Who is in charge?

Although I hate to admit it, the Chinese are extremely adept at exposing our vulnerabilities. Their recent investment in technologies to nullify our conventional forces should alarm the defense community.

Over the past century, the United States has projected its military power with a naval fleet, sending envoys worldwide. From humanitarian missions, to regional conflicts, aircraft carriers have been the backbone of our ability to gain air superiority abroad. Disputes in Cambodia, Iran, Grenada, Libya, and both gulf wars (just to name a few) have demonstrated the awesome power that the aircraft carrier brings with it.

However, the age of technology has brought with it the ability to eliminate barriers of entry to military power. What I mean by that is it is now much easier for a state to gain an advantage over a once very expensive technology. The invention, and subsequent advances in ballistic missile technology has created instant power projection. In fact, the Chinese military is replacing the need for manned aircraft, most notably directed at Taiwan, by building more ballistic missiles.

The pentagon recently submitted their annual report on the "Military Power of the People's Republic of China." If you don't think China is a growing threat to US strategic interests, I suggest you peruse the report. It outlines China's efforts to rapidly expand and modernize their forces, as well as significantly augment their stockpile of ballistic missiles.

Perhaps the most alarming report was confirmed today by the US Naval Institute which reports of the development of the PRC's capabilities: The Anti Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM),

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers...

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

This development marks the first time a ballistic missile can target a vessel at sea.

These facts provide a fairly clear image of what the PRC is attempting to do: compete with, and even position itself to defeat, US military preeminence.

The question is, can Obama step up to the plate to defend our vulnerabilities. Ballistic Missile Defense spending has, and is going to continue to be hamstrung by this administration. I expect that he will follow in the footsteps of Clinton and cut billions in military spending, thus increasing our vulnerabilities to China.

Couple all of this with the leveraged position China has in trade, as well as in our national debt, one thing is clear; we are not wearing the pants in this relationship.

I encourage you, President Obama, to put on some pants. Here is what they look like.

Read more...

A True Statesmen

Where have all the statesmen gone?

It seems that true leadership from both the democratic and republican parties in congress have been quashed by the executive. Unfortunately, we must look elsewhere for the portrait of a true statesman. Daniel Hannan of the British Parliament gave a rousing speech just yesterday on the state of the United Kingdom.

His words ring true here; just replace Gordon Brown and United Kingdom, with Barack Obama and the United States.

Read more...

Man-Caused Disasters?

The culture of the newly minted Department of Homeland Security experienced a dramatic shift upon the appointment of Janet Napolitano. Though I was dubious of her appointment at the time, given her relative inexperience to anything but Arizona politics, I extended my support as long as it wasn't betrayed.

Monday, Napolitano had the opportunity to make good on the presidents appointment. In an interview with SPIEGEL, the secretary made light of her apparent omission of the term terrorism in her first testimony to congress:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

I take issue with this line of thinking for a few reasons.

1. The term "man-caused disasters" has no precedented use, culture, or strategic meaning. I can think of dozens man-caused disasters (hat tip to Matt Fuller, graduate of Bradley University) that have nothing to do with the phenomenon of terrorism. This term is vague to the point of losing all usefulness.
2. Is this term just a replacement for the word terrorism? Is there a new definition that has yet to be revealed? Or is this just like saying "fudge" in place of an expletive.
3. Is it just me or is that term oddly sexist? MAN caused disasters... Its probably just me.

The term terrorism, or terrorist, is useful because it paints a rough picture of the type of combatant being discussed, and how to deal with them. As a general rule, terrorists do not follow the laws of war, because they target civilians for political gain. The United States has a Foreign Terrorist Organization list, published by the State Department, which is used across agencies to define specific threats to US interests.

It will be interesting to see if the name of the FTO list changed to the Foreign Man Caused Disasterist Organization list. That does have a nice ring to it.

Get your boots on soldier... on second thought don't, the DHS has no clue with whom we are fighting.

Photo: The News & Observer

Read more...

Embracing the Instability Paradox

Consider this scenario: This weekend thousands of protesters took to the streets in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, marching to the house cum prison of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan's supreme court. The group was led by the leader of the opposition party, Nawaz Sharif. A subsequent movement of protestors was about to descend on the capital. The protestors were not giving in until either Chaudhry was reinstated to his previous post, or the military persuaded them to retreat with batons, gas, and perhaps guns.

