re: "The massacre at Camp Ashraf"

Melanie Phillips at The Spectator ("don't think alike") brings disturbing word from Iraq, that you won't get from the "news" media.

Money quote(s):

"(W)e must not overlook the massacre that took place earlier this month of members of the Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), at their base in Ashraf in Iraq.

Despite the fact that the PMOI are ‘protected persons’ under the 4th Geneva Convention, on April 8 they were the victims of an unprovoked attack which was apparently carried out on the orders of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki. The unarmed civilian residents of Ashraf were fired at with machine-gun rounds, as a result of which 35 of them were killed and some 350 injured.

According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Iraqi Army used 2,500 troops equipped with armoured vehicles to attack Ashraf in tandem with the feared al Qods force of Iran." Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.

The PMOI (a.k.a., MEK) are the military wing of the NCRI. Or perhaps the NCRI is the political wing of the PMOI/MEK. Experts disagree.

But the bottom line is that the PMOI members interned at Camp Ashraf are protected persons, declared to be by our own military commanders in Iraq, under the Geneva Protocols.

"(T)here are strong fears that the Iraqis are preparing to inflict further violence on the residents of Ashraf -- and no less disturbing, claims that both the Iraqis and the Americans have been either actively preventing or doing nothing to provide medical aid for those injured in the attack." Embedded link added. - CAA.

&

"(T)he last thing the British and Americans want to acknowledge is that the Iraqi government of Nuri al Maliki – the country in which so much British and American blood and treasure has been so painfully spent in the cause of making it safe for the west -- has merely become (as has been suggested on this blog many times) a puppet of the Iranians, the west’s most lethal foe"

Does no one else recall the shame of Operation Keelhaul? I fear we will see even worse this time around.

re: "Need budget cuts? We probably can start by shutting the Air War College"

Thomas E. Ricks at The Best Defense ("Tom Rick's Daily Take on National Security") reviews some criticism of the Air War College.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he place is an expensive joke. Funny except that the taxpayer picks up the tab."

Happily, this does not jibe at all with my experiences regarding DoD's higher learning institutions, such as the other various war colleges and universities. Some of the issues raised by Hughes are certainly potential pitfalls for any institution of this type; the sponsoring organization has to value the institution (or, more importantly, its product) enough to send its best and brightest to be students and its very best and brightest to teach there. The way organizations send the message that an institution is important is by promoting those who excel there.

"Tom's bottom line: Hughes says it costs at least $300,000 a year to send an officer to the AWC. So this looks like a good place to begin budget cuts, Secretary Gates. Close the place and send the students out into the world of civilian academia, where they will be challenged intellectually and might learn something."

Pretty big black eye for the Air Force if it muffs running its own war college. Professional military education is an investment in a service's future top leaders, not a block to be checked off, particularly if that education is known by the other service's top leaders to be a joke.

re: "Another Day, Another Muslim Massacre"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ recounts his evolving perspective.

Money quote(s):

"After 9/11 I was pretty sure what I wanted to see was Option 2. When Bush took nukes off the table, I was disappointed.

I did then, and still do, criticize Bush for being a Born-Again Christian. By which I mean: informed by the Christian ethics of mercy and regard for human life.

Which I thought were nice and everything but... too constraining.

After 9/11, I had a much less Christian sort of thought about how to deal with a murder cult.

Bush sort of changed my mind, and pursued, I thought, what seemed to be a less savage, more noble course. I gave him credit for that. Maybe I (and people who thought like me) were in fact giving license to genocidal hatred. Maybe Bush's decision to keep things civilized was a good one.

I was proud of what Bush, and the troops fighting for America, did for me, and for all of us. It wasn't just that they delivered justice -- justice could be more cheaply delivered via massive bombs dropped on cities and towns. They also delivered something finer than justice. Compassion, mercy.

I wouldn't have chosen that course -- but I was glad that cooler (or, warmer) heads chose it for me.

But as this goes on I am going back to thinking those are expensive luxuries and I no longer wish to pay for such things."

re: "The Attack on Libya Crossed a Very Bright Constitutional Line"

Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA) at Big Government laid out the Constitutional facts.


Money quote(s):

"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” "

&

"To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act, the President may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without Congressional approval. This is completely false. The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: the President may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting directly from the Act): “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Only if one of these conditions is present can the President invoke the War Powers Act. None are present or alleged to be present, and thus the President is in direct violation of that Act.
The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance."

re: "Random Bits"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama ("dedicated to following issues related to contemporary insurgencies as well as counterinsurgency tactics and strategy") has his head screwed the right way on and his priorities in order.

