re: "Quick Takes, March 10, 2011"

Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") relays an old story.

Money quote(s):

“ITEM: Shouldn’t America’s Ambassador to the United Nations represent...America? Not so much these days. When George Schultz was Secretary of State, he often invited new foreign service officers to his office and asked them to point out, on a map, the country they would be representing. They would invariably point to the nation to which they had been posted. Mr. Schultz would then point to America and tell them that it was the nation they represented. According to Fox News (here) British Prime Minister David Cameron is defunding four U.N agencies at the end of next year. They are: The UN International Development Organization, UN-Habitat, The International Labor Organization, and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Mr. Cameron, faced with his own budget crunch, has concluded that the agencies don’t accomplish squat, and don’t accomplish it at a very high cost indeed, so England is no longer playing. In the meantime, American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice has been criss-crossing the nation trying to raise money for the UN. Uh, wasn’t she supposed to represent American interests at the UN, not fundraise for it? I get so confused by these high-level issues. Rather a shame we don’t have a Secretary of State like Mr. Schultz anymore, isn’t it? Discuss.“

Funny, but that very story is told to new FSOs during their initial training orientation.

So the professional diplomats out there have already had this explained to them.

The way I heard it, was the SecState would ask new ambassadors to show him, on a map, "their" country.

Which is a little more ambiguous, in terms of the ambassadors' actual duties (and a lot less insulting) that asking what country they "represent."

And it got the essential point across without being stupidly nasty about it.

Still, I did rather wonder what Amb. Rice was trying to accomplish, when I'd earlier heard the same news report.

re: "The Historical Record Does Not Treat the Timid Kindly"

No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Just Trying to Make Sense of It All") is behind the curtain, (with the great and powerful Oz).

Money quote(s):

"In the interest of full disclosure, I find myself in my current position quite by accident. During the last bid cycle, the list was filled with jobs in places to which my wife would not go, as well as places my wife preferred with jobs that I could never swallow hard and take. Incidentally, Consular Chief in Tunis was one of those jobs; my wife wanted to go. I declined, because I was sure I'd be bored to tears. Whoops.

My time inWashington has been nothing short of enlightening, an epiphany, an opportunity to peak behind the curtain. Especially in this time of unprecedented change in the Middle East, to have a front-row seat to policy formulation in reaction to these events is beyond fascinating.But in this short post, let me pass to you a fundamental observation about decision-making in Washington: way too much thought goes into it. Don't misunderstand me: after the experience of the Bush administration, I deeply value an intellectually-rigorous National Security Council that turns issues over and over in a deliberate, rational, measured way. But the danger, in my experience, comes from the old adage of "paralysis of analysis." "

Ah, the agony of bidding, and the narrowing of possibilities as one becomes more senior. It's good to spend some time back in the homeland, even "inside the beltway" every couple of tours; one tends to lose touch with ones own culture. I'm still not sure who Lady Gaga is (or why I should care).

Aside from the gratuitous pimp-slap at the NSC staff of the previous administration (neither of us were, apparently, on it), his point about the "paralysis of analysis" is perfectly valid.

"History has proven time and time and time again that only the brave, only the courageous, only those who are willing to act on principle even in the absence of answers to all the outstanding questions -- only those are celebrated by countless future generations as heroes.

There is a huge risk in acting without any guarantee of success.

There is a massive risk in weighing in on behalf of the powerless when that action may be perceived as imperialism.

But nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Consular officers are taught to make decisions, any decision, without dithering overmuch and in the absence of complete information. After all, aside from Caddyshack's Karl Spackler (who will, on his deathbed, achieve total consciousness) who ever has complete information?

"Courage is the quality by which a man executes a decision solely on the basis of principle without all the information he would ideally have, and without concern for the potential negative fallout that decision might have on his own political future.

A politician consumed primarily with his political legacy is doomed to failure.

A leader with the courage to go with his gut and push his chips in even without the conviction that he is holding the best hand -- this is the man who has the opportunity to achieve greatness."

Most of us don't think of it as courage, particularly. But: "it's why they pay us the big bucks."

re: "Some Questions For Advocates Of Intervention In Libya"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") relays George Will's excellent questions and declares:

"(B)efore we accept the arguments of those calling for yet another war in an Arab nation, we require them to answer these questions."

Mr. Will has a few more questions than the Powell Doctrine required.

What are they?

- The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.
- How much of Gaddafi’s violence is coming from the air? Even if his
aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?
- What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe’s worst atrocity since the Second World War – the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica – occurred beneath a
no-fly zone
- Sen. John Kerry says: “The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don’t consider the fly zone stepping over that line.” But how is imposing a no-fly zone – the use of military force to further military and political objectives – not military
intervention?
- U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi’s fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded
would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya’s radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths – remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake
when they were gathering firewood – are we prepared for the televised
pictures?
- The Economist reports Gaddafi has “a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles” and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies’ aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
- If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
- Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
- Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan
experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
- Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention – 79 days of bombing – against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
- Could intervention avoid “mission creep”? If grounding Gaddafi’s aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn’t protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
- In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B’s civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
- Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?
- Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed
state – “a giant Somalia.” Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie – “Black Hawk Down” – about how humanitarian
military interventions can take nasty turns?
- The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect
U.S. military assistance?
- Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

-----

Hat tip to Barcepundit ("My English is not perfect? Well, it's not my mother tongue, so sue me! ").

re: "Too Many White Guys "

Spook86 at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") addresses military diversity.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. military has a problem, according to a DoD advisory panel.

And no, we're not referring to the demands of two on-going wars (and the toll on those who serve); escalating personnel costs, a shrinking fleet, aging nuclear forces and combat aircraft that are equally long-in-the tooth. The group wasn't asked to address those pressing concerns.

Instead, the panel was asked by Congress to look at diversity in our military. In fact, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission spent two years looking at the issue and released their final report earlier this week. You can probably predict their findings without reading this Associated Press article."

No real surprises. Just like recent recommendations about, for instance, DADT.

"It's tempting to dismiss the report as little more than PC drivel. But the commission's chairman, retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, has a reputation as a straight-shooter and an outstanding leader. It's hard to imagine that he would simply compile the usual rot and sign off on it. If General Lyles is willing to stake his reputation on the report, then it's probably worth a look."

"The armed forces need to train and promote the best and brightest, regardless of their ethnic background or gender. The advancement of minority and female officers has been slow, but no one can dispute that more members of those groups are reaching senior ranks in the U.S. military.

Which leads us to another point: the commission (and elected officials) say they want an officer corps that reflects America. That's a worthy goal, but are you willing to trade mission effectiveness to achieve it? Among its various recommendations, the panel urges DoD to "open additional career fields and units involved in 'direct ground combat' to qualified women."

