The Art of War's topics - tribe.net

Veterans as Guinea Pigs

2008-07-23T16:49:44Z

VA testing drugs on war veterans
Experiments raise ethical questions

The government is testing drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and suicidal behavior on hundreds of military veterans, using small cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a Washington Times/ABC News investigation has found.

In one such experiment involving the controversial anti-smoking drug Chantix, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took three months to alert its patients about severe mental side effects. The warning did not arrive until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/va-testing-drugs-on-war-veterans/

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Running on Empty

2008-06-16T05:45:41Z

The Pentagon plans to shift $9.7 billion of its overall budget to pay for war operations but warned on Wednesday it will run out of money if the U.S. Congress does not approve more funding by mid-July.

The Defense Department, with major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, sent Congress requests to transfer $5.7 billion to the Army's personnel account from the personnel accounts of other branches of the U.S. armed services.

It also asked Congress for permission to move $4 billion from the services' operations and maintenance accounts to the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command, whose troops train local security forces and conduct counterterrorism missions.

If approved, the transfers will allow the Pentagon to continue operations until late July, according to department spokesman Bryan Whitman.

"I don't want to leave you with the impression that this provides us a whole lot," he said.

"This $9.7 billion reprogramming only buys another few weeks of operations until the department as a whole will then run out of critical funding."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2843312720080528

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Air Force Generals Out

2008-06-05T23:08:56Z

The Air Force’s senior civilian official and its highest-ranking general were ousted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday following an official inquiry into the mishandling of nuclear weapons and components, an episode that Mr. Gates called an indication of systemic problems in the Air Force.

The Air Force secretary, Michael W. Wynne, and the service’s chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, were forced to resign after the inquiry found that the latest incident reflected “a pattern of poor performance” in securing sensitive military components, Mr. Gates said at a Pentagon briefing.

So deep and serious are the problems, Mr. Gates said, that he has asked a former defense secretary, James R. Schlesinger, to head “a senior-level task force” to recommend improvements in the safekeeping of weapons, delivery vehicles and other sensitive items.

Never before has a defense secretary ousted both a service secretary and a service chief, according to senior Pentagon officials. Since taking office 18 months ago, Mr. Gates has made accountability of theme of his tenure. He has also fired senior Army officials, after disclosures of shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the service’s premier medical facility for wounded soldiers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/washington/05cnd-military.html?em&ex=1212811200&en=d52219fcfd472fdf&ei=5087%0A

The Air Force has also come under criticism for concentrating its resources on the development of new hi-tech aircraft, rather than on irregular warfare, such as that going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/02/3290589

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Basra

2008-06-02T18:40:33Z

For my take on Petraeus' testimony to the House:

http://tribes.tribe.net/politicaljunkies/thread/a23a0d16-fe73-48e8-99fd-f70e4574f991

Bottom line: Little light was cast.

In the Senate, Petraeus came under some heavier guns, and some of his answers seemed to fall short, particularly on the crucial question of Basra. The British have virtually abandoned the southern five provinces of Iraq to Shiite militias, and are presently confined to a single base, which comes under nightly mortar and rocket fire. According to press reports, the transition has been a violent one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401.html

Petraeus took note of the news reports, but reassured the senators that things were now going well:

"Occasionally, folks have said that this is a little like the Italian city-states in Machiavelli's day or something like that. But there's an awful lot of toing and froing, some violence, certainly. And, of course, in some other provinces there has been terrible incidents, where governors were assassinated by elements linked with the militia. But right now, there's actually quite a very low level of attacks and so forth, and has been that way I think for about a month now. . .

"There was the installation of a senior Iraqi general down there -- four-star general who had been working directly for the minister of defense. Quite a forceful individual, I knew from the past, by the way. New police chief, some months back. "

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/crocker_petraeus_news_conference_091207.html

But only a few days before, there was an assassination attempt on the general's intelligence chief in Basra. Two bodyguards died.

http://patdollard.com/2007/09/06/basra-army-intel-chief-barely-survives-assassination-attempt/

In August, two governors of adjoining provinces were assassinated, and a third barely escaped.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL272691820070827

In July, a senior Hezbollah militant, responsible for training Shiite fighters under the auspices of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, was captured in Basra:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOezu1T6voZxxBaABreZk6FOu7qA

According to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the relative peace which Basra has currently enjoyed is due to tribute paid to Shiite militias in order to keep the port open. (Unconfirmed reports also attribute the defection of Sunni chiefs in Al Anbar province to fat bribes and a share of the blackmarket oil trade.)

A glance at the map shows that the Basra area is vital to the entire U.S. position in Iraq: It is Iraq's only seaport and controls access to Kuwait. All supply and reinforcements come through Basra, any withdrawals will pass through the same area. This place is too important to leave in the unreliable hands of Shiite militias, and the appointment of a new general, by itself, is not likely to repair the situation.

(Does no one remember how, in 2004, we tried to resolve the situation in Fallujah by appointing a new Iraqi commander? Within weeks, the new comander, Major General Muhammed Latif, was dead, and his troops had fled or gone over to the enemy.)

That Petraeus is more concerned about the Basra situation than he lets on may be judged by his abrupt departure for London, where he will discuss the security situation with the British.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/12/2030368.htm

However, it is very doubtful whether the British are still in any position to help.

As Petraeus focuses on counterinsurgency in Bagdad, the rest of the strategic map seems to be falling to pieces: Kurdistan is virtually an independent state, with Iran regularly shelling its eastern border, and most of the Turkish army massing to the north. Western Iraq has been left in the care of Sunni sheiks, whose men, under their new Iraqi uniforms, are the same insurgents we were fighting a little while ago. Southern Iraq is controlled by Shiite militias, influenced by Iran, and if they have been bribed to keep the peace, the Iranians may pay them bigger bribes tomorrow . . . Despite Petraeus's show of confidence, the U.S. position in Iraq is more precarious than ever.

posted in The Art of War - 52 replies

Navy Woes

2008-05-29T00:04:55Z

Navy leaders are suffering from a credibility gap - with Congress, with industry and, increasingly, with the fleet.

In discussions with dozens of naval professionals over several months, few questioned the Navy's commitment to fielding an effective fighting force. But on a wide range of issues, the ability of Navy leaders to manage programs and explain service direction is being questioned, doubted and in some cases challenged outright.

