How To Improve Recruitment… Or Not

Have women wear bikinis on Navy ships.

As funny as the suggestion seems, it reveals a lack of concern for a very important problem in the military.  Perhaps sexual assault isn’t as prevalent in the Australian military as it is in the US, but something tells me that any military would find few takers for bikini-clad sailors.  One of the big fears that prevents women from enlisting in military is the prevalence of sexual assault.  Maybe instead of joking about how to entice more young men to enlist, we should figure out how to make sure young women aren’t terrified to enlist.

Torture or Interrogation

A lot of hot air is wasted in the blogosphere and amongst the punditry asking what is or isn’t torture.  While it’s very tempting to throw my hat in this ring, I think it’s important to not just ask ethical questions regarding torture (or “enhanced interrogation” if you’re of the persuasion that nothing we do is torture), but what the actual result of it is.  This Washington Post op-ed by former interrogation specialist “Matthew Alexander” (a pseudonym) provides a very illuminating look into things.  Not only did he get results by never resulting to “stressful” or torturous techniques, but he also found out what motivated so many of the terrorists we fight.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.

Uh oh…

I better stop badmouthing the F-22.  Otherwise the Air Force will come after me.  Good thing hardly anyone reads this blog.

Anyway, if there are any airmen out there reading this… I don’t hold a generally negative view of the Air Force, or even the government.  I don’t want to take away your super awesome F-22 toy.  I just think we already have enough.  And, okay, I do want take away STAR WARS (Episode VI Return of the Lasers), but that’s a whole other post.  I would like to point out that I am a fan of your not-quite-as-awesome fighter.  Although… what am I saying?  I want attention.

Uh… smooth move?

Correction and Clarifications

One correction and two clarifications on my F-22 post….

1. The F-14 is a retired aircraft and no longer in service.  That was a combination of a brain fart on my part (not confirming a fact) and the fact that I know less about the Navy than the other services (not knowing that in the first place).  I apologize for the error.  Regardless, the F-22 isn’t a Navy aircraft and isn’t supposed a replacement for the F-14.  A smarter writer would have never even brought up the F-14.

2. I ambiguously phrased a sentence that made it seem like pilots in each of the major wars between WWII and Vietnam shot down 35 or more aircraft.  Many WWII aces passed that total.  Some Soviet, Chinese and US ace pilots put up impressive numbers during Korea (23 is the highest figure I’ve seen, which I’d say is comparable).  In Vietnam no one got very close to 35 individually (the closest was nine by a Vietnamese pilot), but several hundred air-to-air kills were confirmed during the conflict, where surface-to-air missiles made dogfighters fairly irrelevant after 1966 (moderate dogfighting through the half-way point of that year, hardly any after that year).  A better writer would have identified 1966 as the turning point in the relevance of dogfighting instead of the Gulf War.

3. Money for exporting airplanes goes to the manufacturer of the aircraft, not the US government (which still decides which weapons can and cannot be exported).  A better writer would have mentioned this.

Good Gates Article

Bob Gates did a fantastic job putting back together a Department of Defense shattered by Donald Rumsfeld.  I remember being frankly shocked when arriving in Washington that conservative defense and military folks held equally anti-Rumsfeld views as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-war liberal.  Before then I had always viewed Rumsfeld as a brilliant but Machiavellian verging onto evil figure who had to be stopped because of his role in Iraq.  The insider outrage at Rumsfeld revealed to me that the man was an egomaniacal idiot who through his own stupidity was single-handed destroying the military, regardless of Iraq’s merits.

Despite being light-years better than Rumsfeld, I do have to say that initially I was discouraged by Obama’s choice to have Gates continue at DOD.  Looking back, though, my reasons were purely partisan.  I’m sick and tired of the dead-wrong idea that conservatives (ie. anyone that’s a Republican) are the only ones who can protect our country (I think it’s the exact opposite).  However, Gates is actually a fairly apolitical technocrat and if this Washington Post article is any indication, agrees with me on a some very important stuff.

I think there still is an image problem, because Gates was initially a Republican appointee and will be viewed as a Republican.  But the image problem should (and fortunately does) take a back seat to making sure the right thing is done, which I’m confident that Gates will do.

Additionally, I doubt he’ll stick around for eight years (*blogger crosses fingers for eight years of Obama*), leaving Obama able to choose a true progressive to follow Gates.