Trouble is, the vast majority of military women will never qualify to serve in such positions, the result of physiology--not discrimination.

Almost 20 years ago, columnist Fred Reed published results of an Army study, comparing fitness levels among male and female soldiers. The data reaffirms that most women simply lack the upper body strength and endurance required by an Army infantryman, a Marine rifleman, or most special forces MOS's."

Insert obligatory blather about how many jobs don't require upper body strength and enduranc (ignoring the fact that we're talking about some specific jobs that actually do).

"(W)hat's a chief diversity officer supposed to do (don't laugh--the commission recommends creation of that very post, reporting directly to the SecDef). Water down the standards so more women will qualify for combat service, removing that "barrier" to reaching the flag ranks? Or create some sort of double-standard, allowing females to punch their resumes in the right places and continue their climb to the stars. Either approach is unacceptable, yet some sort of "modification" is inevitable, to open up more combat billets to women."

The goal is apparently to allow women to become chair-person of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no matter the "unintended" consequences. This caters to the roughly one-percent of female military members who are trade-school types (i.e., military academy grads) resentful of a presumed glass ceiling.

"General Lyles insists that military performance and effectiveness remain the real bottom line, but if the commission's recommendations are fully implementing, the armed forces will be walking a very fine line.

No one disputes the benefits of more flag officers who are women or members of minority groups. But the real emphasis should be on demanding excellence from all who aspire to flag rank, and promoting those who meet--and exceed--a very high bar. Some of the "remedies" outlined in the Lyles report seem closer to social engineering, particularly when you introduce the notions of "measurement" and "metrics." "

re: "In Case You Needed Proof of Congress's Disdain for Federal Employees...."

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") highlights rudeness and incivility in high places.

Money quote(s):

"Coburn's reaction to overseas comparability pay is particularly infuriating..."it's going away." How someone who is supposed to represent Americans and who certainly benefits from the Foreign Service, particularly when he travels overseas, can be so glib about handing us a 24% pay cut is beyond comprehension.

I certainly hope that the next time he travels overseas, he travels economy class, because in his words, "we just don't have the money." And I hope he gets very little assistance from post, because he doesn't seem terribly interested in us."

Well, that's not too likely to happen.

re: "AAD Report: Under-investment in diplomacy has left Foreign Service overstretched, under prepared"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") summarizes this professionally-relevant report.

Money quote(s):

"Among its recommendations are 1) fully funding of the staffing initiative under Diplomacy 3.0, 2) creation of a 15% training float, 3) long-term commitment to investing in the professional education and training needed "to build a 21st-century diplomatic service of the United States able to meet the complex challenges and competition we face in the coming decades"; 4) strengthening and expansion of the Department of State’s professional development process ; 5) establishment of a temporary corps of roving counselors to address mentoring problems caused by the mid-level gap; 6) a study that will examine best practices in the field to determine how on-the-job training can be most effectively conducted for FSOs; 7) completion of a year of advanced study related to FSO's career track as a requirement for promotion to the Senior Foreign Service; and 8) appropriately targeted consultations before a new Chief of Mission (COM) even begins pre-assignment consultations."

1. Failing to fully fund staffing means jobs go unfilled means FSOs juggle multiple jobs means decreasing quality of all jobs. And that even more jobs are simply left unfilled.

2. A "training float" means that officers are able to take the training needed to perform new duties or learn new languages before they go to new jobs. A lot of the hiring under the old DRI was intended to make this good, but then a war broke out and things like PRTs and two or three of the world's most highly-staffed embassies soaked up that safety margin like a sponge.

3. The Foreign Service Institute does a pretty good job training officers but not, so far as I've seen, such a good job at educating them. There's sort of an unspoken attitude of you-should-already-be-fully-educated-when-you-get-hired.

That's not the attitude, by the way, one encounters in DoD. Funny how it's the killing-people-and-breaking-things agencies that actually value education.

Odd how these legacies of the old WASP establishment era of American diplomacy seem to linger on, when the actual Foreign Service looks "a lot like America," as the saying goes.

State needs to consider establishment of an institute focused on education, and learn the difference between training and education. There is one, which is one reason you generally can't get college credit for courses taken at FSI. Not to disrespect FSI too much because it's actually pretty good at the training piece, but while it's got many of the trappings of an educational institute (coat-of-arms, deans, registrars, &tc.) that's all surface gloss.

4. SecState Powell did a phenomenal job at establishing and implementing the beginnings of professional development training because he understood, coming from DoD, why it's important. He got that there's a continuum of training necessary during the life-cycle of a career officer, whether they are military or civilians.

5. I'm not sure what "roving counselors" are intended to accomplish, where they're supposed to come from, and what mid-grade jobs will they leave unfilled while they're "roving." (If mid-grade FSOs weren't facing a 24% pay cut for serving overseas, perhaps it'd be easier to make up the shortfall in their numbers.)

6. Best practices are always good to share, Consular bureau makes this a near fetish (and I mean that in a good way).

7. Another requirement for "passing the senior threshold" may or may not be a good thing. Making it a requirement means the Department would need to make it a possibility rather than the fairly rare opportunity it is now. FSOs are eligible to bid on a number of out-of-Department training opportunities once they become tenured. Some of these are at non-governmental universities, others are as sort of exchange students at DoD schools like the various war colleges. Making this a requirement for promotion means either providing a lot more opportunities (governmental or otherwise), expecting FSOs to be independently wealthy enough to take year-long leave-without-pay (LWOP) sabbaticals to accomplish this, or deciding relatively early who's destined for "flag rank" and who's not.

A word about governmental/DoD schools: they generally seem happy to have a State Dept. person or two in any given class, as well as from other civilian agencies, in the various war college and other DoD schools. But if we're going to start really trying to load more FSOs into their training system, perhaps we should consider establishing our own advanced educational program, based at FSI for instance, where they can send their own exchange students. See #3 above.

8. I'm not quite sure what this intends. Is the idea that there should be more general pre-COM training for new ambassadors before they begin focussing on post-/country-specific consultations?

re: "Our defense strategy"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is following SecDef Gates' debate with himself.

Money quote(s):

"When I took early retirement from Special Forces I served several years as a First Sergeant in the Wisconsin Guard and when asked in 1999, I told my troops "There is absolutely no way we will be in any land war that requires National Guard Infantry to be called up". It pays not to make absolute statements."

It's unclear to me how, as late as 1999, Uncle Jimbo could have thought this. We'd already been through Desert Storm, where, to be fair, no sizeable NG infantry formations were deployed, and through three years of Balkan involvement (Operation Joint Endeavor, IFOR, SFOR, &tc.) which had heavy reserve component involvement.