"They need to take a hard look at themselves," one former senior officer said.

An element of denial is apparent in many service calculations, which are typically based on perfect-world scenarios to make everything come out right.

"They're constantly using optimistic cost and schedule assumptions," said Bob Work, a retired Marine Corps artillery colonel who is a top naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "This continual optimism, the continually rosy assumptions, the effort to go too fast" have so eroded the service's credibility in Congress, Work said, that House lawmakers have difficulty even listening to the Navy.

http://oregon.tribe.net/template/CreateMessage.vm?tribeid=4dd7d7a6-173e-4f13-8d7e-b5558c16fc8b

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Iraq Progress "Slow, Halting and Superficial"

2008-04-06T18:11:20Z

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

The experts were reassembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace, which convened the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, a high-level panel that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq and offered recommendations in 2006. The new report predicts that lasting political development could take five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq, but also cautions that future progress may not be worth the "massive" human and financial costs to the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502119.html?hpid=topnews

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

How to Fix the U.S. Military

2008-04-02T04:17:23Z

Check it out:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187616/

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

How long since the Iraq War began ?

2008-03-21T10:20:46Z

Two Years ? Three... maybe four ?

Five.

"The Iraq War, also known as the Second Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (US), Operation TELIC (UK) or the occupation of Iraq, is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 "

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Fallon Resigns

2008-03-11T20:04:46Z

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, is resigning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Gates said Fallon had asked him Tuesday morning for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said the decision was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4TCb3GE9GQnVpZaWHA-cPBpbwmwD8VBE0K80

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Russians Buzz Nimitz

2008-02-12T02:06:56Z

U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers, including one that buzzed an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned.

A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 flew directly over the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 58 miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

The Saturday incident, which never escalated beyond the flyover, comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZnc42XeC-4PKplrnx74ylj3JSLAD8UODA4G0

The phrase "looking for trouble" comes to mind . . .

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Army Buried Report

2008-02-12T01:00:53Z

There's a good article in the New York Times about how the army buried a report critical of Iraq planning. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1202707150-MBrmwf+wg4SMg6v76ldAkA&oref=slogin

I'm used to seeing reports of how the President is covering things up, but now it appears the Pentagon is joining in.

When will it end?

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

New Army Manual

2008-02-09T02:26:40Z

The Army has drafted a new operations manual that elevates the mission of stabilizing war-torn nations, making it equal in importance to defeating adversaries on the battlefield.

Military officials described the new document, the first new edition of the Army’s comprehensive doctrine since 2001, as a major development that draws on the hard-learned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where initial military successes gave way to long, grueling struggles to establish control.

It is also an illustration of how far the Pentagon has moved beyond the Bush administration’s initial reluctance to use the military to support “nation-building” efforts when it came into office.

But some influential officers are already arguing that the Army still needs to put actions behind its new words, and they have raised searching questions about whether the Army’s military structure, personnel policies and weapons programs are consistent with its doctrine.

The manual describes the United States as facing an era of “persistent conflict” in which the American military will often operate among civilians in countries where local institutions are fragile and efforts to win over a wary population are vital.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/washington/08strategy.html

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Corporate Media Not Giving Readers a Full Understanding of War

2008-01-15T03:09:43Z

Here's a link to a rather disturbing pattern in newspapers. It could be deliberate censorship of the visual understanding of the war, or simply a media that has grown too cowardly to deliver the full impact of warfare upon its own readership.

Either way, it's a disturbing fact:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108A.shtml

posted in The Art of War - 2 replies

Iranian Boat Incident Overblown

2008-01-13T04:43:21Z

The "incident" in the Straits of Hormuz has been revealed to be "much ado about nothing", and once again shows the Bush Administration to be without credibility, and spoiling for more war. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747

I shudder to think how much lower this administration will sink.

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Prediction for the new year...

2008-01-11T14:52:20Z

Just interested in everyone's prediction for this year as to these questions: how long do you think the US will remain in Iraq/Afghanistan, and what do you think is the next "hot spot" for the US?

posted in The Art of War - 14 replies

WW 1 Blogger

2008-01-09T22:40:32Z

This got posted in the trivia tribe and I though you guys might be interested...

"WW1: Experiences of an English Soldier

The blog is made up of transcripts of Harry Lamin's letters from the first World War. The letters will be posted exactly 90 years after they were written. "
The blog is at http://wwar1.blogspot.com/

Trivia Tribe http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Short Youtube on Omaha Beach, Easy Red

2008-01-03T00:49:01Z

MOH recipient Walter D. Ehlers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lmyGrObaho

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

The VC

2007-12-24T01:21:14Z

Good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LufdzZIPPHQ
Very Good.

:)

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

China Hacks Pentagon

2007-12-20T09:45:24Z

China's military successfully hacked into the Pentagon's computer network, it was reported reported Tuesday, although the Chinese government dismissed the accusation as groundless.

The Chinese military's cyber-attack was carried out in June following months of efforts, the London-based Financial Times said, citing unnamed current and former US officials.

While the Pentagon declined to say who was behind the hacking, which led to the shutdown of a computer system serving the office of Defence Secretary Robert Gates, officials told the paper it was China's People's Liberation Army.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDkeVvbhCcv58qTomyFCfl_01akQ

Last week Angela Merkel raised the issue of cyber warfare on an official visit to China, exhorting the government to "respect a set of game rules".

The German chancellor's objections followed a report in Der Spiegel magazine that Chinese spying software had been found widely scattered through the networks of Germany's foreign and economic departments, and even in Mrs Merkel's private office.

Internet security experts have been tracking Chinese cyber warfare for several years. In 2005, US officials revealed that sweeps of US intelligence, including flight software and aircraft plans, had been going on since 2003. The hackers, codenamed Titan Rain by US investigators, were believed to be in Guangdong, a province of China with a heavy concentration of PLA which was also identified by Der Spiegel as the origin of the invasion of German government networks.

