Archive for October, 2006
Remember Terry Tate: Office Linebacker?
Balckfive has him and three military spin-offs for your viewing pleasure. Good times.
This Time, It’s Not the Economy
Instapundit notes this NYT article:
Republican candidates do not seem to be getting any traction from the glowing economic statistics with midterm elections just two weeks away.
The economy is virtually nowhere to be found among the campaign ads of embattled Republican incumbents fighting to hold onto their House or Senate seats. Nor is it showing up as a strong weapon in the arsenal of Republican governors defending their jobs from Democrats.
“I don’t know of another election cycle in which the economy was so good, yet the election prospects for the incumbent party looked so bad,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist.
If they aren’t trumpeting this, they’re idiots. (Well, many of them appear to be idiots whether they trumpet this or not. But you know what I mean.)
I’ve been noting that employment numbers, the stock market, and other economic indicators look quite good but get little attention. At first I simply blamed the media, which I still do, but most lately I’ve been confused about why Republicans aren’t making a bigger deal out of the improved economy. Though told that they are and it’s just that no one is listening, I haven’t seen it at all. I also wondered if the media may, still, be partly to blame for ignoring any trumpeting that might be going on, and Captain Ed wonders the same thing.
Though a staunch Conservative, if the GOP gets swept out of office in a few weeks, I won’t be shedding many tears. I have been basically unimpressed with the work done (or not done, as the case often is) over the past few years. Their seeming failure to capitalize on the economic situation just underscores how ineffective they have been.
On the other hand, as I said to a co-worker in conversation the other day, if this is what we get with “my side” in control, how much worse will I think things are when the other side is running things? The cynic in my says that I might not even notice the difference, but I fear that the difference will be, in fact, quite noticeable. And not because it’s an improvement.
Luckily, I’m not nearly as convinced as many seem to be that the Dems are going to chalk up a resounding victory next month.
Phil Carter (of Intel Dump) at Slate, writes:
Efficiency and force protection cannot define our military footprint in Iraq; if those are our goals, we may as well bring our troops home today. Instead, we must assume risk by pushing U.S. forces out into small patrol bases in the middle of Iraq’s cities where they are able to work closely with Iraqi leaders and own the streets. Counterinsurgency requires engagement. The most effective U.S. efforts thus far in Iraq have been those that followed this maxim, like the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar, which established numerous bases within the city and attacked the insurgency from within with a mix of political, economic, and military action.
The Iraqi military continues to slowly come on line, and there have been signs for optimism that they’re going to be a capable force, but we cannot pull back into fortress-like bases as long as the insurgents have the run of the country like they do today. If Iraqi forces can take on more and more security, as they’ve been doing, that’s great. But we should be using the relief to push back harder against the enemy in what has long been a guerrilla civil war.
We can obviously win militarily wherever and whenever we want. That’s never been in question. But, as has often been the case, the other things required to secure a lasting victory also need to be addressed.
Second, the United States needs to reinforce the most successful part of its strategy so far–embedding advisers ($) with Iraqi units. Our embedded advisers achieve more bang for the buck than any other troops in Iraq; one good 12-man adviser team, living and working with an Iraqi unit, can bolster an entire Iraqi battalion. Without these advisers, Iraqi army and police units remain ineffective–or worse, they go rogue. However, these advisers are drawn primarily from the reserves and the staff ranks, not from America’s military elite, so they represent the B Team of today’s military talent. The military needs to invest its best people in the job. If necessary, it should shatter existing units to cull the best officers and sergeants–those selected for command positions–for this critical duty.
It’s very clear that we can still lose in Iraq, but things aren’t as dire as some would have you believe. Much of what we do is working and requires a great deal of patience. That doesn’t mean everything we do is right, of course. Carter is pretty pessimistic about things right now.
Go read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Meanwhile:
U.S. officials said Tuesday Iraqi leaders have agreed to develop a timeline by the end of the year for progress in stabilizing Iraq, and Iraqi forces should be able to take full control of security in the country in the next 12 to 18 months with “some level” of American support.
