Tuesday, October 05, 2004
One of the best roundups of tonight's smackdown that I've seen. Pejmanesque: THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Some say that the President doesn't speak about the UN Oil-for-Food scandal because we need to maintain a relationship with France, Germany and Russia. It's important to learn about the scandal so that we can understand the motivations of these countries in the run up to the war. Roger Simon has done an excellent job following developments in this scandal. Roger L. Simon: The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak
The very good Captain's Quarters blog points to a disturbing story on Iran's work on long range missile to complement its nuclear arsenal. Yahoo! News: Iran Says Its Missiles Can Now Reach 1,250 Miles
Iran's efforts to obtain long range missile technology and nuclear weapons are a gathering threat to the stability of the Middle East and the world economy. Kerry's proposals--echoing the approach taken by the Clinton Administration to attempt to appease North Korea--have been treated as reasonable by the MSM, when in fact the Iranians appear to be laughing at them.
As I said here, Iran has ample natural gas and oil reserves for power production. Iran's pretense that its nuclear program is aimed at satisfying its domestic electricity needs fools only those willing to be fooled, those who profoundly wish for a return to a September 10 world. While no one wants to see the escalation of dangerous tensions in the world, we cannot pretend to solve problems by papering over them.
The Democrats and their MSM allies want the public to believe that the Bush Doctrine has been shelved. In fact, the recent developments in Iran and North Korea make it clear that the Bush Doctrine is more important than ever.
Update: Read WindsofChange for an excellent take on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran's efforts to obtain long range missile technology and nuclear weapons are a gathering threat to the stability of the Middle East and the world economy. Kerry's proposals--echoing the approach taken by the Clinton Administration to attempt to appease North Korea--have been treated as reasonable by the MSM, when in fact the Iranians appear to be laughing at them.
As I said here, Iran has ample natural gas and oil reserves for power production. Iran's pretense that its nuclear program is aimed at satisfying its domestic electricity needs fools only those willing to be fooled, those who profoundly wish for a return to a September 10 world. While no one wants to see the escalation of dangerous tensions in the world, we cannot pretend to solve problems by papering over them.
The Democrats and their MSM allies want the public to believe that the Bush Doctrine has been shelved. In fact, the recent developments in Iran and North Korea make it clear that the Bush Doctrine is more important than ever.
Update: Read WindsofChange for an excellent take on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He may still be the greatest pilot that there ever was. Godspeed. Blogs of War: Astronaut Gordon Cooper 1927-2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
I was up way too early--or way too late--this morning and caught part of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's appearance on Fox & Friends. The Governor responded to a question from E. D. Hill (I think) about French rebuffs of proposals made by candidate Kerry (Senator in name only).
The Governor said that we could entice France and Germany to help in Iraq by restoring oil contracts that were in place with the Saddam regime. I can't recall any further comments he may have made, but I think that this one is enough to cause concern.
Kerry has spoken about the "levers" he could use to engage more of our "allies". He calls the President's coalition in Iraq the "coerced and the bribed". I guess that we know see that bribery is a lever that Kerry is willing to use.
Saddam's Iraq was involved in a massive oil-for-food scandal that was a weapon of mass corruption--the UN, France, Russia and others were all tainted by the scandal. Kerry wants to overrule the fledgling government of Iraq's ability to make new contracts based on its own national interest by forcing it to re-enter oil deals it had made with supporters of the repressive regime. And this is a good thing?
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said two weeks ago that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later". Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview, "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president."
What other levers does Kerry think that he has to entice the French and Germans? More appeals to their commercial interests--their oil interests in other countries? Here's another example of the kinds of levers France responds to and makes use of in its own interests.
No more blood for oil, Monsieur Chirac!
The Governor said that we could entice France and Germany to help in Iraq by restoring oil contracts that were in place with the Saddam regime. I can't recall any further comments he may have made, but I think that this one is enough to cause concern.
Kerry has spoken about the "levers" he could use to engage more of our "allies". He calls the President's coalition in Iraq the "coerced and the bribed". I guess that we know see that bribery is a lever that Kerry is willing to use.