Last November, the US navy reported a military computer had been attacked, probably by Chinese, though it was unclear whether the hackers were commercial or state-inspired. In July, the state department was reportedly investigating a break-in affecting its work across the world; it was suggested hackers had targeted anything relating to China and North Korea, though it is possible that criminal, as opposed to political or military, hackers were using that as a front to disguise their intentions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/05/hacking.internet

posted in The Art of War - 5 replies

Cheating the Test

2007-12-17T00:19:38Z

For eight years, the Army has known that its largest online testing program - which verifies that soldiers have learned certain military skills and helps them amass promotion points - has been the subject of widespread cheating.

In 1999, testing officials first noticed that soldiers were turning in many tests over a short period, something that would have been almost impossible without having obtained the answers ahead of time. A survey by the testing office showed that 5 percent of the exams were probably the subject of cheating. At the time, soldiers were filing roughly 200,000 exams per year.

But it wasn't until June of this year, when an Army computer contractor complained about a website providing free copies of completed exams, that the Army acknowledged that it had a problem.

A five-month Globe investigation has since found that by then, hundreds of thousands of packages of completed exams had been downloaded by soldiers over many years.

But the Army never prosecuted anyone for cheating - which is a violation of three sections of the military code of justice.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/16/army_knew_of_cheating_on_tests_for_eight_years/

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Chemical, Biological Warfare Tests

2007-12-04T21:24:09Z

The Pentagon has denied President Bush issued a directive for it to resume open-air testing of chemical and biological warfare(CBW) agents that were halted by President Richard Nixon in 1969. Yet, the Pentagon's stated preparations make it appear it is poised to do just that.

Spokesperson Chris Isleib did not respond to a request for comment on a passage from the Defense Department's annual report sent to Congress last April that suggests the Pentagon is gearing up to resume the tests.

Resumption of open-air testing would reverse a long-standing moratorium adopted after a public outcry against them following accidents in the Sixties.

The Pentagon's annual report apparently calls for both the developmental and operational "field testing of (CBW) full systems," not just simulations.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00060.htm

Hope you all have NBC suits, it appears we're going to need them . . .

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Basra Street Fight

2007-11-29T05:21:06Z

http://damngoodvideos.com/?p=29

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Lowering the Bar

2007-11-26T23:44:10Z

Having failed to meet its political goals, the Bush administration changes them to reflect what was actually accomplished:

With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?ref=world

Meanwhile, the Pentagon seeks to distance itself from Bush and his Pet:

Top military leaders at the Pentagon want to avoid a repeat of the last public assessment of the Iraq war -- with its relentless focus on the opinion of a single commander -- when the Bush administration makes its next crucial decision about the size of the U.S. force.

Concerned about the war's effect on public trust in the military, the leading officials said they hoped the next major assessment early next year would not place as much emphasis on the views of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who in September spent dozens of hours in testimony before Congress and in televised interviews.

Defense officials believe his testimony succeeded in muting a congressional debate and in giving them breathing room for their counter-insurgency strategy, but at a potentially high cost. In addition to the burden on Petraeus, some officials believe, an incessant spotlight on one general risks politicizing the military and undermining the public's faith that military leaders will give honest assessments of the war's progress.

"This is not Dave Petraeus' war. This is George Bush's war," said one senior official, underscoring the military's view that its role is to carry out the decisions made by political leaders.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trust26nov26,1,1921568.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

The "surge" will be over soon . . . what happens then?

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

China Snubs Navy

2007-11-24T10:00:58Z

The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific said he is "perplexed and concerned" by China's last-minute decision to deny a U.S. aircraft carrier entry to Hong Kong for a previously scheduled port visit.

The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its escort ships were due to dock there for a four-day visit Wednesday but were refused access.

Hundreds of family members had flown to Hong Kong to spend Thanksgiving with the sailors.

"It's hard to put any kind of positive spin on this," Adm. Timothy Keating told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday while flying back to the U.S. after visiting troops in Iraq.

"I'm perplexed and concerned."

China later reversed its decision, but by that time the aircraft carrier, along with four warships and a nuclear submarine, were already leaving the area under heavy weather. The vessels chose not to turn around. The Kitty Hawk and its strike group were on their way back to Yokosuka on Friday, a U.S. Navy offical said.

Beijing has given no reason why it refused the ships entry.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/hongkong.us.warships.ap/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

So much for their new, cooperative policy. Anyone up for a boycott?

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Women drill sergeants

2007-11-21T04:01:29Z

In a futile attempt to turn this forum into "the art of war" rather than "Forrest bitches about the war" -an article about women in the military:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=261679

posted in The Art of War - 2 replies

World War Two Google Earth

2007-10-25T10:43:02Z

Thought you might like this..

World War Two Google Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWrbDFRNMEA

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Gates on Asymmetrical Warfare

2007-10-13T01:09:13Z

The heart of the establishment Army is the tank and infantry corps. Its key mission is high-intensity, open-field combat against an enemy army of comparable capability.

Yet here was the secretary of defense saying that this kind of warfare isn't likely to recur any time soon. More than that, he was proposing that the Army move away from the mission of fighting any kind of war. Here was the hair-raising line:

[A]rguably the most important military component in the War on Terror is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we enable and empower our partners to defend and govern their own countries. The standing up and mentoring of indigenous armies and police—once the province of Special Forces—is now a key mission for the military as a whole.

http://www.slate.com/id/2175738

Gates makes a refreshing change from his predecessor, who focused obsessively on "transforming" the military for the next, hypothetical, war, meanwhile failing miserably in his management of the present one.

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Anbar Poll

2007-09-20T19:40:33Z

In his address to the nation on Thursday, President Bush singled out progress in Anbar Province as the model for United States success in Iraq. The president’s claims echoed those made earlier in the week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, in his Congressional testimony. And they raised a question worth examining: Do United States military alliances with Sunni tribal leaders truly reflect a turning of hearts and minds away from Anbar’s bitter anti-Americanism?

The data from our latest Iraq poll suggest not.

Al Qaeda, it should be said, is overwhelmingly — almost unanimously — unpopular in Anbar, as it is in the rest of Iraq. But our enemies’ enemies are not necessarily our friends. The United States, it turns out, is equally unpopular there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/16langer.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Blackwater Ban

2007-09-17T21:05:06Z

The Iraqi Interior Ministry said it suspended Blackwater USA's license to operate in the country Sept. 17 following an incident in Baghdad that left at least eight civilians dead. Whatever Blackwater's fate, security contractors will remain essential to the U.S. effort in Iraq. But the move bodes ill for the security contractors, both in Baghdad and Washington.