"MacArthur managed to limit his limiting of Presidential and Congressional authority to simply crossing Asia of the list of places we should do land war. Gates has upped the ante and eliminated two continents and the most volatile region on Earth. I think he was right the first time and that since we don't know who and where we may end up fighting then we should make sure to maintain our best deterrents and combat systems."

re: "Ground Zero Imam: Islam is a Religion of Peaceful People Who Fly Off the Handle Over Mere Speech"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is watching the pre-game before the King hearings.

Money quote(s):

"Mind you, they haven’t actually happened yet, but for some reason the mere fact he going to have some kind of hearings justifies shutting it down. Why? Because his utterly peaceful co-religionists might go all terrorist over this."

What's that cliche from the first few months after 9/11? Something like: if you shut down the hearings then the terrorists win.

"I have long identified this as freeloading on terrorism, where a supposed “moderate” Muslim tells those of us in the West, don’t draw cartoons of Mohammed (pedophilia be upon him), don’t criticize his faith and so on. Because, you know, if you do, one of us Muslims are going to go and commit terrorism.

In short, don’t actually exercise and enjoy your freedom. Live your lives limited by intimidation. And then we will get along famously."

Nice little Bill of Rights you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.

"(I)nstead of trying to talk us out of exercising our freedom, if you really think your co-religionists can’t be expected to control themselves, why don’t you work on that instead? That seems like the bigger problem to me.

It comes down to this. Either Islam is compatible with freedom or it is not."

That is the key question. We already know that the Judeo-Christian West is compatible with freedom, because they essentially invented it. And they're not exactly stingy about franchising either.

"(I)f you can’t expect Muslims to deal with criticism, blasphemy, etc. without going on a killing spree, then Islam is not compatible with American freedom. And I don’t think you want to see where that road takes us.

But I know for a fact this isn’t true. I know of and work with Muslims every day who would never resort to violence over that kind of thing. They rightly consider statements like Imam Feisel’s as a betrayal of those millions of good Muslims who believe in freedom and Allah.

But it is hypocritical, Imam Feisel, to try to reap the benefits of terrorism without admitting responsibility for terrorism. It is hypocritical to pretend to denounce terrorism while simultaneously enabling it. And It is hypocritical to say that your people will murder over mere words, but to simultaneously pretend that Islam is not a problem in America."

One of the strengths of Western Civilization is its reverence for reason, for working things out, and for being unwilling to overlong tolerate the holding of mutually exclusive ideas and ideals. It took nearly a century and then the bloodiest of civil wars but the United States worked out the slavery vs. all-men-are-created-equal inconsistency. (It only took another century to get to the Civil Rights Act that took that logical contradiction another lap closer to resolution.)

So given our history, Americans aren't all that likely to be unendingly patient with this sort of cognitive dissonance.

re: "Is the military leadership “too white and too male?” Diversity gone wild ..."

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has read an absurd report commissioned by Congress.

Money quote(s):

"We sort of have to stop and talk about some basic things when we see a report like this. And the first is “what is the purpose of the military – diversity or victory”? Playing this sort of numbers game is stupid in an all volunteer force which has the job of defending the country. We’re not talking the university campus or some corporate board.

What you want is the best leaders to rise to the top. That isn’t to say that always happens, but to pretend that there’s an “acceptable” mix of ethnicity, race and gender that will optimize that leadership and improve the military is simply silly.

I object to this report not because it says we should allow women to serve in combat units – that’s an entirely different argument. I object to it because of the stupidity of the premise that diversity is more important than effectiveness, especially in military matters."

This sort of attitude, that one can continue social-tinker (it doesn't merit the promotion of the term "social engineering") with the nation's defenses, even during time of war (that's often overlooked) and no matter what there's just so much military awesome-to-spare that no one can ever beat us, or even hurt us.

I don't know whether to feel flattered they think we're that good, to feel insulted because the think we don't really matter, or to feel frightened that they don't understand why the U.S. might actually need a military, after all, that is capable of defending the nation from its enemies. There are enemies, despite what the good people (sic) at Columbia U. may think.

"It isn’t the job of a military to “reflect [the] racial, ethnic and gender mix” of the nation in its leadership. Its job is to field the best military and military leadership it can, close with and destroy enemies of the US and protect and defend its citizens and way of life. So it must reflect the best leadership available for the job REGARDLESS of race, ethnicity or gender. On its face the report’s premise is just silly."

To many on the Left, the military sole use (to the extent it is seen as in any way useful) is as a social laboratory where pet theories can be decreed into reality. After all, the military are mindless automatons who can be ordered to do anything and being unthinking drones they'll blindly obey.

"The military is and must remain a meritocracy. And while I know that the very best don’t always rise to the top, a good enough portion of them do. And, shock of shocks, it all somehow works. That’s what we want to encourage and continue REGARDLESS of race, ethnicity or gender.

Playing diversity games just to have pleasing numbers in “leadership” is nonsense, especially if there is no real need for it."

I was privileged to serve with men and women in the U.S. Army and her sister services who were of every hue and came from all walks of American life. They don't need special treatment to succeed, they just need a fair shot and they'll go as far as they're able.

Recall that it takes 20-30 years to "grow" a military leader into the top ranks. They're not just excreted from a factory somewhere or talent-scouted from a rival firm (although that would be an interest premise for a science fiction novel). I expect that, should I still be alive to see it 20-30 years from now, I will see a somewhat less caucasian group of general officers grown from today's lieutenants serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

re: "Military Intervention In Libya Is A Bad Idea"

streiff (Profile) at Redstate ("We’re happy warriors and we’re glad to have you in the fight.") does not favor U.S. intervention in Libya.

Money quote(s):

"One of the immutable laws of politics is that the Democrat party will refuse to use military intervention in any location where the US has strategic geopolitical or trade interests. The corollary to that law is that there is no Third World craphole (see Somalia, Darfur, Haiti) to which the Democrats will not offer to send US troops so long as it is high risk and with no real purpose.

One must understand both these rules to comprehend the calls coming from the left demanding US intervention in Libya."

The above would be hilarious if it didn't ring so historically true. Why it is that the U.S. must always act in its disinterest remains an intellectual leap beyond my poor powers.

"(I)t all boils down to the same thing: they are considering sending young men and women to death and injury for no purpose larger than feeling good about themselves and they are doing it with the same callous insouciance with which they cheerfully supported John Murtha’s (D-Ninth Circle) slow bleed strategy in Iraq."

It's an easy thing to do, when you don't have any skin in the game. Having said that, active duty aviation colleagues of mine seem to feel pretty can-do about being able to handle the job of a no-fly-zone.

Naturally, if Italy, for example, invokes the NATO charter in the face of a sea-borne invasion from Libya, the U.S. would be honor-bound to assist, I'm sure.