*Completely unrelated side note* You’d think that the word “blogger” wouldn’t trip off WordPress’s spellcheck….

The March of War

As you, my five readers, may have noticed, I’ve been silent so far on the topic of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.  My position is rather ambivalent and — to be completely honest — incoherent.  Arguments of Israeli self-defense have a great appeal to me.  But it’s not as if Israel is a holy, blameless state.  Additionally, I think strategically Israel is blundering and somewhat irresponsible in their response.   I’m not going to into too much depth.  I’ve never been able to exactly figure out where I’m coming down on the Israel / Palestine issue.  There is a germ of truth on both sides of the debate, but both sides use that germ of truth to justify things which I feel cannot be justified.  If forced to take a cartoonish black and white position, I guess I’d say I’m more sympathetic towards Israel, but I see way too many shades to remotely satisfy those with more vigorous pro-Israel views.

Anyway, something that I feel much more strongly about is something that Ezra Klein is pointing out — the neocon dream that Israel will “take care” of Iran for us.

Suffice it to say, the American public’s overwhelming repudiation of George W. Bush’s foreign policy isn’t a sign that his policies have had overwhelmingly negative consequences.  It’s a sign that the American people are too weak-kneed to do what is necessary to fight our real enemy… which is apparently Iran now.  Fortunately for neocons, they hope that Israel has the huevos to do it for us.

For a long time I didn’t talk of invading or even attacking Iran at all seriously.  Because — to put it mildly — it would be incredibly stupid.  For a simple compare and contrast, let’s breakdown Iran alongside Iraq and Afghanistan….

Iraq

• Population — 28 Million
• Terrain — Mostly plains
• Government — Somewhat friendly towards us, somewhat dysfunctional, but has managed to build a respectable amount of centralized authority and could potentially survive without us.
• Military — Pre-invasion was a husk of its former self, now being rebuilt by us.
• Al Qaeda Presence — Existent, largely due to the fact that we invaded
• WMD’s — Apparently never had them in this millennium.

Afghanistan

• Population — 32 Million
• Terrain — Quite mountainous
• Government — Somewhat friendly towards us, but is very tenuous and has little control over the countryside.
• Military — A joke.  Always has been.  Almost completely dependent upon NATO for defense.
• Al Qaeda Presence — Very heavy.  Has been for a very long time.  In fact, the guy who apparently is the head honcho is skulking about around the border with Pakistan.
• WMD’s — You’ve got to be kidding.

Iran

• Population — 65 Million
• Terrain — Quite mountainous
• Government — Quite unfriendly towards us.  The President hates us, but he has no control over Iranian foreign policy.  The Supreme Islamic Council certainly has no love for us, but has backed off from the outright hostility of the Khomenei era.  It’s also an increasingly unpopular government due to both economic problems (which the President was intially elected for and has done nothing about) and the outright repression of the regime.  This is a government that could potentially implode Soviet-style unless some big “rally around the flag” event happened….
• Military — As far as firepower goes, they’re somewhat limited.  Stronger than Iraq in Iraq II, but weaker than Iraq in Iraq I.  However, they’re also known for their fantatical fighting and sending wave after wave of soldiers after opponents.
• Al Qaeda Presence — Non-existent.  You see, Shi’a fanatics and Sunni fanatics don’t get along.  It’s kind of like the most fanatical Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland making nice.
• WMD’s — Almost certainly.  They’re refining Uranium, but it’s actually ambiguous whether they want it for weapons or for energy (before screaming “What else could it be for!?!” remember: tons of experts were wrong about Iraqi WMD’s).  It’s also not really known whether they have the capability to build effective weapons or delivery systems anytime soon.

So, we have a nation that has no discernible al Qaeda presence (and if there is one, it’s an unwelcome and underground one).  A nation that’s had WMD’s for years and years and years but never used them except against the one nation stupid enough to attack them (Iraq).  A nation with a (compared to both Israel and the US) a low-capability but massive military that uses attrition, fanaticism and complete disregard for western norms of “civilized combat” as its primary weapons.  A nation with a government that’s increasingly loathed, but still possess a nationalistic and patriotic population that would be more than happy to rally together against an outside attack.