Security contractor Blackwater USA reportedly had its license to operate in Iraq suspended after an incident involving the deaths of at least eight civilians in the Mansour district of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Sept. 17. The U.S. contractor recently has been involved in a standoff with Iraqi troops.

Incidents of security contractors using excessive force are nothing new in Iraq. But this latest incident could represent a turning point for the issue -- both in Baghdad and Washington.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=295410

Conflicting accounts of the incident:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0917/p99s01-duts.html

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

NATO Flies Aeroflot

2007-09-07T08:52:10Z

I heard it from Lou Dobbs . . . and didn't believe it . . . but it's true: We're leasing Russian-piloted ex-Soviet aircraft to move equipment to Iraq . . . apparently it didn't occur to the strategic geniuses at the Pentagon that relying on the Russians for military transport might not be a great idea . . . out of the hundreds of billions we've spent on the Iraq War, couldn't we shake loose some cash for our own aircraft?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscentre/articles/?id=259

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/3/25/102524/528

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/files/obzor_eng.pdf

Where are all the super-patriots when we need them????

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

NEW TRIBE...WARTIME

2007-09-01T22:14:19Z

This is a tribe to explore the Worlds Wars, Battles, and Conflicts
We hope that history does not repeat itself
http://tribes.tribe.net/542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e%5D

FOLKLORE AND MYTHOLOGY
http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5Bb9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7%5D

Religious and Spiritual Art (Apparitions

http://tribes.tribe.net/eb5f7908-cda1-40f9-9648-e8b00b84292f?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5Beb5f7908-cda1-40f9-9648-e8b00b84292f%5D

Famous Quotes and Short Stories tribe
http://tribes.tribe.net/8644c865-e362-4b4d-917e-a8ca42c4fd9d?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B8644c865-e362-4b4d-917e-a8ca42c4fd9d%5D

BIRDMAN - tribe.net:

http://tribes.tribe.net/25a1f4a7-b777-4adf-8c62-1f418aaf0d64?current=tribeallposts&set=y#tabs

Subliminal Messages and Propaganda - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/e388baea-51eb-417f-9390-06fe37f92e41

PROPHETS and VISSIONARIES... WE ARE... - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/bac54dd7-c43a-45c5-a716-6d241843a31f

SongWriters
http://tribes.tribe.net/963b1f92-281c-4bcf-b395-325a809d1b54?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B963b1f92-281c-4bcf-b395-325a809d1b54%5D

AMAZING ART

http://tribes.tribe.net/29104d87-26ac-4a27-a01c-ac24e71ecf8a?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B29104d87-26ac-4a27-a01c-ac24e71ecf8a%5D

Folk Art and Pop Art ( Folk- N- POP )

http://tribes.tribe.net/95d03c97-1166-4b76-88ea-d1b3ae450e28

The Prophecy of Magog - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/d64e82b0-72ef-4c72-b5e7-299383c1d4e0

WARTIME
http://tribes.tribe.net/542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e%5D

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Generals v. White House

2007-08-25T07:21:23Z

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace24aug24,0,43964.story?coll=la-home-center

No one disputes that some troop withdrawals, however modest, will be required within the next year, both to quell eroding public opinion on Iraq and to stem any further damage to the overall force's ability to respond to contingencies. The White House, however, appears to be headed for a clash with the Joint Chiefs over just how many troops will be pulled out, which might be the JCS's motivation for going public. The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, along with President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, reportedly favor a plan similar to that originally put forward by Petraeus's ousted predecessor, Gen. George Casey, that would bring U.S. troops levels down to 15 brigades, or about 140,000 troops over the next year. That was essentially the strength of the U.S. force before the "surge."

Despite the fact that Pace will be out of a job come the end of September, his preferred plan puts the White House in an awkward situation. Bush repeatedly says that his decisions on Iraq are based on the advice of the Pentagon brass. And if, as Barnes and Spiegel report, Pace's recommendation to Bush reflects "the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" writ large, then that would include Bush's incoming JCS chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen. —who is already known as an Iraq skeptic.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6001

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Iraq War Told by Frontline Soldiers

2007-08-22T18:22:55Z

Good article in the New York Times by frontline soldiers. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Although they qualify their statements as being their own observations, not the official line, it offers a fresh politics-free assessment of the situation.

The most telling comment by far was, "...we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect."

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

The Victory Disease

2007-08-20T05:17:26Z

I stumbled on this very interesting article in the U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection, 2003:

The Victory Disease

"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu

LIEUTENANT GENERAL William S. Wallace, the U.S. Army's senior ground commander in Iraq said, "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against." Wallace's comment acknowledges a disturbing cultural phenomenon that can be found throughout the U.S. military and society. The problem stems from two necessary preconditions--demonstrated military prowess and great national strength that make the Nation and its military forces susceptible to a significant future defeat. Because of the United States' vast strength, national and military leaders might become overconfident in the Armed Forces' abilities and begin to underestimate the enemy's capabilities, two practices that could sow the seeds of disaster.

This cultural phenomenon manifests itself in a mindset, sometimes referred to as the Victory Disease, which makes a nation susceptible to defeat on future battlefields. Military analysts James Dunnigan and Raymond Macedonia highlight the concept of the Victory Disease in their work, Getting It Right: American Military Reforms After Vietnam to the Gulf War and Beyond. According to Dunnigan and Macedonia, the Victory Disease threatens a nation that has a history of military prowess and manifests itself in three symptoms: arrogance, complacency, and established patterns of fighting. As these symptoms compound, the result might be the unanticipated defeat of a previously victorious nation.

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/september_2003/9_03_5.html

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Army suicides at all-time high!

2007-08-17T02:57:58Z

Good article here about the high rate of suicides in Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides_13;_ylt=Av2umR936Zfl3uKRvHlJWCgE1vAI

One more thing for the Pentagon to try to spin.

posted in The Art of War - 5 replies

1943 Iraq Manual

2007-08-15T17:53:35Z

The surprise hit book of this summer may well be a 44-pager by an unknown War Department writer in 1943 titled: "Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq During World War II."

