Navy has been a leader in adopting green energy within the Federal Government - he might fit in very well. With that said, I have not seen any evidence he would better represent Bath Iron Works better than Chellie Pingree has, and indeed he may be behind her in terms of a starting place as she at least has some experience to work from.

Both of these races are very close and worth watching as they relate to naval affairs, because they impact the districts of the nations two remaining shipyards capable of producing large surface combatants.

A Few Random Thoughts

First, I knew I was going to link this post when I first saw it in my RSS feed, and based on the updates since my first read I think it might be one of the most interesting discussions in politics today. Full disclosure: I have only watched the Glen Beck event and its aftermath 140 characters at a time from the folks I subscribe too via my Twitter feed, and would be dishonest if I said the event was something I cared about... but that Chicago Boyz post has merit beyond ones political opinion on the event itself.

Second, I read both of these articles (one and two) today about the end of 'combat operations' in Iraq, and all I can say is that the Center for American Progress should feel embarrassed - because you deserved the mocking and criticism you got from strategic thinkers all day. This is my tip for progressive think tanks: you are in dire need of better intellectual substance in your national security analysis and in particular: the progressive community needs more insight and creativity among your strategic thinkers. Find a narrative that inspires towards the future or the future of the progressive movement will forever live in the past. Conservatives may claim that progressives live in a pre-9/11 world, but my impression is progressives more accurately live in a pre-1/09 world.

Third, with the end of operations in Iraq I have followed some interesting discussions regarding the impact of the war on the American people. It has been suggested a generation has felt the impact of war in Iraq. I call bullshit. There has been little or no impact on the vast majority of Americans as a result of Afghanistan or Iraq - because the country was never put into a war footing and only a tiny percentage of Americans actually served in those war zones. The impact of war on a generation of Americans is negligible, if even measurable. "Generation Kill" is a slogan, not an applicable stereotype, and any argument that suggests otherwise is political nonsense.

Want to understand what the major influences are to the generation of the last decade, I would argue this news is more relevant:

After dominating the home video rental business for more than a decade and struggling to survive in recent years against upstarts Netflix and Redbox, Blockbuster Inc. is preparing to file for bankruptcy next month, according to people who have been briefed on the matter.

Executives from Blockbuster and its senior debt holders last week held meetings with the six major movie studios to discuss their intention to enter a “pre-planned” bankruptcy in mid-September, said several people familiar with the situation who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of ongoing talks.

My 15 year old watches movies downloaded from Netflix via her Wii, and in a nutshell her access via the technology revolution of the last 10 years is why Blockbuster is going bankrupt. In a single day this summer she used a laptop plugged into the TV to create her own movie scene augmented by music recorded on her phone and select imagery taken by a digital camera to create a spoof video for fun; uploaded the video to Facebook to share with friends, and generated 70 comments by her classmates while school was out in July - all while I was at work - where I ultimately heard about the movie from her via a txt message.

The nation has been at war for over 60% of her life, and the impact of the war on her life doesn't exist despite the fact that the explosion of technology, access to information, and variety in new communication capabilities represents the most influential cultural impact on her generation. Did 9/11 impact a generation? Absolutely, but the military actions that followed have not.

When I was 15 years old the US fought a 100 hour war in Iraq, and only a few years prior the US had essentially won the cold war. Those two events - both of which happened individually in relatively short bursts - had more impact on my generation (GenX) than the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had on this generation over the last decade.

I muse on this topic because I reject the premise behind the suggestion that the nation is engaged in a long war, no matter what very intelligent people say or believe, and regardless of the activities of the military. Reality is not the perception - and the perception almost always wins.

The government may be engaged, but the people are not. So for me, the impact of the Iraq war on the current generation can be summed up as such: The United States intentionally decided to demonstrate to a generation of Americans that protracted war can be conducted without influencing the lives of the majority of citizens at home. I think that represents a very dangerous idea.

Finally, a few questions for the comments.

Did you read the GAO report on the LCS or simply read the news articles?

The last sentence on the first page says "The Navy plans to complete a more comprehensive cost estimate before award of additional ship contracts in 2010." In your opinion, is this the reason why the LCS draw-down decision was delayed?

Does anyone know why FSF-1 has apparently not been used to test mission modules?

I have read the report and have plenty of thoughts, but want to give everyone a chance to read the full GAO report before I discuss it on the blog.