"Libya is the anti-Iraq. Where Iraq occupied key real estate and had the underpinnings of being a significant regional power, Libya has nothing and virtually is nothing.

If we’ve learned anything in the past 20 years is should be that we cannot let US foreign policy be driven by media coverage. We intervened in Haiti’s internal strife in 1994, again to make a certain class of intellectual feel good about “doing something” and withdrew having done nothing but show the world we did nothing. More tragically, we became embroiled in Somalia for the same reason, to “do something” without any observable strategic purpose, and our subsequent pell-mell retreat convinced bin Laden that he could replicate the effect.

Truth be told, what happens in Libya doesn’t matter to us so long as it stays confined to Libya. If anyone should be concerned it is the Euros who, no matter which way the situation turns out, will be on the receiving end of a stream of political refugees. If the EU does become involved it is hard to see exactly what value-added US forces will represent given the relative proximity of the EU to Libya."

The U.S. was already suckered into doing the heavy lifting in the Balkans, which at least had the excuse of not actually being contiguous with any actual NATO countries. And yet, I seem to remember it was the same NATO partner which faced the Former Yugoslavia across the Adriatic Sea as is directly north of Tunisia. Hmmm. I'm trying to recall whether Italy sent anything to Iraq except Communist journalists and spooks to pay their ransoms. Maybe they were more involved in Afghanistan.

"Let’s not fool ourselves. If we intervene in Libya we do so for no strategic or humanitarian purpose and without any real consideration of what may follow."

A strategy for which an intervention operation would be an integral part would be such a nice thing to have.

re: "Oh, For a New AVG"

Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") has an interesting idea.

Money quote(s):

"As speculation leaks out this morning that Syria aircraft and ground troops may be fighting Libyan rebels on behalf of Qaddafi's dictatorship, it makes me wonder how many lives might eventually be saved if there was a way for forming something like the American Volunteer Group that fought for the Chinese in world War II. You probably know them better as the Flying Tigers."

Interesting thought. But it occurs to me there's likely not the kind of longish time window available to the original AVG in the Libyan instance.

"(T)here is no reasonable expectation of a volunteer force fighting a direct air-to-air war against modern (or nearly modern) fighters, but even a single squadron of generation's old close-air support and observation aircraft could bring this conflict to a quicker and hopefully less costly end. Modern piston-drive COIN aircraft such as the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 or the EMB-314 Super Tucano could level the playing field for the rebels, as they are more than capable of taking on the improvised gun trucks and tanks of Qaddafi's loyalists and mercenaries, and quite frankly, could probably do so with a bit more accuracy (and collateral damage) than the jet aircraft the dictator's forces have been using.

The AT-6 is even familiar to many pilots; the trainer version of the plane is the primary trainer the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy pilots and the pilots of 19 other nations.

Like the original AVG, the pilots and ground crews of this theoretical group would be made up of men that volunteered to serve, flying planes loaned to the besieged rebels. At or near the end of the conflict, with the tables decisively turned, the aircraft could be returned to their originating nations or "donated" to the new government for oil."

re: "Obama administration preparing for Islamic states in Middle East"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") considers the likely outcomes.

Money quote(s):

"I thought only greasy Islamophobes thought that the likely outcome in the Middle East would be Islamic states, not pluralistic Western-style democracies!"

It's actually a bit too early to tell, but it wouldn't be outrageous for me to suggest that at least one of the recent upheavels in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya will result an Islamic state, even if it turns out to be a mini-state in a devolved Libya.

"(T)here has never been and is not now an Islamic state that was democratic in the Western sense. Kemalist Turkey established a Western-style republic only by directly and openly restricting the political aspects of Islam. Maybe it will happen now that functioning democracies that guarantee equality of rights for non-Muslims and women, protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and yet establish Islam as well, will emerge in the Middle East -- history is full of surprises.

But for that to happen, some aspects of Islamic law will not be implemented, and that will mean there will be pressure in those states from Islamic clerics who will find the new government, whatever its Islamic character, to be just as un-Islamic and hence unacceptable as the authoritarian regime it replaced. And that pressure will lead to continued unrest."

re: "PJ’s Poor Judgment"

Greg Gutfeld at Big Hollywood is experiencing an increasingly common symptom of distust.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hen I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.

I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.

And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.

Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer’s links to radical Islam were exposed.

And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion."

A/S Crowley (Colonel, U.S. Air Force Retired) has an unenviable job. I wouldn't take it at gunpoint. Well, not that anyone's likely to ever offer me any job anywhere near the assistant secretary level, but he has to walk a very fine line between needing to put lipstick (our lipstick) on a pig (our pig) and uttering any actual untruths.

Diplomacy can be like that.

Remember that we don't want the GWOT to devolve into an actual civilization-level all-out total war between the West and Islam. That's what UBL and Al-Qaeda would like.

(After all, an ideology designed to thrive in the 7th century might be just the thing to dominate the rubble remaining after such a conflict.)

Pres. Bush (43) got that (and several other big things) right.

"(A) killer can shout Allahu Akbar – just like at Ft. Hood – and the Administration still won’t “commit.” They only see a man with no affiliation–because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It’s bigotry, after all.

Look, making no mention of terror won’t make terror go away."

This is one of our American cultural blindspots, and it's something we can't afford to persist as a mental default position. At this point, short of firing squads the most effective remedy for this sort of knee-jerk political correctness is to ridicule it. Hold it up to the light and laugh at it; once enough comedians are poking fun at it and enough Americans realize what a laugh-line it is, it's bound to change.

re: "Mike Huckabee Alludes To Obama Growing Up In Kenya; Media Pounces; I Hereby Declare This Is Obama's Problem, Not Huckabee's"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ begins with former Gov. Huckabee's recent mis-speech and swerves into a politically-cynical (and thus entertaining) run at the "birther" kerfuffle.

Money quote(s):

"In an interview, Huckabee alluded to Obama growing up in Kenya; he apparently mixed up Obama's complicated richly textured tapestry of nuanced diversity lineage and background, and misspoke.

He immediately clarified that he had misspoke."

Easy enough to mis-speak like that, I suppose. The truth, roughly, is that after being born in Hawaii, the president spent several of his earlier years in Indonesia before moving back to Hawaii where he completed his pre-tertiary education. Not being the president's biographer, I'll leave it at that.

"I have a weird take on the Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory. Few share it. On one hand, I do not believe in it, at all. I disbelieve it for cosmological reasons, for one thing -- that Obama could be evicted from office due to this strikes me as such a Magic Button Happy Ending that I would almost be forced to confess the active hand of an Intelligent Designer in our political disputes, which I strongly doubt -- and for more specific reasons, there is evidence of his Hawaiian birth (notices in newspapers) that seems so fortuitous to seem just too unlikely to be credited.