On the very first page, we learn that "American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis (as the people are called) like American soldiers or not. It may not be quite that simple. But then again it could." . . .

Other guides, such as last year's Marine Corps "Iraq Culture Smart Card" have a different tone. The "Smart Card" translates key phrases into Arab ones, such as: "Do not move" and "Drop your weapons" and "Lie on your stomach."

The World War II guide, in contrast, tells you how to say: "Please speak slowly," "Where is a restaurant?" and "Please point."

How times change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Marine+Corps?tid=informline

The U.S. military could certainly have used that bit of wisdom in 2003, as violence began to eclipse the Iraq War’s early successes. Ironically, had the Army only looked in its own archives, they would have found it—that piece of advice is from a manual the U.S. War Department handed out to American servicemen posted in Iraq back in 1943.

The advice in Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq during World War II, presented here in a new facsimile edition, retains a surprising, even haunting, relevance in light of today’s muddled efforts to win Iraqi hearts and minds. Designed to help American soldiers understand and cope with what was at the time an utterly unfamiliar culture—the manual explains how to pronounce the word Iraq, for instance—this brief, accessible handbook mixes do-and-don’t-style tips (“Always respect the Moslem women.” “Talk Arabic if you can to the people. No matter how badly you do it, they will like it.”) with general observations on Iraqi history and society. The book’s overall message still rings true—dramatically so—more than sixty years later: treat an Iraqi and his family with honor and respect, and you will have a strong ally; treat him with disrespect and you will create an unyielding enemy.

http://www.amazon.com/Instructions-American-Servicemen-during-World/dp/0226841707/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1648687-6687625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187200036&sr=1-1

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Is the Surge Working?

2007-08-14T17:06:49Z

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html

The U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said on Monday it was too early to judge whether a Baghdad security crackdown was successful because the last of five extra brigades had yet to be deployed.

Earlier, U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver said U.S. and Iraqi troops controlled only about a third of the Iraqi capital.

U.S. troops are dying at rates not seen for more than two years, almost four months after Washington began to send thousands more troops to Iraq in a last-ditch attempt to drag the country back from the brink of all-out sectarian civil war.

"You have not even seen the start of real operations," Petraeus told reporters on the sidelines of a medal ceremony at a U.S. air base near Balad, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq.html?_r=1&oref=login

Just a few weeks ago, the Bush administration and its diehard defenders were essentially singing "See You in September" — contending, in essence, that the American majority should squelch its anti-war fervor until the leaves begin to turn, because, by September, we will supposedly know how well the Surge is working, and how effectively the Iraqis are pursuing national reconciliation.

September will be the critical month, they said, because that's when Gen. David Petraeus, their Iraq commander, is slated to provide Congress with an extensive "progress" report. The congressional Republicans, anxious as always to fall into line despite their growing restiveness, dutifully took up the chant.

Well, guess what? Bush's military team, various think-tank warriors, and his enablers in the de-facto Bush administration media are already trying to weasel out of the September deadline.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/OPINION03/706030314/1039/OPINION03

Elsewhere, Petraeus complains that deadlines and timetables are alien concepts in Iraq: "The problem is, this is not an inshallah time."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060307.01A.Inshallah.35f70d9.html

"Inshallah time" is apparently governs the schedule of the Iraqi Congress, which is taking a two-month vacation in this critical period.

But ready or not, the success of the surge will be appraised in September, when the Congress begins the debate on funding for 2008.

One place there has apparently been progress is in Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold where the local sheiks have turned against Al Qaida:

Al-Qaida basically is a religious-based cult, and they had killed too many members of the Sunni tribes. And finally, the Sunni tribes listened to the Marines, because the Marines for several years have been saying, "Smarten up. One day, we're gone, and al-Qaida is going to be in charge if you don't stand up for yourselves." And finally the message kicked in.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/alanbar_06-01.html

This seems to have less to do with the surge than with the expectation that the U.S. will withdraw . . . the Sunnis may have turned against Al Qaida, but they don't actually support the Shiite government, so further conflict seems inevitable . . .

posted in The Art of War - 17 replies

What Next For Iraq?

2007-08-14T07:45:17Z

Whether or not the "surge" succeeds in a narrow military sense, it cannot be sustained; we simply lack the troops. Meanwhile, there has been no progress on fundamental issues such as the division of oil revenues, and the Maliki government seems to be falling apart.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18757.html

Increased violence in Basra after British withdrawals suggests even worse problems for Iraq when the U.S. pulls out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401.html

At this point, any likely prognosis starts to look like a "worst case scenario":

The sad truth about Iraq in the near future is that it will get much, much worse, whether American troops stay or leave.

The war in Iraq is about to get worse -- much worse. The Democrats' decision to let the war run its course, while they frantically wash their hands of responsibility, means that it will sputter and stagger forward until the mission collapses. This will be sudden. The security of the Green Zone, our imperial city, will be increasingly breached. Command and control will disintegrate. And we will back out of Iraq humiliated and defeated. But this will not be the end of the conflict. It will, in fact, signal a phase of the war far deadlier and more dangerous to American interests.

Iraq no longer exists as a unified country. The experiment that was Iraq, the cobbling together of disparate and antagonistic patches of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious powers in the wake of World War I, belongs to the history books. It will never come back. The Kurds have set up a de facto state in the north, the Shiites control most of the south and the center of the country is a battleground.

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/58944/?comments=view&cID=708866&pID=708839#c708866

Can things really be this bleak? All possible American choices look bad:

1. If we stay, it will be at enormous cost and with reduced troop levels. There are no signs of reconciliation between the Iraqi factions, meaning that we will be trying to suppress a civil war with an inadequate number of troops. Domestic opinion in the U.S. will not tolerate such a situation for long.

2. A reduced presence (perhaps a few bases in Kurdistan?) might deter foreign intervention, but would certainly mean increased violence between Iraqis. A reduced presence means that we have given up trying to keep the peace, but our remaining troops would still be targets for terrorism.

3. A complete pullout would certainly mean the end of the Maliki government, and would open the door to anyone who wishes to intervene in the Iraqi civil war: very likely including Turkey, Iran and the Arab countries. It could easily lead to a regional conflict which would invite Russia and China to support one side or the other, forcing further U.S. involvement, but on a much larger and more dangerous scale.

