Author: Tim J. Clark

U.S. Forces: Need for speed

OEF, OIF Demonstrating U.S. Forces Will Need To Be More SOF-Like
(Defense Daily)…Geoff Fein, June 11, 2008 , Pg. 1

After six years in Afghanistan and five in Iraq, top military brass are seeing that U.S. forces will need to be much more SOF (Special Operations Forces)-like, with the ability to move quickly and be more adaptive, says a senior military leader. 

The one [requirement] that jumps off the page is the requirement for all services to be SOF-like–to be netted, to be much more flexible, adaptive, faster, lethal, precise– whether it is soft power or hard power, whether it’s projects or kinetics, to bring that into play very very rapidly," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Defense Writers Group yesterday.

"Everything is flatter and faster, and I believe all of us have to adapt in that way," he added.

Mullen emphasized the importance of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). He pointed out that the services have significantly increased the pace of fielding ISR capabilities.

Pakistan – FATA

Note To The Next President: Watch Pakistan
(Philadelphia Inquirer)…Trudy Rubin, June 11, 2008

The most urgent foreign policy problem that the next U.S. president will face won’t be Iraq. Nor will it be Iran. The next terrorist attack on America is likely to originate, according to the top U.S. military commander, Adm. Mike Mullen, in a place you’ve probably never heard of: the FATA. That’s the acronym for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of northern Pakistan.

Iran: Finesse and Leverage

POST: Obama and McCain spar on Iran

No talks between us and Iran prevent the reach for the bomb
Why do we get so wobbly over Iran? We have met this package (nation-state/failed revolutionary power talking trash and sporting new nukes) twice before and finessed it nicely (and frankly, both the USSR and PRC were far more successful).

We learn to accept our lack of leverage here or we’re going to be consistently flabbergasted at our lack of success–as in, more of the same old, same old.

Our problem remains the same: we are unable to see the strategic reality for what it is and we’re

This posting in contrast with the article:  Prepare to Attack, (USA Today)…Daniel Pipes, June 11, 2008 , Pg. 10

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum think tank and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.

…Only by convincing Tehran that it will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons can Washington persuade it to terminate its program, avoiding the need for a military campaign. This can yet be attained, but it requires a basic shift in U.S. policy.

First, the Bush administration must prepare for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and, second, signal this publicly. (Israeli leaders should do likewise, as some have done already.) Third, the administration must weather the inevitable tsunami of criticism. Fourth, it should encourage those governments most opposed to such an attack — including the European Union, Russia and China — to lean on Tehran to end its nuclear program.

If George W. Bush’s term ends with a McCain victory, Bush will likely punt, allowing McCain to decide on the next steps. But Obama’s intention to continue with current failed policies suggests that, if he wins, and despite the tradition of outgoing presidents not undertaking major initiatives, Bush might initiate military action against Iran.

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum think tank and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Iran: Watch and Wait

At The Tip Of Iran’s Spear, (Washington Post)…David  Ignatius, June 8, 2008; Page B07

Let’s try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran’s bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation’s confrontation with the United States.

…  So imagine that you are Qassem Soleimani, commander of a covert Iranian army deployed across the Middle East: You doubt the Bush administration would run the risk of a military strike against Iran, but you can’t be sure. You think America can’t afford to play chicken in an election year, but you can’t be certain of that, either.  So you watch and wait. 

… After a particularly heavy day of shelling, Gen. David Petraeus sent Soleimani a message — “Stop shooting at the Green Zone.” The message was conveyed verbally by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The Quds Force commander didn’t react immediately. But the heavy mortar fire on the Green Zone soon tapered off. Iran had flexed its muscles and demonstrated America’s vulnerability, and then opted for a tactical retreat.

Terrorism: Two Opposing Viewpoints

A Not Very Private Feud Over Terrorism, (New York Times)…Elaine Sciolino and Eric Schmitt, June 8, 2008

A bitter personal struggle between two powerful figures in the world of terrorism has broken out, forcing their followers to choose sides. This battle is not being fought in the rugged no man’s land on the Pakistan-Afghan border. It is a contest reverberating inside the Beltway between two of America’s leading theorists on terrorism and how to fight it, two men who hold opposing views on the very nature of the threat.

On one side is Bruce Hoffman, a cerebral 53-year-old Georgetown University historian and author of the highly respected 1998 book “Inside Terrorism.” He argues that Al Qaeda is alive, well, resurgent and more dangerous than it has been in several years. In his corner, he said, is a battalion of mainstream academics and a National Intelligence Estimate issued last summer warning that Al Qaeda had reconstituted in Pakistan.