On the other hand, those who reject such conspiracy theories tend to be convinced that the whole fooferall is political poison and will convince the world that we are nothing but crazy cranks.

I don't believe that last part. I believe this conspiracy theory is wrong (and often dumb) but politically pretty harmless. I base this on an imaginary conversation I have with a hypothetical, low-information, low-partisan-leaning independent voter I imagine in my head:"

Be sure to read the hypothetical dialogue he provides at his post.

I rather like the rejection of the "Magic Button Happy Ending" on grounds of it being a reverse-Occam's Razor.

"I do think that is why this whole Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory has not, in fact, harmed conservatives, despite the media attempting to harm conservatives with it at every turn.

It's just that anyone who hears all this is going to ask, as my Hypothetical Independent kept asking, "Okay, I accept this is all crazy... but... why won't he release it?"

There's no answer to that. No one ever says why this is so outrageous a request. No one offers any plausible justification for withholding it.

No one ever asks the President. No one. Ever.

We have a secret, and we don't even have the courtesy of a cover story to explain the secret away.

If you act secretively, it is not crazy to imagine you have secrets.

This is Obama's problem. It is Obama's choice to withhold this document. That's a decision he made -- why? No idea. The White House won't even offer a cover story to explain why such a benign record must be guarded like Area 51.

It is not the problem of Obama's opponents to prop him up and explain away his decision. It is not our duty to make excuses for him, or to postulate reasons why he's withholding a trivial birth record.

It's the guy with the secret who has the problem.

And this is what annoys me in the media coverage of this: They demand that Republicans swear on a stack of Bibles to affirm facts they have no knowledge of while steadfastly refusing to ask the guy actually concealing the records which would end the controversy why, The Hell, he is continuing to conceal them."

The truth will out. The truth always outs. Always. Sometimes you have to wait for it, sometimes you have to really be paying attention to notice it's gotten out, but it always gets there eventually. Always.

What will it be? No idea. But I think Ace has nudged the conversation (such as it is) in a useful enough direction. For my part, I'm inclined to believe the original Hawaiian birth certificate is perfectly genuine and that the president is Constitutionally eligible to hold office as a natural born citizen. I'm also inclined to favor the notion that for some reason of political expedience or embarrassment, the president doesn't want the original document released. And that declining to release that document falls more into the realm, at this late date, of being either due to force of habit or because the president has one more presidential campaign to run and doesn't want whatever it might be to become an issue.

Although at this point, having kept whatever it is under wraps for this long would probably be the more politically damaging issue.

"This is Obama's problem. Not Boehner's, not Huckabee's. Not even Chris Matthews'. There is one person in the entire world who is legally permitted to release the document in question. And that's not me, not John Boehner, and not Mike Huckabee.

Obama won't release it. He's decided that it's better to have people speculate about the reasons for his refusal to release basic documents about himself than to release those documents and dispel all speculation.

That's his choice. And if his word is that it is worse for him to release it than it is for him to not release it, I take him at his word.

And it's not my goddamn job or anyone else's to continuing spinning in support of his secrecy on the matter."

The president has a passport record. We know this because people were disciplined for improperly accessing the passport application records of several presidential candidates (including Sen. McCain, then-Sen. Clinton, and then-Sen. Obama) before he was even the Democratic nominee. So someone with the training and authority to do so pronounced on the president's citizenship long before he was president, and if there had been a problem with it there'd have been a passport fraud investigation by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

(And I don't believe for a second such a thing could have been kept secret for all these years.)

re: "Obama Promises Inquiry on Airmen Attack—Huge Sigh of Relief"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret ("blogging his way to... What?") echoes a growing sentiment of exasperation.

Money quote(s):

"Now come on, admit it, the first thought that popped into your head when you heard about an attack on American servicemen in Germany was that it must be a Mormon, a Catholic priest or a right-wing Evangelical who pulled the trigger."

Actually, the first thing I thought was to check my watch so I could start the countdown to the official FBI announcement of there being no connection to terrorism.

Then I had some thoughts about how this sort of attack, of people just outside of an airport's security screen, were recently projected as the next most likely targets.

"(I)t's really a mystery why this German-born, devout Muslim slaughtered American soldiers.
And as long as it remains a mystery—or a man-caused disaster—to Barack Hussein Obama and his clueless administration, we in the West will continue to be sitting ducks for the jihadists who are determined to destroy Western civilization."

re: "Telling Our Stories "

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") notes a recent Washington Post article you should read.

Money quote(s):

"This piece is exactly the kind of story the State Department and AFSA need to be getting out.

Our biggest problem, the reason we keep being the whipping boy for the budget cutters, is that we are no ones constituent. We are small and not well understood, so that makes us an easy target.

These kinds of stories help the American public get a better idea of the challenges we face."

We're small, elite (and perceived as elitist, which is even worse), deployed in dribs and drabs all over the world so we're out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind, not concentrated in any one congressional district, and we don't have big bases all around the country where we're stationed when we're not abroad.

When we're "home," 99% of the time that means we're in D.C., where we (deliberately) blend in with all the other government employees, riding the Metro to work and clogging the line at Starbucks.

"We have an awesome, exciting job that we are priviledged to get to do. We also have a frightening, challenging job that demands great personal sacrifice.

America needs to know."

It is an awesome job, often exciting and frequently meaningful.

I wouldn't trade it, and the chances its given me to "make a difference" for all the world, but.... it's still not fair to single us out for a 24% pay cut when we have the affrontery to actually deploy overseas to do our jobs.

Who else in government and military service does that?

re: "Gates: Any DefSec Who Proposes Wars Similar to Iraq and Afghanistan "Should Have His Head Examined" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ reacts to SecDef Gates' recent West Point speech.

Money quote(s):

"He also talks about "reshaping" (that is, cutting) the Army's and Marines' budget because he thinks a large conventional mechanized-units-vs.-mechanized-units war is unlikely.

I don't know about that last part. I'd say we'll have few of those wars. And more of the smaller-unit/guerilla war. But I'd say the likelihood of either is pretty high. The former's at like 70% and the latter's at 100%. Just because most fights will be small-unit engagements doesn't mean large-scale warfare isn't going to happen."

There's a way to break down threats like this, into four quadrants, where you evaluate possible events in terms of both probability (i.e., likelihood) and risk (i.e., hazard or cost) as being either High or Low. So you get Low Probability - Low Risk, High Probability - High Risk, Low Probability - High Risk, and High Probability - Low Risk.

The probability that major mechanized combat is going to happen in any given year may be low, but the risk is so high that you have to prepare for it. After all, you can't just excrete a major mechanized force and the ability to project it globally on 11 months notice; it takes literally decades to build.