On Secretary of the Navy....

There is a Navy related issue circulating the political blogosphere in regards to Joe Sestak and how he was somehow offered the position of Secretary of the Navy instead of Ray Mabus last year.

Uhm, no chance in hell - the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fired Joe from the Navy when Mike Mullen was CNO - Joe never had a prayer on Sunday of being SECNAV. But if we are going to entertain the political discussion even a little, I want to point out that there is another good reason he was never a serious candidate and why the Obama administration almost certainly never offered him the position.

According to law:

A person may not be appointed as Secretary of the Navy within five years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

Joe retired July 22, 2005. He isn't even eligible to be Secretary of the Navy today - nor next month - so I am quite unsure how he would have thought he was going to be appointed Secretary of the Navy last year.

The guy is full of crap and probably telling lies, but in politics that doesn't really disqualify you anymore in America. Shame.

Which leads to a more serious question for this blogs readers. A year later, what do we think of Ray Mabus? I find him to be a very interesting administrator who has yet to find his stride nor put a stamp on the maritime services. That isn't really a complement nor a criticism, just an observation.

Десантные корабли

We have previously covered in detail Russia's interest in purchasing an amphibious ship from both France and the Netherlands. Based on the details of this Defense News article, we should have included Spain in that analysis, although there is a lot of similarity between the Dutch Rotterdam class and the Spanish Galicia class.

Russia's interest in purchasing amphibious ships isn't solely about ships though, it is really about technology and industrial development with Russia's shipbuilding sector. Picking out some of the details in this RIA Novosti article we get a better feel for the reasons the Russians are keen on help from Europe.

First lets establish the real Russian intention here:

"The Russian side reiterated its position that it needs not just one warship but technology to enable it to build such ships at Russian shipyards," he said.

More than anything else, Russia is looking to import skilled labor from Europe's shipbuilding sector to help fix the problems Russia has with specific technical skills but also experienced project management staff within their shipyards. The human element to bring skill and talent into the Russian shipbuilding industry is the major factor here, because the domestic production element will allow Russia to attempt a rebuild at just about the same time the Russian Navy disappears.

The article goes on to discuss the Mistral class specifically:

The chief of the General Staff earlier said that Russia would decide by the end of 2009 whether to purchase a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship from France.

The Defense Ministry has said a final decision should be based on "a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of [French] technology in the framework of domestic shipbuilding program."

The assessment to determine if DCNS can build and manage a domestic production in Russia for at least 4 more of the ship class is only part of it, the technology transfer being the other part. The Mistral represents many things for Russia including technologies such as a modern command-and-control suite, combat data and management systems, automation technologies to allow for fewer crew members, and electric drive propulsion for surface vessels. While Russia has some experience with electric drive, the Mistral represents modern western naval architecture and insights into how to build better surface warships with electric drive.

All of this will be critical to Russia if they are to rebound from the impending disappearance of the Russian Navy from the worlds oceans.

Finally, lets examine the Russian view in context:

Russia's current arms procurement program through 2015 does not provide for construction or purchases of large warships, so the acquisition of a French warship is more likely under a new program, through 2020, which has yet to be developed.

This is a very important detail to the entire discussion, because it takes the long view through the prism of economics and strategy and helps us understand how this might unfold.

I am in full agreement with Alexander Khramchikhin. If you missed it, Dr. Dmitry Gorenburg translated this article on his Russian Military Reform blog.

[The Bulava's] effectiveness has turned out to be simply amazing. The missile has not entered serial production, and never will, but it has already destroyed the Russian Navy. Almost all the money allocated to the Navy’s development have been spent on this mindless dead-end program.

Any person who can see the real situation well understands that in a few years the Russian Navy as a whole, as well as all four of its component fleets, will cease to exist. This is already absolutely inevitable — the situation will not be changed even by mass purchases of ships from abroad.

In light of this, it is especially amusing to observe the fierce “battle for Sevastopol.” Why do we need it after 2017? To pay Kiev enormous sums to rent empty piers? By that time, at best the Novorossiisk naval brigade will be all that’s left of the Black Sea Fleet. And the discussion of whether we need a blue-water navy or a coastal one is a complete farce. We won’t even have a coastal force — the maximum that our “navy” will be able to accomplish in ten years is the immediate defense of a few main naval bases. Because we built the Bulava.