Saddam's Iraq was involved in a massive oil-for-food scandal that was a weapon of mass corruption--the UN, France, Russia and others were all tainted by the scandal. Kerry wants to overrule the fledgling government of Iraq's ability to make new contracts based on its own national interest by forcing it to re-enter oil deals it had made with supporters of the repressive regime. And this is a good thing?
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said two weeks ago that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later". Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview, "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president."
What other levers does Kerry think that he has to entice the French and Germans? More appeals to their commercial interests--their oil interests in other countries? Here's another example of the kinds of levers France responds to and makes use of in its own interests.
No more blood for oil, Monsieur Chirac!
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The two articles immediately below remind me of how much Johnson and Kerry seem to approach warfare alike. Vietnam was the first conflict that offered near real-time communication with the field. Johnson could obtain very fresh information, and with it, issue orders that never would have been possible in Roosevelt's or Truman's day. Johnson thought by starting and halting bombing operations the North Vietnamese understood that he was sending messages. It is apparent today that the North Vietnamese saw his moves as signs of weakness to be exploited, and opportunities to rearm, to propagandize the population of North and South Vietnam alike to hearten the former and demoralize the latter.
When Kerry talks about how he would have managed Tora Bora, he sounds Johnsonian. He sounds like a man who, based on his vast experience as a Lieutenant (Junior Grade), he would make tactical decisions on the conduct of war on the ground. General Franks, meet General Kerry.
I believe that our Afghanistan campaign was successful precisely because we learned from the mistakes that the British and the Soviets made. We did not commit hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft to the theater. We did not have to support a huge supply line across thousands of miles of terrain to reach the unforgiving land-locked terrain of eastern Afghanistan. We followed successful Special Forces doctrine and trained the indigenous population to fight for themselves. We used our technological advantages in conjunction with air power to provide close air support, often using B-52 and B-1B bombers as effective as massed artillery.
I believe that these things were possible because President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld demanded unconventional thinking, but left the execution of the war plan to the officers and men on the ground. I worry that Kerry would try to over manage Iraq--as well as the next challenge--and make manners worse as Johnson did.
When Kerry talks about how he would have managed Tora Bora, he sounds Johnsonian. He sounds like a man who, based on his vast experience as a Lieutenant (Junior Grade), he would make tactical decisions on the conduct of war on the ground. General Franks, meet General Kerry.
I believe that our Afghanistan campaign was successful precisely because we learned from the mistakes that the British and the Soviets made. We did not commit hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft to the theater. We did not have to support a huge supply line across thousands of miles of terrain to reach the unforgiving land-locked terrain of eastern Afghanistan. We followed successful Special Forces doctrine and trained the indigenous population to fight for themselves. We used our technological advantages in conjunction with air power to provide close air support, often using B-52 and B-1B bombers as effective as massed artillery.
I believe that these things were possible because President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld demanded unconventional thinking, but left the execution of the war plan to the officers and men on the ground. I worry that Kerry would try to over manage Iraq--as well as the next challenge--and make manners worse as Johnson did.
Here's another article on the Vietnam War that takes the US government to task for many mistakes before, during and after the war. The Lessons of Vietnam: "The Christmas bombings of 1972 should have taken place in 1965, before we had filled the Hanoi Hilton with aviators shot down while carrying out the absurd strategy of giving signals..."
This article on the USAF's operation Linebacker II, written in 1997, is as true today as it was then. Here's a quote from the article: "In December 1972, 25 years ago next month, the intransigence of the tough and resilient North Vietnamese foe finally exposed the total failure of gradualist war policies set in motion years before by President Lyndon B. Johnson."
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Unilateral disarmament
Kerry is trying to have it both ways.
He says that he is committed to winning in Iraq (during the debate)--except when he doesn't (the big speech on a Monday shortly before the debate).
He says that the President's DOE is wrong to do research on smaller nuclear weapons designed to be bunker busters. He says he'll cancel the program immediately because it sends the wrong message to countries that are trying to produce nuclear weapons--Iran and North Korea. Apparently we are in violation of the "do as I say, do as I do" rule.