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Greatest Army ever?

2007-07-27T16:19:17Z

Here's my list of top 10 of the greatest armies ever assmbled. (it is really just opnion, I mean, how can you compare people over centuries? although I think you can pick out who wouldn't be on the list pretty easily) who would you pick?

1. The Mongol Army (the Golden Horde)
2. The Roman Army under Caesar
3. Napoleon's Grand Army
4. The German Army in WW2
5. The German army under Frederick the Great
6. The Huns under Attila
7. The British Imperial Navy (eh.. loose definition of army here)
8. The modern Israeli army
9. The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia
10. The Spartan Army (small but effective until the end)

posted in The Art of War - 15 replies

Gloom at the CIA

2007-07-14T07:43:22Z

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a "Churchillian" vision of "victory" in Iraq and defend the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. "A constitutional order is emerging," he said.

Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said "the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible," adding that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

"The government is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102451.html

The recent White House report on Iraq seems to bear out the CIA assessment:

The eight "unsatisfactory" categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics—the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.
Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:

* Legislation on de-Baathification reform
* Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity
* Setting up provincial elections
* Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program
* Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference
* Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly
* Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)
* Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

http://www.slate.com/id/2170303/nav/tap1/

The White House continues to insist that the glass is half-full.

There’s a detail buried in Bob Woodward’s fascinating piece in today’s Washington Post on the Iraq Study Group. On November 13, 2006, the same day that the group met with Bush and heard an hour-long speech on winning in Iraq, it also sat down with General Michael Hayden, the director of the C.I.A., who provided the most convincing assessment of the war that I have seen from any Administration official. Woodward reports:

Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

As it happens, today’s Post also carried a story from the Pentagon that quotes the U.S. military’s chief spokesman, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, describing Al Qaeda as “the principal threat” to Iraqis. It’s possible that the C.I.A. sees it one way and the Pentagon another. It’s possible that, over the past eight months, the C.I.A. has changed its views. It’s more likely that General Bergner, who used to work for the White House, is repeating the Administration line. After four years in Iraq, apparently, America’s wartime leadership still believes that candor is the enemy of success—that message discipline and the will to win can defeat the facts.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Baghdad "Out of Control"

2007-07-13T23:00:07Z

Article, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2729

"Security forces in Baghdad have full control in only 40 percent of the city five months into the pacification campaign..."

Shades of Vietnam, where the same ground had to be retaken repeatedly.

I find myself wondering if Iraq is not the burial ground for a "lost generation" of Americans, a World War I was an entire generation of British youth. The children of the Victorian era were killed by their parents in Flanders field. History repeats itself again?

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Bush was Warned of Negative Outcomes

2007-07-13T13:48:54Z

The CIA actually issued a report warning of negative outcomes of a potential Iraq war, *seven* months before the invasion! http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060307E.shtml

Yet another report tossed aside by a president who only listened to what he wanted to hear! And now he says the USA must remain there for years to come.

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Gen. Peter Pace Retires

2007-06-15T23:46:00Z

Despite his long and distinguished career, Gen. Peter Pace will be remembered mainly as Rumsfeld's obliging yes-man. This had a degree of truth: Pace owed his position to Rumsfeld and was obliged to stand beside him, representing the uniformed military, through many press conferences, despite sometimes being visibly uncomfortable with what Rumsfeld was saying. On rare occasions, he ventured to disagree publicly with his boss:

Pace said at a news conference Nov. 29 with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it." Turning to Pace, Rumsfeld responded: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

"If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," Pace answered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042301027.html

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Psychic National Defense

2007-06-02T03:08:02Z

InfowarCon, the world's premier congress on cyber-terrorism, information warfare and critical infrastructure protection (www.infowarcon.com) is hosting a full day training seminar on psychic intelligence gathering.

Hosted by Paul Smith, retired U.S. Intelligence Officer and author of bestselling book, "Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate -- America's Psychic Espionage Program," (Tor/Forge 2005, ISBN: 0312875150), attendees will get first hand experience at remote identifying. Mr. Smith was a highly acclaimed Remote Viewer for heavily classified Remote Viewing projects and is credited with authoring the original Controlled Remote Viewing training manual.

According to InfowarCon founder Winn Schwartau, "today, we have to bring out all of the stops to defend ourselves against all kinds of enemies. Our best defense is to know what they know."

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/9143-psychic-intelligence-gathering-used-to-defend-homeland

Remember, if you don't believe in fairies, the terorists win . . .

posted in The Art of War - 2 replies

Where We Went Wrong

2007-06-01T02:26:32Z

An article by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in the Armed Forces Journal blames poor military leadership:

The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

This has left us in a deteriorating situation with too few resources for the job, says Fred Kaplan:

Of the five extra brigades that President Bush ordered to Baghdad as part of his "surge" back in February, only three have arrived; the fifth won't be on the ground until late summer. Why not? Because they won't be ready until then; they won't be fully manned, trained, or equipped. When critics and retired officers say that the U.S. Army is at the end of its tether, they're not exaggerating. If a crisis in another hot spot erupted, and if the president wanted to send ground troops to deal with it, he couldn't without transferring units from Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no slack.

http://www.slate.com/id/2166215/pagenum/2/

I remember what my father, a veteran of the Pacific campaign in WW2, said about the Japanese leadership: They really believed that one Japanese soldier was worth ten Americans. That was why they would confidently attack a Marine regiment with a battalion or a division with a brigade. These pre-doomed attacks were the product of an arrogant leadership which had no tolerance for dissenting views and refused to admit to the possiblity of failure.

posted in The Art of War - 4 replies

Attacking Iran

2007-05-23T07:39:04Z

Today, Iran blamed the U.S. for the kidnapping of Iranian diplomats in Baghdad. This follows a similar incident last month in Kurdistan:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1340201.ece

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-iraq12jan12,1,7183409.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Seymour Hersh has warned us for some time that the U.S. is preparing a strike on Iran.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

So far, no suffient reason for attacking Iran has been found. This is not, however, due to lack of trying by the Bush Administration. Cheney, who seldom changes his mind about anything, believes Iran is a top threat to world peace and a sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05021/445889.stm