"After eight years of pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not at all sure we were right to depart from the basic idea that nation-building was a bad idea.

This is less about Iraq and Afghanistan and more about the next war, which just might be Iran. Personally, I'd be on board for military action, but I would strongly prefer to leave the pacification and nation-building to the Iranians. Pay 'em, arm 'em, give them targeting lasers to paint targets for jet strikes, but I wouldn't support a massive, decade-long police action in a country with more than twice as many people as Iraq.

We used to do this a lot. We would arm indigenous fighters, train them, feed them intelligence, offer assistance. After 9/11, I think the decision was made that we had to show a very, very bright-line distinction between the real soldier -- professional, uniformed, acting under orders, scrupulously avoiding (to the extent possible) civilian collateral damage -- and the terrorist, and that led us to conclude, I think, that we couldn't just depart Iraq after smashing the Baathist state and let the Iraqis fight it out. Because there would be a whole lot of terrorist, civilian-targeting attacks, and we'd be on the hook for that."

"American troops are of course the most disciplined, ethical, and heroic in the world. So heroic, in fact, we typically expect them to put their own lives in danger for the purpose of reducing the chance of collateral damage. Few other troops would even consider such rules of engagement; our guys might complain about it, but in the end, they follow orders.

So if American troops are the primarily force in a country, we can expect the lowest possible number of civilian collateral casualties. But the question I'm asking myself now is: How much do I really care about the fewest number of civilian collateral casualties? In Iraq, if the deaths of 3000 American soldiers (in the later post-war campaign) saved, let's say, 60,000 Iraqi civilians -- was that a good trade? Or, more importantly, because the more important thing to me is the doctrine going forward: Would I be willing to make that trade in a hypothetical pacification campaign in Iran? Would I trade 3,000 US soldiers to make sure the fewest Iranian civilians died in the chaos that ensued after a decapitation of the state?

I think I'd say the Iranians will have to fight it out themselves."

Gates is only reprising MacArthur's (and Vizzini's) "never get involved in a land war in Asia" dictum. Odd how no one noticed both Iraq and Afghanistan are Asiatic countries before now.

The mathematics are a bit cold. Thinking the unthinkable is like that. But the calculus is necessary.

"I wouldn't support an Iraq-style American-troops-as-primary-combatants pacification.
And I don't even think that it matters what I think -- I don't think any President, Republican or Democrat or Tea Partier, is going to propose such a thing. Which makes this question very important, because unless the country can accept that arm-your-proxies style of limited warfare, I think we're going to have a Vietnam Syndrome going forward. Given the choice between no military action at all and full-scale invasion plus pacification/nation-building, I think the country will select, by large margins, "no military action at all," and I think that is very dangerous.

We will need to fight another country again, most likely sooner rather than later. We need a doctrine about such a war that can actually gain popular support.

I just don't believe the country will undertake another Iraq or Afghanistan you-break-it-you-bought-it plan, at least not for a long time. So I think those who believe that warfare must always be a possible tool available to us (even if only occasionally used) must formulate a doctrine in which the post-war pacification campaign is specifically ruled out and our goals in the post-war scenario are achieved by means other than heavy presence of American troops as primary combatants.

I just don't think the Iraq model of post-war pacification is an option in the next five to ten years, at least, for political reasons."

Frankly, I suspect we'll have U.S. troops, at some level of strength, in both Iraq and Afghanistan for at least five of those years, so I'd envision that, barring a catastrophic event that "resets" U.S. grand strategy, five to ten years is a very conservative estimate.

"(I)f we actually want to credibly threaten a country like Iran -- and do more than merely threaten, should it come to that -- we need a doctrine that has a chance of getting the nation behind it, and we have to begin conditioning the nation to realize what happens when disciplined, heroic American troops are not the primary combatants -- a lot of civilians are going to die, most likely, because only American troops (and some other professional Western-tradition troops) are brave enough to put the lives of civilians before their own."

re: "The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I – Understanding the Threat"

John Guandolo at Big Peace has begun a frightening series of articles.

Money quote(s):

"It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success."

This problem has implications far beyond the merely doctrinal and theoretical. When the ever-awkward construction "global war on terrorism" is junked for "man-made disasters," it's not an improvement.

Foreign policy, or at least diplomacy, is just one of the instruments of national power which can be used to implement or support a strategy, grand strategy, or even an operational or tactical plan. Without a clear grand strategy in the current global war, or even an acknowledgement that it exists (that there is something bigger going on that two isolated theatres of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), foreign policy will be about what you see now.

"The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world."

As I noted above, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not conceived and initiated as wholly unrelated and independent activities, whether you agree with them or not. They were, and are, separate campaigns in a larger strategy.

Students of history will note that strategies, and grand strategies, evolve, as do objectives. Abandonment or feigned ignorance of those objectives, however, partway through their accomplishment courts great hazard.

"Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.

One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad?"

Clearly, what even the shiniest new intelligence officer or analyst knows requires years of experience and higher education to unlearn. But it can be done.

"Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.

Our enemy has no intention of defeating us on the battlefield. The kinetic war being waged by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the many other jihadi groups is meant to bleed us, fix us in place, and create a strategic distraction while the real war they are fighting is won in the information battlespace. While AQ fixes us in place, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) presses the U.S. – and the West at large – into a corner with a stated foreign policy mirroring that of Al Qaeda. Who is the OIC? The OIC is the umbrella organization for every Muslim nation in the world – 57 states (they count Palestine as a state). At the Head of State and King level the OIC seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law. They have a 10-Year Plan in English on their website that may begin shedding light on who they are and what they intend for the West."

Oddly, I was recently required (earlier last year) to write a strategy paper as if I were a military analyst tasked with developing a strategy for Al-Qaeda. It looked a lot like what you just read. Of course, I was probably looking at many of the same, publicly available, source documents available to Mr. Guandolo.

"(T)he reason the International Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the death of Qaddafi is because he is “killing Muslims without right,” a capital crime under Islamic Law, and an act defined as “terrorism” by the OIC – that means the Head of State and King of every Muslim nation in the world has a parallel foreign policy from the one they are discussing with our State Department, and our State Department does not have clue one about it."

Our State Department, like the military, is run as a top-down organization and, like aboard the Titanic, it's difficult-to-impossible to change a large organization's course from down here in the engine room. Individual analysts and reporting officers must continue to write the truth as they observe it, as they interpret it, and keep faith that policy and decision makers are doing more than filing things down the memory hole and proceeding with their pre-conceived biases.

"The Muslim Brotherhood, like the OIC and Al Qaeda, seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law (Shariah). You do not need a SCIF or a “secure space” to pull this information up on a classified government system. All of the enemy doctrine can be found on the worldwide web, in books, in speeches, in their training curricula, and coming out of their mouths on a daily basis."