Kerry also claimed that the program costs "hundreds of millions of dollars." The actual costs are less than forty million--much of our research is done on supercomputers that simulate the detonation without ever actually building and testing a bomb.
The President's program is right. The mullahs of Iran and the pot-bellied dictator of North Korea have shown that they aren't deterred by words. They apparently believed that the US was a paper tiger during the Clinton Administration, just as Iran showed the world that the Carter Administration foreign policy was. They thought that the US was physically incapable of and politically unwilling to use conventional force to act on its national interests, preferring to intercede in symbolic fashion without risking casualties.
That changed after 9/11. The victory in Afghanistan was shocking: sudden, overwhelming defeat where the British and the Soviets had failed in Afghanistan, using Special Forces, airpower, and indigenous troops with help from Pakistan and other non-traditional US allies. In Iraq, victory seemed certain, but the warnings that Saddam had and would use WMD were ominously issued by Arab leaders in Egypt and Jordan to General Franks beforehand. Chattering class "experts" cautioned against massive US casualties and civilian deaths. Many believed Saddam's propaganda that his army could rival the west's best, and that his troops were loyal. All those pre-war predictions and more were disproven.
Libya looked at the President's determination, and unilaterally surrendered its WMD program, allowing us to display it in Tennessee. Pakistan cooperated with our proliferation investigation, and the A. Q. Khan network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to third world states was rolled up. Initially, the Iranian mullahs and North Korea appeared willing to negotiate the demolition of their programs.
That has changed now. US political news reaches Pyongyang and Tehran. Instead of dismantling their programs, the political calculus in these capitals appears to be that their programs are symbols of strength against the uncertainty of the UN and the west, and that the existence of these programs weakens the President's chance for reelection. They see that Kerry will be bound to pass a "global test" before taking military action. They also believe that the US conventional force structure would not allow another invasion like Iraq.
Both North Korea and Iran have missile programs that, depending on the heat of the rhetoric of the day, may one day carry nuclear weapons, and may one day reach US allies and even the US Pacific coast. See http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTICBM.HTM Iran is a customer of North Korea's, and apparently is attempting to obtain long range missile technology from Russia if it can get it.
Attacking the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea will be difficult. Iran has placed its nuclear program in populated centers, at least in some cases. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm and http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/nucsites.htm North Korea has also attempted to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm and http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/fac/research/NKN_F_ynrcen_GO.html
Both have also seen the effects of US airpower on Saddam's ability to control his army, and are designing their own command and control emplacements to reduce their vulnerability to an aerial attack. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/c3i.htm for an overview of Korea's approach, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm. Note that Iran's facility at Natanz may be buried deep enough and hardened enough to resist almost any conventional bunker buster weapon.
That brings us back to the question of bunker buster weapons. The US has a program to evaluate the capabilities and usage of several approaches to the use of nuclear weapons for this purpose against those of conventional weapons to produce something called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm Although Senators Fienstein and Kennedy opposed the program on the Senate floor, it was successfully defended http://domenici.senate.gov/legislation/record.cfm?id=224732 and passed.
No one can say that the "RNEP" can be used without causing fallout and unacceptable collateral damage. One fact is certain: if concepts like the RNEP are not studied, we are almost certain to be "self-deterred". Our existing nuclear arsenal is made up of weapons that are frankly too big to be used, and probably doesn't intimidate either North Korea or Iran from continuing their research into and possible construction of a small quantity of nuclear weapons. It may be possible for one or both of those members of the Axis of Evil to reconstitute the equivalent of the A. Q. Khan network--perhaps with the addition of actual complete weapons for sale.
Diplomacy is by far the preferred way to deal with North Korea and Iran. However, there must be a credible threat of force that the US can make to protect its vital interests. The range of options should not be arbitrarily limited, although the political opposition to a nuclear first strike would be extremely difficult to overcome without a far higher burden of proof than existed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, most Americans do not wish to see us sit by and allow the tools of nuclear blackmail to fall into the wrong hands without having the tools in hand to oppose them. The President can argue that a conventional attack on one or both Axis members could be met with a nuclear response from the Axis simply because they could repel a US attack conventionally, and that a nuclear showdown with the US over our national interests may happen sooner than later. Perhaps demands for the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq, or demands for the removal of US forces from Japan and South Korea.