The Bush Administration claims to have "incontrovertible evidence" that Iran is supporting Shia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. However, the report has not been released due to the weakness of the evidence.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050008

This reminds one of the claims, prior to the war in Iraq, of "proof" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

According to Hersh, the CIA has found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program:

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House’s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact?page=2

In this light, the kidnapping of Iranian diplomats appears to be a deliberate provocation, not to prevent trouble, but to stir some up. This also coincides with the needs of Iranian hardliners, who seek a confrontation for their own domestic poltical reasons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070206/cm_csm/ymcfaul

In England, foreign policy specialists warn that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. A letter to the Sunday Times by retired U.S. officials gave a similar warning.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/02/06/blair_is_warned_about_an_attack_on_iran/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/03/iran.warning.reut/index.html

The White House has no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, nor that it is responsible for turmoil in Iraq. A conflict with Iran will not solve our problems in Iraq, but only make them worse. But these facts are not likely to deter George W. Bush.

"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker." -- Adolf Hitler

posted in The Art of War - 38 replies

The "War Czar"

2007-05-16T18:39:54Z

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026723/

Yet another attempt by the White House to keep the power and pass the responsibility to someone else . . .

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Bush Warned by GOP of War Damage

2007-05-11T08:41:32Z

Article in the Washington Post about the "real damage" the Iraq war is doing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902461.html

So, it's not the damage to Iraq, or the civilians, or even really the soldiers that gets their attention at all. It's how much it hurts the party.

Glad we've got that straight.

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

Extending the Surge

2007-05-09T19:14:34Z

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050802096.html?hpid=topnews

This is being done on political grounds, and without any enthusiasm from the Secretary of Defense:

President Bush has mobilized his administration, including his top general in Iraq, in a major push to win more time and money for his war strategy. But one crucial voice has been missing from the chorus: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates'.

In fact, Gates' recent comments seem to run counter to the message from the White House. During a recent trip to the Middle East, Gates told the Iraqi government that time was running out and praised Democratic efforts in the U.S. Congress to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying it would help prod the Iraqis. He reiterated that point during a meeting with reporters last week.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates6may06,0,2140065.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The "surge" is looking less and less like a military strategy, and more and more like a political delaying game. Bush is "is playing for time, trying to run out the clock on his second term without a forced troop withdrawal," as the AEI observes.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26144/pub_detail.asp

In exchange for this short-term political gain, the United States is paying a heavy cost to its military readiness.

http://www.huliq.com/20851/iraq-afghan-wars-cause-concern-in-us-military-about-readiness

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

GI Bill

2007-05-09T18:53:58Z

The federal program that once covered nearly the entire cost of a veteran's college expenses continues to fall further behind the soaring price of higher education.

Despite several attempts by Congress to boost benefits in past decades, the gap has grown so large that many veterans are forced to take out sizable student loans.

The maximum GI Bill amount a currently enrolled veteran who served on active duty can qualify for during a college career is roughly $38,700. But for many students, that is not nearly enough to pay for tuition, room, board and books. And the GI Bill covers only four years of school, leaving veterans on their own if they take longer to graduate.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20070509/46414740_3ca6_1552620070509709322059

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

"The Enemy Would Follow Us Here"

2007-05-06T20:59:53Z

It's become President Bush's mantra, his main explanation for why he won't withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here."

The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.

But is it true?

Military and diplomatic analysts cast doubts on it. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

"The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature," said James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. "It's a poor choice of words that doesn't convey the essence of the problem — that walking away from a problem doesn't solve anything."

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003657179_bushiraq08.html

Our war strategy has long been formed more by bumper-sticker slogans suitable for domestic politics than any sober assessment of the actual situation . . .

posted in The Art of War - 20 replies

10% Abused Civilians

2007-05-04T22:42:54Z

In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.

"It is disappointing," said analyst John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think tank. "But anybody who is surprised by it doesn't understand war. ... This is about combat stress."

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20070504/463aafc0_3ca6_1552620070504-2130596726

Hmm, the U.S. presently has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, so 10% adds up to a *lot* of abuse . . .

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Oil Dependency Threatens Readiness

2007-05-01T19:41:50Z

A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

September Showdown

2007-04-30T18:57:06Z

To buy time for his buildup of more than 28,000 troops to show results, Bush asked his commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, to deliver a progress report to the nation in early September.

That helped stave off Republican defections as Congress debated whether to impose a timetable for troop withdrawals. But it also established September as a deadline for clearer military and political progress in Iraq, a tactical concession for a White House that long has refused to accept any benchmarks or timetables for evaluating the war, now 4 years old.

Democratic and Republican members of Congress already are focusing on September as their next major decision point on the war — planning hearings to debate Petraeus' findings and, in the Democrats' case, promising new attempts to force Bush to withdraw troops.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess30apr30,1,6985063.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Meanwhile, the Republican "base", addicted to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, remains convinced that the war is going well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042900948.html

This doesn't leave much room for compromise . . .

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Officer Corps Criticized

2007-04-28T03:15:42Z

There's a very good article in the Washington Post about the US Army officer corps being criticized by one of its own.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602230.html

If true, we once again see a disparity between what the public is told, and what is really happening.

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

"Harder Before It Gets Easier"

2007-04-26T22:21:37Z

Army General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said the war there may get worse before it gets better while cautioning that an American pullout would likely lead to greater sectarian violence.

Petraeus, during a news conference at the Pentagon outside Washington, reported ``incremental progress'' in the security situation and said sectarian murders in Iraq have fallen by two- thirds since U.S. forces began a crackdown against insurgents and militia groups in February.

At the same time, he said the overall level of violence has remained the same, largely because of an increase in ``sensational'' car-bomb attacks ``that overshadow our daily accomplishments'' in establishing security.

``The operational environment in Iraq is the most complex and challenging I have ever seen,'' Petraeus said. ``This effort may get harder before it gets easier. Success, in the end, will depend on Iraqi actions.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaaABvfSmpD0&refer=home

Petraeus won't put a length on the war. Private estimates put it at another 5-10 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17282867/site/newsweek/

However, it is increasingly obvious that Petraeus doesn't have 5-10 years. According to recent polls, most Americans see no hope of victory and want the troops withdrawn.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

Bush will veto the latest Congressional effort to end the war, but he's more or less at their mercy for funding it. According to Rep. Jack Murtha, funding will come in increments of 2-3 months, forcing Bush to come back again and again for more money.