Recall, Chaudhry was fired twice in 2007 by then-President Pervez Musharraf for filing judgments against Musharraf's increasing incursion on Pakistan's constitution. The streets flooded with lawyers who were then beaten heavily by police. It was then the most significant challenge to Musharraf's rule. The United States, putting their counterterrorism and Afghanistan objectives ahead of democratic ideals, did not withdraw support from Musharraf, perhaps giving him the confidence to stand firm.

The situation this weekend was much more dire. The new president, Asif Ali Zardari, is certainly not as sure in his new role as Musharraf was for a variety of reasons. The protests were far more organized and organized by the political opposition, magnifying the danger of a coup. Surely, the failure of Zardari to fulfill his campaign promise by delaying the restoration of Chaudhry to his previous post, would be the last straw on Pakistan's failing back.

But, an interesting thing happened in Pakistan this weekend: nothing. The government backed down. Christian Science Monitor attributed this to two factors: Zardari did not have the full backing of the military and the Pakistani Army was not likely to step in and stop the protest march to Islamabad. The second factor CSM cites is Zardari no longer had the full, unconditional support of the United States.

Many on the right would blast this decision. Pakistan is a key part of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Certainly, the United States should support any regime in Pakistan - instability and unrest in Pakistan would spell doom for regional security and U.S. national security. This was the policy of the previous Administration who supported Musharraf right or wrong because that was the perceived key to stability in the country.

This weekend, Obama and Clinton took a different tack. It would appear they put systemic determinants over personal ones. They correctly recognized that Zardari was not as strong as Musharraf and likely not the sole path towards a stable future in Pakistan. Rather, the reconciliation of a gross wrong and the restoration of some semblance of judicial independence, a key to democratic stability was the only way to ensure Pakistan would become more stable. To do so, the current Administration had to fight the urge to provide temporary stability by backing Zardari and instead embrace instability not knowing how the protests would turn out, hoping Zardari would rationally recognize his weakness and capitulate before irrationally ordering a crackdown.

Indeed, Pakistan has many more problems to resolve before they can be considered stable by most measures, but this weekend was an important step - both for Pakistan and the United States. The Pakistani people found that there were more avenues for change than just through force. The United States realized that a little instability in the short term could actually create more stability in the long term.

The paternalism that kept Musharraf in power may have been more destabilizing than the Wilsonianism that allowed Pakistan to settle their own problems this weekend. Hope, here, was indeed a foreign policy. In the same way neoconservatives have faith that democratic institutions and free markets will bring stability, so too liberals hoped that Pakistan's protests, left unaltered by Western intervention, would bring a more stable country. The departure between the two camps is encouraging. In Pakistan's case, it appears that Western interventions have postponed democracy and stability while, at least this weekend, Washington's absence led to a step towards liberal goals.

Photo:
AFP via BBC (16 MAR 2009)

Background:
Christian Science Monitor (18 MAR 2009)
Economist.com (16 MAR 2009)
International Herald Tribune (25 MAR 2007)
Washington Post (17 MAR 2009)

Read more...

Why Americans Aren't Sold on the F-22

The F-22 Raptor is the next generation fighter jet that has been designed to ensure American air superiority against any foe during the next several decades. Its advanced technology and tactical capabilities allow it to be part of a first-wave (counter)attack that could achieve penetration of enemy airspace and get a first look at the situation and strike multiple targets while maintaining low observability and high speeds. Yet the Air Force has only been able to acquire 181 of the 381-minimum it argues it needs to fulfill its objectives. Despite full-page ads in the national papers and relentless advertising, a significant groundswell of support is still lacking. Why, then, does the public not seem sold on the need for at least 200 more F-22s?

The answer is not principally the jet's heavy price tag, a question of its capability, or any alleged mismanagement of the procurement program. The major objection is the one of utility. People simply want to know, "what do we need another fighter jet for?" This response should not come as a surprise. To the general public, exposed to the popular news media and statements by their elected officials, the main threat facing the United States is the one posed by terrorism. Defeating a heavily defended North Korea or Iran is scarcely discussed. The need to defend against the possibility of a resurgent Russia or rising China is not even mentioned. If the only threat on the horizon is terrorism, they reason, why do we need a next-generation fighter that cannot attack terrorists any better than the current jets we employ?

