Archive for November, 2005

Withdraw, then What?

Full disclosure: I occasionally cross-post at both Defense Tech and Winds of Change (founded by Joe Katzman). They are two top-notch sites and should be in your bookmarks.

Noah Shachtman points out a Slate article by Fred Kaplan that I cannot currently access for some reason that notes the “Administration’s apparent newfound-readiness to take tens of thousands of U.S. forces out of Iraq, pronto.”

Here’s part of my comment on the post:

“Tens of thousands” certainly seems to refer to the extra troops sent in/held over due to the elections in October and December. If that is indeed the case, then this isn’t any “newfound-readiness” on the part of the administration, though many are spinning it as such.

When I wrote the comment, I couldn’t reach the Slate site. I can now, and there are very few specifics. And the generalities certainly seem to fit within the scope of what has been a matter of public record all along.

I don’t know if the journalists don’t follow the story and don’t get it, or if they know typical Americans don’t follow the story so they’re free to write whatever they want. I suspect it’s a bit of both.

Everyone laughed at Bush when he said “as the Iraqis stand up we’ll stand down”, but that’s been the general idea all along (with some obvious delays and extensions due to conditions on the ground) and we’re pretty much sticking to it. It’s taking longer and costing more in gold and blood than we wanted, but there hasn’t been any panic on the part of the strategists.

A few weeks ago everyone was running all around worried that only one Iraqi battalion was ‘Level 1′. Today they’re running all around saying “the Iraqis have over 200,000 troops…when are we going to get out?”. Both parties in Congress are playing games with the troop levels, jockeying for position to take credit for what’s been planned all along.

I’ve been writing about this a lot lately, most recently here.

Of particular interest in the comments should be Joe Katzman’s second entry. it’s too good to excerpt, but I’ll grab one little snippet anyway:

As long as Syria and Iran have nothing to fear from their meddling and terrorism efforts, Iraq may manage an Israeli existence of civil society hit regularly by terrorists, but never anything more. The American government’s lack of action on the Iranian democracy front has been a major failure of this war. Those tools were used successfully against Syria in Lebanon, however, and other means need to be explored until Syria is clear that continued support of the Islamist death squads in Iraq will have serious consequences.

These efforts need not necessarily be military. Many other elements can be explored. But the outside elements really do need to be choked off over time, and the regimes that work with them must have their own hands too full for mischief elsewhere. The Reagan Doctrine worked precisely because it was a relentless full court press on all fronts, and this needs to be as well. By the end of this exercise the USA will either have watched the end/change of terrorist regimes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, or this phase of the war will have failed in all 3 places (the Saudis come at the end, not before).

He also asks readers to note that he uses the terms “phase” and “campaign” when referring to Iraq. I generally do the same thing, and for the same reasons. Those that criticize the President for not making some things clear enough are barking up the right tree, but you’ve got to admit that nearly everyone just laughs when he tries to call Iraq part of a larger war. Don’t forget, though, that sometimes people laugh to cover the fact that they don’t get what’s being said.

But some messages have obviously been screwed up so badly that there’s probably no way to fix it at this point. Joe notes that the President not only refused to move the nation to any sort of war footing after 9/11, he often tells people to carry on as if nothing’s happening. I commented:

Bush shouldn’t have been calling for gasoline rationing and copper wire drives, but there’s no reason to be surprised that people are confused about what we’re doing when one day it’s ‘this is a war for the future of freedom and liberty’ and the next it’s ‘just keep shopping…everything’s just fine’.

This is a war. I’ve been calling it World War Four since 9/12/01. We should be more aware of what’s going on and what we’re trying to do. We get coverage of Abu Gharib for months on end. I blame, to a great extent, the Legacy Media. I truly believe it to be horribly biased and often spectacularly uninformed, especially about matters military. But I don’t give the President a free pass, either. Even though his words are so often twisted or just plain ignored, he should be doing more to get the word out.

That’s why Murdoc is completely in favor of this: Bush urged to emulate FDR

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sunday suggested that President Bush use an FDR-style presentation to update people on progress in the war in Iraq.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., recalled that during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt often went on the radio in “fireside chats” to explain to the nation in detail the conduct of the war in Europe and Asia.

“I think it would be to Bush’s advantage,” said Warner, who served in the Navy during the war.

“It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have, about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public,” he said.

Sure, many would dismiss fireside chats as just so much propaganda, but the benefit would far outweigh the negatives, not only to the war effort but for the administration specifically and for the GOP in general.

Strategy Page: Experienced Troops Returning to Service

I’m getting a little tired of hearing about this:

In 2004, the army got 8,246 troops, who had recently gotten out, to sign up for another tour of duty. That’s up from 4,565 in 2003. This year, the trend continues, with the help of cooperative recruiters, and cash bonuses (up to $19,000) if you have a skill that is in high demand right now.

Between all this coverage plastered everywhere and all the talk about the high retention rates, especially among combat units, I’m afraid that typical Americans might not even be aware that recruiting new soldiers, especially into the Guards and Reserves, has been struggling of late.