What he said.

"When the MB says they have “renounced violence” they are – hold onto your hats – lying.

From several major terrorism trials in the United States, and other information, we now know nearly every major Muslim organization in North America is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative group. We know many are support entities for Hamas, and all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government are controlled by the MB. These include: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Hamas support entity; the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas organization; the Muslim Students Associations (MSA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); the Interntional Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Hamas support entity; and many other. We also know that the objectives of the MB mirror those of Al Qaeda.

The MB’s doctrine is crystal clear on their objectives. The means for achieving these objectives is to wage a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a “grand jihad” – to destroy us from within. They seek to co-opt our leadership in all areas of our society – political, military, intelligence/law enforcement, media, religious. Civilization jihad by our hands. When we see that the Islamic advisor to President Clinton was a Muslim Brother and an Al Qaeda operative currently in federal prison, or that the MB runs the Shariah Compliant Financial programs for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or that senior policy advisors to Secretary Napolitano are Muslim Brothers, or that the Assistant Director for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate is an Iranian-born Muslim, we see that there are catastrophic security issue within the U.S. government and that - just maybe – the MB means what they say."

These statements, if true, have some very scary implications. I'm disinclined to tar everyone with a Middle Eastern or Muslim background with too broad a brush, having served in uniform with more than one such individual in whom I have undiminished confidence. Nonetheless, connections with MB-connected front organizations are not happy-making.

re: "Today's Reading Assignment"

George Smiley at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") discusses a national asset in decline.

Money quote(s):

"(S)igns of our naval decline were on display in recent weeks, as the Libyan crisis began to unfold. Instead of sending a warship to rescue American citizens from that country (as the British did), the U.S. hired a commercial ferry. One reason: there was only one U.S. warship in the Mediterranean at the time, although a carrier battle group and an amphibious group were only three days away, in the Red Sea. Those assets have since re-deployed to the Med.

We neglect our Navy at our own peril."

Actually two warships, were in the Mediterranean but one was a command and control ship and the other was having, er, command climate problems.

"(I)n an era when federal spending must be reduced, it is very easy to say we have "no peer competitors" (to use Dr. Gates's phrase) and use that as an excuse to downsize the military. A modern Navy is expensive to build and expensive to operate. Yet, it represents an essential investment, not only for the United States but for the west as a whole.

Did we mention that China is currently building five fleet carriers which will join the PLAN by 2020? Beijing is building a Navy for the future, while ours continues to decline. We've been down this road before (think Japan in the 1930s) and paid dearly for our mistakes. The next time, we may not be as lucky."

I'm not a naval expert, but five "fleet carriers" sound like just the thing if you want to be a regional hegemon, and the region you have in mind is the Pacific Ocean.

re: "What's Involved In Setting Up A No-Fly Zone Over Libya? - DrewM."

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ is realistic about limitations on U.S. and Allied capabilities.

Money quote(s):

"From the military perspective, it's not impossible but it's not like we have a lot of extra capacity laying around in that part of the world."

Used to be we had something called a "fleet" on station in the Med, or do I mis-remember?

Even back in the "shores of Tripoli" days we'd have a squadron of frigates thereabouts.

"After surveying the help we might be able to get from our regional allies, CDRSalamander seems a bit more pessimistic about the available options."

"Would we give a station to our allies? Of the remaining
folks, GBR, ESP, & ITA have CVS, right? Well, the Brits don’t do CVS
counter-air anymore – and the Italians and Spanish carriers? How many sorties can they do? How about if they had a lot of land based fighter support? How many fighter aircraft need to be stationed at Sigonella supported by how many tankers to cover Tripoli? Same
question about Souda Bay and Benghazi. The British bases
on Cyprus?

UK officials said they could use of a British military air base in Akrotiri, Cyprus to enforce a no-fly mission. “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy,” said an official. “That would seem most logical.”Although fixed-wing aircraft appear to be depleted, British officials said the main concern was that Col Gaddafi could use helicopters to mount bombing raids on opponents."

"(T)he leader of the No Fly Zone idea is UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Good for him and all but it's rather hollow to hear this can of talk from the guy who has put the Royal Navy out of the power projection business.

Aircraft carriers are damn expensive to build, operate and man but they are damn handy things when you need one or three. We are at the bare minimum at the moment and as you can see, it's actually below the minimum."

As much as former dirt merchants like myself like to tweak my swabby friends about how carrier battle groups are something of a self-licking ice cream cone, they're darn useful things to have on the board when things like islands and air bases aren't conveniently located in terms of threats or operational areas.

"Gates talks a lot about how much is enough, especially in terms of carriers when no one else really has any to speak of. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, we need at least 2 to cover the Persian Gulf, 5th Fleet area alone for the foreseeable future. If you want to start cutting them, you better let the CNO and head of Central Command what operations you want them to stop doing. And oh yeah, when the shit hits the fan, don't ask, "Where are the carriers"?"

And if you need two carriers for the Persian/Arabian Gulf, basic logisitics means you need a third one. Multiply that by "the world" and the numbers needed start to climb. Then add in all the other surface and support ships needed to make a carrier task force more than one big target.

re: "Pirates as plunder"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") opines on options for anti-piracy operations.

Money quote(s):

"We have been letting the pirates run the ocean for too damn long. Our occasional feats of brilliance, like when the SEALs wished the Maersk hijackers a Happy Easter, are brutally overshadowed by episodes like the recent slaughter of four Americans while we motored along behind them, and the more recent capture of seven Danes. We have had a few successes trying these wankers either in African courts or bringing them to the US, but both of those plans are full of holes. Kenya decided they didn't want to be our trash disposal service and for most of these Somalis, US prison would be a Shangri La."

This is a real problem. Naturally enough, Americans assume that sending someone to prison is a bad thing for them. However, in the Somalian paradigm, it's an improvement.

(Ironically, the same often holds true for female suicide bombers. But I digress.)

"I am not holding my breath that our government is going to unleash the SEALs of War against these parasites, it goes against too many diplomatic and international niceties for our timid leaders. You would think this is the simplest of problems and custom-built for one of these trans-national collections of tea-sippping, petit-four nibbling, meddlers telling formal lies in formal wear. I mean if we can't agree that piracy is a scourge and all necessary means should be employed to stop it, then WTF good are these groups? I answer my own question." (Typeface not bolded in original. - CAA.)

&

"We have quite a few well informed, experienced folks around here who think that Congress ought to be cranking out a few Letters of Marque for pirate hunting."

I recommend to (both) my readers Tom Kratman's new military adventure "Countdown: The Liberators." The (good) colonel's fictionalized account of how to effect a hostage rescue permits considerable insight into the conditions and mentalities of our pirate adversaries.

re: "Overseas Pay"

Smallbits at, er, Small bits ("the bits and pieces that I am okay sharing with the world at large") weighs in from one of the border posts.