On the other side is Marc Sageman, an iconoclastic 55-year-old Polish-born psychiatrist, sociologist, former C.I.A. case officer and scholar-in-residence with the New York Police Department. His new book, “Leaderless Jihad,” argues that the main threat no longer comes from the organization called Al Qaeda, but from the bottom up — from radicalized individuals and groups who meet and plot in their neighborhoods and on the Internet. In his camp, he said, are agents and analysts in highly classified positions at the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Officials from the White House to the C.I.A. acknowledge the importance of the debate of the two men as the government assesses the nature of the threat. Looking forward, it is certain to be used to win bureaucratic turf wars over what programs will be emphasized in the next administration.

Lost Leverage: Oil

New Forces Fraying U.S.-Saudi Oil Ties. (Los Angeles Times)…Paul Richter, June 8, 2008, Pg. 1

…The weakening of the economic relationship comes when the vital U.S.-Saudi security relationship also has been fraying.

As gasoline prices have risen, the White House has unsuccessfully exhorted the Saudis to step up production, and Congress has threatened retaliation. But the situation now is a far cry from the days when the U.S. economy dominated the direction of the petroleum market.

“That gave us leverage,” said Greg Priddy, an oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk assessment firm. “There’s certainly a perception that the power equation has changed.”

China and other Asian nations now use about 17 million barrels a day. That’s up more than 20% since 2003, and booming growth is expected to continue.

By the end of 2007, it was also apparent that the Saudis no longer believed they could substantially affect prices by increasing production.

Now, Saudi oil experts believe that the price run-up is due to such factors as investor speculation, the weak dollar and limited output from such key producers as Iraq, Iran and Venezuela.

In mid-May, President Bush went to Saudi Arabia for the second time this year to seek increased oil production, but officials in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, said no large increases were planned. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized Bush in her presidential campaign appearances, saying she found it embarrassing that a sitting president was “begging” the Saudis.

War-Fighting Doctrine – Irregular

Irregular Warfare, (New York Times Magazine)…William Safire, June 8, 2008

…That’s the ticket: irregular has become the Defense Department’s adjective of choice to modify the current style of warfare.

The definition for irregular warfare — cautiously marked “proposed” when approved in September 2007 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top brass — is “a violent struggle among state and nonstate actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.

Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence and will.”

In defining the war-fighting doctrine now evolving, no matter how broad its range of techniques, it’s useful to grasp the direction of the definition: Irregular warfare is not our nation’s war on enemy irregulars but our inclusion of irregular methods in warring on an unconventional enemy.

Chairman Joint Chiefs – Speech at AWC

Joint Chiefs Chairman Speaks Before AWC Class (Carlisle (PA) Sentinel)…Joseph Cress, June 8, 2008

Admiral Mike Mullen had one standing order for the strategic leaders of tomorrow: Turn the page on book learning and take the lessons of the Army War College beyond the classroom.

“Seek balance in all you do,” Mullen said. “Draw from, do not dwell in the past.

The United States must continue to be ready to fight insurgents, counter terrorism and tackle regional threats, Mullen said. “The specter of major conflict may have diminished, but it has not disappeared.”

He urged students to stay engaged and strive to achieve the right balance of equipment, training and personnel ready to meet a range of military operations both in war-fighting and peace-making.
 
All too often, peace-loving nations find themselves ill-prepared for strategic surprise, Mullen said. That happened at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and to New York and Washington D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Wants Refocus On Major-Combat Skills
(Los Angeles Times)…Julian E. Barnes, June 8, 2008

The U.S. military’s top uniformed officer on Saturday urged the armed forces to rebuild combat capabilities that have atrophied during the protracted counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mullen, speaking at graduation ceremonies at the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., said the military’s “most pressing long-term problem” was maintaining armed services that are correctly shaped, equipped and trained.

“We must also stay prepared for a range of military operations,”

Mullen said. “We cannot sacrifice the future for the sake of the ‘now.’ “

A senior aide to Mullen said the chairman was not trying to draw a contrast with Gates. The aide said the two men were in full agreement on likely future threats faced by the U.S.

Pakistan, Afghhanistan, Counterinsurgency

Report Accuses Pakistan Of Aiding Taliban, (Philadelphia Inquirer)…Jason Straziuso, Associated Press,  June 10, 2008

Pakistani intelligence agents and paramilitary forces have helped train Taliban insurgents and have given them information about American troop movements in Afghanistan, according to a report published yesterday by a U.S. think tank.

The RAND Corp. study also warned that the United States will face “crippling, long-term consequences” in Afghanistan if Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan are not eliminated.

The study, “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan,” found some active and former officials in Pakistan’s intelligence service and the Frontier Corps – a Pakistani paramilitary force deployed along the Afghan border – provided direct assistance to Taliban militants and helped secure medical care for wounded fighters.

Pakistan’s top military spokesman rejected the findings.