I think there is a lot of truth to the melodramatics expressed in that opinion. The Russian military budget has thrown money at the Russian Navy, so naturally one would expect the Russian Navy is on the rebound? Hardly.

Next year the Russian Navy expects to launch a single new surface combatant - a Project 20380 corvette - and three nuclear submarines. However, I am unsure that is entirely correct information, because the only three Russian nuclear submarines ready to be completed are the Severodvinsk, a Project 855 Yasen (Graney) class nuclear submarine, the Alexander Nevsky, the second Project 935 Dolgorukiy (Borei) class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, and the Nerpa, the Project 971 (Akula II) class nuclear attack submarine expected to be leased to India. Perhaps the third submarine for Russia will be the Sankt Peterburg, Project 677 Petersburg (Lada) class diesel-electric submarine?

Doesn't really matter though, right now the foreign investment for frigate exports to India and submarine exports to Vietnam and Indonesia is all that is keeping the shipbuilding industry in Russia on life support, completely unable to modernize. Financing has become a huge problem for the modernization efforts to the defense industrial base of Russia, and without a significant increase in the price of energy Russia's economy is unlikely to rebound very quickly. Russia's attempts in military modernization are not going very smoothly, indeed 36,000 officers were laid off this year alone - and it will take the better part of the next decade to build the non-commissioned officer corps desired in the Russian military reform. All of the defense equipment purchases listed by Medvedev in his State of Russia speech in November were items that are around a decade old, with no new modern aircraft, ships, or Army equipment making the list. Indeed, even the nuclear missile procurements announced included 16 Sineva nuclear missiles for Delta-IV SSBNs and some Topol-M and RS-24 ICBMs, all of which have been around over a decade.

With the recent Bulava missile failure, the continuation of the Borei line of ballistic missile submarines may be in doubt, and no plans to purchase production Balava missiles for existing Borei submarines was mentioned for 2010 by Medvedev. Bottom line, Russia gambled with heavy investments into their strategic nuclear arm at sea with the Borei/Bulava combination, and the gamble did not pay off.

Just as the US Navy is going to experience rapid retirement in the near future due to our rapid naval buildup in the 1980s, what is left of the Russian fleet is about to experience its own rapid retirement. They are clearly getting desperate for working hulls when making serious comments about modernizing old Kirov class cruisers, but the truth is Russian naval officials are out of other alternatives. They can't afford new construction because the yards need modernization, and the yards that can produce ships are on life support filling export orders. That leaves Russia with few options other than to look to Europe, and France in particular would be the ideal place to start.

The reason appears to be French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who is quoted in this Jamestown Foundation article discussing the Mistral deal.

French officials are now also starting to speak about a Franco-Russian “modernization partnership.” This seems designed for France to emulate Germany’s officially declared “modernization partnership” with Russia and to catch up with Germany in Russia’s estimation at least politically, if not in overall capability. During Putin’s visit, French energy companies announced intentions to join Gazprom’s Nord Stream and South Stream projects. For its part, Renault is prepared to rescue Russia’s insolvent automobile producer AvtoVaz (Interfax, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Les Echos, November 25-30).

Fillon has emerged as a leading figure in France’s rapprochement with the Kremlin, on the intertwined tracks of strategic security policy and business deals. At the 2008 NATO summit, Fillon publicly opposed the Georgian and Ukrainian membership action plans, arguing that their approval would upset the balance of power to Russia’s detriment. At present, Fillon actively promotes the Mistral sale to Russia, which could dramatically tilt the balance further against several NATO countries, Georgia, and Ukraine. The French discussions with Russia, under way for several months, ignore NATO and EU procedures on military equipment exports.

According to Fillon and other French officials, “It would be impossible to call for continental stability in partnership with Russia if we refuse to sell armaments to Russia. A refusal would amount to contradicting our own discourse” and obeying “the old reflexes” (Le Figaro, November 26; Agence France Presse, November 27).

The Republicans in the Senate apparently read the Jamestown Foundation's analysis, because their action today adds yet another element to the ongoing discussions by Russia to partner with France to build amphibious ships. The Cable has an outstanding article that covers the political happenings.