Money quote(s):

"I was not too angry about the fact that the United States is conducting clandestine operations in Libya. Frankly, I support liaising with the rebels (though not arming them), and I also support observing air strikes. Air strikes are generally more effective at doing what you want them to do -- and not doing what you do not want them to do, like kill civilians -- when they are observed. What makes me mad is the inability of officials to understand that clandestine operations are no longer clandestine after you blab about them to Mark Mazetti and Eric Schmitt. Now, if officials in the administration leaked this information as part of a carefully planned, tightly coordinated information operation designed to hasten Gadhafi's departure from Libya, I take back all my criticism and indeed salute the administration. If, by contrast, this information was leaked because of domestic political pressure and in response to complaints the administration was not doing enough to support the rebels, then I know of a circle of hell Dante forgot in which the leakers will someday find themselves residing. These kinds of leaks -- which involve disclosing the presence and activities of men in harm's way -- are the kind that make me want to run around Washington, DC kicking "officials" in their sensitive parts."

re: "The Entangling Alliance"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") has some thoughts on NATO.

Money quote(s):

"We have transferred operational control of the Libya operation from a USAF general to a USN admiral, but the admiral is head of NATO. Presumably there is a logic to this, but I confess I don't understand it; but then I don't understand the necessity for the US to be in NATO in the first place. NATO is an entangling alliance. The warning against entangling alliances is usually attributed to George Washington, but we actually inherited it from Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." It is of a piece with Washington's warnings. The purpose of NATO originally was to keep the Russians from taking West Germany and going to the Rhine. NATO was formed by Truman during the early days of the Cold War when governments in Europe were falling to Communist coups and the Iron Curtain was descending. It became a military alliance with a formal structure as a result of the Korean War. In those days, NATO was a mutual security organization: an attack on one member was an attack on all of them.

When the Berlin Wall came down NATO no longer had a purpose, but the Iron Law of Bureaucracy took over and NATO actually expanded"

&

"(O)f course the expanded NATO must have more missions: it needs to justify its existence.

In fact it has no reason for existence. NATO is an expensive luxury we cannot afford."

re: "Tartan Day - The Declaration of Arbroath"

It's that time again.

re: "Barack Obama’s Imperial Presidency"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") has a better understanding of the war powers issues than most.

Money quote(s):

"I suppose it is smart for a Member of Congress to avoid getting too involved in foreign policy matters because the possibility of being wrong is so much greater. However, that doesn’t make the abdication of responsibility proper. Largely though its own lack of willingness to act over the years, Congress has ceded vast discretion to the President when it comes to committing American military forces to overseas conflicts that don’t directly threaten the national interests of the United States."

"(E)very President since Richard Nixon has taken the position that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because is infringes on the President’s powers as Commander in Chief. Obama is merely adopting the position of his predecessors, and while it may seem odd that a President who ran against the Iraq War to be acting like this, it is not at all surprising. Once they have been asserted, Executive Branch privileges are seldom curtailed" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

The bolded portion is a key bit of history that seems to be evading many commenters on this but forms an essential component of what I was originally taught about the War Powers Act. Every president complies with the Act's requirements, but does so while saying he doesn't have to.

"As for what will happen with regard to Libya, I think that’s pretty easy to figure out. Congress will do nothing. With American forces committed abroad, and the increasing possibility that ground troops may be necessary at some point, no Congress is going to step in and tel the President he can’t do this, no matter how much they believe that to be the case."

He may be right about this, but I think this will break differently should there be any U.S. casualties.

re: "Libya: Military Science 101 at work"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") shows how the enemy gets a vote in how the best-laid plans go aft agley. (We're not the only ones with a learning curve, after all.)

Money quote(s):

"I noted the other day to someone that once Gadhafi’s forces figured out how to adapt to the coalition presence and tactics, they’d probably begin to swing the momentum back to their side. Why? Because they’re better trained and equipped than the “rebels”. "

The Libyan rebels are, almost by definition, a "rag tag band." In other words, they're a "pick-up" team. No hard winter at Valley Forge drilling under Von Steuben for them. To their detriment.

"Think about it - what is the hardest thing to distinguish? Whether or not a civilian vehicle is occupied by good guys or bad guys – or neither. Make your side pretty much identical from the air to the other side or just regular civilians and it makes the job the coalition has undertaken much harder. That’s precisely what the Gadhafi troops have done."

The enemy gets a vote in how your plan (assuming you have a plan developed somewhat beyond the "Underpants Gnome" stage) and will be doing whatever they can manage to foul up and interfere with its successful implementation.

That why the call them "the enemy."

"I hear a lot of talk about the US (or others) arming the rebels and how that will make the difference. Nonsense. While not having the weaponry that the other side has is indeed a disadvantage, it isn’t the rebel alliance’s biggest problem. Their biggest problem is they’re an untrained and undisciplined rabble. And an untrained and undisciplined rabble confronting even marginally trained troops with at least a modicum of discipline are going to lose if all else is equal."