The RNEP or an effective conventional equivalent that would work as a "surgical strike tool" to remove North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons, missiles, manufacturing sites, and command & control facilities without a full-scale invasion would be a major deterrent to the Axis. Having that option may serve as a stabilizing influence on negotiations--the Axis would know that the US and its allies could attack to remove their nuclear and missile infrastructure successfully should the Axis attempt to use such weapons or blackmail the US with their us.
We should not unilaterally disarm and remove the President's--or a future President's--ability to counter threats from the Axis. Such a move would be reckless, and would ignore the proven effectiveness of the so-called "MAD" deterrence that served to keep the Cold War from turning hot for decades. Only one who advocated a "Nuclear Freeze" in the 1980s would advocate a self-defeating move before the fact, in effect destabilizing the balance of power between the Axis and the free world.
He says that he is committed to winning in Iraq (during the debate)--except when he doesn't (the big speech on a Monday shortly before the debate).
He says that the President's DOE is wrong to do research on smaller nuclear weapons designed to be bunker busters. He says he'll cancel the program immediately because it sends the wrong message to countries that are trying to produce nuclear weapons--Iran and North Korea. Apparently we are in violation of the "do as I say, do as I do" rule.
Kerry also claimed that the program costs "hundreds of millions of dollars." The actual costs are less than forty million--much of our research is done on supercomputers that simulate the detonation without ever actually building and testing a bomb.
The President's program is right. The mullahs of Iran and the pot-bellied dictator of North Korea have shown that they aren't deterred by words. They apparently believed that the US was a paper tiger during the Clinton Administration, just as Iran showed the world that the Carter Administration foreign policy was. They thought that the US was physically incapable of and politically unwilling to use conventional force to act on its national interests, preferring to intercede in symbolic fashion without risking casualties.
That changed after 9/11. The victory in Afghanistan was shocking: sudden, overwhelming defeat where the British and the Soviets had failed in Afghanistan, using Special Forces, airpower, and indigenous troops with help from Pakistan and other non-traditional US allies. In Iraq, victory seemed certain, but the warnings that Saddam had and would use WMD were ominously issued by Arab leaders in Egypt and Jordan to General Franks beforehand. Chattering class "experts" cautioned against massive US casualties and civilian deaths. Many believed Saddam's propaganda that his army could rival the west's best, and that his troops were loyal. All those pre-war predictions and more were disproven.
Libya looked at the President's determination, and unilaterally surrendered its WMD program, allowing us to display it in Tennessee. Pakistan cooperated with our proliferation investigation, and the A. Q. Khan network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to third world states was rolled up. Initially, the Iranian mullahs and North Korea appeared willing to negotiate the demolition of their programs.
That has changed now. US political news reaches Pyongyang and Tehran. Instead of dismantling their programs, the political calculus in these capitals appears to be that their programs are symbols of strength against the uncertainty of the UN and the west, and that the existence of these programs weakens the President's chance for reelection. They see that Kerry will be bound to pass a "global test" before taking military action. They also believe that the US conventional force structure would not allow another invasion like Iraq.
Both North Korea and Iran have missile programs that, depending on the heat of the rhetoric of the day, may one day carry nuclear weapons, and may one day reach US allies and even the US Pacific coast. See http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTICBM.HTM Iran is a customer of North Korea's, and apparently is attempting to obtain long range missile technology from Russia if it can get it.
Attacking the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea will be difficult. Iran has placed its nuclear program in populated centers, at least in some cases. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm and http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/nucsites.htm North Korea has also attempted to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm and http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/fac/research/NKN_F_ynrcen_GO.html
Both have also seen the effects of US airpower on Saddam's ability to control his army, and are designing their own command and control emplacements to reduce their vulnerability to an aerial attack. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/c3i.htm for an overview of Korea's approach, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm. Note that Iran's facility at Natanz may be buried deep enough and hardened enough to resist almost any conventional bunker buster weapon.