Here’s a pic I meant to post of the Hungarian T-72 tanks on their way to Iraq that MO’s kept an eye on:

Click for a better look. It was taken in Slovenia as they began the trip to the Sandbox. From a Defense Solutions LLC press release forwarded to MO.

Here’s a pic of one unloading in Iraq:

Even though the business end of the main gun is pointing at you, you’re looking at the rear of the vehicle. Notice the curved brackets folded against the hull. Those are for holding the RPG magnets:

It’s hard to make out, but I think that it’s item #10 on this drawing. Fuel tanks for added range. If you like driving a long way to a barbecue on the beach.

Here’s a pic of Iraqi Gen. Bashar, commander of the Iraqi Army’s 9th Division (Mechanized), driving one of his new tanks.

Someone will have to tell him it’s now okay for Iraqi tanks to point thier turrets forward when within range of American firepower.

Okay. Enough joking. These last two photos are from the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq website

Here’s the cover of the latest MNSTC-I newsletter:

The cover story is about a parade put on by the new armored brigade of the Iraqi 9th Division:

Yesterday, I noted that Strategy Page reported that the Iraqis are hoping that we’ll be leaving behind some M1s when we “redeploy” some of our forces. I’ve got to say that I don’t think that’s the greatest idea in the world. Out of the millions of things that could happen after doing so, only a few of them are good. I think T-72s are plenty good enough.

How many yards?

Right now there are four major naval yards and six major private yards that build or perform major work on warships. The US Navy is building four or five major ships a year. Raise your hand if you think this might have anything to do with the high cost of naval warships.

The yards are wards of the Navy, public yards with private ownership. As long as they stay open, they get some Navy business. The Big Six are capable of delivering 20-25 ships a year and were building at nearly that rate during the Reagan administration’s defense buildup. In the 1990s the rate dropped to seven or eight a year. Recently, it’s been as low as four or five. No wonder shipbuilding costs have skyrocketed. With the costs of running all these facilities apportioned to fewer ships, and Congress making sure that each yard has a project, the government reaps no economies of scale. Worse, the underuse of each facility will continue to prevent enough new capital investment to ensure that the best yards stay modern and technologically robust.

And how about the new Litorral Combat Ship (LCS)? That’s going to be a large program with lots of smaller, cheaper ships, right? Right. But

the Navy decided to allow one of the winning teams in its downselect to build the prototypes at shipyards that do not work on frontline warships (Bollinger Shipyard in Louisiana and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin) instead of one of the underutilized Big Six, whose costs it is already carrying. Soon they could be building the rest of the class while the Navy looks for other work to assign the Big Six. And when the LCS is done, why will they not lobby for a follow-on project and make it the Big Six Plus Two?

While getting other yards to build the LCS might have made sense for the LCS program, which I don’t know about one way or the other, it did nothing to help the overall issue of too many yards building too few ships.

The writers have an idea for which yards to go and which yards to stay. Not surprisingly for an opinion piece run in a Virginia newspaper, Newport News is on the list to stay in business. But the problem is spelled out pretty clearly and they make some compelling points.

As long as we’re fighting ragheads with AKs and RPGs in dusty places, the Navy isn’t going to be growing much. My guess is that China doesn’t mind. And don’t forget that, despite what Murdoc considers to be some basic misconceptions about, well, pretty much everything, the governor of Tokyo recently said publicly that the United States could not prevail in a war against China. And he was talking about today. I’d hate to see what he says in eight or ten years.

We see it all the time on TV and in the movies. BLAM! Somebody just shot a padlock off of something or other. I’ve always been amused that the door or box or gate or whatever is never damaged despite the lock being blasted to smithereens with one well-placed shot. Sure, I’ve never really bought how easy it looks to shoot a lock off in the first place, either, but I’ve never spent much time dwelling on it. Turns out it’s harder than I would have thought, according to The Locks O’ Truth on the Box O’ Truth:

My friend DVDTracker, sent me an IM on AR15.com and asked, “OP, I wonder how difficult it is to shoot a lock off? I’ve seen it done on TV and in movies, but wonder if it is as easy as they show it to be. How about if I send you some funds to buy some locks. Will you shoot them and report back?”

The only answer was, “Sure! Why not?”

Here’s a pic of what a XM193 5.56 varmint round does to one:

It left a nice hole coming out, too. But the lock held. Go look for more pics.

Lessons learned:

1. “How hard is it to shoot off a lock?” Answer: Very hard.

2. Pistols won’t shoot a lock off or even penetrate the lock.

3. Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. Enough said.

4. I now understand why our troops are often seen carrying “breeching shotguns” on their backs and a rifle in their hands. Shotguns will blow a lock off. Rifles will blow holes through a lock, but will not reliably shoot one off.

5. The rifles went through the locks with ease. It is obvious that you could “knaw” off the lock, little by little with a rifle, but a shotgun does it with one shot.

Really, you’ve got to go read the whole thing. I mean it.