The Air Force, however, has thought about the possibilities of facing a rising peer competitor. They know that the record of American air dominance is something that must be maintained and not taken for granted. The US has not lost a single soldier to hostile military aircraft since the Korean War and has not had a pilot shot down since the Vietnam War. Such an achievement was due to vigorous R&D that produced top-of-the-line fighters that were able to achieve and hold air dominance after each of those respective conflicts. It is the judgment of the USAF that it could not reliably sustain global air dominance into the mid-21st century without the 381 F-22s. Without adequate numbers, those records may be broken and American servicemen will be paying the bill with their lives.

What, therefore, is the solution to this problem? Respected military commentators like Ralph Peters are telling Americans that the F-22 is a "supremely unnecessary air superiority fighter" because no power can match our control of the air at this time. Without a visible, clearly existential threat like the Soviet Union in existence, Americans tend to revert to their tradition of experiencing free security and expecting peace to be the norm in international relations. The threat inflation surrounding terrorism may cause many to realize the importance of a strong defense, but they are not putting their trust on something they believe is not useful in the War on Terror. The solution is, as Herman Kahn struggled to get across to the American public in the 1960s, to think about the unthinkable; in this case great power rivalry or war.

This is not to suggest by any means that supporters of the F-22 and other future combat systems should insist that war with China or Russia is inevitable and that is why this new and expensive fighter is needed. Rather, elected officials and defense experts should insist on a return to the strategy of deterrence. They must make the argument that not only will the Raptor ensure air superiority for 40 years, but that it is necessary to have that capability for dissuasion and deterrence. A strong case can be made that the F-22 will dissuade rising competitors like China from challenging the US in the realm of air combat. Its advanced avionics and high technology can also deter a resurgent (and uppity) Russia from seeking a fait accompli in any future aggression against Eastern Europe (assuming F-22s are deployed in Europe).

To conclude, the F-22 is in trouble because Americans simply do not understand its utility and believe it is an unnecessary Cold War relic. This impression can only be reversed by policy-makers and experts insisting that the US return to a strategy of deterrence and dissuasion in order to defend against future peer competitors. If the US does not develop this fighter, its record of sustaining air superiority in every conflict since Vietnam may be at risk, or at least heavily compromised. Investment in the F-22 is a form of insurance, and the public must understand that, though it may seem like a high premium for a low-risk possibility, it will have a huge pay-off in direct (conflict) and indirect (deterrence and dissuasion) results.

Read more...

March Madness

College basketball and national defense are oddly similar.

Lets be honest, the Month of March is good for only one thing- March Madness. From a field of 327 division-1 basketball teams, only 64 are chosen to attend the NCAA tournament.

The month is filled with anticipation as sports pundits predict the tournament based on an inexact science known as bracketology. After selection Sunday (just two days ago) subsequent weeks are filled with classic matchups, glorious victory, and humiliating defeat.

Similarly, the Obama administration's "selection sunday" is close at hand. The coming days, weeks, and months will tell us how this administration is planning the future of a variety of US weapons systems including the F22, the airborne laser program, and a variety of missile defense and nuclear initiatives.

Obama has tipped his hand here in a campaign video in which he promises to cut defense spending and decrease the size and reliability of our nuclear deterrent.

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates is in on the action as well. The Boston Globe reports,

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said.

The Obama administration has already passed a bare-bone defense budget which will eventually be revised to include what is left of our new weapons programs.

Admittedly, the United States is screeching through a recession, which has devastated the ability for the government to generate revenue. Government agencies should be expected to cut back when every other American is doing the same. This goes for every agency, from the Department of Education to the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Instead, we have passed a grossly irresponsible 1 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus package which inflates government in almost every arena, while defense spending is projected to decline.

Its almost as if the leadership in this country thinks that national defense is a game.

Basketball is a game. If you lose, you go home, but there is always next season.

If we lose a strategic capability, there is no next season.

Read more...