That brings us back to the question of bunker buster weapons. The US has a program to evaluate the capabilities and usage of several approaches to the use of nuclear weapons for this purpose against those of conventional weapons to produce something called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm Although Senators Fienstein and Kennedy opposed the program on the Senate floor, it was successfully defended http://domenici.senate.gov/legislation/record.cfm?id=224732 and passed.
No one can say that the "RNEP" can be used without causing fallout and unacceptable collateral damage. One fact is certain: if concepts like the RNEP are not studied, we are almost certain to be "self-deterred". Our existing nuclear arsenal is made up of weapons that are frankly too big to be used, and probably doesn't intimidate either North Korea or Iran from continuing their research into and possible construction of a small quantity of nuclear weapons. It may be possible for one or both of those members of the Axis of Evil to reconstitute the equivalent of the A. Q. Khan network--perhaps with the addition of actual complete weapons for sale.
Diplomacy is by far the preferred way to deal with North Korea and Iran. However, there must be a credible threat of force that the US can make to protect its vital interests. The range of options should not be arbitrarily limited, although the political opposition to a nuclear first strike would be extremely difficult to overcome without a far higher burden of proof than existed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, most Americans do not wish to see us sit by and allow the tools of nuclear blackmail to fall into the wrong hands without having the tools in hand to oppose them. The President can argue that a conventional attack on one or both Axis members could be met with a nuclear response from the Axis simply because they could repel a US attack conventionally, and that a nuclear showdown with the US over our national interests may happen sooner than later. Perhaps demands for the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq, or demands for the removal of US forces from Japan and South Korea.
The RNEP or an effective conventional equivalent that would work as a "surgical strike tool" to remove North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons, missiles, manufacturing sites, and command & control facilities without a full-scale invasion would be a major deterrent to the Axis. Having that option may serve as a stabilizing influence on negotiations--the Axis would know that the US and its allies could attack to remove their nuclear and missile infrastructure successfully should the Axis attempt to use such weapons or blackmail the US with their us.
We should not unilaterally disarm and remove the President's--or a future President's--ability to counter threats from the Axis. Such a move would be reckless, and would ignore the proven effectiveness of the so-called "MAD" deterrence that served to keep the Cold War from turning hot for decades. Only one who advocated a "Nuclear Freeze" in the 1980s would advocate a self-defeating move before the fact, in effect destabilizing the balance of power between the Axis and the free world.
Nice to see one of my favorite warplanes all Photoshopped up and ready to drop some 30mm DU candy on Islamofascists everywhere. Evil pundit of doom!: Top Bun
I draw the line at changing the key line in the Air Force hymn to "Nothing can stop the US Hare Force"!
I draw the line at changing the key line in the Air Force hymn to "Nothing can stop the US Hare Force"!
Fox News has done some fine reporting on the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. The UN has taken exception to parts of its latest report. Here's a response from Fox News with links to the original reports and the UN's response to them. FOX News Responds to U.N. Comments
Friday, October 01, 2004
Scroll down about 1/4 of the page to read the Department of Energy's report on Iran's natural gas reserves. Essentially, Iran's reserves are second only to Russia's in the world.
Why would any sane person believe that Iran needs nuclear reactors to produce electricity? Natural gas-fired power plants are nearly as clean, and certainly safe to operate.
The Kerry-Edwards proposal for dealing with Iran seems very similar to the "agreed framework" that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea.
Why on earth would we ever enter into an agreement with Iran to provide nuclear reactor fuel?
Why would any sane person believe that Iran needs nuclear reactors to produce electricity? Natural gas-fired power plants are nearly as clean, and certainly safe to operate.
The Kerry-Edwards proposal for dealing with Iran seems very similar to the "agreed framework" that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea.
Why on earth would we ever enter into an agreement with Iran to provide nuclear reactor fuel?
Thursday, September 30, 2004
The post-debate flash Gallup poll has good news for Kerry, but favors the President overall. USA Today flash Gallup poll
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
I once dated a woman with ample...assets whose ancestry was Portugese. She was quite a bit smarter than the women in this story. Telegraph of the UK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