Plus, check out AK Vs. AR – Some Observations

Many thanks to the reader who tipped MO off to this great site!

The Ottawa Citizen: U.S. army vehicles have same rollover problems as ours

More on the Canadian LAV accident in Afghanistan. Sensational headlines, but they make a valid point in the middle of the piece:

But some of the U.S. accidents in Iraq are eerily similar to Canadian fatalities. In December 2003, two Strykers rolled over into a canal near Duluiyah, Iraq, killing three and trapping 19 underwater. An investigation determined that the side of the dirt track the vehicle was on gave way, sending the Stryker tumbling into the canal.

Will someone please explain how a design fault was responsible for rolling into a canal after the dirt track collapsed? The accidents sound eerily similar to Canadian accidents when the roadway gave way below their LAVs, to be sure, but unless the argument is that the roadways would not have given way under tracks it’s a moot point.

Maybe the roads wouldn’t have collapsed under tracked vehicles of the same weight. It seems to be a slight possibility, at least, due to the lower ground PSI weight dispersed on tracks, though I haven’t ever heard one person try to argue this line of reasoning. In these cases it seems like a long shot.

The only valid argument, it seems to an armchair lieutenant like me, is that the vehicles just plain weigh too much. This is the one Stryker/LAV criticism that has really held up well, and it is, in fact, a shortcoming in the design. At least in the sense that weight requirements were not met. I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise. But it’s the strategic mobility that’s most affected by this fact. If a little tactical mobility is lost due to the vehicle being a little overweight, then you have to adapt the way you use the vehicle. But it’s not directly responsible for any of these roll-over accidents.

In this Canadian accident, the LAV-III driver swerved at that last possible second to avoid hitting a civilian car. That is why the vehicle rolled. Maybe the swerve took it into soft sand or a too-steep shoulder along the highway. Maybe a vehicle with a lower center of gravity would not not have rolled. Those are important things to look at, consider, and integrate into training and doctrine down the road, but to carry on and on faulting the vehicle doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

The constant criticism of the Stryker is so tiresome that I’m staring to sound like a zealot in my defense of the thing. That’s not what I’m trying to be.

Michelle Malkin’s gat a great post with tons of links: BACK TO THE BORDER. She noted in a recent article:

[A]s illegal immigration continues unabated, the White House has seen fit to honor the chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, with a presidential “Meritorious Executive” award, which comes with a cash bonus, for his outstanding performance. I kid you not.

I just cannot understand why more people don’t care about this situation.

I also meant to point out this last week but didn’t get around to it: Border Patrol forced to negotiate tough terrain:

Increased enforcement in San Diego and El Paso, Texas, has squeezed border crossers into less hospitable corridors, including deserts where hundreds die each year. The Otay Mountains are not the deadliest point along the 2,000-mile border, but they are treacherous.

Dehydration threatens as summer temperatures race past 100; hypothermia is a danger during winter. Broken wrists and twisted ankles are common and it’s easy to get lost on the lattice of trails. In the last year, 23 migrants have been reported dead in the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector, which includes Otay (pronounced OH-tie).

Look, I don’t want to sound like a heartless jerk, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy, here. The article is about the Border Patrol’s Air Mobile unit, and they’ve got to patrol these places because people insist on trying to break the law there.

Private US firm to patrol Somali waters?

EagleSpeak notes this:

Transitional Federal Government of Somalia on Friday signed an agreement with a US-based maritime security firm to protect and control its territorial waters.

The two-year agreement signed by Somali Fisheries and Marine Resources Minister Hassan Abshir Farah and Peter Casini, President of Topcat Marine Security, will help fight terrorism, curb illegal fishing and combat pirates, who have used speed boats, automatic weapons and satellite phones to target UN-chartered ships and other vessels.

“The comprehensive agreement will create a maritime security program to protect and control all Somali waters within its exclusive economic zone,” said Farah after signing the deal in Nairobi.

“This agreement includes the creation of five coastal security bases including advanced communications equipment, high speed patrol boats, ground vehicles, and several helicopters to patrol the entire Somalia coastline and its territorial waters,” he said.

The piracy situation in that area has pretty much gone out of control. To be honest, I’ve been a little surprised that the US Navy hasn’t been more involved. Though don’t forget that EOD team that responded to RPG fire on a cruise ship recently. (via The Military Outpost)

UPDATE: Plus Apparently paid off, Pirates Release Ukrainian Ship Seized Near Somalia

Bruce Willis comes out fighting for Iraq’s forgotten GI heroes

His movie will be the “The Green Berets” of Iraq. You remember “The Green Berets”, of course. It was the one politically-biased film about Vietnam.

This was going to be an entry on this Friday’s Linkzookery, but Instapundit noted the story and I sent him a note about “The Green Berets”. So I decided to toss this out here right now.

Incidentally, I’ve noted Mr. Willis’ position before.

The AP:

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his vote.

If I wrote that as a joke and posted it, you’d accuse me of being too cliched.