Money quote(s):

"Much is being said in FS circles about overseas pay for Foreign Service officers. I have said my piece in several places but I guess I should repeat it here. We are happy to take the 16% overseas pay cut if it is part of true reform and true change. We love our country and we want it to be solvent for our 4 kids. If that means my husband takes a pay cut, he takes a pay cut. And we will make the adjustments necessary. However, in exchange, I want real solutions."

In terms of the overall budget, it's chump change. Still, every little bit helps. And if every other federal employee had their pay reduced by a quarter, that'd amount to quite a bit of change.

Still, it'd also mean I go bankrupt and/or lose my house.

"I want my reps to tackle to big problems facing us: social security, medicare, etc. No window dressing. If they are looking at cutting overseas FSO pay, fine. Cut away. However, what other excesses are they looking at cutting? Are they cutting their own pay? Are they going after the budget items that cost the most? Are they going to cut things Defense asks for even if it affects their own voters?"

This looks suspiciously like one of those "rhetorical questions" that implies its own answer. But that's just my suspicious nature talking; Small bits seems more trusting and nice than I am.

"FSOs are middle class on the pay scale but we do get benefits overseas. Housing is paid, some utilities are paid, school allowances are paid for the kids. (However, kids in the US have free school too. My husband and I pay property taxes and state income taxes that support schools our kids will never use. Also, overseas schools vary widely in quality). In some cases at larger posts, there is a health unit at post. Sometimes not. A lot just depends on where you are. It might be a garden post with great travel opportunities. Or it might be pretty rough like here. You go where you are needed and do the job regardless of where it is. I think FSOs are compensated enough to live fine if we are frugal. There are lots of unseen costs though. For example, we have always driven older cars and driven them for a long time. Our next post will not allow either of our cars and so we have to buy a new one that is less than 3 years old from the manufacture date not the model year. Not something we usually do and completely out of our control. We can make the choice to go carless of course and we might do that."

I love how she drills this down to the personal level to make it less abstract and more like something a reader can relate to.

Personally, my own experience with "garden posts" and "pretty rough" has been that the "garden posts" are way too expensive for a junior officer to take much advantage of, and the "pretty rough" ones can be divided into those where the gunfire is directed at you and those where it's more-0r-less random and/or unaimed (i.e., "happy fire" or "celebratory gunfire").

"The next thing I want is for my reps to realize that the FS is not a walk in the park. As I said, some posts are pretty nice. A lot of posts aren't though. It comes across as insulting to say that FSOs always have these posh wonderful lives. Yeah, it is a really cool life and I am so glad we are here. It comes at a cost sometimes though. Numerous FS bloggers have discussed this. It is not a shock and awe measure. It is simply filling the need to educate Americans, including Congress, about what the FS is and what things happen. For every FSO touring Paris, there is another FSO riding things out in Iraq, in Libya, or on the border. Again, I am so happy that my husband is here doing what he is doing but it isn't free.

The last thing I want from my reps? I want CODELs to mean something. I think any time a politician goes to a place overseas, they should submit a report of how much it really cost (including to State and to the military) and what they accomplished. As a voter and a tax payer, I think this should be public record. I want to know what my reps are accomplishing with these trips. I think they can be very valuable. I don't think anyone can understand the border without spending some time here, on the Mexican side too. I don't think anyone can grasp what a huge job "securing our borders" is without driving along the river here and driving through the wide open ranch land. I would love to have my state reps come here and to give them a personal tour of life around here. My state is heavily affected by immigration and I would love for my reps to see things more first hand. So I think good CODELs are valuable. But they need to be well planned and accounted for. I think there are good Senators and House Representatives who are trying to use CODELs to understand the world better so that they can make better laws."

Codels. A lot of "fact finding" goes on around the world. I've seen congressmen visiting wounded troops whip out their cell phone so a bed-bound soldier or airman could call their family.

(It should be mentioned that the cell phone in question actually belonged to the State Dept. and was provided to the codel by the FSO control officer for that visit. So the taxpayer got the bill. But I still cant' fault their impulse.)

I've also seen codels stumble off their VIP air force jet dead drunk and wanting to have the base rental car opened up in the middle of the night.

What's funny is that both events I mentioned involved the exact same congressmen on the exact same trip.

Conclusion: Our congressmen are human beings, just like regular folks, only with a bit more pull in getting what they want when they want it.

(And no, we talked them out of renting any cars.)

re: "Soft power, or flaccid power?"

"The Phibian" at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") is always insightful with regards to the naval aspect.

Money quote(s):

"As an already dangerous nation started to disintegrate last week, I heard it first from Charles Krauthammer - the phrase that always comes up when something nasty turns towards our people or a national interest - "where are our carriers."I don't know about you, but I count this as a moment of national shame last week. The world's greatest naval power, its citizens in danger and need evacuation by sea - and our answer is ...."

Apparently the only U.S. warship in the entire Mediterranean Sea, and area I always to have a Fleet dedicated to it, was a destroyer, and one rather pre-occupied beyond mission parameters.

"I know the argument that the American military presence would be destabilizing - but I just say it is wrong headed in the extreme.

At this touchy moment - letss not even talk about which ship is where. What the Big E is doing and not. If there is a CSG and an ESG in the Gulf of Sidra or the Gulf of Mexico - or on liberty in Caan; it does not matter to the argument ... but we'll get to that later.

For an untold number of times, American citizens have relied on the Navy-USMC team to get them out of a country falling apart. Our citizens in Libya are lucky that things did not go south. Nod our heads and be thankful that we got lucky this time. Ask yourself why we did not have other ships out there, and know we are not alone.

I think the nations of the world are re-discovering the joys of having and effective navy - and the consequences of not having one."

As a consular officer, it's always been a source of reassurance to know that my Navy and Marine Corps colleagues had my back, especially since consular officers are virtually the last official Americans to be evacuated, occupied, as they/we are with assisting in the evacuation of American citizens.

"(I)f you ever wanted to create air supremacy - a no fly zone if you will - either to cover evacuations or to keep the Libyan runt Air Force from bombing their own people - there is only one way to do it - with Aircraft Carriers. Big deck aircraft carriers. Way to far for land based air even if you could get basing rights.

If you want to do it for any length of time, you need two at a minimum. Longer - three. Two American and one French would be nice. Two American and then perhaps Brit/Italian/Spanish as help would be."

It's an awfully big world out there. Since nearly the founding of the Republic, the U.S. Navy has helped ensure that freedom of the seas and of navigation meant something more than an aspiration. They've made it stick. But they can't do that from the Pentagon, from Norfolk or San Diego; they have to have hulls in the water and sailors to crew them.