In political terms, this is why the odds favor the Muslim Brotherhood coming out on top of the tweeters and Facebookers in Egypt: the Ilkwan are organized and prepared for violence, just like the Bolsheviks and Khomeini's "revolutionaries" were.

re: "The Obama Administration in Contempt of Congress on Libya and the Underpants Gnome Theory of War"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is reading the plain English meaning of the War Powers Act.

Money quote(s):

"If you are going to argue that the President can do this under his inherent powers under the Constitution, that is fine. I will disagree with you, but you are within the realm of reasoned debate. But you can’t pretend that the War Powers Act covers this—you can argue that this power is inherent in the office of Commander-in-Chief, but you can’t honestly and competently claim that the War Powers Act covers this. This isn’t a foreign language. Hell, this isn’t even lawyer-code-talk. We were not in an emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or its armed forces when Obama started bombing Libya. It is, simply put, a lie to say it lawful under this act."

As I've noted before, as over-lawyered as our military leadership structure has become, this has to have been staffed so that the various generals and admirals don't have legal exposure on this.

"(D)uring the Revolution our military force was pretty pitiful, too, but usually the underdog loses. That is why we call them the underdog, and why it is an inspiring movie cliché when they win. Because they usually don’t win. So we might end up blowing another hole in our deficit, with little to show for it.

Nice. I have supported the idea of intervening from the beginning. I think McCain was right to ask for intervention when he asked for it. But if in our dithering the rebels have dwindled down to a force that cannot win, then we have to fish or cut bait. We either do a full scale invasion—which I oppose—or we shouldn’t even bother.

But just having a no-fly zone (which apparently does include blowing up some tanks—huh?), is just half-assed."

This is called limited warfare. Which is kind of an elastic term, as it's defined more by what it's not (it's not unlimited warfare, in other words).

"I had been trying to put words to my concern about how this war has been run for days, and I think I finally found the best metaphor. It’s the Underpants Gnomes theory of warfare. Of course I explain the Underpants Gnome metaphor here, but this is Obama’s theory of how to win the war:

Step 1: Enforce a No-Fly Zone Step 2: ? Step 3: Regime Change!

So his second step is a question mark, because he is just hoping the Rebels do something to take down Qdaffy, but he has no idea what it would be, or apparently even if they are capable of doing it, with our help. I support regime change and so on, but I am against half-assing it.

Anyway, Congress has to put its foot down. At the very least he has to be censured. That should be step one. And if Obama continues to show this contempt of the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, it would be impeachment time. And some would say it was overdue."

Congress doesn't seem to be having many problems with this thus far, aside from one or two Members raising the issue.

If U.S. involvement escalates (think "boots on the ground") or we start to take losses of men and materiel, and it could become katie-bar-the-door time in D.C.

re: "NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ just keeps getting smarter all the time.

Money quote(s):

"If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible. What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk."

&

"(O)f course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation."

re: "On Military Intervention, the National Interest and the American Left"

DiploMad at DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") explains why inconsequential military interventions have consequences.

Money quote(s):

"(O)nce the United States, the world's preeminent military power, intervenes in a military crisis, even if there were no U.S. interests before that intervention, U. S. national interests get created by the intervention. Yes, once we intervene, committing our people, treasure, and prestige, we have a national interest in obtaining success. We now have to win, and the other side has to lose, or our enemies around the world will be emboldened to act against us."

To put it less professionally (or rather in the terms of a different set of professions), once you've got skin in the game, you've got skin in the game.

Vonclaustrophobia

Karlchen (“Little Carl”) Von Claustrowitz warned large states from undertaking adventurism in small states, inspiring the term “Vonclaustrophobia” (an irrational fear or aversion to military involvement in small or limited wars).

Described small wars as “the continuation of inter-office politics and bureaucratic in-fighting by violent means.”

Also coined under-appreciated terms like “the drizzle of war,” “abrasion” or "chafing" (which takes Friktion a logical step further to describe the damage that small, limited wars inflict even upon a military victor).

Admonitions include: “If you start to take Liechtenstein, take Liechtenstein.”

Karlchen (sometimes Charlotte) Von Claustrowitz was the sole heir of a family of Imperial knights in the Schwalmish foothills of Hessen’s Westerwald.

Born on the family Rittergut and educated the Academia Nassauensis in Herborn, during the Napoleonic period he participated in many small, unproductive military campaigns, eventually gaining command of his own field desk and camp stool.

Recently re-discovered in a dusty suggestion box in Marburg, his writings were nearly forgotten and lost to history as a result of parchment mold issues in the Hessian State Archives .