No way will this happen in 12-18 months. At least not in the way it’s presented here. I guess I’m taking “some support” to mean mostly logistical and other non-combat support of the type that separates ‘Level 1′ units from ‘Level 2′ and ‘Level 3′ units. I’d love to be wrong, but I sure think we’re going to be much more heavily engaged a year from now than this announcement (or at least the way it’s being reported) makes it sound.
Dave Price at Dean’s World has more.
Christian Woman Resisting License Picture Versus Veiled Muslim Woman Doing Same
Eteraz at Dean’s World has a post that seems to show far different results in two cases where women refused to get their picture taken for their driver’s licenses. The discussion in the comments is fascinating and informative, and things certainly weren’t quite what they seemed.
For the record, I don’t care if someone doesn’t want their picture taken for their license. It doesn’t bother me one bit. They certainly have every right to decide for themselves whether they should submit, for religious reasons or otherwise. They just don’t get a license if they don’t, is all.
Student admits bomb hoax in bid to delay flight
He got to the airport too late to board his plane, so he used a pay phone to call in a bomb threat in order to hold things up so he’d have another chance to board. Wow.
Click for bigger version
An AV-8B Harrier II takes off from the flight deck of Spanish aircraft carrier SPS (Strategic Protection Ship) Principe de Asturias (R 11) during an air defense exercise as part of NATO Exercise Brilliant Midas 2006. Brilliant Midas is a multinational exercise in the Mediterranean Sea, where guided-missile destroyer USS Ross (DDG 71) is the flagship for Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG-2). U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Leonardo Carrillo (RELEASED)
The Principe de Asturias’ design was based on that of the US Navy’s proposed Sea Control Ship, a late-60s proposal for, essentially, a light “Harrier carrier” that is a cheaper alternative for full-sized aircraft carriers. US LHD amphibious assault ships can fill this role if called on, especially if extra Harriers are utilized instead of helicopters. One drawback to Harrier operations on US ships is the lack of a “ski-jump” V/STOL ramp. This would allow the Harriers to carry additional fuel or ordnance, but would make a significant portion of the flight deck unusable by helicopters.
The Principe de Asturias’ usually carries about 20 aircraft, a dozen of them Harriers and the rest choppers.
The latest US LHD, the USS Makin Island, was just launched. For previous MO discussion of this topic, see A look at light carriers.
UPDATE: Something I forgot to link to at the time is Brickmuppet’s Tiny Carriers….., which points out some designs that make this Spanish rowboat look like a super tanker.
Today I attended the airshow at Richmond RAAF Base, west of Sydney. There was a big crowd and a number of aerial displays. Some were by old favorites like the Spitfire but many were by our current service aircraft like the F-111, F-18, P-3C, 707 tanker, Hawk jet and P-9 prop trainer. The special guest was a USAF C-17 which performed a short take-off, landing and maneuverability demonstration. The RAAF will be receiving four C-17s starting in December of this year.
I enjoyed it but it would have been better if there were less people and I could see the displays more clearly. I guess I can’t complain if it’s a popular event, though. I didn’t get many good pictures because of the crowds but I’m happy with the C-17 photo below—all the flaps, slats and gear hanging out as it comes in to a steep landing. I quite like the F-18 maneuvering hard in afterburner too, although it’s a little blurry. Click on the C-17 thumbnail for a larger image.
My favorite performer is the F-111 but unfortunately I arrived just as it was starting its set early. It was still amazing how fast it can fly at low level and how tightly it can turn for such a large plane. On the ground it’s almost impossible to take a photo of it and get more than half the craft in the frame from any reasonable distance. They may be old but I can’t believe we’re getting rid of them for a jet with a fraction of its range. I don’t care how sophisticated a `plane is, if it can’t get to the target it isn’t going to do much damage.
Anyway, many thanks to Murdoc for letting me post here while he was away. I hope I didn’t disappoint anyone too badly. Welcome back!
Update: More images from the air show, including some great ones of the F111, are here.
—Posted by Nicholas.
Murdoc’s trip to the Lone Star State has reached its conclusion, and he will resume regular posting shortly.
