Battlefield Surveillance Brigade

The initial design of the BFSB was outlined in the Operational and Organizational Concept for the Battlefield Surveillance Brigade in 2007. Both active component and reserve component BFSBs have been approved for the Army, and brigades are already participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.At Fort Knox, KY., the Maneuver Center of Excellence’s Maneuver Battle Lab conducted a Computer Assisted Map Exercise (CAMEX) from Oct. 20 to 24. The experiment, involving participation from both Active and Reserve Component BFSBs, as well as subject matter experts from various proponents, addressed the brigade’s mission and capabilities. Initial insights from the experiment identified a wide variety of actions to be taken, as well as validating the need for further research to improve the Army’s ability to exploit the BFSB’s capabilities.
What continued efforts does the Army have planned for the future?The Chief of Armor will present the initial insights developed during the October BFSB CAMEX at the Reconnaissance Summit held in November 2008 at Fort Knox. This venue is expected to provide refined guidance from a variety of senior leaders (to include the TRADOC Commander) that will drive the way ahead for the BFSB doctrine refinement as well as organizational and material actions. The Maneuver Center of Excellence will continue to develop the BFSB’s concept throughout Fiscal Year 2009 culminating with the initial release of FM 3-55.1, The Battlefield Surveillance Brigade.

Soft Power? What we need is "Smart" Power

The elements of national power within the U.S. are categorized into four areas: Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic (DIME).  Soft power is Diplomatic, Informational and Economic. Hard power is Military.

Soft power is best used to prevent conflict and Hard power (military) provides the credibility that Soft power needs to be effective.  The United Nations for example, is limited to employing Soft power.

The optimum application of “Smart Power” requires Quality Leadership.

The Focus Is On ‘Soft Power’, (Philadelphia Inquirer)…Trudy Rubin

At first glance, President-elect Barack Obama’s new national-security team of experienced heavyweights may not look like a change-oriented bunch. Look again. Robert Gates, the current and future defense secretary, and former NATO commander Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s pick for national security adviser, advocate sweeping change in the way America pursues its security interests.

For example, the United States has more members of military marching bands than Foreign Service officers. Gates also noted that the number of Foreign Service officers was frozen as the number of embassies grew after the Soviet Union breakup. Meantime, “the United States Agency for International Development saw deep staff cuts … and the U.S. Information Agency was abolished.”

These were steps taken by the Clinton administration under pressure from Jesse Helms, the late Republican senator who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee.

The extent of the problem was described graphically in a report on the crisis in diplomatic readiness recently released by the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center (available at www.academyofdiplomacy.org). The report details the shortage of Foreign Service officers, and particularly of those with training in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Urdu.

 

Chertoff, Shifting Views On Security, Pushes Use Of ‘Soft Power’, (Wall Street Journal)…Cam Simpson

The Bush administration’s point man in protecting America against terrorism says U.S. investments in safety should not be restricted to airport screening machines or border fences. Michael Chertoff says the U.S. also should spend more on foreign-aid programs, scholarships for foreign students and other tools of so-called soft power.

Mumbai: Terrorist Tactics – "Active Shooter"

The Next Mumbai  (Washington Post)…David Ignatius

…There was far too much of that fear-mongering and spasmodic reaction after Sept. 11, which had the effect of destabilizing the United States almost as much as it did its enemies. The challenge is to understand the adversary so that if an attack comes, the authorities will respond with cool heads and steady aim.

“Mumbai is a worst-case ‘active shooter’ problem,” says a former CIA officer who helped organize a DHS pilot program on the subject last summer for police chiefs. “It had multiple shooters, multiple locations, mobile threats, willingness to fight the first responders and follow-on SWAT/commando units, well-equipped and well-trained operatives, and a willingness to die. Police department commanders in America should be scratching their heads and praying.”

Follow-up – "One man’s Military-Industrial Complex"

McCaffrey And Rumsfeld , New York Times, December 3, 2008 , Pg. 26

To the Editor:

Re “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex” (front page, Nov. 30):Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey makes much of his opposition to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Whatever General McCaffrey or other unnamed individuals may believe, though, I am unaware of any decision to “cut off General McCaffrey’s access to the Pentagon’s special briefings,” as stated in the article.We held briefings for former senior officials who served presidents of both parties, think-tank specialists from across the political spectrum, and many others. Divergent views were often expressed, sometimes strenuously.Secretary Rumsfeld never suggested to me, the official responsible for the program, that we stop holding the meetings, or disinvite people — including General McCaffrey — because they didn’t agree with our policies.General McCaffrey actually enjoyed special access by virtue of his relationships with senior military officers, yet it seems he benefits from brandishing the bloody shirt of alleged maltreatment by Secretary Rumsfeld.Lawrence Di Rita, Potomac, Md., Nov. 30, 2008The writer was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001-06. He also served as acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.Editor’s Note: The article referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, Nov. 30, 2008.