The friction between top GOP leaders in Congress and the French government is over the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship, which the French are considering selling to the Russian Federation. As the biggest potential arms sale from a NATO country to Russia, U.S. lawmakers are worried this could set off a chain reaction of NATO arms sales to Russia. Plus, they share the concerns of Georgia and the Baltic states that the ship could allow Russia to increase its aggressiveness in its near abroad.

So what does this have to do with Iran sanctions? Well, The Cable brought you exclusively the story of how the State Department wants changes in the Chris Dodd Iran sanctions bill that's currently pending in the Senate. Basically, the Obama administration wants exemptions for countries that cooperate with American sanctions against Iran. France presumably would be at the top of the list.

But a senior GOP Senate aide told The Cable that Republicans negotiating over the Iran sanctions language would not allow an exemption for France or French companies if the Mistral deal goes through.

"Whether or not France gets an exemption could very well depend on whether France decides to sell this ship to Russia," the aide said, explaining that "it's possible to draw that exemption narrow enough so that the president could not possibly exempt France."

The Cable obtained a copy of the letter by French Ambassador Pierre Vimont responding to Republican concerns to the French Mistral sale. However, The Cable article goes on to note "France won't go by the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls or the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, as the Senators had wanted."

Maybe I am missing something here, but it does not appear that France is out of line regarding the procedures for military exports as outlined by either the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls or the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. Indeed, one of the more remarkable characteristics of this deal is how transparent both Russia and France have been.

With the Russian Navy about to disappear entirely, it is very difficult to say that even a half dozen Mistral class ships would somehow create a balance of power issue with Europe. It is very much unclear what national interest the Senate Republicans are protecting here. Are the Senate Republicans honestly putting the possibility of a Russian Mistral amphibious landing against Georgia in 2020 ahead of the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon in 2010? Well that's stupid, why not simply have a Georgian aircraft import some illegal North Korean anti-ship missiles and ruin Russia's day without all the international political blow back?

Regardless of any potential political maneuvers by Republicans in the Senate, or the US government in general, France is almost certainly going to make the deal with Russia, as the deal carries economic value to both countries. The only thing the Senate Republicans can do is disrupt relations between the US and 2 other security council members right before the UN votes on Iranian sanctions. The absence of strong UN sanctions is almost certainly going to make everyone jittery about the potential for a military confrontation between Israel and Iran, which is sure to make energy prices climb above the forecasted $60-$70 range. Given that Russia's economy can only improve with higher energy costs, can someone please show me the strategic logic of US involvement in the Mistral deal here?

At some point, the old cold war crowd needs to accept that the cold war ended, and we won. It is time to build a better future already, one where we don't have to fear the once mighty Russian conventional weapon capacity, rather build a stable world where the once mighty Russian doesn't feel compelled to rely upon their quickly diminishing nuclear weapon capability.

Obama's Speech at West Point About Afghanistan

A transcript of Obama's speech at West Point about Afghanistan. I have added bold what I believe to be the important details of the speech, and the red comments are my initial thoughts.

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan, the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusions.

It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point, where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.

Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda, a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

A history lesson?

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.

For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Within a matter of months, Al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.

At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

If Obama is about to exercise US influence as a NATO power on NATO powers, this could get very interesting. Look, the world is changing, it is shifting East. We know, the Asian powers know it, and Europe knows it. The EU is not a solid enough entity to make massive pol/sci/mil shifts in mass to address the emerging East. The US is. There has been a bargaining chip on the table (US military forces in Europe), one wonders if Obama is thinking about playing some poker here.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

I like that it is said, but I do wonder what 2012 Iraq looks like.

Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.

After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide.

In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and although it was marred by fraud, that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

Our new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short, the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Like every politician since the beginning of time, this President is attempting to explain the complexity of war and the theory and ideas driving policy with stories, because theories and ideas have - since the beginning of history - been fleeting when communicated in politics.

Narratives last longer. They also have a way of being incorrect in hindsight, and politically dangerous when cited later. The more we pretend things change, the more they really don't...

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.

This is absolutely 100% accurate, and why people who have been crying about the Presidents "delay" are simply uninformed. Look at the historical statistics of casualties for OEF. Which armchair general on Fox News or anywhere else believes for a minute that the President has been wasting time? Whoever that person is; that is the person who I guess thinks we need to move our Army into Afghanistan just in time for winter.