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/51045/

But the Democrats are actually less interested in shutting down the war than in bleeding the Republicans, forcing them to stand behind the unpopular President and his unpopular war. This is the best thing that has happened to them since Watergate . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warvote25apr25,1,3496743.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

"The Long War" is Over

2007-04-25T22:43:50Z

When the Bush administration has sought to explain its strategy for fighting terrorism, it has often said the United States is involved in a “long war” against Islamic extremists.

The phrase was coined by Gen. John P. Abizaid before he retired as head of the Central Command. It was intended to signal to the American public that the country was involved in a lengthy struggle that went well beyond the war in Iraq and was political as well as military.

It would be a test of wills against “Islamofascism,” as President Bush once put it. It would also be a historic challenge that spanned generations much like the battles against Communism.

As it turned out, however, the long war turned out to be surprisingly short-lived, at least at the command that pioneered the term. After taking over last month as the head of Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon quietly retired the phrase.

Military officials said that cultural advisers at the command had become concerned that the concept of a long war alienated Middle East audiences by suggesting that the United States would keep a large number of forces in the region indefinitely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So . . . the Pentagon is re-branding the war . . . we need to find a snappy new brand name quick, or the terrorists will win . . . Do you have a confidence-inspiring name for a war? If so, send it to:

Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301

Or, just post it here . . .

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

"As Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down"

2007-04-24T22:13:12Z

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm

Another failed policy quietly dropped . . . broader commitments made without announcement . . . no end in sight . . . what previous war does that remind you of?

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Shortchanging the Disabled

2007-04-14T03:11:09Z

The Army is deliberately shortchanging troops on their disability retirement ratings to hold down costs, according to veterans’ advocates, lawyers and services members, and the Inspector General has identified 87 problems in the system that need fixing.

“These people are being systematically underrated,” said Ron Smith, deputy general counsel for Disabled American Veterans. “It’s a bureaucratic game to preserve the budget, and it’s having an adverse affect on service members.”

The numbers of people approved for permanent or temporary disability retirement in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have stayed relatively stable since 2001.

But in the Army — in the midst of a war — the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSmedholdmoney070222/

posted in The Art of War - 5 replies

15 Months

2007-04-12T20:50:38Z

Active-duty soldiers will now serve 15 months in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of 12, an extension that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates portrayed as needed to maintain predictable troop levels, but it came as another painful sacrifice for the volunteer U.S. Army.

"I realize this decision will ask a lot of our Army troops and their families. We are deeply grateful for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their commitment to accomplishing our mission," Gates said.

Gates conceded that the shift in policy indicates the military is thin -- after four years of war and with the most recent surge strategy demanding more troops in Baghdad. But he denied the nation's force was broken, noting that the active-duty Army made its March goal for recruitment, although the Army Reserve failed to meet its goal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/12/MNG6BP6TU632.DTL

How we met that recruiting goal:

Last year, the Army recruited 80,635 troops. To achieve that, the Army bolstered the ranks of its recruiters, raised enlistment bonuses to as much as $40,000 and allowed recruits with tattoos on their necks and hands to join. It also bumped the age limit twice. Without the 653 recruits older than 35, the Army would not have met its annual goal of 80,000. In 2005, the Army missed its 80,000-recruit goal by 6,627 soldiers.

The average enlistment bonus was about $10,925 in 2006 compared with $6,353 in 2002. Sixty-eight percent of recruits received bonuses in 2006; 38% did in 2002.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-11-military-bonuses_N.htm

Gates said the extensions were not a signal that he had decided to stretch out the troop buildup.

But military experts said that by extending all of the active-duty brigades, the administration would be able to continue the increase into 2008.

"It was always envisioned that the only way you could do it [the troop increase] was to extend tours of duty; that was known right from the outset," said Jack Keane, a retired Army general and one of the architects of the current strategy, who recommended across-the-board extensions in December.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops12apr12,1,24465.story?track=crosspromo&page=1&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply

The Next War

2007-04-12T20:10:01Z

Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 19, 2007; Page A01

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a "death spiral," in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801534.html

Our strategic planning seems to rely heavily on the theory that no one is going to attack . . .

posted in The Art of War - 9 replies

gun vs sword

2007-04-12T19:34:20Z

Which weapon is better hand to hand gun or sword?

posted in The Art of War - 26 replies

British Blunder

2007-04-06T19:07:01Z

Questions the Navy chiefs must now answer
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 06/04/2007

Yesterday the Navy breathed a huge sigh of relief. Today the inquiry into the affair will begin, with recriminations likely and many questions to be asked of commanders.

Foremost among those to be questioned will be Commodore Nick Lambert, the flotilla commander ultimately in charge of the 15 sailors who were allowed to venture out of sight of his flagship Cornwall with very little support while just two miles from Iran's disputed territorial waters.

While Cornwall had too deep a draught to provide line of sight cover for the boarding party, there were many other ships that could have given immediate back-up.

Cdre Lambert has 12 warships under his command in Coalition Task Force 158, including several US Navy patrol boats capable of 35 knots and bristling with machineguns that would have outgunned the Iranians.

It has been suggested he could have ordered any one of these to "overwatch" the boarding party.

advertisementQuestions have also been asked why the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter was not above the two Pacific tenders during the search of the Indian vessel. They can remain airborne for four hours yet the boarding lasted 80 minutes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/05/wiran905.xml

posted in The Art of War - 0 replies

Homeless Vets

2007-04-01T16:56:21Z

One in three homeless Americans is a veteran.

On any given night in this country, an estimated 200,000 are living on the streets.

Many served in Vietnam, but experts expect the number of Iraq veterans to swell in coming years.

The Veterans Administration can provide beds to only 14,000 veterans, though it told CBS News its shelters aren't filled to capacity and that it offers what it called "very good" services to homeless veterans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/25/eveningnews/main2607024.shtml

Funny that the "support our troops" mantra doesn't apply to veterans . . .

posted in The Art of War - 1 reply