He’d like to extend another heartfelt “thanks, guys” to Nicholas and Pinch, who once again have filled in at MO with style. (If they’ve still got some MO material locked and loaded, they are free to post it, so maybe they aren’t quite gone yet…)
Carry on.
Strategy Page reports on the first use of the SDB in combat, and explains what makes it unique.
As aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 enter service, which carry weapons in internal weapon bays of limited volume, weapons like the SDB will become increasingly useful. The price is a little concerning, given the number which are likely to be employed due to the small warhead size. Then again the aircraft that will be carrying them aren’t exactly cheap either. The utility of being able to carry many more bombs and missiles inside the jet will be a compelling reason to produce many of them.
I can’t help but wonder if a rocket-powered version with a reduced warhead will be developed later. It would have a longer stand-off range than the unpowered version—somewhat equivalent to an AGM-65 Maverick but physically much smaller and with a different guidance method (GPS rather than TV/IR).
Finally, here is a rather nice, high-resolution video of an SDB being tested in its ability to penetrate concrete structures.
— posted by Nicholas.
Last night my uncle said he thinks George W. Bush is “evil”. My father agreed with him. When I asked why, I was told it was because he wanted to “change the constitution so that the prisoners of war can be tried by a military tribunal”.
Now firstly, my understanding is that the US President can not modify the constitution. He can propose changes, and the states have to vote on them. Only when a certain number of states ratify the ammendments can they be enacted.
Therefore, why is it “evil” to propose a change to a constitution which needs to go to a popular vote? Many Gitmo prisoners, having been caught on a battlefield with no weapon uniform, have only the right to a humane execution. They are treated far better than any law or convention requires, given their status.
An appropriate definition of “evil” is “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked”. I would argue Mr. Bush has a moral imperative to protect the United States and its people, and may do so within the existing structure of laws. Now compare him to what real evil people have done. Mao not only slaughtered millions in his quest for personal power, he did nothing when artificial famines killed millions more. Stalin had millions killed when they got in his way of personal power and a “perfect society”. Hitler killed millions of Jews because he simply didn’t like them, and millions more in a quest to personally rule over all of Europe. Kim Il Sung impoverished the North Koreans and caused the death of millions for his own personal power. These people all cared not how many people they killed, and in many cases revelled in it. Mr. Bush has repeatedly stated his reasons for taking the actions he has, and it requires a conspiracy theory to come up with bizarre selfish explanations for why he might have acted in an “evil” manner.
Mr. Bush is in a hard position. He’s a Christian and Christianity teaches tolerance and respect for others. He also has people violently trying to kill those he is sworn to protect. He must place their lives above those of foreign nationals who seek to undermine a soverign country illegitimately. While you may feel he does so in an incompetent manner, or in an overly aggressive way, I don’t see how you can twist what he does to call it evil. Sometimes you have to pick the best of some bad options in order to provide the right outcome. Nobody ever said morality is easy, and there must be some people making unpaletable decisions for the greater common good.
People who fight the USA as part of a foreign army are by and large treated well. People who cowardly hide behind civilians and plot suicide attacks against innocent people do not have the same rights the rest of us do. They can not, if we plan to eradicate their horrible practices. A different President might behave differently, but he or she would still have to balance protection of Americans and American interests against the human rights of people who seek to harm them. There are laws and practices dating back hundreds of years which involve harsh, summary punishments against such people (spies, pirates, etc.). Continuing those practices when one feels it is for the greater good can’t be evil. Misguided maybe. Dumb maybe. Not evil. How twisted must the grasp of one’s facts be to make such a poor assessment of a person in his position? I blame a serious lack of historical perspective, and a heavily biased and politicised media.
By the way, I never personally liked Mr. G. W. Bush or his father and would not have voted for him if I were an American citizen—at least not initially. I also do not believe Clinton was as bad as many conservatives make him out to be. But I will not stand by while otherwise educated people make crazy judgements about important issues. I will speak up and defend those whom I believe deserve defending.
—posted by Nicholas.