Financial Crisis: Background – Systems Perspective

POST: Bankers, you have nothing to gain but your chains! by Thomas P.M. Barnett on November 29, 2008

A good rendition of the argument that says we’re at the end of an extended period of deregulation that has logically run its course.

ARTICLE: A short history of modern finance: Link by link; The crash has been blamed on cheap money, Asian savings and greedy bankers. For many people, deregulation is the prime suspect,” The Economist, 18 October 2008.

It would be a mistake to argue that, had politicians rather than bankers been in charge, policy would have been more prudent. Indeed, politicians encouraged banks to make riskier loans. This was particularly true in America, where a series of measures, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, required banks to meet the credit needs of the “entire community”. In practice, this was social policy: it meant more lending to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored giants of the mortgage market, were encouraged to guarantee a wider range of loans in the 1990s.

The share of Americans who owned their homes rose steadily. But more buyers meant higher prices, making loans even less affordable to the poor and requiring even slacker lending standards. The seeds of the subprime crisis were sown, and the new techniques of securitisation allowed banks to make these loans and then offload them quickly.

Could the crisis have been avoided or minimized? Can the next crisis be prevented?   I believe the answer to both question is  yes but a new paradigm is needed. 

Iran, Economic Pressure, Nuclear Program

New Team, Little Time On Iran, (Wall Street Journal)…Gerald F. Seib, Dec 2, 2008.

The foreign-policy team President-elect Barack Obama announced Monday is said to be experienced enough to “hit the ground running.” Good thing when it comes to Iran, as time is running short for the new crew to figure out what to do about a nuclear program that seems to have been slowed very little by international efforts to make Tehran play nice.

In private, Israeli officials are ever more blunt in saying they see time running out before Iran’s nuclear potential becomes a nuclear reality that threatens the Jewish state, among others. Once the Obama administration is in place next year, and a new Israeli government takes shape after February elections there, the questions about whether Israel is contemplating military action against Iran will only grow.

With the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already using price controls on food and energy to stabilize the domestic economy, falling oil prices figure to create lots of new pressures. By one estimate, the Iranian government needs $90-a-barrel oil for its government accounts to break even. The question, then, is when economic pressure might become so great that a nuclear program becomes counterproductive.

Terrorists and Sovereignty: Options

The Sovereignty Dodge, (Washington Post)…Robert Kagan, Dec 2, 2008.

…it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned.

So if the world is indeed not to be held hostage by non-state actors operating from Pakistan, what can be done?

Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalize the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas …

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

Team of Rivals" Trouble Spots: Israel, Iran

Obama’s ‘Team Of Rivals’ Share Big-Picture Views, USA Today, Pg. 10, Dec 2, 2008.

As for specific trouble spots:

*Come Jan. 20, Obama will own the Iraq war just as surely as Richard Nixon owned the Vietnam War in 1969. If progress turns into defeat, his presidency will surely be undermined. The entire team will recognize the political and international implications of this, but Obama has given Gates, who oversaw the successful strategy of surging more troops into Iraq, the new mission of bringing them home.

Obama campaigned on a pledge to remove U.S. troops within 16 months, but at his news conference Monday, he repeated a Bush line that he would listen to commanders on the ground, a wise step. The Bush administration has already signed an agreement for U.S. troops to be out of cities by June 30 and out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but the uneven progress in training Iraqis to take over will make the first deadline particularly difficult to attain, with huge implications.

*Afghanistan will continue on the present military path, with several thousand extra U.S. troops already scheduled to deploy there. The Bush administration attempted to win Afghan hearts and minds but was not very deft. Gates and Jones have advocated different kinds of outreach and more effective reconstruction.

*Candidate Obama pushed vigorous, high-level diplomacy to halt Iran’s nuclear program even as Clinton suggested that it would be naive. As his top diplomat, Clinton’s past dismissiveness could give any talks more credibility, while the more hawkish Clinton, Gates and Jones would keep the military option credible. None of this answers the hard question of what happens if diplomacy reaches a dead end.

Whether to attack Iran — or give Israel the green light to do so — would undoubtedly generate the sort of “vigorous debate” and “strong opinions” within the White House that Obama says he welcomes.