Yes, Iran is fighting a proxy war against Israel.  However, that is much more preferable than those two countries fighting a real war.  If Israel escalated tensions with Iran into full-blown war, what’s to stop Iran from crossing the WMD line that they never crossed with Israel before?  What’s to stop Iran from cutting off their supply of oil to the world (thereby putting enormous pressure on the EU and China)?  What’s to stop them from funneling their weapons (including WMDs) to former enemies if their existence is on the line?  If the US supported an Israeli attack, what would stop Iran from funneling those same weapons (including WMDs) to our enemies that they already supply and fund in Iraq?

In order to stop those things from happening, a decapitation strike followed by a full-scale invasion would need to take place (neither would finish the job alone).  A full-scale invasion of a country that has more people than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, a military that’s larger and more powerful than we’ve faced in at least a generation, a country that possesses WMDs and a willingness to use them when invaded, a country with terrain as difficult as Afghanistan, a country that poses no imminent threat to the US and has had decades to act upon their existential threat to Israel yet hasn’t, and a country that has hidden and spread its WMD assets so thoroughly that a quick-strike won’t do jack-squat to its long-term capabilities.

All of this with either a technology advanced but quite small military (Israel) that wouldn’t have a dream of pulling off a successful full-scale invasion (complete with counterinsurgency) of Iran, or a military stretched so thin in Iran’s neighboring countries that we had to cut our large-scale counterinsurgency (which are supposed to take 5-10 years at the least) to 1 full year.

Like I said.  Transparently stupid.

Afghanistan-Pakistan Linky

Tom Ricks very accurately points out that our Afghanistan mission has a scope well beyond Afghanistan.  It’s going to take me a while to digest the full impact of what he’s saying here.

Second, this isn’t really about Afghanistan. It is about Pakistan-and might in the coming weeks morph into being about the entire South Asian subcontinent. The United States could “lose” Afghanistan and not suffer greatly. But “losing” Pakistan is a far more worrisome proposition, because Pakistan has both nuclear weapons and Islamic extremists. There aren’t a lot of things in the world that worry me more than that combination. And our war in Pakistan has been heating up considerably in recent months, with our Predator drone aircraft regularly whacking their leaders and their guys routinely torching our trucks and threatening our major supply line–each side playing to its own strength. The Khyber Pass road actually was reported closed last week.

Nor will we make much progress in Afghanistan, the secondary problem, until we make some progress in Pakistan, the primary and more difficult problem. This means we should be careful of any “solutions” offered to the war that don’t deal with Pakistan. An Afghan-only solution is no solution at all.

Re: Panetta

Edited with an important change.

I actually think it was a good choice.  There’s a chance that he could try to politicize the intel community, which I think is the fear of a lot of those who object to him (at least the liberals).  However, the CIA head often isn’t an intel professional (Bob Gates, George H.W. Bush, George Tenet, John Deutsch *ed* D’oh!) because the Director of Central Intelligence is actually primarily a bureaucratic job instead of an intel job.  The bosses don’t do much intelligence gathering or analysis.  Anyway, I think a former White House Chief of Staff is in a great position to work the bureaucracy.

Stray Thought…

I’m going to start doing occasional “Stray Thought” posts which are just me thinking aloud and shouldn’t be treated as my most serious / justified ideas.

Couldn’t some of the Obama stimulus package go towards resetting the equipment in our military?  While it’s no secret that Obama wants out of Iraq, the war has left the military (especially the ground services and the reserve components) in shambles and we’re still looking to step up efforts in Afghanistan.  It would both benefit the military and create jobs to replace and refurbish worn-out military equipment.

Despite the jaw-dropping amount of money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s been spent on just that — Iraq and Afghanistan.  A one-time infusion of cash could help close the equipment shortage in the military (I remember the cost being in the neighborhood of $50 billion, this post is a musing instead of real analysis so I’m not going to run down a citation for now).

Obviously it shouldn’t be a carte blanche to DOD (which should never, ever, ever be given such a thing).  Additionally, there may be industrial capacity limitations.  However, even if you cut the figure in half $25 billion over a few years could provide a lot of desperately needed jobs in the manufacturing sector and help undo a lot of the physical strain on the force.

New Addition to Blogroll

Great news. Tom Ricks has a new blog on Foreign Policy’s website.  He’s someone very worth reading.  He’s now on the Blogroll.