Good strategy Mr. Political Talking Point... lets be like Napoleon and Hitler in Russia? On second thought, by acting now, we have time to prepare for the Spring offensive while the enemy huddles by the fire in their cave. In other words, we use mother nature to get a head start. That is the narrative that isn't mentioned in the political talking points, but I assure you is discussed in the DoD.

And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

The 18 months is clearly a policy requirement. Strategy is derived from policy, therefore the 18 month benchmark is built into the strategy. I think that is responsible, because it allows us to measure progress. It is very symmetrical thinking though, and the enemy has proven to be the bane of symmetrical thinking. 18 months is noteworthy only in that it is half way until the next Presidential election.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you, a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I've visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.

I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

I am growing tired of hearing about the difficulties of elected political leaders in times of war. Unless this country is put realistically on a war footing, this is nothing more than typical political dribble. We are spending billions on garbage in - garbage out projects while our men and women in uniform - and their families - are the real folks who sacrifice.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qadda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity.

We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda. And to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

The President boldly stated the WHY for Afghanistan. Good.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, Al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny Al Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.

Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world.

Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.

President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.

We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The President boldly stated the HOW for Afghanistan. Good.

Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign Al Qaida fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.

So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.

The President boldly stated the WHAT for Afghanistan. Read ENDS of strategy. Good.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.

But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, and there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. And those days are over.

Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.

America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

We finally reach the meat - Pakistan. How does this end? I have no idea, but the road goes through Pakistan, not Afghanistan. As the President is making Pakistan a partner, foreign policy and specifically our diplomatic strategy with Pakistan is more important than the military activities for achieving strategic success.

And I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.

Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.

President Obama just found his "Coalition of the Willing." Welcome to the 21st century where strategic arrangements are not centered solely around security from nuclear destruction.

To abandon this area now and to rely only on efforts against Al Qaeda from a distance would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

The rationale for the surge is homeland defense. Fight them over there instead of over here. US policy for military action - how to use it and where to use it - has not changed with an election. This is why I continuously highlight how political ideology ultimately determines style, not substance, when it comes to the US strategic statecraft.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have, but this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.

Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.

Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who, in discussing our national security, said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

The presentation here reflects political style of left foreign policy vs right foreign policy. Ultimately, it comes down to how one interprets Roosevelt's and Eisenhower's methods, while the substance of both men is adopted by both sides in political power. I admire the style here.

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.

Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

I love that President Obama says these things. I do not know if he understands them, as he has never really taken action or articulated well what these comments mean to him.

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military; it underwrites our diplomacy; it taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry; and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.

That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

This is where the President is nodding towards Capitol Hill.

Now, let me be clear. None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

This is interesting. Have many thoughts, but will wait a bit before discussing.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.

This is about as blunt as President Obama gets when discussing Iran and North Korea. Honestly, I like Obama's style, this is an obvious threat to both without being an obvious direct threat to either.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And, finally, we must draw on the strength of our values, for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home, which is why I've prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.

What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

More style. American leaders on the left in politics like to take a community approach with plural pronouns that extend beyond our borders. The right likes to take a direct approach with a blunt style that leaves the impression the six shooter is pointed a certain direction. The right sees the left as weak, while the left sees the right as brutish. Blah. The points are generally the same, it is ultimately all style and very little actual substance. War sucks, and when the US Army deploys, they do so with the intent of achieving American policy objectives with a tactical approach that is driven by strategic objectives. How is tactical driven by military strategy, not political ideology.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe...

I believe with every fiber of my being that we, as Americans, can still come together behind a common purpose, for our values are not simply words written into parchment. They are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

I sense shades of Huntington here. After giving an American history lesson, some of this ignores American history. Partisanship is a good thing in America, always has been. As long as the citizens of the country are responsibly represented by their elected leaders, we do OK. I am not sure whether a surge in Afghanistan can be accurately described as responsible representation, but I also do not have an alternative idea in how to deal with the situation in Afghanistan.

----

The DoD also released a new website on Afghanistan and Pakistan Policy. I have a feeling in my gut that says we are at a moment where events that result from this decision will cascade beyond our horizon to form empirical conclusions on the future, and those events will ultimately matter more than the events we are planning for with this surge.

That unknown and unexpected - Black Swan - is my concern. All in all, good for President Obama for taking ownership of the war in Afghanistan. President Bush never did that.